PTC-Tv Is Actively Seeking To Undermine Marriage

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

MrsSpringsteen

Blue Crack Addict
Joined
Nov 30, 2002
Messages
29,244
Location
Edge's beanie closet
Is it doing that or do they just figure that no one wants to watch standard portrayals of marriage and sex? Do people watch tv to escape or to see reflections of their reality (and of course standard isn't everyone's reality)? Is the effect on young viewers really dire?


Study: TV shows sex, but not in marriage
The effect on young viewers is dire, the Parents Television Council contends
The Associated Press
updated 8:29 p.m. ET, Tues., Aug. 5, 2008

LOS ANGELES - Marriage gets little respect on network TV shows that instead revel in the pleasures of extramarital and even kinky sex, according to a study released Tuesday.

The study by the Parents Television Council includes a strongly worded condemnation of prime-time TV, contending it “seems to be actively seeking to undermine marriage by consistently painting it in a negative light.”

Even more troubling, according to the watchdog group, is what it characterized as TV’s recent obsession with what it termed “outre” or bizarre behavior, including partner swapping and pedophilia.

As for references to pornography, sex toys and “kinky” behavior, those are now common on TV, the report said. Visual references to practices such as voyeurism and sadomasochistic sex outnumbered married-sex references by a ratio approaching 3 to 1.

The effect on young viewers is dire, the Parents Television Council contends.

Behavior that once was seen as “fringe, immoral or socially destructive have been given the imprimatur of acceptability by the television industry” and children are absorbing or even imitating it, the report contends.

Parents don’t necessarily have the tools to identify programs they may want to block via the V-chip, according to the study: It says designations such as “S,” signaling sexual content, were applied inconsistently and inaccurately.

ABC, CBS, CW, Fox and NBC, the networks in the study, all declined comment.

James Steyer, CEO of nonprofit Common Sense Media, which helps parents sift through media offerings to decide what’s right for their children, said he couldn’t vouch for the Parents Television Council’s research but lauded the effort.

While the council takes a very traditional view of society and pop culture, “I respect it,” Steyer said Tuesday. “There are millions of Americans that feel this way,” he said.

It’s legitimate to scrutinize TV’s take on marriage and sexuality given its influence on children, Steyer said.

But TV Watch, a nonpartisan group that says individuals and not government should decide what’s seen, fired a volley at the council.

“The Parents Television Council won’t be satisfied with television content until they convince the government to enforce their personal, selective judgments,” Jim Dyke, executive director of TV Watch, said in a statement.

The study analyzed four weeks of scripted shows on the major networks at the start of the 2007-08 season, noting content including depictions of sex; implied sex; discussions on the subject, and visual references to strippers, pornography and other aspects of sexuality.

Among the networks overall, references to adultery outnumbered references to marital sex by 2 to 1. The “family hour” — the first hour of prime-time TV, which draws the most young viewers — contained the highest ratio of references to non-married vs. married sex, the study found.

Shows held up as containing bad examples of TV behavior included “Grey’s Anatomy,” with the report citing a scene with singles Meredith and Derek in bed, and “Boston Legal,” for an exchange about prostitution.

“Desperate Housewives” was singled out for a bedroom scene involving Gabrielle and Carlos, who divorced and then, while in other relationships, had sex.

Some shows have better attitudes toward marriage although they’re not necessarily appropriate for families with young children, said Tim Winter, council president.

The drama “Friday Night Lights” is “better than most in showing positive portrayals of marital relations and intimacy,” he said in a telephone conference, while the sitcom “Everybody Hates Chris” depicts a strong married relationship.
 
I thought it was just gays that destroy the sanctity of marriage.



are you trying to tell me that you can't see the link here?

once you "normalize" sex between two beautiful, supple young men and present their attraction to the other's sculpted pectorals and bursting biceps and snugly fit jeans as if it were natural, then *everything* else becomes normalized.

if sex means more than once a week in the missionary position between two married and showered white people, then sex means EVERYTHING! and by that i mean that it means NOTHING!

see?
 
Those crime dramas - CSI, Law & Order - have pedophilia as the crime of their show quite often. I watch those shows, and its getting quite nauseating for pedophilia being the crime from week to week. We all know it happens, but do we really have to reminded every show?
 
Those crime dramas - CSI, Law & Order - have pedophilia as the crime of their show quite often. I watch those shows, and its getting quite nauseating for pedophilia being the crime from week to week. We all know it happens, but do we really have to reminded every show?

Do we all know it happens? We might, but i think the average person doesnt really realize just how much it actualy happens. I know what you're saying as far as it gets old wacthing the same premise to a show every week, but showing young people that peadophilia is common and should be outed is a good part of the trend the TV industry has set with it more liberal use of sex.
 
Those crime dramas - CSI, Law & Order - have pedophilia as the crime of their show quite often. I watch those shows, and its getting quite nauseating for pedophilia being the crime from week to week. We all know it happens, but do we really have to reminded every show?

Then stop watching. If everyone who didn't like that topic would stop watching, then maybe the topics would change.
 
It's important to remember about these advocacy groups, across the political spectrum, that their survival partially depends on being pessimistic to rally members and get attention.

So the Parent's Television Council is never going to look at TV and say "gosh, everything's fine".
 
'tis true. TV gives you what it thinks you want.

Hardly. If that were true, there would have been a whole bunch of "Raymond" clones, while "Arrested Development" would have been cancelled halfway through its first season, and "Gossip Girl" would hardly merit a mention.

Programming executives want to run the shows that they can brag about at parties.
 
Tis also true though that there aren't that many depictions of hot and sexy and happy marriages. Surely those must exist, somewhere. I hope.

And if kids are watching tv to understand what marriage is all about, well that's just wrong on many levels.
 
Hardly. If that were true, there would have been a whole bunch of "Raymond" clones, while "Arrested Development" would have been cancelled halfway through its first season, and "Gossip Girl" would hardly merit a mention.

Programming executives want to run the shows that they can brag about at parties.


They have to sell ads to pay for the shows. If people don't watch, they can't sell ads and they ditch the show. It's all about ratings. And people watching. Complaining because a halfway intelligent show doesn't make it on TV is like complaining about there being no decent music on the radio.
 
Hardly. If that were true, there would have been a whole bunch of "Raymond" clones, while "Arrested Development" would have been cancelled halfway through its first season, and "Gossip Girl" would hardly merit a mention.

Programming executives want to run the shows that they can brag about at parties.



why were there only, what, 14 episodes of "my so-called life"? there was a a "raymond" spin-off.

occasionally, a show can develop a cult following that can translate into sales in other areas -- DVD sales -- and certain shows can do particularly well within specific advertising demos -- ie, "Dawson's Creek" wasn't a big hit overall, but a smash among impressionable teens who haven't yet committed to a brand of toothpaste -- but the bottom line is what speaks most loudly. there's also some desire for critical acclaim, but that shrink in comparison to the dollar.

programming executives want to brag about their ratings at cocktail parties.
 
I just snorted milk out my nose. You're hilarious. Not in this day and age.

And I almost had to roll my eyes (but I resisted) :wink:

You surely can't be serious though? Of course it's about the ratings and the money! Sounds like someone's spent too much time in the Heartland and has "lost touch" with what's going on in Hollywood! :wink:
 
And I almost had to roll my eyes (but I resisted) :wink:

You surely can't be serious though? Of course it's about the ratings and the money!

I am being serious. I live here, and I know how it rolls.

There isn't a lot of money in TV these days. Ratings are in the toilet and ad revenues are contracting because of the proliferation of so many new media, cable, directTV outlets -- and TIVO is dramatically shrinking the ad revenue even further, which reflects back on the licensing fees networks are willing to pay production companies. Studios and television are driven increasingly by marketing heads as opposed to creatives, so the goal is delivering the minimum audience to justify overhead, and sex is the easiest method of selling.

Status is everything in Hollywood, and since most TV shows will fail anyway, if given the choice between being the guy who greenlit "Raymond" and being the guy who greenlit "Gossip Girl," most people will choose the latter. Guaranteed.

Edited to add -- in Hollywood, it's about perception, not about reality. As long as "Gossip Girl" is perceived as a hit, it doesn't matter if it actually delivers the numbers or not. (And it didn't -- "Dawson's Creek"'s numbers were far higher than "Gossip"'s.) The whole point is to try to brand or re-brand a network in an increasingly competitive market. The best way to be perceived as a hit is to get people talking, and what's the best way to get people talking? Push the boundaries. What are the easiest boundaries to push these days? Sex. So you have a teenager sleeping with his teacher ("Dawson's Creek", on the then-fledgling WB), or under-age teenagers engaged in sexual behavior on "Gossip Girl" (for the still-fledgling UPN).

To bring this back on topic. I don't think network heads care about marriage. I don't think network heads care about what's programmed outside of audience perception. I don't think network presidents or programming chiefs care about anything except dollars and cents. And that, to me, is the real problem.
 
Hardly. If that were true, there would have been a whole bunch of "Raymond" clones

I think you're referring to every sitcom that CBS has made over the last 10 years. You know, like "King of Queens," "Yes, Dear," "Rules of Engagement," and "Two and a Half Men." Or we could talk about other sitcoms on other networks like "According to Jim" and "8 Simple Rules." I could try and research more, but I really don't like this genre of television personally.

The "stupid white husband," "bitchy wife," "smart ass kids," and "annoying in-laws" genre has been beaten to death, so I have no idea why you think there hasn't been "Raymond clones."


while "Arrested Development" would have been cancelled halfway through its first season, and "Gossip Girl" would hardly merit a mention.

"Arrested Development" is a known exception, because it was a critically acclaimed show that the network executive in charge happened to like, not to mention that it had a highly devoted audience and good DVD sales. What was FOX supposed to put in its place? Another sitcom about a stupid white husband, bitchy wife, smart ass kids, and annoying in-laws? They already had "Malcolm in the Middle," after all, but FOX has a mixed record when it comes to those shows, admittedly, so I think FOX was happy to have a modest hit for the time that it did.

"Gossip Girl" doesn't even merit inclusion here, mainly because it is on The CW, which has abysmal ratings, in general. I think they're happy to have a show that actually gets press. I'm guessing that a show about a stupid white husband, bitchy wife, smart ass kids, and annoying in-laws on The CW wouldn't get any attention and equally low ratings. Additionally, though, it has been noted that the show gets strong sales on iTunes, which isn't all that outlandish; since we're talking about a teen demographic, it has been quite noted that they do not follow traditional broadcast viewing patterns.

Programming executives want to run the shows that they can brag about at parties.

With all due respect, this is where you show that you have no understanding of how this industry works. Working in television, I can tell you that ratings are a non-stop obsession, with advertisers looking for any excuse to pay less or bail on a weak performing show and sales executives, who are under a lot of pressure, trying to meet their quotas.

It does not serve the network's interest to quickly bail on a show, necessarily, because there's no guarantee that its replacement will be any more successful, and there are several examples ("Cheers" and "Seinfeld," most notably) of shows with poor ratings in their first couple of seasons getting phenomenal ratings with time. And it's interesting that you chose "Arrested Development," as an example. They wanted to give it time, but, after a while, they recognized that its ratings were never going to improve and they finally canceled it. The bottom line is all that networks care about.
 
I am being serious. I live here, and I know how it rolls.


i make TV. i spend my days and nights trying to make executive producers happy, and i know it's about generating ratings so they can sell ad time.


There isn't a lot of money in TV these days. Ratings are in the toilet and ad revenues are contracting because of the proliferation of so many new media, cable, directTV outlets -- and TIVO is dramatically shrinking the ad revenue even further, which reflects back on the licensing fees networks are willing to pay production companies. Studios and television are driven increasingly by marketing heads as opposed to creatives, so the goal is delivering the minimum audience to justify overhead, and sex is the easiest method of selling.


yes, i generally agree with this. and what do you think "selling" means in TV?




Status is everything in Hollywood, and since most TV shows will fail anyway, if given the choice between being the guy who greenlit "Raymond" and being the guy who greenlit "Gossip Girl," most people will choose the latter. Guaranteed.


perhaps amongst peers, but amongst executives with bottom lines and shareholders, they will take a mega-smash "Raymond" any day of the week and twice on Sunday over "Gossip Girl."



Edited to add -- in Hollywood, it's about perception, not about reality. As long as "Gossip Girl" is perceived as a hit, it doesn't matter if it actually delivers the numbers or not. (And it didn't -- "Dawson's Creek"'s numbers were far higher than "Gossip"'s.) The whole point is to try to brand or re-brand a network in an increasingly competitive market. The best way to be perceived as a hit is to get people talking, and what's the best way to get people talking? Push the boundaries. What are the easiest boundaries to push these days? Sex. So you have a teenager sleeping with his teacher ("Dawson's Creek", on the then-fledgling WB), or under-age teenagers engaged in sexual behavior on "Gossip Girl" (for the still-fledgling UPN).


this would be a better argument if you looked at the actual break-down of the ratings demographics to see how well "Gossip Girl" is doing amongst the coveted 13-35 year olds. "Dawson's" was, for that network, a mega-hit, and it certainly captured it's buzz through the frank talk about sex and sexuality (though there wasn't all that much actual sex on the show). you are absolutely correct about branding, and many of these shows are meant to be seen as a lifestyle accessory, a form of self-identification, in as much as a piece from Pottery Barn or your MacBookPro is supposed to tell others about you. but i feel you're getting lost in the thick of all of this -- everything, all of it, is meant to feed into the bottom line, the perception of "coolness" is about the bottom line. i think you're mostly quite perceptive here, but i think that the effort to expand something into the online world, to cross market with bands ("tonight's episode of Dawson's Creek featured songs from ...") is to try and hit viewers and potential viewers from many angles, but all with the intent that they will start to watch the show, or start to feel as if they *need* to watch the show in order to feel more complete. just like with toothpaste and deodorant, the goal is to create a need, a perceived lack of something, that only said product -- Gossip Girl -- can deliver.



To bring this back on topic. I don't think network heads care about marriage. I don't think network heads care about what's programmed outside of audience perception. I don't think network presidents or programming chiefs care about anything except dollars and cents. And that, to me, is the real problem.


even though this does seemingly contradict your initial point, i think you're correct. it's amazing -- and, admittedly, self-serving -- to see the notes we get back from the network every week on our shows. they're astonishing, sometimes, and quite contradictory, and almost never actually improve the quality of the shows themselves. we are vastly better storytellers than the "suits" at the network, but the reason they give us notes in the first place, the reason they tell us to "pump the music" or "make quicker cuts" or "the opening 45 seconds starts to drag, pull us into the action sooner!" is because all that they are doing is trying to justify their jobs. if the ratings start to tank, executives come to the executive producers and say, "WTF?" and an executive producer has to justify every creative decision that was made, and the best way to justify such a decision is to look back at the ratings "research" that's done (usually in Las Vegas, which usually attracts a mix of some just out of the methadone clinic and the buffet crowd) and applied whatever broad principles they've been able to glean (and paid dearly for) from these research sessions, and the conclusions are almost laughably banal: people like quick cutting! people like their victims to be sympathetic!

the relationship between the "artist" (writer, producer, director, whatever) and the "suits" (EPs, network executives) has fallen way, way out of balance over the past 20 years, which is why subscription-based cable tends to offer the best quality viewing (though we could argue that the violence and sex on HBO and Showtime is also about buzz -- "here's something you can't get on network TV!") because they start with a bottom line, they don't have to generate it though ratings.

one could write mountains on this stuff.
 
"Gossip Girl" doesn't even merit inclusion here, mainly because it is on The CW, which has abysmal ratings, in general. I think they're happy to have a show that actually gets press.

Gossip Girl is a great example of my point. If the CW were really interested in ratings, they'd be going after a different demographic.

With all due respect, this is where you show that you have no understanding of how this industry works. Working in television, I can tell you that ratings are a non-stop obsession, with advertisers looking for any excuse to pay less or bail on a weak performing show and sales executives, who are under a lot of pressure, trying to meet their quotas.

I work in the industry. I have friends who are regularly out pitching shows. No one is looking for the next "Malcolm," the next "Home Improvement," the next "Raymond." They're all being told, "find me the next Arrested," or "find me the next 30 Rock." Executives aren't going after 4-quadrant shows. They're going after highly-niche-market shows with very specific demographics, with specific audiences who can provide branding opportunities -- and the audiences are (no surprise) usually young, white, affluent, with highly disposable income.

TV has nothing to do these days with ratings. It has to do, I would argue, and based on your evidence and Irvine's, with everything BUT ratings.
 
amongst executives with bottom lines and shareholders, they will take a mega-smash "Raymond" any day of the week and twice on Sunday over "Gossip Girl."

Most film and TV networks are owned by huge mega-conglomerates at this point, and networks and studios are generally among the lowest performing elements in such portfolios, which is why they keep getting sold every five years. So the pressure to find higher-performing shows is much lower than it used to be. There was a time twenty years ago when 5 million viewers was lame. Now that's a certified hit.

just like with toothpaste and deodorant, the goal is to create a need, a perceived lack of something, that only said product -- Gossip Girl -- can deliver.

I agree with this point, but this is all very far from your original point that "TV gives you what it thinks you want." This whole conversation has been a great exploration of the fact that really, TV is about giving you what it wants to give you, and if it just hangs in there long enough, you'll start to want it. And if not, they'll eventually can it and decide to give you something else.

"Cosby" is a great example of this in reverse, actually. No one wanted to make that show, because no one thought there was an audience. Cosby, on the other hand, kept pressing, and lo and behold -- people actually did want it, despite what the programming experts said.
 
I work in the industry. I have friends who are regularly out pitching shows. No one is looking for the next "Malcolm," the next "Home Improvement," the next "Raymond." They're all being told, "find me the next Arrested," or "find me the next 30 Rock." Executives aren't going after 4-quadrant shows. They're going after highly-niche-market shows with very specific demographics, with specific audiences who can provide branding opportunities -- and the audiences are (no surprise) usually young, white, affluent, with highly disposable income.

TV has nothing to do these days with ratings. It has to do, I would argue, and based on your evidence and Irvine's, with everything BUT ratings.

It's an interesting perspective, and I'm glad you came back and elaborated more on your point here. I think the reason that "niche market" shows are in style right now is because there's a sense that the former "mass market ratings" paradigm is in the midst of total collapse, in the face of massive market fragmentation. Cable TV was bad enough, but now there's DVRs and the internet, so I think there's an increasing recognition that loyal niche shows, whose devoted fan base is more likely to buy DVDs and/or purchase episodes from iTunes or Amazon Unbox, is better than having nobody at all watch your shows, as network TV has become tremendously uncool.

Of course, advertisers have also become tremendously more selective than in the past, as having a Top 10 show that has low 18-49 viewership is not good enough. Malcolm/Home Improvement/Raymond were probably not "youthful" enough for them.

Nonetheless, I'm a bit more in your corner here than you might expect. I think it is a tremendous mistake to think that "youthful" audiences demand to be surrounded by "youthful" shows. "The Golden Girls," for instance, in spite of being a show about four senior citizen women, still seems to be quite beloved...even by young people. Good television is good television, frankly, and I think that can transcend demographics. Shows like "Gossip Girl" and all those "CSI" clones on CBS are all trash, as far as I see it, and I have no interest in watching them at all.

However, considering how panicky network TV is these days, I think the "niche market" paradigm is going to be played out for a while. And I think it could very well fail, in the end, but I'm not entirely sure what options they have left beyond that. Advertisers, more than anything, are a very vicious and demanding bunch these days.
 
Well, I have to say I've learned a lot from all three of you. From my perspective it sounds like you all essentially agree with each other though you may be coming at it from different angles.

And nathan, I humbly apologize for speaking so rashly earlier. Clearly you know your stuff. :reject:
 
I agree with this point, but this is all very far from your original point that "TV gives you what it thinks you want." This whole conversation has been a great exploration of the fact that really, TV is about giving you what it wants to give you, and if it just hangs in there long enough, you'll start to want it. And if not, they'll eventually can it and decide to give you something else.



while i agree with many points being raised, this entirely disregards the tremendous amount of money spent on audience research and test marketing shows -- they might now design shows to have a "niche" appeal and not to go for the 4 quadrants of viewership, and Gossip Girls seems a good example of this -- i can't see anyone over 35 being all that interested in Gossip Girl.

but even with this microtargeting of the audience comes the fact that executives know that there's a segment of the population out there that needs to be "served," and they spend lots of money trying to figure out what it is, exactly, that the kids want. and it seems that teenagers like to watch shows about smart, self-aware teenagers living in an aspirational universe who talk about sex.
 
but even with this microtargeting of the audience comes the fact that executives know that there's a segment of the population out there that needs to be "served," and they spend lots of money trying to figure out what it is, exactly, that the kids want. and it seems that teenagers like to watch shows about smart, self-aware teenagers living in an aspirational universe who talk about sex.

It seems that if anything, based on our back-and-forth, there is a segment of the population out there that needs to be sold to. Since TV really is about advertising, and you're competing for eyeballs, there is a strain of marketing thought that says the best way to attract that audience is to push buttons.

However, Melon's point is more valid -- if you make a good show, people will come. What made people watch "Cosby," "Cheers," "Golden Girls," "Home Improvement," "Roseanne" (in its good years), "Seinfeld", "Friends" etc. was that the shows were actually good -- well-crafted, uncynical, respectful of the audience. (I would even add "Raymond" to the list.) Based on that, I would posit that if you make a good show that connects to people, they will watch -- and buy the DVDs and corresponding merchandise.

But again, since most shows will fail, and it takes, you know, actual work to make a good show, it's far easier to go with the sex.

And teenagers, I would posit, will probably watch just about anything. If we're comparing audience reach, more teens watch "American Idol" -- by far. But it's far cooler to be the "Gossip Girl" guy at the party.
 
what those all-time TV classics also had, that we don't have today, is near total domination by the big 3 (maybe 4) networks. note that all of those shows are 20th century creations. it is a different world now, and since most shows do fail, network suits relay on "research" to justify their decisions to their own bosses.

i'd argue, though, that in it's best moments, Dawson's was quite respectful of it's audience, and quite uncynical.

but to tie all this back in to the point of the thread, i think it's totally false to say, as the PTC seems to think, that there's some sort of conspiracy to shove certain "hollywood values" down impressionable, innocent, dewy-eyed 14 year throats. there's laziness, and fear, and a system that rewards sensation to quality (though, sometimes, quality does win out -- we can find numerous success stories) as opposed to any concerted, pernicious ploy to corrupt the innocents or to somehow denigrate marriage as part of a larger, overall political agenda that's, somehow, connected to "THE BIGGEST CELEBRITY IN THE WORLD!"



and half that post deserves the knowing :wink:
 
Back
Top Bottom