The damned "Filth" on Cable..has caused me to consider cancelling...

[KoKo]

I wonder if the rest of us Dems can see this for what it is?

TURN IT OFF...Fellow Dems say! Yeah right...like you want YOUR KIDS to be "Totally Out of it," and are wiling to pay the price of your teens looking at you and giving you the "Bird EYE" of...Whatever ...Dad/Mom...yeah..it just isn't "YOU" but! "it's "US" ...so get over it, deal with it.."IT'S THE NEW WORLD!"

"I" SAY...PSHAW!

F**king NEW WORLD! GET OVER IT! CRAP IS CRAP..no matter how the "whores cloak themselves in Bush Garments of Deception."

TURN IT OFF AND go with the RIGHT WING...on this...we Dems are being trashined as the "Anti-Morality Party. On THIS ISSUE...I will go with the Right Wing...but I will fight to the death with them on EVER OTHER ISSUE ON THE TABLE and...that THEY can think of to destroy our Party and the "NEW DEAl!"

But on this "ONE" issue...I go with them. :shrug:

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

1. What?

I have no idea what you just said...

[KoKo]

2. Read it and think...yeah...I know.. a little OTT...

But! I mean what I say..

[ChiciB1]

80. Uh, KoKo....

don't want to rain on your parade, OR corrupt any kids, but there is that remote control that you can use, AND there is also a way to prevent any shows that your find offensive from being viewed by your kids!

I can't buy what you're selling! Sorry!

The only reason I don't watch certain programs is because I PREFER NOT TO!! That DOES NOT give me the RIGHT to keep others from viewing what they PREFER!! Just as I don't go to PORN sites on the PC, I also don't watch PORN on TV!

You know, MOST of us Democrats ACTUALLY do have MORALS!!!

[Laurab]

3. Me either

I'm somewhat confused. I don't think I agree, but I'm not sure cause I'm not positive what was said....

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

9. Aha. In context I think I've figured it out.

I think what was said is that the wingnuts are right about cable, that it's pornographic and awful and it should be regulated for "morality" content just like broadcast TV.

To which I say, feh. Rot. Nonsense. God or Mother Nature or the forces of evolution gave us fingers with which to turn off our teevees. If you don't like what's on cable, don't subscribe. And if I want to see racy stuff on cable and I'm paying for it, I should get to see it.

[KoKo]

13. Ocelot.....it just doesn't work that way when you have kids...I wish..

but, they hear it from their friends...and suddenly YOU become the ENEMY...

Think back to "teenage years here." Maybe "YOU" never rebelled against
your "parents." But, given today where you were "forced" to give up "cable?"

Wouldn't YOU rebel against what you WANT TO WATCH? :shrug:

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

19. How do you know I don't have kids?

Or that I once was a kid? Is your point that all cable TV has to be sanitized to a level appropriate for a 10-year-old just in case your rebellious kid goes over to a friend's house and sees something racy that the friend's parents paid to subscribe to? Just because somebody else's kids might be rebellious and get into something too "mature" for them, the result has to be that I can't even pay to see adult content I want to see? Nope, I don't think so. A parent's job -- not the FCC's or the cable company's job -- is to teach kids values such that even if they do get exposed to "adult" materials, they'll stick to their values. The wingers want the government to protect them from "sin," but that's up to individuals. And if I want adult material on cable and I'm willing to pay for it, why must I be deprived of it just because other people can't or won't influence or educate their kids?

[mongo]

23. Nicely put N/T

[liveoaktx]

37. Thank you! It's a matter of exercising self-control and parental control

I don't need the stinking government to do my job as parent. If a parent wants to moderate children's viewing, and limit not only the time but the programs, it's possible to do with, say, Dish. Dish lets you block channels, password protect, and even remove the programming card that turns the whole thing on.

[KoKo]

38. It depends on the "age of your kids" as to when you expose them...and

it should be up to you to control it. That's what I'm saying. What a four year old can handles is different from a 9 year old ...and looking at it that way..you would say to me...OFGS...how can I segment my kids out that way.

And I SAY...it's your job as a parent to do it...to look at your kids and try to figure out what they can handle for their age...

And you would say to me: "My Kids are Okay and my older kids can "clue in the young ones" and I don't have time for this...and I trust my older ones to deal with it all.

And, I say: "NO...your job as a parent is to MAKE DISTINCTIONS!

And YOU Say: "Go F**k yourself, my kids are okay and great and YOU are STRANGE....

And, I say: :D

[Laurab]

31. Hey, I have kids

and I was a kid. No one really tried to control what I watched, however, my parents guided me, and if something was inappropriate, you can bet they didn't allow me to see it. I confess to "borrowing" x-rated books out of my dad's drawer when he wasn't home, but I think I turned out ok.

I didn't really try to control what my kids watched, either. If I thought something was inappropriate, they didn't watch it. It's called PARENTING. I was pretty lenient - kids are smarter than you think, and can understand more than most people give them credit for. My kids have turned out quite well without the government telling them what can be on tv.

Matter of fact, what's going on in this world today is a LOT worse than anything you'll find on tv - that's because they don't show THAT on tv. They're already policing our television with all their propaganda, now you want them to tell us what we can and can't watch? No thank you. Be a PARENT and your kids should be just fine.

[KoKo]

45. Wouldn't some time devoted to Children's Programming...be great, though?

Really good educational stuff done with an "edge" that fits the times they live in? Combining Science, Art, Literature?

Would you go for that? :shrug: Or, are you saying that they already have that?

[n2mark]

51. Search on your cable

there are many programs geared to young children on cable. There is cable for kids and there is cable for adults.

[Laurab]

62. I think they already have that

although it certainly wouldn't be a bad idea to have more. It would make sense to request programming you would like to see.

What I wouldn't like to see is the government controlling any more of the media than they already do. In my opinion, if you go along with that idea, you're basically asking to have everything you read, watch or listen to regulated by the government. This administration would be only too happy to oblige.

I would really prefer that we be able to regulate ourselves. Do you really want the Christian Right telling you what is okay for you to watch? They would love to control that, and they canNOT be trusted.

[thinkingwoman]

73. Sure it does

I have teenagers. Parents control what is watched in their homes and what values are taught.

As for hearing things from their friends...how is that going to change with cable censorship? Seriously?

There is no reason to "force" teens to give up cable. There's a lot of good on cable (ie the entire suite of discovery channels). Try using the v-chip. It works.

Meanwhile, your post indicates that you have more serious parenting issues. If you think you can keep your teens from being exposed to the real world, you are sadly mistaken. Try preparing them for it instead. Teach them to be discerning, and to think for themselves. Teach them to stand up to peer pressure. They'll thank you for it later.

Oh, and if they see a little T&A at their friend's house, they'll live through it, and so will you.

[Flammable Materials]

112. I'm a parent of 14 years.

I generally don't censor what my daughter can or can't watch or listen to. I do have discussions with her about what she watches and what she listens to. As a result, her taste in music and television is rather tame - there's no "forbidden fruit" aspect to it. Her favorite singer is Marilyn Manson (who I consider to be one of the more intellectual musicians of recent years) and her favorite TV show is "Degrassi".

I remember what it was like to have parents who said one thing and did another. I remember how I sought out everything that my parents didn't want me to see or hear (including Cheech & Chong records and hardcore porn - both of which my dad owned himself) because they were "forbidden". (Neither one of them scarred me for life, by the way.)

[FreedomAngel82]

63. I'm with you

Why should the government tell me what to watch and what not? If I wanna watch MTV by goodness I will and have the right too. What do these people want us to watch? Little kiddy shows and preaching?

[sendero]

4. Every bit of media..

.... should not have to be made childproof.

There are still plenty of channels that kids can watch unattended. That's enough.

[KoKo]

8. BUT! The kids who DO SEE IT...influence the KIDS THAT Don't?

As Parents and as a Society...if we cut off our Cable..we really aren't protecting our kids because their FRIENDS SEE IT ALL! So, we as "Parents" appear to our kids as "STRANGE."

If "WE" stand by our Principles our kids see us as not "Mainstream" becaus they can run over to their friends houses and watch what WE DENY THEM....

How can this be good for us? In the long run??? :shrug:

[mongo]

21. I don't doubt that you appear strange to your kids

You seem strange to me...

[KoKo]

36. Are you trying to do a comedy routine, here?

:D

[Tux]

24. Easy

Be a parent. Teach your kids morality, enforce it, and they will most likely, not always, stay away from it or at least understand it and move on. Parents, get a life. Our society shouldn't be reduced to kindergarden because you're too lazy to raise your kids.

[sendero]

28. Frankly...

.... out of the whole of TV that I look at, I can only think of a couple shows I won't let my kids watch.

If you find half of TV objectionable and raise your kids to not see it, you will be doing them and yourself a grave disservice that they will make you aware of within months of moving out on their own.

[n2mark]

30. I understand what you are saying

but doesn't that go for anything else? You might not have Playboy available in your house, but Playboy is available someplace. What are you going to do about this? Did you as a teenage male have Playboy hidden under your mattress? I'm not too sure how much we can protect our children because they are going to get the info through their peers. G rated programs on cable is not the answer. Perhaps this all comes down to parent/child communication.

It appears that TV, videos, movies, and CD's is the present day communication but we forget the one to one communication and that is the most important thing for our younger children. Open communication between parent and child should and must be encouraged in the family., The see no evil, hear no evil and speak no evil doesn't work anymore. We can't cover our eyes, we can't cover our mouth and we can't cover our ears. It is time for parents to uncover these three and watch, talk, and listen.

Forget the damn TV etc. just communicate!

[KoKo]

41. Excellent points.. and open dialog does alot to counter the "influence" of

friends...

So, I hear 'ya. And, there's no way that our kids would be immune from "every" influence.

But...my point is that the more you "lessen" the influences you have to "explain" the easier it is to be a parent. And with the disgusting cable controlled by the "Corporatists" our jobs as parents has become in "many cases" OVERWHELMING!"

I wish just reading "Playboy" under the covers with a flashlight was all it was these days.....:shrug:

[seabeyond]

58. respectfully because i like what you say

not good enough for me to say, it is not healthy for our kids, it isnt age appropriate for our kids, it is not a good example for our kids,.........but hey, there isnt much we could do about it so we need to just accept it and then

work our ass off as a parent to counter the crap the kids have been fed, cross fingers and hope for the best

again i like you post, lol lol could you tell. because i agree with you. as i said in a post below, a long time ago i set the line of what was ok to watch and what was not. i explained to the kids why i said no. they could see the reasoning and respected that. that has helped a lot in my raising the kids and able to trust them to monitor themselves.

it is about the parent. but as a parent, i think koko and i know my frustration, is man,...........it is getting worse and worse. about half a year ago, i thought we might soon just be getting rid of all tv's

if that is what is needed, that is what i will do. and i really dont care if i am preceived as strange. not about what others think, about the health and balance of my kids

[LynneSin]

88. I don't know Koko, my step-sister seems to do fine just by that

Maybe you should contact her and find out how she raised 2 teenagers in today society - 2 kids who are straight A students, active in activities and sure, probably have seen some naughty material from time to time although not in her house or their grandparents.

Stop demanding the government raise our children - learn to do it yourself!

[Oreo]

95. Your kids don't need to think you're cool or mainstream

That's not your job. You teach them what's right and wrong and then hope it sticks when they're away from you.

Sheltering your kids only hurts them in the long run.

And yes... I have a child.

I also have nephews who are brainwashed by my fundie sister. They can't watch Harry Potter. My 10 year old nephew was watching some very benign show and he said I shouldn't be watching this and turned on the friggin Antiques Roadshow. It was very sad because he was such a neat little boy before my sister got brainwashed.

[Willy Lee]

102. OK, I don't have kids.

I am not going to have kids. So should my viewing be censored out of curtesy to those who do have kids? I don't think so.

I understand your frustration, but it is not the governments job or place to take the roll of controlling what your kids can see on TV, that is YOUR job. And if it makes you look "strange" in the eyes of your kids, well, that is what you were getting in to when you decided to have kids!

[FreedomAngel82]

64. Yes

and you can have the cable box's now where you can block networks that you don't like and you can also leave the tv out of kids rooms and in a room where you, as the parent, will be around to monitor.

[politicaholic]

5. If I'm paying for it then stay out.

Any media, television, radio, the government should stay away from it all. If people don't want filth, then they won't watch, and the show will fail.

Television is for those with a severe lack of imagination anyway.

[FreedomAngel82]

65. They also have

raitings now for a reason.

[Uzybone]

6. Just turn it off

and quit whining. No one forces you to watch or even subscribe to cable. Or even own a TV. There is nothing "moral" about blaming TV for not teaching your kids good "morals".

[KoKo]

11. Turning it OFF, isn't the answer because it Pervaids our whole society...

When a cultural pervasive infiltrates and becomes the norm ..then how does one "socialize" one's children by depriving them of "Main Stream Media" that their contemporaries are watching?

Do we criticize our kids "friends parents" for being "overly indulgent" with "TV TIME?" Or do we "YELL FROM THE RAFTERS...TURN IT ALL OFF!!"

What "MODERN KID" would listen to their Parents telling them to just "TURN IT ALL OFF!!!" :shrug:

I wouldn't have....and I grew up way before this was all a problem.????'
:eyes:

[SemperEadem]

29. then what is your brilliant suggestion?

Yeah, any kid who is determined to see/read something their parents don't want them to is going to do it, no matter what the parent wants. The parent's job is to lay the foundation in their child of what is and isn't acceptable for their understanding--however, if the kid is curious enough to want to know, then guess what? They're going to find out.

This problem of certain segments of the population being exposed to material 'society' views as risque existed before cable/television or celluloid--this began when man put picture and words to stone or parchment. It means that as a parent, you're going to have to step up your game of vigilance on what they ingest, and not leave it to third parties or the government to do your job for you. So what that your kid doesn't consider you a 'friend' if you tell them to turn off the TV? You're a parent, not a buddy.

[KoKo]

44. Shouldn't we demand some time for Music, Art, Literature, sophisticated

beyond what they are getting today? Shouldn't we hope that when our kids are home in the afternoon and early evening that there's more quality than what they have offered which is purely "commercial" today?

Would you want better stuff for your kids... Sophisticated EDUCATION rather than "Sophisticated Commercialism" designed to make them want to buy, buy, buy...sign up for that "credit card" as soon as possible or do "hero worship" of the latest Sports Star or Female Sexual Object?

If your kids are littl....under 6 years old...you might think I'm "Way Out There!" but if they are older...are you having to deal with some of what I'm saying?

If it doesn't matter then...okayy...but to some of the rest of us it does...can we compromise?

[n2mark]

50. You are not going to stop your children or their friends believe me

I am a survivor of to two teenagers. Teens are curious. If answers are not available at home, they will search for them outside of the home. Think back when you were a teen. Did you forget you were once a teen?

I truly believe everything comes down to communication.

[applegrove]

7. I know what you mean. I get one station past the SEX Channel of

digital cable in Canada and there it is: FOX NEWS!

[mongo]

10. Yeah...Sure...right

More of the same crapola. Let's sanitize our society to make it appropriate for 8 year olds.

PSHAW back at ya!

[shraby]

14. Cable tv has umpteen channels.

Don't watch the ones you object to. If you don't want your children watching, don't let them. I had 4 and they didn't watch what I thought was inappropriate. Personally I think censorship is a slippery slope and I don't want to go there, and I certainly don't want 275 channels of Leave it to Beaver and Father Knows Best.

[mongo]

17. I was being sarcastic. I've sparred with this poster before

I mean, I sell porn for a living. I don't get too upset by what's on TV.

[KoKo]

34. I don't remember "sparring" with you...do you have links?

I'm sure I would remember. :shrug: But, I'm busy...so maybe I forgot.

[mongo]

40. Here you go

Here's one where you were saying the same thing 3 days ago

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=3185982

[KoKo]

48. Good...here's what I replied to you question on that thread...

This is an important topic to me.

------------


KoKo01 (1000+ posts) Sun Feb-27-05 10:42 PM
Response to Reply #11
14. Here's a little info on WHO REALLY Owns the Airwaves....{/b]



And, you need to remember that ALL members of a Democracy have a right to express their opinion about what goes out over the airwaves. That's Me as well as You...and "Compromise" is the best way of dealing with it. Right now one side has a huge advantage over the other...and I own those airwaves along with you... There's a big difference between "Buster, Sponge Bob and "gratuitious sex." Where's the big outcry over the Simpson's Gay Marriage? Silence. I don't have a problem with that...but the Fundies wanted Bob and Buster off. Equating everyone who want's some regulation with Fundies is very extreme, as you know..

------------------------
Ralph Nader on Technology


FCC is hapless agent in media regulation
These media moguls are doing all this on our property - the public airwaves - and paying us no rent for exclusive use of our property. Yet they are deciding who says what and who doesn't say what 24 hours a day. The public airwaves are the property of the American people. The FCC is our hapless, industry-indentured real estate agent that gives away the spectrum.
Source: In the Public Interest, "Giving Airwaves to Media Moguls" May 31, 2003

The media needs more diversity and competition
There remains the base of a large movement for recovering some diversity, localism and competition from the mass media. It is bad enough that about 90 percent of what is carried on television and radio is advertising and entertainment. Our country needs serious talk, more good reporters, and citizen access to the great but unseen and unheard talent in our land - from artists to candidates for office.
Source: In the Public Interest, "Giving Airwaves to Media Moguls" May 31, 2003

FCC gave away $70B in airwave licenses to large corporations
In 1996, Congress quietly handed over to existing broadcasters the rights to broadcast digital television on the public airwaves-a conveyance worth $70 billion-in exchange for. nothing.

Although the public owns the airwaves, the broadcasters have never paid for the right to use them. The FCC has recently begun to recognize the large monetary value of the licenses and typically auctions licenses. The 1996 Telecommunications Act, however, prohibited such an auction for distribution of digital television licenses, and mandated that they be given to existing broadcasters.

How to explain this giveaway, especially when other industries, such as the data transmission companies, were eager to bid for the right to use the spectrum? Look no further than the National Association of Broadcasters. The NAB are huge political donors & have close ties to key political figures.
http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:U9PDmacdT3gJ:www.i...

Not surprisingly, the nightly news was silent on this giant giveaway. It represents a failure of our working democracy
Source: Cutting Corporate Welfare, p. 17-18 Oct 9, 2000

Domain name registration needs openness to replace monopoly
The federal government currently contracts with Network Solutions, Inc. (NSI), to manage domain name registrations (including .com, .org, and .net). NSI’s monopoly on the valuable .com domain names has turned a tiny initial investment into a firm with market capitalization of $2.5 billion-thanks to control of the power to sell the public the right to use their own domain names. At no time did the government seek any competitive bids to determine the prices that consumers and businesses should pay for domain name registrations.

The federal government is now trying to find ways to introduce competition and replace the current NSI monopoly with something new. This new initiative raises a number of questions regarding its lack of accountability, and it is justified largely on the basis that the NSI monopoly needs to be “fixed.” But it is hard to see how the creation of a new unaccountable body constitutes a “fix.”

----------------------------------------------

From Make Them Accoutable website...questions about who owns the airwaves...


Hi, I’m Carolyn Kay with MakeThemAccountable.com



Last week, I got a message from liberal talk show host Peter Werbe that his show, available on the i.e.america radio network, has been dropped by a conservative station owner in Santa Cruz, California. I put out an alarm, asking people to write to the station owner, and I found out to my surprise that some people don’t realize that we own the airwaves. Not rich people who can go around buying radio stations.

Here are some of the messages and replies.

From Chito

I support Werbe's position on the Shrub, of course. But isn't that a private station and therefore in complete control of their programming? Or does the FCC license obligate them to broadcast a balanced repertoire because of something similar to the public access regulations for cable?

My response

WE own the airwaves, Chito. You and me. There once was a Fairness Doctrine that required those who use OUR airwaves to report both sides on controversial issues. That law was repealed during the Reagan administration, and part of the understanding was that no one media outlet had to provide alternative voices or alternative points of view, since those would be reflected in other outlets in the community.

Well, I live in Chicago, where we voted overwhelmingly for Al Gore. The conservative suburbs came very close to voting for Gore, also. But we have two newspapers that are both conservative, and one talk radio station that has three hours of liberal programming PER WEEK. The rest is right-wing promotion of hatred for everything they don't believe in.

We the citizens own the airwaves. We license the right to use those airwaves to private parties like the owners of KOMY, and we have the right to demand certain things from them in return. The demands we've made in the past have been eroded over the years by Mau Mau tactics from the right wing. I think it's time we stood up and took our rights back.

Chito wrote back and gave me a quote from a website he was directed to by the station owner.

>>With some 25,425* FCC licensed broadcast outlets in the country, there exists plenty of opportunity for all viewpoints without the heavy hand of government forcing "fairness."

Sure, there exists plenty of "opportunity" of "fairness." But there is no fairness.

If the number 25,425 is correct, it becomes even more ludicrous that so little liberal talk is available. Take a look at my Unconservative Listening page, and you'll see what I mean. There are so few faces on that page that it would never occur to you just looking at it that half a million more voters voted for Gore than for Bush last year.

Go to MakeThemAccountable.com/listening to see what I mean. That’s MakeThemAccountable.com/listening.
http://makethemaccountable.com/listening/index.htm

------------------------------
Can CBS Deny Access to Issue Ads?
From Andrew Somers,
Your Guide to Civil Liberties.
FREE GIFT with Newsletter! Act Now!
The Airwaves Are Owned by the Public - Not Corporations.
By Andrew Somers

Last week we discussed the issue of CBS censoring the "advocacy ads" of certain political action groups during the Superbowl. I received a number of emails regarding that issue, some claiming that CBS, as a corporation, has the "civil right" to deny airing the ads paid for by those groups.

The response to this contention, is no. Corporations are not persons or citizens. Corporations are not able to vote in elections, and have no special rights protected by the constitution. The U.S. Constitution makes no mention of any civil right therein being extended to a corporation.

But more to the point, CBS is using the public airwaves for interstate commerce. The public, not CBS, owns the airwaves, and CBS is granted the right to use them for commercial broadcasting. In the Communications Act of 1934, broadcast entities were required to allow for access for opposing views, as broadcasting is a public forum. Theoretically, CBS claims that it broadcasts no ads of a controversial or "issue related" nature, and thus need not provide any access to "issue" ads.
The upshot: CBS is using airwaves, that we the people own. CBS is a corporation and not a real person, having no "real" rights other than those that we the people grant them. One should consider the first amendment for a moment - the need for we the people to be exposed to issues is a critical component of our socio-political system. A public forum, such as the public broadcast mediums, must provide at least equal access to issues.

No one is suggesting that CBS offer ad time for free, but denying advertising because they disagree with the message is a violation of the public trust. A trust WE give them to use the airwaves WE own.

http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:15enkGSMHbMJ:civil...


Ideals are like stars..............
------------------------------------------------------------------------

MONDO's POST:

TV shows become successful because people want to watch


them. I find fear factor especially distasteful, but I don't think that we need to organize a boycott, or write congress about it.

Your cries of too much gratuitous sex are no different than the fundies keeping the PBS buster cartoon from being aired because it showed a lesbian family in a positive light, or Robin Williams skit being pulled from the Oscars tonight because it made fun of Dobson's views.

Freedom of the Press. In whatever form it takes, our airwaves need to have Diversity. We OWN OUR AIRWAVES...

We don't really own the airwaves. The government grants licenses to companies for a particular frequency because it is a finite resource. The media companies then develop programs hoping that they can attract viewers.

If "we" did own the airwaves, then your cries for "diversity" would be drowned out by the fundies cries for "traditional values". They have more money and are better organized than the humanist left. There would be nothing more than spin-offs of Leave it to Beaver and Touched by an Angel on TV.

Face it, TV is what it is because that's what people want to watch. When you cry out that TV is bad, M-kay, and decide that it should be changed to meet your values, you are no different from the fundie right who would sanitize our society so that everything is appropriate for an 8yo.

[KoKo]

49. Dupe..........

[mongo]

53. and I ain't gonna answer this one either

gotta get the trash together and get the store ready to close. Been here since 12 noon.

[KoKo]

16. You know.....there are 8-year olds who really "GET" what's going on....

so I wouldn't be so quick to trash them....

Art, Music, Cultural Experience over .."Celebrity Trash, Bush Propaganda, and Chris Mathews for "Political Dialog?"

How could you want a kid of yours to watch that "trash?" A "Discussion" with "both sides" is one thing...but where would you find that on "Cable TV" these days???

There's nothing but PROPAGANDA! Do you want your "kid/kids" watching that crap???:shrug:

[globalvillage]

12. I agree

HGTV is just full of filth. Dirt everywhere. Planting gardens, digging holes in the ground to build houses. Disgusting.
Down with cable!!!

[mongo]

15. Ha!

Just wait until Modern Marvels does a show on the history of sanitation.

Can you imagine the filth?

[KoKo]

20. I have a much longer "perspective than you, maybe." I remember

some attempt at "Quality Programming for Kids," mandated before Reagan got rid of the "Fairness Doctrine."

But...Hey...you maybe are raising your kids much more "realistically" than I did....

Not trashing you as you think, here. Loved your "counter" to my post..

I know you wont believe that! :evilgrin:

[globalvillage]

32. No offense,

but you may want to catch the special "Living with Quotation Marks" on the Punctuation Channel. I think it's channel 876.
Seriously, there is a lot of "stuff" (kidding) on TV that's not appropriate for children. Your cable company offers a parental control feature if you have a box. If not, your TV probably has one. I don't think the answer is to deprive them of the really great things that can be found on Discovery Channel, Animal Planet, History Channel, Travel Channel, etc.
It's tough raising kids, isn't it? I feel your pain.
Got to go, Law and Order is on.

[daisygirl]

47. Great points

Cable TV stations are so segmented and specialized now that the stations you mentioned are primarily where the educational programming is now. Nickelodeon is about entertaining kids, not educating them.

And if a person's cable/satellite receiver doesn't have controls, every TV 13 inches or more manufactured in the US from 1/1/2000 on has a V chip. V chip fact sheet: http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/vchip.html

[mongo]

39. Quality programming for kids

like The Three Stooges or Tom & Jerry? Do you think that all TV was Leave it to Beaver before Reagan?

[KoKo]

18. You must have "amazing kids" who watch "HGTV" all day...and I

give them credit if they do...:thumbsup:

[Tux]

26. Down with TCN!

[Tux]

22. OK

Apparently parents don't want to parent. This is done to death on Slashdot but I'll do it here.

Parents complained about TV shows nat having a rating system. They get one.
Then they complain about the lack of ability to block them. Thus the v-chip is installed in most TVs if not all so parents can filter content based on ratings. Then they complain again and want to block channels. Once they get that, they are still complaining. Sell your TV and be done with it. Be an adult and parent your kids. TV is not a parent. Repeat that 50 times.

Leave the rest of us alone. If TV shows are that bothersome, a pistol will solve the problem.

[KoKo]

59. A "pistol will solve that problem?" You think I'm Hunter Thompson, here?

Sheesh....that's really kind of a nasty reply. You do realize this is "GENERAl DISCUSSION POLITICS FORUM"...don't you? DISCUSSION....? Do you know what that word means?

You say my last resort is a "pistol." :crazy:

[northzax]

120. I believe it was a suggestion to pull an Elvis

and shoot the TeeVee.

I reiterate what everyone else has told you. Censorship only makes things more interesting for kids. THe banned shows are the best. Teach your children the difference between right and wrong and send them out into the world.

It has never been easy being a parent. I went to a school were most kids had TVs in their bedrooms. I somehow survivied without one. Most kids had cable. I somehow made it through. Most had cars. yet somehow I survived. And even got to watch a little porn. big freakin deal.

relax and trust that you have taught your children well by your example and your life. Get them a library card instead of a TV. they'll live, I promise. Kids lived for, geez, it must be a generation or two in the past without cable. yours, too, will make it.

By the way, I saw your bit in ask the admins and thought I'd address it. The admins get away with 'censoring' the lounge and other sites because they own this website and therefore can do exactly what they want with it. They could decide tommorow to only allow discussion of cats, and we'd have to go along with it. And I will defend their decision to do so, on their own property, as quickly as I would defend their right ot not do so. Think of it like your living room. You can paint your living room bright pink, it that's what floats your boat. But once the government tells you to paint it pink, that is unnaceptable. I routinely see gay people walking down the street wearing some insignia that identifies them as gay (rainbow, triangle or the like) they choose to do that. Once someone tells them they have to, I object. Difference between private and public property. The Supreme Court has ruled that, for several reasons, the federal government hasa legitimate interest in maintaining public decency on the bradcast spectrum. That right does not extend to non-broadcast (cable or satellite) and it shouldn't. ever. The only censorship that I will accept is that of the market. If people stop watching crap, the crap will go away. try it.

[FreedomAngel82]

67. Exactly

If you're so worried about your kids and t.v. just don't have cable or let them watch t.v. a lone. Everybody parents their kids differently and each kid is different.

[daisygirl]

25. You can't expect

the culture of our entire society to change to suit you. Get a grip.

You can control what your children watch. You cannot control what other people's children are allowed to watch, nor should you be able to control it as they are not your children. Just as you wouldn't want other people making those decisions about your children, you shouldn't be allowed to make them about other people's children.

What are you asking for, exactly? State-run television?

You can't expect that your children won't be influenced by other children. If you want your kids to be safe from all those corrupt children who are allowed to watch such filth on television, you might consider moving to a deserted island.

[KoKo]

42. No...I'm asking for the "standards for Childrens Programming" to go back

to what it when the FCC regulated a certain amount of programming per day to be devoted to "Children's Programming" and there so much EDUCATIONAl STUFF we could do that our kids would get involved with ...if the Corporatists would support it...the way they did when I grew up with TV and there really was CHILDRENS PROGRAMMING...MANDATED!

When Reagan threw out "Fairness Doctrine" and Poppy an then Clinton allowed FCC De-Reg to Rule...we lost one of the best ways to reach our kids and enlighten them...

We could be doing great things in Programming for our kids of all ages...and what's out there today? It's CRAP!

Nothing about Arts, Music, Science, Physics or Creativit and Invesnitons or Environment...It's all Crap Commercialism to sell. Like Donald Trum doing "How to be a Millionaire" and some comedy "cartoon shows."

We are not providing our kids with stuff to "stretch their minds." Only to get their "hormones raging" or to "attract raging hormones" long before it's time for that...:shrug:

[daisygirl]

43. But your original post title talked about

(and I quote) " The damned "Filth" on Cable"

The FCC doesn't regulate cable, just broadcast TV and radio. The fairness doctrine (as far as I know) never applied to cable, just broadcast TV and radio.

And back when I was a kid in the 70s and 80s, I don't recall much of what you might describe as quality programming on TV (broadcast--we didn't get cable until I was older) apart from PBS (and I did watch a fair amount of PBS). The other stations didn't show much kids' programming apart from cartoons and the occasional afterschool special. And while the afterschool specials were ostensibly educational, they were so dumb and poorly done that I wouldn't watch them even when I was pretty young.

(edited for clarity)

[KoKo]

54. I was exposed to better...but I know what you say...wouldn't you want

it to be better, though? And I mean for ALL of us... My old parents can't find anything to watch anymore. And almost every age group "unless one is 20 something and the companies want you to "max" your credit card" is left out of programming on Networks and Cables today. Even HGTV is selling something and the shows are geared to that. Re-decorate your house...couples buy a "million dollar Condo" in CA to Flip it to make profit...there are some "food shows" but who can get off forever on "food shows?" :shrug:

Travel is all over the place...there's little consistancy where you can find info over someone in your wallet trying to get you to "spend, spend, spend."

We can do better than this...that's what I'm saying.

BTW...I thought some of the old ABC "After School Specials" were pretty good when Senate cracked down and made the Networks put some programming on that appealed to pre-teens. If you didn't like them..then okay.. I guess they were tame...but some kids are okay with tame.. They did have a moral and pointed out stuff kids were going through.

After the 1997 Telecommunications Act...it all got tossed out. Seems Cables and Networks didn't have to do anything but have MTV/VH-! and Cartoon/SciFi networks to satisfy "Children's Programming" Requirements to keep their licenses. WE, THE PEOPLE" Own the Airwaves...we've forgotten that in the Repug Frenzy.

I said "Cable" in my post...because I can't get local channels without cable...I live in a "poor reception area." So My Time/Warner is my sole provider of TV Medium. That's why I didn't differentiate Cable from Network. I can't get reception for one without the other where I live. And, it's all crap to me since the Chimp came in...although it was going downhill since '97..IMHO. :shrug:

I just think we as a Nation should be doing better to inform our kids and since we OWN the AIRWAVES why shouldn't our kids have access to something more educational in a way that's "catchy" and helps them want to know more...increase their interest in learning Just think of all the creative writers just dying to do this...but there's no funding when the "Corporate Sponsors" just want our kids hooked on credit...

That's what I was trying to say, here. And, it means alot to me or I wouldn't be "beating a dead horse on this thread against those who think I just want "censorship" and am a "Freep/Troll" or worse for saying I think it's all "filth." :shrug:

[daisygirl]

93. Would I want it to be better? Sure. But would I want

to legislate that it be "better"? Better by whose definition? Yours? Mine? Bush's? James Dobson's?

And if you don't legislate it, how do you plan to force a change?

I for one don't believe it's a good idea to rely on the government to enforce what it believes to be "quality" children's television. Not any government--but especially not this one.

And frankly, I did have much better than that. I had books. I watched some TV for entertainment, maybe an hour a day tops. But I read all the time. I spent hours at the library. You want quality educational and entertainment material for your kids? Take them to a library. Get them to check out a bunch of books and videos every week. Then limit their TV watching to stuff you think is appropriate.

IMO, all TV is candy, even when it's educational. It's a passive, visual medium that doesn't require active participation the way reading does.

[KoKo]

60. Sorry for typo's ...couldn't edit...too late. I have cat hairs in my keys

and some keys stick so I have to go back over...Creativity and Inventions or Environment is what I was trying to say...and I had to type this twice to overide the "sticky cat haired keys.." sorry...

[FreedomAngel82]

68. Maybe you miss these networks

Nickeloden and Noggin. They're both really great networks. You can check out Noggin at http://www.the-n.com You have to special order the network. They have lots of good kid programs out there. You just have to look for it. If not just buy the DVDs out there or Video's.

[Comicstripper]

27. Is English your first language?

I'm not trying to insult you, just curious.
And I see what you're saying. I don't agree, but I see it.

[KoKo]

33. As far as I know....English is my "first language." ......

LOL's ...I have no idea what your point is in this post...but yeah.. it is..:D

Now....if you want me to give you an idea of how long..I and my family have been here in the USA...then I'll answer you with a list of my ancestors and when they arrived in the "New World"...but I don't think you were asking for that...were you? :shrug:

[Comicstripper]

117. I was wondering why your grasp of English seems to be limited

and whether or not you have spoken English since you were old enough to talk.

[Cha]

35. Cancelled mine in 2002..the day

after the elections. If no one is watching..are they still relevant?

[seabeyond]

46. koko i agree

kids watching cartoon network and had commercial on. dont know what it was about but could hear my 9 year old griping about people being naked and he didnt want to see it. the 9 and 12 year old went thru discussion how those shows are on 12 at nite so kids didnt see.

havent gotten back to them to find out what this one was about

watch history channel and get to hear how jefferson was a playboy
watch animal planet watch a girl in a shower having orgasm
watch family channel movie get a denteyn commercial teenager strips mount boyfriend in front of parent

but it is ALL the parents fault

we hardly watch tv. we watch no evening primetime shows. i have movies. but we just dont watch much tv. i have been teaching kids from 2 how culture is conditioning them in all ways, to not like their parents, to sexuality at 5, to anger all the time, to honor stupid

my kids at 7 and 9 know. they dont want to see it. they turn it off

i am wiht you koko. and this is what a lot of democrats say, why are people seeing republican as family value. because families want help, they want people to understand though this is their world, it is kids world too. and it is becoming more and more hard to raise kids with this trash and filth

[KoKo]

52. I know...it's a jungle...thanks for saying your experience. I think so

many of us are fighting this...but we think we are alone. It's not just the programming it's the commercials, too!

If we Dems don't wake up and say...some of this just really is inappropriate to folks trying to raise children and yet not coddle them...then the Repugs will always win. We always get into arguments of "censorship" but my experience is what your's is...It's hard to find some good stuff out there...Educational..but done in a way to appeal to kids without having to involve "skin and sex."

It's all I was trying to say. :shrug:

[Willy Lee]

103. Don't confuse democrats with parents!

I am a democrat, not a parent, so this is more of a censorship issue to me. I don't like censorship. I just don't get your logic... the repugs will win if we don't stand up for parents who don't want to control what their kids watch on TV?

[FreedomAngel82]

69. Uhm

I don't think the animal planet network would have orgasm's on there. A family friend of my immediate family has two little kids and one of them adores animal planet and this is a family I know from my church. I think you're being really out there on that. Cartoon network is really good in the day up until around 3pm eastern when the older kids get off school and want something to watch. Same for Nickeloden and Noggin. I'm sick and tired of whining. Turn it off! Don't tell me what to watch. The government is not my father.

[Bride of Cthulhu]

121. Your so right.

i have watched hours of animal planet and have never seen anything even remotely similar to what seabeyond claims. and my roommate concurs. if someone doesn't like whats on don't watch.i refuse to put up with the disnyfication of TV programing.they will take away my CSI ' Law and Order etc over my dead body. :mad:

[fishwax]

101. we hardly watch tv

"we hardly watch tv"

An excellent strategy for raising children. Mandating what other parents can watch with their children on their cable service, on the other hand, is not an excellent strategy for running a country.

The most important thing, I think, is that parents talk to their kids as you seem to. Given appropriate information from their parents, kids can integrate a whole lot of experience into their worldview. I commend you for that. I know other parents who take the same approach, but they don't have much concern if their kids find out on the History channel that Jefferson was a playboy, since they've provided a context for kids to understand such things. And their kids turn out fine too :)

I understand parent's concern, but I think the proper approach is to not watch or to discuss things with the children. I'm just too leary of government leeway in determining what's appropriate for people to watch on cable.

[ldf]

55. you don't want to watch it?

then turn the damn thing off!

YOU will never decide for ME what I will watch.

if you can't handle that, try moving to some country where the fundamentalists do control absolutely everything. we may be almost to that point, now, but they don't have complete control yet.

i will fight you tooth and nail.

:grr:

[KoKo]

56. But, what are you fighting me for? What is it you think I want to take

away from you? :shrug: Aren't you painting with a very broad brush with one color, here?

[seabeyond]

57. why does it have to be like this

when did the battle become with the children for you? why do you not even have a willingness to listen to what some of the issue may be? and why do you have to be so mean when posting your opinion?

are you watching any of the children programming channels? are you insisting that no improvements are made on those channels that will help a parent in raising children instead of hindering them? or maybe be a little more observant of the commercials on those kids oriented channel so they arent learning about taking a pill to give their penis a hard on, or a teenager mounting her boyfriend in front of parents? Why couldnt the first hour of prime time be more conservative?

there is plenty of trash for all that wants it. no one is suggesting taking away anyones porn. or watching people swap partners, eating bugs, whatever

does any of this really interfer with your life at all, or is this just a knee jerk reaction from you

[FreedomAngel82]

70. I'm tired of

parents who want the government to do their jobs. There's plenty of techonlogy out there to keep kids away from channels you don't like. I know you're (seabeyond) aren't talking to me but this will effect lives all over. Do you want to just watch little kid networks and preaching all day? No. Why don't people understand there is a little thing called the "off" button?! :argh:

[ldf]

99. you are trying to take

six feet under
deadwood
carnivale
queer as folk

and, damnit

SPONGEBOB!

the only quality tv is on premium cable. premium, you know do know what that means, don't you?

i am willing to PAY for it. if you don't want to see "cable" then don't PAY for it.

comprehendamundo?

screw network tv. with the exception of will and grace, it's the pits. (ok, my standards may slip a little for Just Jack!)

and i DO like my fab five and gal pals.

so HANDS OFF!

and quite frankly, you have children, you make the necessary sacrifices to raise them as you see fit. their effect on my life is nonexistant. i will not childproof MY life for YOUR children.

once again, :grr:

and while you're at it, have a nice damn day. :-)

[ldf]

116. why don't YOU go back and read the post starting this thread.

this is the same crap the republicans are trying to pass off as "cleaning up" our entertainment. otherwise known as censorship.

are you calling the shows that i listed pornography? then you sure don't know what is out there, and you are confusing cable, with the internet.

and no, i do NOT watch the kiddie channels, or shows, why would i? (ok, with the exception of spongebob, but you know, we fags got to stick together...)

i don't have kids, i don't want kids, i don't have kids coming to my place so i DON'T have to "childproof" every aspect of my life for the sake of the precious kids.

guess what! I DON'T THINK THE WORLD REVOLVES AROUND KIDS!! even though i WAS one, once. :crazy: as i said, you have the kids, you make the sacrifces. i'll do my part by paying taxes to make sure they get an education, etc., etc.

but back to my diatribe.

oh, you are trying to call "pay per view" pornography. well, YES. IT IS!

did i mention anything about that? no i did not, but you know, if i want to watch it, that is my business, not yours. afterall, i have to take special steps to request and pay for it. so i KNOW what i am getting. (i have actually never in my life requested a pay per view, but that is not the point. i HAVE watched porno, though. and i liked it.)

if your precious children have access to pay per view, then i think the problem lies with you, not the rest of us.

eating bugs and swapping partners? try fox, thank you. and THAT is not cable.

so trot out your tired excuses somewhere else, preferably on some republican site, where they belong.

and call it kneejerk if you want to. i think a better interpretation would be anger at selfrightous asses who are insisting everything revolve around them.

well, guess what! it ain't agonna happen.

and, please, do have yet another nice day, now. ya heah?

yet once again :grr:

[otohara]

61. But What About HBO

and Comedy Central, IFC - Just don't watch corporate media whores

[Enquiringkitty]

66. This is where parental guidance comes in. Shows like these are

good to open a discussion with your kids. That is what I did with my son. We talked about what was on and judged it for what it was, a movie, not real life. When it was sex, we talked about real women and what they want in a man and what real men want in a woman. When it was violent, we talked about how violence really effects a person both the aggressor and the victim.

My personal thought about what is shown on any type of TV service is that people will complain about sex on TV but they don't seem to want to speak frankly to their kids about it. Violence on TV and in video games seems to be fine ... fathers play the games with their kids. Why is it we don't want them to have any contact with something we hope one day they will do (sex) and we don't mind them having contact all day long with something we hope our kids never do or experience (violence) We seem to be teaching them how to do what we hope they never do and we leave them on their own about something that one day will make us grand parents.

[FreedomAngel82]

71. I agree

That doesn't make sense either. :shrug: Why don't they go after some of these violent video games out there? Why is it just sex? Sure I understand about that and some of it is disgusting and bad I think too but you never hear anything out of the video games. There's tons of war games out there now too. :shrug: But all this government controlling the tv waves is a form of taking away freedom of speech. If they take that way they'll go after our airwaves next and then books. Then we'll have NOTHING.

[tkmorris]

72. Koko I sympathize, and I think you're being misunderstood

Try not to blame them, your original post was a bit umm, disjointed? I had some difficulty pinning down exactly how you felt myself. After reading the whole thread though I think I get the picture.

We have had exactly the same issues with our 3 girls, all teens now, over the last several years. There is a TON of crap on television that we don't want them watching, at least not until they understand it. Some of it is just plain too adult for younger children but to be honest we have worried at least as much about the blatant propaganda being forced down their throats. Of course, as you mentioned, their friends have been granted free reign from their parents to watch anything they feel like, starting with MTV and ending on the Exstasy channel.

Our solution? We said no. A lot. They cried, they got mad, they accused us of child abuse, everything you can imagine. We still just said no. You are correct of course in what you imagine their friends will think of them. And of us. Most of the "normal" people in our neighborhood, kids and parents alike, think we are the weirdest family they know. The kids usually start out believing we are some kind of fundamentalist Christians but later, when they discover we are in fact Atheists, their little heads explode. Their parents you see, the ones who are never home and are perfectly fine with letting them watch whatever their little hearts desire, ARE in fact Christians as a rule. They can't quite figure that one out, but since they are the majority they are thus the normal ones and our girls are obviously the strange ones.

No problem. Our daughters don't always like being the strange ones, but they have begun to discover ways in which they are better for it. They can smell a sales pitch 10 miles away and they are often puzzled by the fads and fashion trend their counterparts are always falling for. Two of them have become vegetarians, completely out of the blue, because my wife and I are most definately not. And so on.

They do watch television, and are allowed to watch much more variety wise than they used to be, since they are getting older. But they don't seem to have any desire whatsoever to watch what their contemporaries do anymore. Our youngest seems to have lost the desire to watch much of anything, preferring to read or play The Sims on her computer. Our middle daughter watches some soccer with me and otherwise stays glued to the Food Network. That's right, the Food Network. She is a huge fan of Alton Brown (Good Eats) and watches The Iron Chef every night.

We sometimes wonder if we haven't done them a tremendous disservice by raising them to be so different than other kids but I don't think so. I hope not at least.

I've been rambling I know but I guess what I really am trying to say is to not be afraid to be a parent. There is plenty out there to keep your kids away from but the answer is not to try to eliminate it from the world, the answer is to just be there as a parent and say "NO!", at least not yet, and raise them as best you can. Monitor what they do, even at their friends houses, and the hell with what anyone thinks. Then as they DO grow up let them take charge of things, you'll be surprised.

Good luck Koko.

[ldf]

119. excellent post, tkm

it does fall to the parents to take the time and effort to KNOW what their children do and watch, at least as much as humanly possible.

allowing them exposure, when they are ready, is what is necessary in order to try to allow them to grow into the whole, caring individuals they will hopefully become.

explaining things honestly and openly to them when they ask about it, and can understand it, will allow them to get the parent's views. and hopefully the kids will both understand, and appreciate the effort for openness and honesty on the parent's part.

i'm only speaking for myself, but i do believe the rest of us non kid owners do respect that tremendously. raising children is a huge task to take on.

i certainly don't think i could do it, and have never had the slightest inclination. being gay has nothing to do with it.

i think we all have to respect each others spaces, and come to solutions without literally throwing the baby out with the bath water, a la grover norquist.

and anything "norquist" just makes me want to :puke:

[The Flaming Red Head]

74. Which channel is the filth on? I'm bored as hell.

I see like 5 or 6 channels of nothing but religious broadcasting, if that qualifies as filth then I'm with you brother.

[Bridget Burke]

75. Cancelling cable is your decision.

I've got digital cable. There are half a dozen channels for kids--younger & older. Also serious science, history & culture programming.

The cable box also allows you to "block" any channel you wish.

I'm not a parent but I sympathize with someone dealing with teenagers. It appears that your issues go beyond what they see on TV. Is there a parenting forum here where you can discuss this difficult time & perhaps get some hints?

Edited to add: You used the word "Damn" in your headline; there are those who would find objection to that word.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

76. You could try changing channels. Works for me.

There's a lot of trash on TV but it's rather simple to avoid, change channels, turn it off, read a book.

As for your kids "being out of it", who are the parents in your household? You might try, "No. You can't watch that."

[seaglass]

77. Are you backing Ted Stevens bill to impose decency standards

on cable just as they do on broadcast networks?

I'm sorry but with the ability to block shows by title, rating and channel, parents have a responsibility to take responsibility.

I have 2 teenagers and there have been many times when my kids have been exposed to material that I would not expose them to in my home.

The first time my daughter heard the word f*ck was on the school bus when she was in kindergarten - should I have stopped her from taking the bus?

What about when your kid first heard from someone else that there was no Santa Claus?

I would have loved to have been able to protect my kids from the devastation of September 11, to me that was far more mind-shaping than hearing an obscenity or seeing someone half-naked on tv.

It would be nice (I guess) to keep our kids in a protective bubble to shield them from the world - but it is not possible.

[seabeyond]

87. my son forgets, a lot

last nite he told me today is different from yesterday. we have more things we have to think about. the world. the battles. yes, 9/11

i agree with the 9/11. my child was only six, had just started first grade, away from me all day, was just getting comfortable, and bam. really started twisting hair then, sleeping with us at nite. for a lot of months

i say we dont have to give up. i say we do have a voice. i say, we can do something

is it supporting this mans ban, no, i say be a democrat, and opposing force. challenge them. what a concept, lol lol (feeling funny)

i say we say, quit being an ass. some of the reasonable things we can do is...........

not put soft porn commercials on sunday afternoon network tv. appropriate commercials on kid channels. go after the viagra industry shame them.

[qanda]

78. The funniest thing I heard in a long time

Was from a lady on C-SPAN. She was talking about how people around the world knew that America was coming to help them. She said, "They're smart, they watch tv." Whoa boy... Funny stuff.

[sadiesworld]

79. I can appreciate your frustration.

Although I don't have children, you echo a lot of what my child-rearing friends have to say. In reading the posts on this thread, I have to ask: Where is the concern for overburdened and cash-strapped two-income and single-parent households? I thought the dems wanted to help middle-class families caught in a time, money, inter-generational crunch. I also thought liberals bemoaned the cultural wasteland that is turning US citizens into mindless consumers. Who knew?

Back when I used to give a (half a) shit about celebrities, I would watch them on various talk shows. Invariably, they would say they either forbid TV outright or only allow their children to watch in small, well-regulated doses. Of course, they make enough money off feeding this crap to YOUR children to afford top-notch childcare, the latest monitoring devices, and pricey alternative entertainment.

This could have been an interesting thread.

[seabeyond]

85. a lot of what my child-rearing friends

translates to a lot of voters

[DrGonzoLives]

81. Uhhhhhhh OK

Have fun.

[IrateCitizen]

82. I agree with you on this one, KoKo01!

This is an area in which I find myself also in confluence, if not outright agreement, with groups like the Family Research Council. The main disagreement is in the details -- they object to the "sex", whereas I object to the advertising methods and commodification of everything.

The vast majority of stuff on TV now is complete CRAP! I watch episodes of "All in the Family" sometimes on TVLand, and wonder where in the hell shows like that are today. For those that trumpet the likes of the Discovery channel and TLC, I'll say that for every decent program they have on, it's outnumbered by at least 5 other relatively worthless ones like Trading Spaces or Monster Garage or the like.

I don't even have kids yet, and I'm already anxious as to how I'm going to monitor them with this. Basically, I'd recommend changing to just network channels and public access -- PBS still has some GREAT educational programming. And for the most part, sit down beforehand and figure out what shows you want to watch each week, and leave the TV off outside of those times. My biggest problem with cable TV and satellite is that it's just a time vacuum. It's all too easy to just sit down and flip through the channels 5 or 6 times when you can't think of anything better to do. It's best to remove the temptation. After all, if you were quitting smoking, you wouldn't keep a pack of cigarettes on the counter at all times, would you?

[seabeyond]

84. my kids love tvland

this is one area that they say we had better in our time than their time. actually they are finding others too. not having bush. lol lol and the wars adn taking away from rights. we were increasing rights in the 60's and 70's, now we are taking them away

my first was young. i didnt much notice before having children. i watched what i wanted. i watched an andi griffin. and sat thru the show and got sad. it was nice. people were nice. nice wasnt a bad or discouraged thing. and i thought about the reality of the people in that time and i feel we were just nice, more

the programming today is to present anger and stupid as valid behavior. it is so convincing, that our children are saying dumb is cool. bush of course encourages.

when kids were little i would have a show on and say, ok we will see. and immediately the character was angry or being stupid. i would tell them no and why. they saw it. wasnt hard for them to value the shows that were in love, peace, funny humor nice. kids will go to this if this is what they are given

my issue too is the commercial. and i think that is our political advantage

[IrateCitizen]

89. Many psychologists say NO TV for kids less than 2 years old...

This amazes me even more when I look at my nephews, who both grew up with TV's in their rooms from about 18 months on!

The other day, I visited my inlaws with my wife and my 3.5 year old nephew was there. While I was trying to engage him and play with him, he couldn't take his attention away from the TV. Then, my FIL -- his grandfather -- remarks about how he's just been watching TV all day, how he's mesmorized by it! All I could do is shake my head.... I wonder how many advertisements he's been exposed to in that time....

TV isn't evil for kids. I watched TV while growing up, and I turned out OK. But it needs to be SEVERELY limited. Having 70-80 channels or more doesn't help in this regard. And it's hard for already overstretched parents to monitor what their kids watch every second of every day. It wasn't like this only 15-20 years ago when I was growing up.

[seabeyond]

83. you really, really can turn the chan with prog...political advantage

i just dont have a lot of issue, not cause there is any good programming, there is very little. it is effecting our youth in those homes where it isnt addressed. it does make it harder for children's parent that doesnt allow, because we have to address it from outside world. but, i certainly see the advantage in talking this from the time kids started focusing on tv. today, they arent much interested in tv, and are selective. so really was a help to my family. (higher in all things), but......i do acknowledge that it has hit a lot of our youth, and has retarded their growth in certain ways, and we as a society will deal with the repercussion. just like i am with my 16 yr old niece right now. not having parents that addressed this as she grew, or talked her thru it, and allowed influx of all media

but dont you see the political advantage to wrestle some of the family value from the right. and how much will it really effect your life. for me the issue is not in the programming, it is the commercial. commercial you dont have control to turn off and if you dont believe, i can express sppecifically why that is taken away

the right that are yelling so loud about sponge bob and meg outing (we dont watch those two shows, not kids appropriate in my mind), what fools they look that their own people, supporters, fincancially are the ones creating such a mess for so many parents. and the right and the churches keep quiet. the most outrageous is coor in colorado running for senate on family values as he feeds the most perverse sexuality to gain a buck. and no one jumped on the hypocrisy.

it is not the programming folks, it is the commercial. they are republicans

it is the republicans that are being the whatever hollywood is preceived as

i am not discussing the prude, the censor, the anger, the parent issue


i am talking a political talking point that is valid and reasonable. that a lot of parent voters feel strongly about. that is clear. not hard to prove.

against corporation

why isnt this a good democratic agenda

john edwards thought so, but then he is raising little ones watching the viagra commercials.

[LynneSin]

86. While you're at it read some 1984 and find new ways our goverment...

...can control us.

No way in hell I will support this and I will fight YOU every step of the way if you post this on DU. Not that you don't have the right to post it, but when you do you also have the right to have the rest of DU remind you about censorship and what a slippery slope all this anti-morality censhipship crap will get us.

We allow the government to censor all forms of TV/Radio and who knows what they'll do next. I don't want to live in a lifetime where I have to find out.

My step-sister has 2 teenage boys who are the best kids out there dispite having cable TV, internet, etc. Why? Because her and her husband spend quality time with those kids along with their grandparents (which includes my mother). They monitor what the kids watch but realize that they can't follow these 2 kids around 24 hours a day. So they hope that by being an active part of their life they'll make good decisions. So far it has paid off in spades.

Decency laws will not make this world better for our children. Maybe we need parenting laws for parents who are too damn lazy to bother with their kids to find out what they are watching/listening too!

[IrateCitizen]

90. MTV shows over 90 depictions of sexual activity each hour...

And the last time I checked, MTV was a network aimed mostly at kids. Maybe not younger kids, but kids nonetheless.

What kind of overall effect do you think this is having on our youth, Lynne? I would hardly call such influences positive.

Your stepsister should be commended for being such a good parent. Sadly, what she does is not the norm. My 3.5 yr old nephew has had a TV in his room since 18 months. He commonly spends HOURS each day watching television. And I wouldn't call his mother a "bad" parent, either. In most ways, their family is NORMAL.

I'm sorry, but I can't defend the actions of outlets like MTV. They're literally contributing to the destruction of our youth.

And if you're wondering where I got this figure from, it's from Reviving Ophelia: Saving the Selves of Adolescent Girls by Mary Pipher. My wife is studying this right now for her counselling degree.

[LynneSin]

98. But is MTv to be blamed because your nephew watches that much TV?

MTv exists because the market is there. And personally, I find that it's more than just the Cable channels to blame.

Example:

About 2 weeks ago, while sick in bed, I happened upon an interesting movie on all thing The Hallmark Channel. Trust me, there is nothing offensive with the movies they show on that channel. But the price I paid to watch this movie was wall-to-wall channels of TV commericials hyping every illiness out there. Hell most of those Pharmaceutical commericials give such non-specific symptons for all I know I could be suffering from foot fungus, weak bladder or limp penis :shrug:

Now do you think those politicians will do anything to stop these insane pharmaceutical commericials? Nope - because they get big bucks from the folks running these commericials.

I agree with you that the content of TV sucks, but you and I both know well that censorship is not a path we should want to even attempt to walk down. What I don't understand is why Cable Networks don't allow the parents to select which channels they wish to subscribe to. Hell I watch about 10-12 hours tops a week of TV (Hey Iron Chef is on 7 days a week) but in order to get the 2-3 channels I enjoy watching, I have to pay $50/month for that privledge.

The other issue is some of the things I've seen us progressives get in an uproar about such as parental labelling and V-Chip. Personally, I've seen nothing wrong with either of these things since many times a parent is totally unaware of the content you might find in an album, TV show or other medium. About 5 years ago I had a co-worker ask me what M&M is and that her 7-year old son was bugging her to buy the album. Back then I didn't know who Eminem was but it took a quick trip to the local record store over lunchtime to see the record had a parential advisory and Mom forbade the album purchase.

Censorship is never the answer but your point is very well put!

[cestpaspossible]

109. Why would someone who doesn't want their kids to watch MTV

pay for it?

That's what I don't understand.

[sadiesworld]

91. Yep...

and DAMN TO HELL that single mother working two jobs to support her kids. She should have realized that her husband would turn out to be a loser and her parents would be unwilling or unable to help with childcare BEFORE she had children. The democratic party doesn't want or need her. DAMN HER!!!!!!!!

[LynneSin]

96. Excuse me, I was raised by a single mother

Thanks for damning her hell!

And when she was struggling to make ends meet believe me, she wasn't paying a ton of money for cable (which yes, it was available when I was a teenager). Even when she was finally able to get a job, she still refused to get cable (we always had the basic 12 channels). And I have a good friend who is a single mom - and believe me, she is watching what her kids are watching.

It can be done if folks are willing to do it. OUr TV/Computer/Radio/Video Games are NOT substitute baby sitters.

[demwing]

92. KoKo01, I understand your frustrations!

Its not easy being a parent these days (if it ever WAS easy) and there are all sorts of new things us moms and dads have to be looking out for...

I agree that there are insidious and terrible things on cable tv. It sucks, mostly. Porno, violence, and propaganda. What a mess!

And I also think that advertising products to young children and masking that as "children's television" is just pure bullshit.

But I have to say that censorship is something we need to run on an individual basis, with each home to its own.

Just as the government has no business telling us what type of sex to have in our bedrooms, it has no business telling us what type of sex to watch in our family rooms.

I feel your frustration, but it is a small price to pay to remain free, don't you think?

[Vinca]

94. So what about the rest of us who don't have kids?

Are we allowed to watch the Sopranos uncensored? I don't want to tune in to hear Tony say, "Oh, fudge." It just doesn't fit the character. If you have kids and don't want them to watch a particular show, DON'T LET THEM! You're the parent, they're the kids. Don't forget that.

[redqueen]

97. You're free to change the channel.

What's this 'new world' stuff you're yelling about? Nobody's proposed making it OK to let kids see R-rated movies or anything...

:shrug:

[fishwax]

100. So cancel the cable

kids will survive without it. I did, and I know I'm not alone.

But as an adult, I happen to like what's on cable, and I don't think it's filth. The Right-wing attacks Sesame Street, for the love of God, so if you go with the Right Wing on this you might end up going a little farther than you think.

[Bouncy Ball]

104. Well, first I had to read that a few times to understand it.

I don't believe in censorship.

We turned off our satellite shortly after the election because it's all crap anyway.

But I don't want everything sanitized for children. If you don't want your kids seeing it, put your foot down.

[Sentath]

107. If you look into the thread you'll find that e

Not Only doesn't want eir kids seeing 'it', e Also wants eir kids' peers not seeing 'it'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spivak_pronoun

[Bouncy Ball]

110. EH?!?!?!?!?!?

Um, no. I draw the line at another parent deciding what MY kid can see.

If we did that, my kid would never be allowed to watch the Harry Potter movies, since I know parents who won't let their kids watch it.

[cags]

105. Well sure if you expect the TV to raise your kids.

And who decides what is crap? You, God I hope not.
If you have a problem with what other kids get to do, then keep your kids away from them, homeschool them, totally shelter them from anything that you deem to be crap, but don't dare tell others how they should be raising thier kids. TV is one outlet, it is not the be all end of education and entertainment.

The only way that you even have a point is if you expect the television to raise your kids. If not then raise your kids and stop telling others how to raise thiers, because you know what, you just may not be right.

[ArkDem]

106. Intelligent, thoughtful and well written post.

[cestpaspossible]

108. What are you talking about?

You shouldn't be paying for anything you don't want, I know that.

[Maine-ah]

111. find your remote and change the channel.

one mans trash is another mans treasure. don't push your "moral values" on me.

[KoKo]

113. I've read every comment...but those who "favor smut" seem to be in

the "Majority." Even to the extent that some have tried to put my "motives" for this post into their "own" views" of what's acceptable for our "kids" to watch. I was amazed that I had so few in support. But, I stand by what I said on this post...even though it was said to be "disjointed, and in some cases "incomprehensible." :D

[KoKo]

114. Most of you disapprove of Censure...but why did a post of mine

from Buzzflash about "Jimmy/Jeff" interview with his penis get deleted from "GD/Politics Forum?" I got it off "Buzzflash" but mods deleted it from all memory...because it came from a RW Website?

OhhhhHO! Where's the "hypocracy in that?" Just asking...:shrug:

[Comicstripper]

118. I'm sure it has to do with posting guidelines.

And please stop putting quotation marks around everything.
"It" really isn't "necessary."

[McCamy Taylor]

115. The GOP wants to be ready to shut down George Soros and Al Gore

for doing "partisan" news. That is the ONLY reason for attempting to extend FRCC control to Cable at the present time.

Do not be fooled. The WH doesnt give a damn about obscenity. They do not want Americans to hear the truth.


:dem: