How do we tolerate these communist "progressives"?
Some columnist from the peyote-eating "Desert Dispatch" takes exception to my suggesiton that Fox further its purity doctrine by banning cheerleaders from NFL stadia. Actually, the columnist didn't specifically object to my idea, but the "progressive" (read "communist") editorial at this web page indicates where the columnist's sentiments lie. The article was actually written about the Nicolette Sheridan incident, but you know and I know that the Fox network is a much more morally upright outfit than those guys at ABC. (Seriously.)
Emphasis mine. Like Reader's Digest, it's essential to isolate these commie ideas as soon as possible.
The Desert Dispatch is a daily newspaper serving the communities of Barstow, Dagget, Fort Irwin, Hinkley, Lenwood, Newberry Springs and Yermo.
Friday, November 26, 2004
COMMENTARY: NFL response to Sheridan ad is hypocritical
Ladies and gentlemen, back by popular demand, it's moral outrage against the NFL! This time the outcry stems from a thirty-second opening to the November 15th Monday Football Game which did not even feature fraction-of-a-second nudity like the much maligned Super Bowl. This time the outcry regards a skit in which the most salacious thing seen was a bare back; and yet the hypocritical television network and National Football League have apologized.
For those of you who missed the insanely dull spot on MNF, it featured Philadelphia Eagles wide receiver Terrell Owens being seduced through silly innuendo by "Desperate Housewives" star Nicolette Sheridan. At the end of the spot Sheridan drops the towel that she was wearing, revealing her bare back and ankles to the world. A mind-numbing controversy ensued....
The beautiful and bouncy cheerleaders gyrate between plays. Beautiful women in beer commercials dance and shake, and even tear each other's clothes off. Mike Ditka, the coach, even breaks down candidly and discusses erectile dysfunction during each and every game where his drug company commercial is played. I've said it before in this paper, the Cialis ad which features a very clear warning about "erections which last for over four hours," is more offensive than a bare breast could ever hope to be. It makes me uncomfortable without kids in the room.
Sadly, the league's hypocrisy is not lost on me either. They had the audacity to try and distance themselves from the allegedly steamy opening. "While ABC may have gained attention for one of its other shows, the NFL and its fans lost," the NFL said in a statement. What a gutless reaction. If they really cared a lick about decency they would give back the Cialis, Viagra, and Levitra money. They would tell beer sponsors, who are "official sponsors" of the game, not to sell their products with sex. They would dress the cheerleaders in tasteful pantsuit with a jacket.
The truth is that the NFL has no problem with the swirl of sex that surrounds its product because the fans don't have a problem with it. In fact, they're eating it up. They love cheerleaders, they love beer, they love the twins, and they love the game. The NFL's cash register never stops ringing, and yet they have the shamelessness to pretend that they are not selling sex.
Worse than all of that is the cry, from some people who claim to be offended, for the FCC to get involved in this as a decency issue. "ABC and the other networks are media giants, making an offended viewer's voice less than a blip on their radar screen. They can ignore you, but they can't ignore the FCC," wrote Randy Sharp in a November 19 USA Today piece (Protect young eyes and ears).
What Sharp is, in effect, saying is that the networks won't bow to the pressure of a small group of squeaky wheels. Television networks make money on programs like Monday Night Football because they sell commercials. When more people watch a program, the networks can charge more money for their spots. When less people watch, the networks lose money. It's a simple little free market system that ensures programming will meet with the approval of the most people.
Randy Sharp and others who cry out for the FCC to get involved in decency cases are in a vocal minority. They can not stop the networks from programming the way that they do because most people don't agree with their point of view. Therefore they would like the government to step in and save ignorant people who are slaves to sex on television from themselves. These people call themselves conservatives?
It is absolutely wrong when a group of slick lawyers from the ACLU ban majority religious symbols at the holidays and force everybody to recognize the minority. Conservatives bemoan that type of intrusive government, and they are right to do so. They should not, however, be so hypocritical as to think that the majority rule in this country doesn't also apply to television, because it does.
I think that there are way too many brain-dead reality shows out there. Most of them are on Fox. While I choose not to watch them, and hope with all my might that they will just go away, I suspect that they will be around for quite some time. Lots of other people, for some reason I can't understand, like them. The FCC won't ban them for me, but I can sensor them myself with my remote control.
To be honest and fair with everyone, if you don't like seeing sexual images, then you will not enjoy an NFL game. Many people do enjoy the league, just the way it is, and that means that it might not be for everyone. Turn the channel; or better yet just turn the television off. Maybe bonding time with the kids would best be passed over a good back.
Decency standards of course have a proper place. Certain clinical terms and clinical images should not be broadcast on public airwaves, most everyone accepts that. Still, it is a dangerous thing to think that the FCC should regulate innuendo or thought. Since the only nudity shown during Monday Night Football was intellectual, there is absolutely no reason to think that government has jurisdiction over it. Thankfully each of us has jurisdiction over our own television, and that's all the control that responsible people need.
Barry Gadbois
Has been employed behind the scenes with several news organizations, and is a former employee of the National Training Center, Fort Irwin. He is presently employed by a Boston-based news network, and resides part time in Barstow. He can be contacted at barry_gadbois@yahoo.com.
Comments