Russell Dritz."Censorship of Television". 23 Jan 2007. http://webserver.rcds.rye.ny.us/publications/forum/Spring96/tv.html
Violence and sex have become a regular part of watching TV. When you watch the news, you're likely to hear about one good event, like a panda cub being born, only after you hear about ten or eleven cases of arson, burglary, manslaughter or rape. There will never be a day where there isn't any violence on TV. If there isn't violence or sex on one channel, you're likely able to find some on the next. Studies have proven that certain programs have been able to bring out violent tendencies you wouldn't normally would see in a person.
When children watch television, especially when they are younger then twelve, they are likely to model what they see on television. They can't tell distinguish what's real and what isn't. Not only are people on TV poor role models, the child's vision of what they believe reality is affected as well. Anyone can see violence from a soap opera to a cartoon can imitate it.
On cable TV, parents have even less control over what there children watch. Sure, most programs give a warning to the audience if a show is somewhat inappropriate, but these can always be ignored. For parents who want certain content blocked from their children, some remotes come with a V chip, a microchip that blocks out certain shows. The parents select what kind of programs they want blocked and the remote does the rest by blocking any program that falls underneath that category.
Tuesday, January 23, 2007
Artifact Seven
Jacques Steinberg."School Districts in Kansas Split on Evolution Ruling". 25 Aug 99. 23 Jan 2007. http://courses.cs.vt.edu/professionalism/Censorship/Kansas.Evolution.html.BU
Although you hear a lot about censorship in media, one thing that you don't hear a lot about is censorship in schools. In Topeka, Kansas, four biology teachers fought the Kansas Board of Education to remove any mention of evolution out of the state's science curriculum and standardized tests. 200 miles away, in Pratt, Kansas, the local school board president favors the idea of teaching evolution because she hoped that it would lead to ideas of creationism against it.
The main fight brewing among the many school districts in Kansas are between the two theories of how life started. The Darwinism theory, where evolution explains how man evolved from monkeys, to the creationist point of view where a divine being such as God in the bible created everything from the universe to man. People believe that evolution was just as Charles Darwin explained it, a theory. Later, it was decided that both were allowed to be taught because according to Steve Angel, a chemistry professor who is the president of the Auburn-Washburn school board in Topeka, " All science is theory". Now, evolution is accepted in most schools because it explains some of life's mysteries in a sensible way, while some schools still believe in creationalism.
Although you hear a lot about censorship in media, one thing that you don't hear a lot about is censorship in schools. In Topeka, Kansas, four biology teachers fought the Kansas Board of Education to remove any mention of evolution out of the state's science curriculum and standardized tests. 200 miles away, in Pratt, Kansas, the local school board president favors the idea of teaching evolution because she hoped that it would lead to ideas of creationism against it.
The main fight brewing among the many school districts in Kansas are between the two theories of how life started. The Darwinism theory, where evolution explains how man evolved from monkeys, to the creationist point of view where a divine being such as God in the bible created everything from the universe to man. People believe that evolution was just as Charles Darwin explained it, a theory. Later, it was decided that both were allowed to be taught because according to Steve Angel, a chemistry professor who is the president of the Auburn-Washburn school board in Topeka, " All science is theory". Now, evolution is accepted in most schools because it explains some of life's mysteries in a sensible way, while some schools still believe in creationalism.
Artifact Six
Darick Lee. "Parental advisory warning labels steeped in controversy". 23 Jan 2007.http://www.hushyourmouth.com/parental_advisory_labels.htm.
There was once a time when parents didn't care what their kids listened to, just as long as they knew it as well. In 1984, Tipper Gore, former Vice President Al Gore wife, bought her twelve year old daughter Prince's "Purple Rain"album, expecting only hear the songs she knew such as " When Doves Cry" and "Let's Go Crazy". While so enjoyed those songs, she was appalled by the content of the rest of songs on the album, where Prince sang some racy lyrics. Tipper decided that action must be taken to help prevent music like Prince's to be heard by children and in 1985, the Parent's Music Resource Center was born.
The PMRC was made up of congressmen, senator's wives and many other people with some degree of political power. The spokesperson for the PMRC, Susan Baker, wife of Secretary of Treasury James A. Baker III. Baker, joined the cause when she overheard her 7-year old daughter singing Madonna's "Like A Virgin".
Baker's motto to inappropriate music was treating it like something you would never give to a child, like a dirty magazine."Pornography sold to children is illegal. Enforcing that is not censorship. It is simply the act of a responsible society that recognizes that some material made for adults is not appropriate for children." What she means in this that while some songs are okay for everyone to hear, there are those that should never reach young ears.
Although songs had been censored from the air since the 1950's from Billie Holiday's "Love for Sale" for endorsing prostitution to Frank Zappa's " I Don't Want To Get Drafted" for fear of a backlash against recruiting for the service, anyone, from a 10 year old to a 50 year could buy their album with no repercussions. While the PMRC wanted a rating system similar to the video game rating system today, by the time of the hearing, they changed their minds and wanted to label offensive albums.
Through out the years, the "PARENT ADVISORY" label has become a music industry standard. Some stores such as Wal-Mart wouldn't take any albums with the label in the early 90's, so record companies released edited versions of the albums so that Wal-Mart could sell them. But by 2003, the line between kid-appropriate and kid-inappropriate began to blur. Artists who used obscenities regularly such as Eminem had labels on his CD's while artists such as Janet Jackson and TLC also had their CD's labeled. The only problem was that there was no real indicator of what CD had what kind of lyrics, from drug references to sexuality explicit, the PMRC had accomplished something while creating another problem.
There was once a time when parents didn't care what their kids listened to, just as long as they knew it as well. In 1984, Tipper Gore, former Vice President Al Gore wife, bought her twelve year old daughter Prince's "Purple Rain"album, expecting only hear the songs she knew such as " When Doves Cry" and "Let's Go Crazy". While so enjoyed those songs, she was appalled by the content of the rest of songs on the album, where Prince sang some racy lyrics. Tipper decided that action must be taken to help prevent music like Prince's to be heard by children and in 1985, the Parent's Music Resource Center was born.
The PMRC was made up of congressmen, senator's wives and many other people with some degree of political power. The spokesperson for the PMRC, Susan Baker, wife of Secretary of Treasury James A. Baker III. Baker, joined the cause when she overheard her 7-year old daughter singing Madonna's "Like A Virgin".
Baker's motto to inappropriate music was treating it like something you would never give to a child, like a dirty magazine."Pornography sold to children is illegal. Enforcing that is not censorship. It is simply the act of a responsible society that recognizes that some material made for adults is not appropriate for children." What she means in this that while some songs are okay for everyone to hear, there are those that should never reach young ears.
Although songs had been censored from the air since the 1950's from Billie Holiday's "Love for Sale" for endorsing prostitution to Frank Zappa's " I Don't Want To Get Drafted" for fear of a backlash against recruiting for the service, anyone, from a 10 year old to a 50 year could buy their album with no repercussions. While the PMRC wanted a rating system similar to the video game rating system today, by the time of the hearing, they changed their minds and wanted to label offensive albums.
Through out the years, the "PARENT ADVISORY" label has become a music industry standard. Some stores such as Wal-Mart wouldn't take any albums with the label in the early 90's, so record companies released edited versions of the albums so that Wal-Mart could sell them. But by 2003, the line between kid-appropriate and kid-inappropriate began to blur. Artists who used obscenities regularly such as Eminem had labels on his CD's while artists such as Janet Jackson and TLC also had their CD's labeled. The only problem was that there was no real indicator of what CD had what kind of lyrics, from drug references to sexuality explicit, the PMRC had accomplished something while creating another problem.
Artifact Five
Howard Kurtz and Frank Ahrens."Sirius Lands a Big Dog: Howard Stern." 7 Oct 2004. 23 Jan 2007.http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A10953-2004Oct6.html
On October 6th, 2004, Howard Stern announced that he would be leaving Viacom Broadcasting and moving to satellite radio with Sirius. Stern has a been a man who would speak out out his mind and say what he wanted to, whether it hurt anyone or not. With every station that had Stern also would have to deal with the fines from the FCC because of something he said on his radio show. Stern had enough after things he used to say before were deemed inappropriate by Viacom after the company was fined $550,000 by the FCC for Janet Jackson's breast exposure during Super Bowl 38.
When Sirius offered him over 5oo million dollars to be on satellite radio, Stern jumped right on. Sirius produces satellite radio, which the FCC cannot censor in anyway. While regular radio stations have to hold up to FCC standards and regulations, people who work for satellite stations are allowed to say whatever they want. If Stern wanted to make fun of stupid people or religions, he could say whatever he wanted, and he wouldn't have to worry about a fine from the FCC. . Stern has attracted people to his show by not only ridiculing others to the point where you ask yourself," Did he just go there?", he has guests varying from celebrities to random strippers. With this, Sirius expected Stern to increase their audience from 600,000 to over 10 million.
On October 6th, 2004, Howard Stern announced that he would be leaving Viacom Broadcasting and moving to satellite radio with Sirius. Stern has a been a man who would speak out out his mind and say what he wanted to, whether it hurt anyone or not. With every station that had Stern also would have to deal with the fines from the FCC because of something he said on his radio show. Stern had enough after things he used to say before were deemed inappropriate by Viacom after the company was fined $550,000 by the FCC for Janet Jackson's breast exposure during Super Bowl 38.
courtesy of celebritydetails.com
When Sirius offered him over 5oo million dollars to be on satellite radio, Stern jumped right on. Sirius produces satellite radio, which the FCC cannot censor in anyway. While regular radio stations have to hold up to FCC standards and regulations, people who work for satellite stations are allowed to say whatever they want. If Stern wanted to make fun of stupid people or religions, he could say whatever he wanted, and he wouldn't have to worry about a fine from the FCC. . Stern has attracted people to his show by not only ridiculing others to the point where you ask yourself," Did he just go there?", he has guests varying from celebrities to random strippers. With this, Sirius expected Stern to increase their audience from 600,000 to over 10 million.
Wednesday, January 3, 2007
Artifact Four
Nate Anderson. "One boob==963,000 FCC Complaints". 5 Oct 2006. 3 Jan 2007.http://www.netscape.com/viewstory/2006/10/05/one-boob-equals-963000-fcc-complaints/?url=http%3A%2F%2Farstechnica.com%2Fnews.ars%2Fpost%2F20061005-7912.html&frame=true
Though the title seems funny at first, it caused a lot of trouble for the FCC (Federal Communications Commission). The FCC's job to monitor all the programing, whether television or radio, and make sure that what goes on the air is appropriate for the public. If a song has some bad lyrics, the FCC makes sure that the song doesn't go on the air or at least the lyrics are changed so it can go on the air. If a television show is inappropriate because of certain elements such as violence or nudity, they make sure that that show doesn't go on the air for the general public to see or edit certain aspects like reducing violent scenes or make any nudity in the show very brief.
Every quarter, or year, the FCC makes up a report of any and all complaints that they've received. For many years, the number of complaints that the FCC received were few and far between by parents who are concerned what their children are watching. But because of one incident in 2004, the FCC complaints rose from a few hundred, to a few hundred thousand.
If you ask anyone why they watch the Super Bowl, you get two reasons: football and the halftime show. During Super Bowl XXXVIII, or 38, football fans in the stadium and watching the game alike saw a little more of a certain pop star then expected. When Justin Timberlake and Janet Jackson were singing on stage, people thought it was great. Then amidst all the singing and dancing, something went wrong. What can only be called a wardrobe malfunction was when Justin ripped off part of Janet's outfit and her, well, what's a proper way of saying this, breast hung out for thousands upon thousands of fans saw on live television.
This lead to many FCC complaints in February of 2004, about 693,080 to be exact. While was a high for the FCC, within the next few months, the complaints dropped from the thousands in February to less then a thousand in June. The number of complaints had decreased by over 800 percent in less then half a year.
courtesy of picsearch.com
Though the title seems funny at first, it caused a lot of trouble for the FCC (Federal Communications Commission). The FCC's job to monitor all the programing, whether television or radio, and make sure that what goes on the air is appropriate for the public. If a song has some bad lyrics, the FCC makes sure that the song doesn't go on the air or at least the lyrics are changed so it can go on the air. If a television show is inappropriate because of certain elements such as violence or nudity, they make sure that that show doesn't go on the air for the general public to see or edit certain aspects like reducing violent scenes or make any nudity in the show very brief.
Every quarter, or year, the FCC makes up a report of any and all complaints that they've received. For many years, the number of complaints that the FCC received were few and far between by parents who are concerned what their children are watching. But because of one incident in 2004, the FCC complaints rose from a few hundred, to a few hundred thousand.
If you ask anyone why they watch the Super Bowl, you get two reasons: football and the halftime show. During Super Bowl XXXVIII, or 38, football fans in the stadium and watching the game alike saw a little more of a certain pop star then expected. When Justin Timberlake and Janet Jackson were singing on stage, people thought it was great. Then amidst all the singing and dancing, something went wrong. What can only be called a wardrobe malfunction was when Justin ripped off part of Janet's outfit and her, well, what's a proper way of saying this, breast hung out for thousands upon thousands of fans saw on live television.
This lead to many FCC complaints in February of 2004, about 693,080 to be exact. While was a high for the FCC, within the next few months, the complaints dropped from the thousands in February to less then a thousand in June. The number of complaints had decreased by over 800 percent in less then half a year.
courtesy of picsearch.com
Monday, January 1, 2007
Artifact Three
Suzanne Fisher Staples."WHAT JOHNNY CAN'T READ, Censorship in American Libraries". 1 Nov 2005. 1 January 2007.http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/ejournals/ALAN/winter96/pubCONN.html
Though America never had to go to great lengths like Germany did during WW2 to destroy books that could possibly corrupt it's citizens minds to oppose the government, it has, however, banned a majority of novels that shouldn't be banned.
Books are banned because their content is deemed inappropriate for a specific audience. You wouldn't want a children's book that contained racist messages or pornographic images. But what happens when a beloved American novel such as The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn just because it mentions the "n" word a few times to help make the story more authentic? Or when Black Beauty mysteriously pops off the shelves because it refers to animal cruelty? There is a thin line between when a book is appropriate or inappropriate for readers.
There are instances when a book is banned for no good reason. In Ablemarle County, Virginia, Katherine Patterson's National Book Award winner, "The Great Gilly Hopkins" was banned in all the school libraries because she swore a little and "used God's name in vain". The parent who filled said complaint went through the book, listing all the profanities and never bothered to really read the book. When the complaint went to the Ablemarle County School Board, a large majority of the board voted for it to stay on the shelves while the superintendent sided with the parent and the book was removed from the shelves. What those people never realized was in the book "The Great Gilly Hopkins", Gilly Hopkins was a foster child who had a rough life until her grandmother takes her out of foster care. She only swore to express her fellings, not to tell choldren that swearing is okay.
The problem is that most people misconstrue, or misunderstand the message that the story is trying to teach children. For example, if a book has a rebellious child, they believe the novel will make their children will become rebellious just from reading it. Or that a book that talks about love will make children become sexually active. Librarians sometimes take books off the shelves secretly because they think they are doing the right thing, or they fear for their jobs. Parents also slip books off the shelves because they think they are preventing their children from reading obscenities.
Parents pay too much attention to what their children read. While preventing them from reading racist books or smut is okay, not letting them reading an American classic because it mentions the "n" word is going too far. Parents don't realize that their kids will hear worse obscenities and not read graphic scenes, but see graphic scenes in front of them in real life.
Though America never had to go to great lengths like Germany did during WW2 to destroy books that could possibly corrupt it's citizens minds to oppose the government, it has, however, banned a majority of novels that shouldn't be banned.
Books are banned because their content is deemed inappropriate for a specific audience. You wouldn't want a children's book that contained racist messages or pornographic images. But what happens when a beloved American novel such as The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn just because it mentions the "n" word a few times to help make the story more authentic? Or when Black Beauty mysteriously pops off the shelves because it refers to animal cruelty? There is a thin line between when a book is appropriate or inappropriate for readers.
There are instances when a book is banned for no good reason. In Ablemarle County, Virginia, Katherine Patterson's National Book Award winner, "The Great Gilly Hopkins" was banned in all the school libraries because she swore a little and "used God's name in vain". The parent who filled said complaint went through the book, listing all the profanities and never bothered to really read the book. When the complaint went to the Ablemarle County School Board, a large majority of the board voted for it to stay on the shelves while the superintendent sided with the parent and the book was removed from the shelves. What those people never realized was in the book "The Great Gilly Hopkins", Gilly Hopkins was a foster child who had a rough life until her grandmother takes her out of foster care. She only swore to express her fellings, not to tell choldren that swearing is okay.
The problem is that most people misconstrue, or misunderstand the message that the story is trying to teach children. For example, if a book has a rebellious child, they believe the novel will make their children will become rebellious just from reading it. Or that a book that talks about love will make children become sexually active. Librarians sometimes take books off the shelves secretly because they think they are doing the right thing, or they fear for their jobs. Parents also slip books off the shelves because they think they are preventing their children from reading obscenities.
Parents pay too much attention to what their children read. While preventing them from reading racist books or smut is okay, not letting them reading an American classic because it mentions the "n" word is going too far. Parents don't realize that their kids will hear worse obscenities and not read graphic scenes, but see graphic scenes in front of them in real life.
Friday, December 29, 2006
Artifact Two
Ronald Bruce Meyer."Nazi Book-Burning (1933):Religion and Censorship".10 May 2006. 29 Dec 2006.http://www.ronaldbrucemeyer.com/rants/0510almanac.htm
Censorship filters out ideas that are seen as obscene, wrong and disapproving of the government. There are also times when the government will force citizens to believe what they want them to. Sometimes the government will take drastic measures towards those who choose not to follow the government's standards. Sometimes, it doesn't have to be a person or a group of people. It can be anything that speaks ill towards the government, like a banner or a poster or even a book.
In the years before America was involved in WW2 and Hitler was just rising to power, the German government wanted the people of Germany to follow his example.
"It was on this date, May 10, 1933, in Berlin that about 20,000 books were burned during a student rally as the Nazis rose to power in Germany. The suppression of free speech and ideas was a tactic of Joseph Goebbels' Ministry of Propaganda. The target this time was anti-Nazi, Jewish-authored, and so-called "degenerate" books, but suppression of ideas by the burning of books, often culminating in the burning of people (as Heinrich Heine famously observed), is an old idea."
During this rally, thousands of books were burned that had ideals that were not the same as the government. Although most of the books were written by Jewish authors such as Albert Einstein and Sigmund Freud, all books that had ideals the government did not want people to believe were burned.
Even in America there have been disputes concerning books. In 1953, author Ray Bradbury published his controversial novel, Farenheit 451. In this book , special government agents called "firemen", are deployed to burn any books that could harm or change people's views about the goverment. The premise itself is ironic because the term "fireman", usually refers to person who helps stop fires and help preserve information as opposed to the firemen in this book who create fires and destroy books. It seems like Bradbury is paying omage to the book burning rally in Germany twenty years before the book was published. Both the German government and the government in Bradbury's novel have similarities that can be summarized in one sentence:
"We know better than you do what's good for you to read."
Censorship filters out ideas that are seen as obscene, wrong and disapproving of the government. There are also times when the government will force citizens to believe what they want them to. Sometimes the government will take drastic measures towards those who choose not to follow the government's standards. Sometimes, it doesn't have to be a person or a group of people. It can be anything that speaks ill towards the government, like a banner or a poster or even a book.
In the years before America was involved in WW2 and Hitler was just rising to power, the German government wanted the people of Germany to follow his example.
"It was on this date, May 10, 1933, in Berlin that about 20,000 books were burned during a student rally as the Nazis rose to power in Germany. The suppression of free speech and ideas was a tactic of Joseph Goebbels' Ministry of Propaganda. The target this time was anti-Nazi, Jewish-authored, and so-called "degenerate" books, but suppression of ideas by the burning of books, often culminating in the burning of people (as Heinrich Heine famously observed), is an old idea."
During this rally, thousands of books were burned that had ideals that were not the same as the government. Although most of the books were written by Jewish authors such as Albert Einstein and Sigmund Freud, all books that had ideals the government did not want people to believe were burned.
Even in America there have been disputes concerning books. In 1953, author Ray Bradbury published his controversial novel, Farenheit 451. In this book , special government agents called "firemen", are deployed to burn any books that could harm or change people's views about the goverment. The premise itself is ironic because the term "fireman", usually refers to person who helps stop fires and help preserve information as opposed to the firemen in this book who create fires and destroy books. It seems like Bradbury is paying omage to the book burning rally in Germany twenty years before the book was published. Both the German government and the government in Bradbury's novel have similarities that can be summarized in one sentence:
"We know better than you do what's good for you to read."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)