Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Newspaper contacts | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS
 
 
 

Two thoughts

January 1, 2014

As I read Bill O’Reilly’s column, “Fleeting TV — with good reason,” in the Dec. 11 edition, two thoughts came to mind....

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(69)

Fredzz

Jan-02-14 8:25 AM

Key words... "" most all media ""

So far, I can still find entertainment that is informative, interesting, and passionate, ... while not being overrun with B.S. Political Correctness,graphic violence, deception, propaganda, selfish motives, etc..

3 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CMReeder

Jan-02-14 12:05 AM

"Just so you understand me, most all media is merely low grade entertainment. that is about as trustworthy as the Devil."

If you truly do feel that way why watch any of it at all?

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CMReeder

Jan-02-14 12:03 AM

Passivity of TV, you can say that about most technological advances. Computers, cars, phones all make human beings passive. E-readers would fall under that category.

What would be the difference in watching a play in a theater to one aired on television? or a ballet? or a concert?

2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CMReeder

Jan-01-14 11:53 PM

TV is not immoral Capricorn1, it is ones perception that makes it immoral. If TV was truly immoral you would not be allowed to have one. It would in essence be criminalized.

2 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

underwood

Jan-01-14 6:01 PM

This has been a subject of interest of mine since my college days. I’ve always favored romantic art, which can be defined as portraying man as he might and ought to be. What’s interesting is that examples of well-done romantic art have always been very popular and profitable, from the old cowboy and detective movies, right up to the present; NCIS is a good current example. However examples of romantic art are but a small part of the artistic world’s offerings. Makes one wonder why.

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Capricorn1

Jan-01-14 4:26 PM

"TV does not make one immoral, you make TV immoral."

Chuck, could you please explain this statement? I'm trying to figure out how I personally, make TV immoral.

1 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

DavidBross

Jan-01-14 4:21 PM

Unlike the author, I don't think the category of "low information voter" respects the boundaries of political parties. Rather, it is quite bipartisan in its reach.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

DavidBross

Jan-01-14 4:18 PM

People used to talk to each other after work if they lived in a neighborhood. That was a very active way to spend time. Then, when people got radios, they spent more time listening to the radio. Radio is more passive than conversation, but you still had to create mental images and that was good. TV came along you no longer even needed to create mental images. It is the passivity that TV promotes that is as detrimental to society as the content that is on the tube.

3 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

underwood

Jan-01-14 3:39 PM

Gavin, I can almost agree with that, but many don’t consider values enough to decide whether something is morally reprehensible. They’ll go for the sexy, car chases, comedy, etc. and the morality sort of sneaks in.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Fredzz

Jan-01-14 3:35 PM

Well.... CMReeder Its like this, I don't have to Read or Believe every book in the library, and likewise, I don't have to watch or believe every Video in the NetFlix..library.!!

Just so you understand me, most all media is merely low grade entertainment. that is about as trustworthy as the Devil.

3 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

gavinf56

Jan-01-14 3:30 PM

...but it cannot have an effect on the masses if they find it morally reprehensible.

Having said that, I will agree that the limits can be slowly pushed so as to broaden the scope of what is morally acceptable.

3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CMReeder

Jan-01-14 3:30 PM

You do realize there is an on/off button, don't you?

TV does not make one immoral, you make TV immoral.

1 Agrees | 7 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

underwood

Jan-01-14 3:17 PM

Gavin, it’s not what any of us consider good or bad programming that’s pertinent, it’s the effect the programming has on the masses.

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

underwood

Jan-01-14 3:13 PM

“I partially agree with Phil in that the media takes real life on the fringe and makes it main stream, thereby normalizing fringe behavior and shaping our moral values in the process.”

You’re right about that Mike, but I believe it goes farther than that; what many consider good values are downplayed or denigrated also.

3 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

gavinf56

Jan-01-14 2:59 PM

"Are you saying they are the exception to the rule that was spelled out in the letter gleaned from a column written by Bill O'Reilly?" - CMReeder

No. Actually I am with you. There are good shows and there are bad shows. If you think a show is morally bankrupt, don't watch it.

5 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CMReeder

Jan-01-14 2:53 PM

Gavin I am not the one who says that TV is degrading and immoral. I am just saying that if TV is degrading and immoral then so would 'Duck Dynasty' since it is on TV. I am not the one who is making the statement that TV is immoral that it degrade society's values.

I would like to know how you or anyone can separate 'Duck Dynasty' from immoral and degrading TV? Are you saying they are the exception to the rule that was spelled out in the letter gleaned from a column written by Bill O'Reilly?

2 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CMReeder

Jan-01-14 2:39 PM

Mike that is not what Phil is saying.

Further more I agree there are good programs on TV, good films from Hollywood there is also what I would call crap. I am not the one who is calling TV immoral or 'pig slop' and then justify my viewing of TV shows from somewhere else as okay because I am the one controlling what I see. Netflix carries what some consider immoral shows and films also. People have always had control over what they see on their TVs, they just want to control viewing for everyone else. I like the new shows, I like the old ones too. I like TV period.

Society still says what is moral or immoral. Society sets the standard. Media just reflects what is going on in society, the good and the bad.

1 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

mikekerstetter

Jan-01-14 1:50 PM

CMReeder-"Fredzz, You just got media cheaper, you still are consuming the so called 'pig slop'."

Not all TV is pig slop. There are a LOT of tv shows that are entertaining, educational/historical and wholesome that I/we can find to watch. You can still find shows like the Waltons, Little House, Touched by an Angel, etc. that serve up moral lessons to it's viewers, as well as recent movies that do the same without all the violence and foul language.

I partially agree with Phil in that the media takes real life on the fringe and makes it main stream, thereby normalizing fringe behavior and shaping our moral values in the process.

5 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

hopeforfuture

Jan-01-14 12:24 PM

gavinf56-So Duck Dynasty is degrading simply because it is on TV? I asked you for specifics as to why it was morally degrading.

I know I know!!! It's because they wear camo and hunt that makes them a backwoods hick. Therefore they must be stupid and not worth the time of day for the 'educated' and 'enlightened' of our society. Oh and they are a Christian family. Must stop them, must stop them is the mantra of the enlightened.

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

gavinf56

Jan-01-14 11:30 AM

So Duck Dynasty is degrading simply because it is on TV? I asked you for specifics as to why it was morally degrading.

5 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

gavinf56

Jan-01-14 11:28 AM

OK Chuck, fair enough. Then what are causes for the moral degradation we are talking about?

3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CMReeder

Jan-01-14 11:26 AM

10:28 am

You copy and pasted the second part of the post. You must of disregarded the first part.

1 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CMReeder

Jan-01-14 11:24 AM

Society influences our values and they do it through our organizations and systems. Society does it through communications systems which in our society is embodied by the media. Through government and laws. They do it through religion. They do it through education systems.

Society sets the values, individuals decide whether they are moral or not.

1 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

gavinf56

Jan-01-14 11:21 AM

"I answered the question Gavin you refuse to take it." - CMReeder

Please direct me to the time stamp where you gave the specifics which I was asking for.

4 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

gavinf56

Jan-01-14 11:20 AM

"When you get people who can not separate the fantasy from the real world you have a problem not a degradation of morals. It is called a game for a reason." - CMReeder

Once again, Adam Lanza, James Holmes, and Jared Loughner now all come to mind. The left's reply to this, ban guns.

4 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 69 comments Show More Comments
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or
 
 
 

 

I am looking for:
in:
News, Blogs & Events Web