John Dempsey
South Park
The infamous Comedy Central program known as South Park centers around four boys (who have remained in fourth grade for ten years) and the events that occur in the town in which they live. Coincidentally, these events often involve celebrities, trends, and hot topics currently in the news. These events are often accompanied by a barrage of swearing, offensive material, violent imagery or any combination of the three.
The show has become known for pushing the envelope as far as it possibly can. The storylines also frequently spark intense debate, prompting people to discuss and contemplate important issues. And for this, it should be heralded rather than condemned.
The show follows a formula in which every adult South Park resident is portrayed as a complete idiot, with Chef being the only notable exception. Trouble is brought to South Park by the boys’ misunderstanding of something, or by a celebrity coming to town. The adults of South Park will take an issue much further than it was ever meant to go, usually destroying the town in the process. These hijinks ultimately lead to the boys saying what they learned, which is often a metaphor for a solution to real-world problems. Unless of course the goal of that particular episode is just to get a laugh, in which case there is just slapstick nonsense.
Celebrities are often ridiculed, bashed, parodied and otherwise treated with little respect. South Park’s goal in doing this is to demonstrate the hypocrisy, radically extreme positions, or general craziness that celebrities exhibit. Often times, these celebrities are in dire need of being taken down a notch. The creators of South Park dare to not only push the envelope, but rip it open and write hateful diatribes on it. This is in stark contrast to the general trend among television shows to cater to celebrities.
Although it can be argued that the show’s creators do occasionally go a little too far, at least they dare to be creative and thought-provoking, Plus, by packaging it in cartoon format, they help soften the impact.
Obviously, this is not a children’s show. However, its prominent position in Comedy Central’s lineup allows it to attract a mass audience. As long as it continues to be Comedy Central’s highest rated program, while at the same time managing to stay within FCC guidelines, it will continue to provide a commentary on the world we live in. In the end, I believe the world needs a South Park to go where others are afraid to go. And in doing so, it manages to provide entertainment while also giving a new perspective on the world’s problems.
Monday, July 14, 2008
Sports Illustrate, ESPN the Magazine, the Sporting News, and… Slam? If there is any uncertainty as to what Slam magazine is and what it is meant to accomplish as an entertainment magazine publication, all it takes is a glance at the cover and the central topic of the magazine should be apparent: basketball. With an urban and African-American target audience, Slam magazine has found a comfortable niche in the sports-entertainment print world as an “In Your Face Basketball Magazine,” according to the first issue of Slam magazine, printed in 1994. From the first issues’ NBA star Larry Johnson cover, to the latest July 7th, 2008 cover with USA basketball Olympians LeBron James, Carmelo Anthony, and Kobe Bryant, Slam magazine has had some of basketballs’ top stars grace its front page for a decade-and-a-half. Nine issues per year and a modest global circulation of over five hundred thousand readers worldwide, Slam magazine has been a consistently productive publication since 1994 and the PRIMEDIA publication shows no signs of slowing down.
The target audience is an interesting one, for the magazine is actually credited with acting as a catalyst in linking hip-hop culture to the basketball fan nation. This was achieved because the magazine not only included articles, interviews, and editorials about basketball, but also about hip-hop music and urban clothing lines. So the target audience for this magazine breaks down into basketball fans, more specifically urban basketball fans, and even more specifically African-American urban basketball fans.
The way that the magazine attracts its target audience is through covers that are meant to catch the eye of the urban basketball advocate. For example, in Slam’s total one hundred nineteen issues, there has been merely eleven times that a Caucasian basketball player has appeared on the cover of the ninety-or-so page magazine. Now this is by no means a degrading racial action; since the magazine began, there have been tremendous players of numerous races and ethnicities. However, although white NBA players such Jason Kidd, John Stockton, Former NBA MVP Steve Nash, and numerous others were quite popular and unbelievable talented, their popularity pales in comparison with the likes of Carmelo Anthony, Shaquille O’Neal, Kobe Bryant, LeBron James, Charles Barkley, Dennis Rodman, Scottie Pippen, Karl Malone, countless others, and the greatest of them all, Michael Jordan (all of whom happen to be African-American). Other than the fact that Slam was attempting to target the African-American audience, the other motivation for so many black basketball stars on the cover page was because the most popular players in the NBA during the last decade of the twentieth century and the first decade of the twenty-first century were primarily of African-American descent.
Okay, now that the reader has seen the cover and is intrigued, how does this magazine differ from Sports Illustrated and the other mainstream sports magazines? They both attempt to put the most popular sports stars on their covers concerning Sports Illustrated and Slam’s niches of general interest sport and basketball sport and culture, respectively. However, one of the key components that makes Slam magazine so much different than the mainstream counterparts is the street language and the in-your-face editorial and columnist writing. Here are some examples of the inventive street language straight off of the July 7th, 2008 issue: Ballin’ (cover), Slamadacentury (page 11), “…a similarly disjoined team was sent to rep the USA in Athens…” (page 16), etc. And even though the magazine is geared toward the African-American audience, the magazine (in an extreme fairness and racially unbiased manner) will print stories about any ethnicity regardless the audience and base the selection of stories solely on expected popularity value, as seen in the latest issue (white NBA stars Pau Gasol and Manu Ginobili were both featured in articles in this issue).
The ratio of African-American to white athletes on the cover of the magazine, the selection of stories, and urban street language show a slight slant toward a certain racial ethnic group (also known as the target audience, African-American basketball and hip-hop culture advocates), right? Yes, in the sense that all of those things tend to target the African-American audience, and no, because any race can be a part of the hip-hop culture and Slam merely selects the most popular players to be on their covers. The more suggestive notion of a slant is shown in the advertising within the magazine. It is riddled with fitness apparel, tennis shoe, and hip-hop music advertisements. All races can be lured by those advertisements; this much is true. However, in contrast with all of the other mainstream magazines, most of Slam’s advertisements feature African-American commercial actors.
The target audience is an interesting one, for the magazine is actually credited with acting as a catalyst in linking hip-hop culture to the basketball fan nation. This was achieved because the magazine not only included articles, interviews, and editorials about basketball, but also about hip-hop music and urban clothing lines. So the target audience for this magazine breaks down into basketball fans, more specifically urban basketball fans, and even more specifically African-American urban basketball fans.
The way that the magazine attracts its target audience is through covers that are meant to catch the eye of the urban basketball advocate. For example, in Slam’s total one hundred nineteen issues, there has been merely eleven times that a Caucasian basketball player has appeared on the cover of the ninety-or-so page magazine. Now this is by no means a degrading racial action; since the magazine began, there have been tremendous players of numerous races and ethnicities. However, although white NBA players such Jason Kidd, John Stockton, Former NBA MVP Steve Nash, and numerous others were quite popular and unbelievable talented, their popularity pales in comparison with the likes of Carmelo Anthony, Shaquille O’Neal, Kobe Bryant, LeBron James, Charles Barkley, Dennis Rodman, Scottie Pippen, Karl Malone, countless others, and the greatest of them all, Michael Jordan (all of whom happen to be African-American). Other than the fact that Slam was attempting to target the African-American audience, the other motivation for so many black basketball stars on the cover page was because the most popular players in the NBA during the last decade of the twentieth century and the first decade of the twenty-first century were primarily of African-American descent.
Okay, now that the reader has seen the cover and is intrigued, how does this magazine differ from Sports Illustrated and the other mainstream sports magazines? They both attempt to put the most popular sports stars on their covers concerning Sports Illustrated and Slam’s niches of general interest sport and basketball sport and culture, respectively. However, one of the key components that makes Slam magazine so much different than the mainstream counterparts is the street language and the in-your-face editorial and columnist writing. Here are some examples of the inventive street language straight off of the July 7th, 2008 issue: Ballin’ (cover), Slamadacentury (page 11), “…a similarly disjoined team was sent to rep the USA in Athens…” (page 16), etc. And even though the magazine is geared toward the African-American audience, the magazine (in an extreme fairness and racially unbiased manner) will print stories about any ethnicity regardless the audience and base the selection of stories solely on expected popularity value, as seen in the latest issue (white NBA stars Pau Gasol and Manu Ginobili were both featured in articles in this issue).
The ratio of African-American to white athletes on the cover of the magazine, the selection of stories, and urban street language show a slight slant toward a certain racial ethnic group (also known as the target audience, African-American basketball and hip-hop culture advocates), right? Yes, in the sense that all of those things tend to target the African-American audience, and no, because any race can be a part of the hip-hop culture and Slam merely selects the most popular players to be on their covers. The more suggestive notion of a slant is shown in the advertising within the magazine. It is riddled with fitness apparel, tennis shoe, and hip-hop music advertisements. All races can be lured by those advertisements; this much is true. However, in contrast with all of the other mainstream magazines, most of Slam’s advertisements feature African-American commercial actors.
Jerry Springer
Description: The Jerry Springer Show is a TV talk show that is supposed to help families and friends work out their problems. Both Jerry Springer and the studio audience try to offer suggestions that will help the relationship between the guests. Typically the topics that are brought up on the shows are: divorce, cheating, racism, adultery, incest, sexuality etc. Because these topics are so controversial, there is security on set to keep the guests under control when constant fights break out.
Analysis: The clear pattern of The Jerry Springer Show is that none of the problems are ever settled calmly; every episode involves fighting, screaming, hostility, and unreasonable actions. All the guests on the show use violence in an attempt to solve their problems, which rarely ever work out.
Interpretation: The people that come on the show are not really looking to solve their problems, but just get it out in the open and gain some attention. Some of the fighting on the show may not even be completely real, but just used to boost viewer’s interest.
Evaluation: I think the show is pointless and accomplishes nothing in any of the situations brought onto the show. The show seems like it promotes fighting to solve any argument, which is not the ideal way to work out a problem. None of the guests seem satisfied or made any progress with their situation after the show. I get the impression that the show is more used for entertainment purposes than to actually help families and friends figure out how to fix their problems.
Engagement: If the guests really want help fixing their relationship with their family member, loved one, or friends, they should go to a private help facility. There, they will be able to offer professional advice in order to benefit the situation.
Anti ProWrestling
The year is 2008 and there are many choices of things to watch on television. Professional wrestling is one of the most popular sporting events in our society. Professional wrestling, as popular as is it is, should not be on air because it portrays stereotypes toward men and women.
Wrestling for entertainment began as early as 3,000 BC. The Egyptians, Babylonians, Greeks, Romans, Chinese and Japanese wrestled as art forms in their societies. The Greeks popularized it because they started the Ancient Olympic Games. Around 70 AD, the Romans built the Colosseum for gladiatorial contests and public spectacles. The Colosseum drew large crowds who wanted to see animal hunts, reenactments of famous battles, executions and plays of classical mythology. It was one of Italy’s main sources of entertainment until the 6th century. In the late 19th century, wrestling drew crowds when they were sideshows of traveling carnivals. The WWF, otherwise known as the World Wrestling Federation, was then started in 1980.
After changing its name to WWE, World Wrestling Entertainment, the purpose of these fights have completely changed from its origins. It is still of entertainment value towards viewers, but it now portrays certain stereotypes. The fighters who have the most success are very strong men. They look like they never stop working out. Many seem like they have taken steroids. This is a very bad image considering that is it shown to a large audience. Young boys watch this and assume that in order to be popular they have to be huge, muscular men. These wrestling shows also give a stereotype towards women. Each wrestler has a woman, if not more, that introduces them into the ring. They have bleach blonde hair and are tall and skinny with big breasts. This feeds into the whole stereotype that fashion models give girls; that they all need to be a size 0 with long blonde hair and big boobs and about 6’1”. This also relates back to the boy’s stereotype because they see these huge men with these gorgeous girls and they assume that is what they will have to be like in order to get what those wrestlers have.
These stereotypes given off by wrestling shows have negative consequences. When young boys watch this, they become envious of these strong, powerful men. In turn, they believe that in order to have power and a beautiful girl, they must look and act the same as pro wrestlers. To look the same, they will now have to work out non-stop. If that does not give them the look they want, they may turn to steroids. Steroids are a huge problem in this country, especially in major league sports. Once young boys have the look, they will then want the attitude of a wrestler. Because they want to be tough all the time, they may cause problems and lots of fights. This would then cause them to do badly in school. They would also want to join rough sports such as football, wrestling and lacrosse. Being a wrestler in grade and high school can take another toll on boys. Many need to “make weight,” and in order to do that they throw up. This can become a serious problem and lead to bulimia. Young girls could also turn to bulimia after watching these wrestling shows. They see how pretty these skinny models are, and want to be just like them. They may also dye their hair and get breast implants.
Because Professional Wrestling shown on WWE portrays many stereotypes toward men and women, it should be taken off of cable television. It is one thing for a sport to become competitive and create a billion dollar industry, but it should be a good example to the public. Yes, the NFL is a popular league with big powerful and strong men being cheered on by pretty women in costumes. But the NFL has strict rules and is played to see which team is better through practice. Wrestling is a fight between two men to see which man can hurt the other one more. The WWE channel on T.V., and a one of its programs called “RAW”, is an example of “low culture.” It does not take a college education to understand what is going on during the fights. Therefore, many scholars find wrestling boring because it seems scripted and tacky. WWE and programs like RAW also feed into the “Big Mac” Theory. They feed into the theory because it discriminates taste toward finer fare. Pro Wrestling is also postmodern because it accepts technology by having websites and satellite radio stations and it recycles culture.
The emergence of digital communication allows die hard fans of WWE to watch and keep up with the sport anywhere, not just from television. The internet, radio, and cell phone T.V. are some other ways die hard fans can be in tuned with fights 24-7. Because this popular sport is able to be accessed almost anywhere, there is one major solution that can be done to lessen the effect of the stereotype that is given off from WWE programs. Take if off television. This may be a hard thing to think of by die hard fans, but they would still be able to access it in many different ways. Taking it off the air eliminates the chance that young children will become influenced by the stereotypes given off by the programs. This would work because it would be harder for young children to access the material. People who would be able to access it should be at the age where these stereotypes given off would affect them less.
Professional wrestling, as popular as is it is, should not be on air because it portrays stereotypes toward men and women. Taking it off the air and only allowing it to be seen by people who can access it by another way, would reduce the chances of a child being fed into this stereotype.
Wrestling for entertainment began as early as 3,000 BC. The Egyptians, Babylonians, Greeks, Romans, Chinese and Japanese wrestled as art forms in their societies. The Greeks popularized it because they started the Ancient Olympic Games. Around 70 AD, the Romans built the Colosseum for gladiatorial contests and public spectacles. The Colosseum drew large crowds who wanted to see animal hunts, reenactments of famous battles, executions and plays of classical mythology. It was one of Italy’s main sources of entertainment until the 6th century. In the late 19th century, wrestling drew crowds when they were sideshows of traveling carnivals. The WWF, otherwise known as the World Wrestling Federation, was then started in 1980.
After changing its name to WWE, World Wrestling Entertainment, the purpose of these fights have completely changed from its origins. It is still of entertainment value towards viewers, but it now portrays certain stereotypes. The fighters who have the most success are very strong men. They look like they never stop working out. Many seem like they have taken steroids. This is a very bad image considering that is it shown to a large audience. Young boys watch this and assume that in order to be popular they have to be huge, muscular men. These wrestling shows also give a stereotype towards women. Each wrestler has a woman, if not more, that introduces them into the ring. They have bleach blonde hair and are tall and skinny with big breasts. This feeds into the whole stereotype that fashion models give girls; that they all need to be a size 0 with long blonde hair and big boobs and about 6’1”. This also relates back to the boy’s stereotype because they see these huge men with these gorgeous girls and they assume that is what they will have to be like in order to get what those wrestlers have.
These stereotypes given off by wrestling shows have negative consequences. When young boys watch this, they become envious of these strong, powerful men. In turn, they believe that in order to have power and a beautiful girl, they must look and act the same as pro wrestlers. To look the same, they will now have to work out non-stop. If that does not give them the look they want, they may turn to steroids. Steroids are a huge problem in this country, especially in major league sports. Once young boys have the look, they will then want the attitude of a wrestler. Because they want to be tough all the time, they may cause problems and lots of fights. This would then cause them to do badly in school. They would also want to join rough sports such as football, wrestling and lacrosse. Being a wrestler in grade and high school can take another toll on boys. Many need to “make weight,” and in order to do that they throw up. This can become a serious problem and lead to bulimia. Young girls could also turn to bulimia after watching these wrestling shows. They see how pretty these skinny models are, and want to be just like them. They may also dye their hair and get breast implants.
Because Professional Wrestling shown on WWE portrays many stereotypes toward men and women, it should be taken off of cable television. It is one thing for a sport to become competitive and create a billion dollar industry, but it should be a good example to the public. Yes, the NFL is a popular league with big powerful and strong men being cheered on by pretty women in costumes. But the NFL has strict rules and is played to see which team is better through practice. Wrestling is a fight between two men to see which man can hurt the other one more. The WWE channel on T.V., and a one of its programs called “RAW”, is an example of “low culture.” It does not take a college education to understand what is going on during the fights. Therefore, many scholars find wrestling boring because it seems scripted and tacky. WWE and programs like RAW also feed into the “Big Mac” Theory. They feed into the theory because it discriminates taste toward finer fare. Pro Wrestling is also postmodern because it accepts technology by having websites and satellite radio stations and it recycles culture.
The emergence of digital communication allows die hard fans of WWE to watch and keep up with the sport anywhere, not just from television. The internet, radio, and cell phone T.V. are some other ways die hard fans can be in tuned with fights 24-7. Because this popular sport is able to be accessed almost anywhere, there is one major solution that can be done to lessen the effect of the stereotype that is given off from WWE programs. Take if off television. This may be a hard thing to think of by die hard fans, but they would still be able to access it in many different ways. Taking it off the air eliminates the chance that young children will become influenced by the stereotypes given off by the programs. This would work because it would be harder for young children to access the material. People who would be able to access it should be at the age where these stereotypes given off would affect them less.
Professional wrestling, as popular as is it is, should not be on air because it portrays stereotypes toward men and women. Taking it off the air and only allowing it to be seen by people who can access it by another way, would reduce the chances of a child being fed into this stereotype.
The O'Reilly Factor
Among the many day time, night time, and prime time news shows out there, the O’Reilly Factor stands out to audiences. While many viewers criticize Bill O’Reilly, I am a personal fan and I defend his broadcast. In order to properly critique this show, I rummaged through my brain for descriptions and watched his shows again to refresh my mind. To help make a critical case, I will follow the five-step critical process which includes description, analysis, interpretation, evaluation, and engagement.
The O’Reilly factor is a new show that relays current events that O’Reilly deems as important to an audience. Generally, there is a schedule and natural order of things. Usually, O’Reilly begins the show with “Talking Points Memo” where he provides his personal view points on a current event or topic. Subsequently, he then transitions to a breaking story and then presents the “impact” which is where he gives important topics more attention than the regular media. Other segments are included for entertaining and educational purposes. Of them, some examples include “pinheads and patriots,” “Factor mail,” and even a body language expert. One thing that can be noticed and commended about this show is both sides are represented in debates and on issues. Additionally, when he reads his “Factor mail,” he reads one in support of him and one opposing him.
To further the critical process, one must analyze her research on the topic. Like most news shows, the camera work is half the effort when appealing to an audience. On the O’Reilly factor, Bill’s hand gestures can be seen and he is allowed to show more passion in his argument whereas the interviewee rarely gets to show any emotion or hand signs due to the camera’s proximity. In addition to the different camera zooms, when in a debate, O’Reilly often uses the split-screen effect. He is always on the left side of the screen while his opponent in the debate is on the right. During the “Pinhead and Patriot” and “Factor mail” segments, Bill always says thank you to the patriots and those in support of him but to the pinheads and those opposing him, he usually has the last word to defend himself. Overall, Bill O’Reilly is patriotic and while he comes off as conservative, he is an Independent. Sometimes he is criticized by the Democratic Party because of this.
So, what does this mean? Well, everything that happens on T.V. and in the media is no accident. Everything from a body gesture to a camera angle can be interpreted in some way which happens to be step three in the critical process. Bill O’Reilly is obviously the man in charge on this operation. Anyone can tell, even just by the camera angle. Because of the distance Bill is from the camera, he can lean in and out to show emotion or carelessness and he is able to show his strong hand gestures to prove a point. The interviewee does not have this luxury. Instead, they have an up-close, portrait shot where the audience is unable to see any hand gestures or body language. This puts them at a disadvantage to Bill. On to our next point, why is Bill O’Reilly always on the left in the split-screen shots? This could be because of coincidence or it could be because humans read left to right and therefore are drawn more to the left side of the screen. Again, this gives Bill dominance. It’s no wonder he is often accused of bullying. However, people still consent to appear on his show. His motivations and tactics are no secret to Americans and surely no secret to his peers and colleagues.
After the interpretation step is the evaluation step where I make an informed judgment or critique based on the previous three steps. Although I am aware of Bill O’Reilly’s bias toward certain opinions, I am also aware that this is not a typical news show. Instead, it should be listed as a commentator show. Because I know this, I can take and appreciate the O’Reilly Factor for what it is. It’s just one way to provide factual (although sometimes biased) news to the public in an entertaining way. Because the Factor is not your standard news show, it has some wiggle room to add and subtract segments based on what the audience wants. One thing the O’Reilly Factor does well is getting a variety of people on board for interviews and paying close and specific attention to topics the regular news casts only touch on. On this show, the public can get opinions and watch heated debates all the time which helps them formulate an opinion of their own. Although this show has some controversy, Bill O’Reilly handles it well.
The fifth and final step to the critical process is engagement. Is this show helping or hurting American media literacy? Does it best serve our democracy? I believe the O’Reilly Factor does support media literacy and serves our American democracy well. Because Bill is patriotic, he sets a fine example for Americans to follow. He invites his viewers to be engaged in the political process most notably by the “Factor mail” and just giving the current events to his audience the way he sees them. There is no beating around the bush with him. This way, people don’t have an excuse to complain about the cut and dry way the news is presented. No longer can people sit back and be cynics about their lives and their fellow citizen’s lives. Bill O’Reilly promotes the idea of being proactively involved in the political process and contributes with his show which is on at a variety of times so people can view when it’s convenient for them.
Communication has grown since the beginning of time and has gotten more and more complex with age. Although some people accuse the mass media of being heartless and only thinking about money, where would we be without it? Most likely, we’d be back in the Stone Age. The truth is, nothing is perfect and everything has some good and bad to it. Personally, I’m glad to have a prominent media in our culture and society and the O’Reilly Factor is up there with my favorites. Now with a critical point of view, I can say that O’Reilly produces quality news in an entertaining way to appeal to the masses. His spin on things gives our culture more variety and taste. After really divulging myself into the O’Reilly Factor, I can say it is a good show that benefits the citizens of America.
The Maury Show-Erin Booth
The one show that I believe should be removed from cable networks throughout the United States is The Maury Show. This postmodern television show encourages hatred and drama among the guests as well as questions many morals and ethics that are shared by most Americans. After watching this program, it can be concluded that it is certainly at the very bottom of the cultural skyscraper.
The Maury Show is a talk show based in New York City and hosted by Maury Povich. This popular question and answer-based show attempts to solve the problems of individuals going through hard times in life. In each show Maury’s typical interviewees are everyday people who are many times ex-lovers, single mothers, neglected children or troubled teens. There are many reoccurring themes covered in this show, the most common being: infidelity, poor parenting, paternity test results, dysfunctional families and other controversial adult issues.
The Maury Show is comprised of many question and answer sessions that attempt to solve the problems that each guest may be facing. The camera focuses on the individuals and host at a farther distance during regular discussions but then moves closer when something dramatic happens such as a confession or answer to a grueling question. In addition, there is a large video screen in the center of the stage that shows close-ups as well. Along with changing camera angles, The Maury Show has a very active audience. Throughout the show the audience members participate by obnoxiously voicing their opinions by either booing those on stage or shouting outlandish comments. A final trait I have found in this show is the humorous take on extremely serious situations which I believe can be very degrading to some of the viewers.
There are several reasons behind the way The Maury Show is set up to explain the different observations I have found while watching this show in the past. The camera is set the way it is by getting closer up during questions that cause great emotion to the interviewee which creates a more dramatic effect. If the show was shot far away or even at a middle distance the whole time, the viewer would not be able to see how the individual may be feeling by their facial expressions. Also, the large video screen in the center of the stage allows the live audience to see close-ups of the guests as well. An interactive audience is necessary for a successful and entertaining talk show these days; especially one like The Maury Show. Without an obnoxiously loud audience, the show would be boring especially for the home viewers. An interactive audience also enables home viewers to better establish a stance on the issue if they see how the live audience is reacting. This crowd of people on air also inflicts emotion on those guests who are being interviewed whether they become happy that they are being supported or angered when they are being booed.
Ultimately, The Maury Show is the epitome of trash television. The issues that are presented seem as though they are trying to be solved in a caring manner, when in reality it is obvious that these issues are being mocked and made fun of. The situations that these people are going through are many times issues of a vast majority of the American population. Not only is this show offensive to people who may be facing the same hardships; but, children who are victims of the issues that are highlighted on this show will indeed suffer internal damage if coming across The Maury Show. It is absolutely ridiculous to broadcast a show on television addressing problems individuals face all the time and allow American viewers to make judgments about them based on a corrupt television talk show. According to the classical Greek Philosopher, Plato, it is important for media to uplift and instruct rather than bring about evil thoughts and actions. This show doesn’t by any means honor the belief of Plato and is a horrendous show to be presented to nationwide audiences.
There are several things that the American public can do to put an end to this terrible idea of “good television”. First of all, it is our duty as citizens to voice our feelings and opinions to make the world we live in a better place. Therefore, we must begin by encouraging Americans to send e-mails to the producers of The Maury Show and express their feelings towards the show’s content. Also, it would be beneficial to encourage different government agencies involved by organizing protests to the FCC (Federal Communications Commission) to put an end to this program. By the First Amendment of the Constitution, it is our right as citizens of this country to assemble and petition. Thanks to this amendment, we can gather together and unite against this appalling idea of entertainment.
The Maury Show is a talk show based in New York City and hosted by Maury Povich. This popular question and answer-based show attempts to solve the problems of individuals going through hard times in life. In each show Maury’s typical interviewees are everyday people who are many times ex-lovers, single mothers, neglected children or troubled teens. There are many reoccurring themes covered in this show, the most common being: infidelity, poor parenting, paternity test results, dysfunctional families and other controversial adult issues.
The Maury Show is comprised of many question and answer sessions that attempt to solve the problems that each guest may be facing. The camera focuses on the individuals and host at a farther distance during regular discussions but then moves closer when something dramatic happens such as a confession or answer to a grueling question. In addition, there is a large video screen in the center of the stage that shows close-ups as well. Along with changing camera angles, The Maury Show has a very active audience. Throughout the show the audience members participate by obnoxiously voicing their opinions by either booing those on stage or shouting outlandish comments. A final trait I have found in this show is the humorous take on extremely serious situations which I believe can be very degrading to some of the viewers.
There are several reasons behind the way The Maury Show is set up to explain the different observations I have found while watching this show in the past. The camera is set the way it is by getting closer up during questions that cause great emotion to the interviewee which creates a more dramatic effect. If the show was shot far away or even at a middle distance the whole time, the viewer would not be able to see how the individual may be feeling by their facial expressions. Also, the large video screen in the center of the stage allows the live audience to see close-ups of the guests as well. An interactive audience is necessary for a successful and entertaining talk show these days; especially one like The Maury Show. Without an obnoxiously loud audience, the show would be boring especially for the home viewers. An interactive audience also enables home viewers to better establish a stance on the issue if they see how the live audience is reacting. This crowd of people on air also inflicts emotion on those guests who are being interviewed whether they become happy that they are being supported or angered when they are being booed.
Ultimately, The Maury Show is the epitome of trash television. The issues that are presented seem as though they are trying to be solved in a caring manner, when in reality it is obvious that these issues are being mocked and made fun of. The situations that these people are going through are many times issues of a vast majority of the American population. Not only is this show offensive to people who may be facing the same hardships; but, children who are victims of the issues that are highlighted on this show will indeed suffer internal damage if coming across The Maury Show. It is absolutely ridiculous to broadcast a show on television addressing problems individuals face all the time and allow American viewers to make judgments about them based on a corrupt television talk show. According to the classical Greek Philosopher, Plato, it is important for media to uplift and instruct rather than bring about evil thoughts and actions. This show doesn’t by any means honor the belief of Plato and is a horrendous show to be presented to nationwide audiences.
There are several things that the American public can do to put an end to this terrible idea of “good television”. First of all, it is our duty as citizens to voice our feelings and opinions to make the world we live in a better place. Therefore, we must begin by encouraging Americans to send e-mails to the producers of The Maury Show and express their feelings towards the show’s content. Also, it would be beneficial to encourage different government agencies involved by organizing protests to the FCC (Federal Communications Commission) to put an end to this program. By the First Amendment of the Constitution, it is our right as citizens of this country to assemble and petition. Thanks to this amendment, we can gather together and unite against this appalling idea of entertainment.
South Park, Friend or Foe?
According to the American Heritage Dictionary satire is, “A literary work in which human vice or folly is attacked through irony, derision, or wit.” Each week when I sit down at my T.V. or computer and watch the latest episode of Comedy Central’s South Park I can expect the latest and greatest controversies to be poked, prodded, and laughed at. No what the subject matter is South Park will, and probably already has, made fun of it. It is almost their place and right to make fun of our culture, because if they don’t who will?
Every year I go to the Central Pennsylvania Arts Festival, and every year I see a caricaturist drawing people sitting in chairs, trying not to move. Perhaps, every once and awhile I’ll pause to see what the artist is drawing. No matter who is sitting there or what race, ethnicity, political background, religion, or style the person is dressed in, the artist always finds little quirks or differences to magnify in the drawing. When South Park makes an episode they take these differences that make us who we are, amplify them to the extreme and joke about how stupid we are for caring about these differences.
When people watch South Park they sometimes use selective exposure and arrive at conclusions that South Park is offending people. What if South Park is trying to offend people; who cares? I think that people who can laugh at themselves make the world a better place. If South Park had only made fun of a few people then I could understand the outcry that it is a terrible show and that the writers are racist or something along those lines, but they don’t limit there scrutiny to only a small portion of people. They make fun of everyone.
I hope South Park continues to portray life in a satirical manner, so that we can continue to laugh at our friends, ourselves, and the rest of the world. As E.E. Cummings said, “The most wasted of all days is one without laughter,” and laughter is what South park aims to bring.
Every year I go to the Central Pennsylvania Arts Festival, and every year I see a caricaturist drawing people sitting in chairs, trying not to move. Perhaps, every once and awhile I’ll pause to see what the artist is drawing. No matter who is sitting there or what race, ethnicity, political background, religion, or style the person is dressed in, the artist always finds little quirks or differences to magnify in the drawing. When South Park makes an episode they take these differences that make us who we are, amplify them to the extreme and joke about how stupid we are for caring about these differences.
When people watch South Park they sometimes use selective exposure and arrive at conclusions that South Park is offending people. What if South Park is trying to offend people; who cares? I think that people who can laugh at themselves make the world a better place. If South Park had only made fun of a few people then I could understand the outcry that it is a terrible show and that the writers are racist or something along those lines, but they don’t limit there scrutiny to only a small portion of people. They make fun of everyone.
I hope South Park continues to portray life in a satirical manner, so that we can continue to laugh at our friends, ourselves, and the rest of the world. As E.E. Cummings said, “The most wasted of all days is one without laughter,” and laughter is what South park aims to bring.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
