TV violence becomes familiar, acceptable
A recent Tribune piece quoted a Hollywood executive as saying, “linking the issue of violence in society to broadcast television trivializes the issue.” He meant the showing of his industry’s continuous offerings of violence and sex-laden movies and TV shows has nothing to do with the same things we see taking place in the real world around us.
Is he right? Much of today’s film and TV content focuses on the terrible acts of murder or kidnapping by some demented or psychopathic person, and the efforts of the good guys to track the person. Also, much of the content shows us sex used as a recreational exercise, and people living together without any affirming spiritual commitment. And video games, played over and over, take the player to places even the imagination has trouble comprehending.
Does all this affect us? We see these things over and over again, and it makes one wonder why.
Why is there a market for such films and TV shows? There must be a lucrative one, or Hollywood would not produce them. It must mean that many of us want to be shown such content, but does it affect us?
Take the commercial, that little piece of distraction that interrupts our TV shows in a continuing and patronizing manner. Commercials on TV are shown with one purpose in mind: to get us to act upon what we see in them. They want us to do something, specifically to go out and buy their product.
In the commercial we are told certain things repetitiously; it is said that after we see the same commercial seven times in a given measured timespan, we will begin to believe what it is telling us. If this works for commercials, why would we not think the same principle wouldn’t be at work with TV shows and films?
If Hollywood shows us films of murderers, serial rapists, psychopaths, recreational sex, cohabitation and a complete gamut of the anti-biblical message over and over again, doesn’t it stand to reason it would have a similar effect on us as the commercials do? If that could be the case, would we not expect to see those elements appear in the real world around us?
And the more familiar and comfortable with them we become, would they not begin to be accepted as normal, or at least as tolerable, which is to say, acceptable?
It’s hard to see how this cannot be good. Didn’t a great man once call his own world “a faithless and perverse generation”?
And today what would he call us?
Jeff Hatton, Greentown
Just like us, gov’t must pay to play
What if it were to be published in the Kokomo Tribune that many Americans were considering not paying their bills? What if creditors were to request confirmation from all debtors that they would be meeting their obligations?
While I would write a letter confirming that I would continue to honor my obligations, my neighbor may decide to notify his creditors he’ll not be paying his bills until he receives a raise at work or in some way cuts his other expenses.
My creditors are pleased and even go so far as to extend my credit limit. I then ask my boss for a raise and start to eat out less and drink less pop. My credit remains A-1 and life goes on.
In response to my neighbor’s refusal to pay his bills, his credit is canceled and the creditors demand payment in full. My neighbor hasn’t missed one payment, but since he’s threatened to stop making payments, his credit is trashed.
On a larger scale our government’s threat not to pay its bills is seen by the rest of the world as a much greater threat than raising the debt ceiling. Our president needs to confirm, by raising the debt limit, that the U.S. government will make good on its obligations.
Just like the rest of us, our government needs to pay to play.
Larry Brooks, Kokomo