There are certain topics that get me very fired up. I know my friends and family think I am extreme and hate television. I do not hate television, I hate the amount of time it takes away from people’s lives. I hate what it does to families, children, and our culture. I know this is lengthy and most of you are sick of hearing about it from me...so only read this entire thing if you really love me. :) (just kidding!)I think entertainment is a great thing. Unfortunately, I think our society approaches entertainment just like they approach the rest of life: entertainment=consumption. That one word “consume” sums up the purpose of entertainment in the lives of many. We cheapen our lives when we limit our definition of entertainment to, “a painless activity that gratifies and satisfies me.” There is so much more to entertainment.
Entertainment is simply occupying your mind with something enjoyable, amusing, or even pleasurable. In a dark world filled with evil, we need space in our life and our minds to enjoy the earth that God has given us. Entertainment can be playing with children, drinking coffee with friends, fellowship with community, sitting around a campfire, hiking through the Adirondacks, reading a great book...anything that glorifies God and allows us to enjoy him more can be entertainment (by that definition, I have no problem with any media that does that).
It is interesting when I begin to explain my views on media, that people automatically jump to the conclusion that I am extreme and find no value in entertainment. I think this just sheds light on the fact that their definition of entertainment is narrow. This post was inspired by a recent 24 episode I watched. Trying to prove that I was not an enemy of television, I decided to pick a show to watch that Vermon is watching. I thought it would be a fun compromise, since he often does things with me that I know he never thought of doing pre-dennae. I had watched every episode this season, until a week ago, when I felt the violence really crossed the line.
Now, I do think that violence is okay to portray through art, music, movies, etc. I think it should be done in a way that draws people towards a resolution. It needs to be something that sickens and outrages people at the evil in this world and compels and pushes them forward toward being a vanguard of social change. I think there is something wrong when violence is nothing more then, “a painless activity that gratifies and satisfies me.”
The argument has been made, “just because I watch a violent show does not mean I am going to be more violent.” I agree. It does not mean that. Just because I watch a movie with graphic sexual content, does not mean I am going to have premarital sex. The point I am trying to make is not how you, personally, are effected by meaningless acts of violence. Jack Bauer killed a terrorist. The writer of the show could have portrayed it in a way where it gave the audience a healthy sense of justice. But instead, men and women all across America thought or said, “ooohh…Jack is so awesome!” as he brutally an inhumanely killed a man in a five minute killing scene that ended with the terrorist’s neck snapping as his body hung from a metal chain. And our society doesn’t even flinch when it's over and spends the next day at the water cooler talking about the great episode.
The fact is violence is real. I work with women and children all day, every day that have lived a reality that is the entertainment of so many. I have kids that have seen bodies hang from beams just like that scene that millions watched for pure entertainment. Bloody, beaten bodies is not out of the norm for some of my six, seven, and eight year old children, but it also is not entertainment to them. It is a frightening nightmare that they don’t know if they will survive. I am not being dramatic, I am not being extreme, I am being honest. We live in a violent and disgusting world in which evil triumphs when good men sit idle.
If you think that this is my soapbox just because I am around it all day, then I challenge you to move your life to a place where you can see the world for what it really is. You don't have to be around hungry people to be passionate about feeding the hungry and not wasting food. You don't have to be around illiterate families to be passionate about educating children. You don't have to be around alcoholics or drug attics, marriages that are dissolving, oppressed women, slaves, families breaking because of debt, races being wiped out by genocide, or children who are abused to be passionate about seeing those social ills resolved.
Our lives need to be a little more black and white if we want to start to see change happen. Deciding not to endorse meaningless violence on television is not about legalism, it is about being sick and tired of a society and culture that embraces a culture of violence.
I believe that there are hundreds, maybe thousands of social ills that could be alleviated if Christians would reject the definition of entertainment as, “a painless activity that gratifies and satisfies me" and make entertainment a very small part of their life instead of the focus. If you are still reading (then you get 100 extra points and must be a REALLY good and dear friend of mine! :) ) Take some time to read these stats: http://www.mediafamily.org/facts/facts_vlent.shtml In my experience, people don’t really care about stats because all they care about is that they are not affected by it, but my challenge is to stop thinking about yourself and how you are effected and start thinking about society and culture as a whole and take a stand against violence.
Posts
6 comments:
Dennae, AMEN! :)
I think you have nailed it. I know I have talked with you about this before, but let me tell you a more detailed version of my own thoughts concerning entertainment (I know you are thinking, “Here we go, another long-winded explanation by Eddie.” But hear me out!). ;)
As a lot of us know, I used to be one of those children spending 6.5 hours a week playing video games or watching television. Now that I can say I am free of that addiction, it amazes me to look back at who I used to be and to think about who I would have become. I did not purposely seek violence in video games, but I had a few I would now deem inappropriate. Did I become an angry, aggressive child? I think I could make that argument. Before I became a Christian, I had quite the little temper. It would manifest itself in acts such as breaking things, slamming doors, throwing stuff at walls, etc. When I was younger, I even had a tendency to hit my sisters if they were irritating me. Now, by no means am I saying this behavior was caused purely by violent video games. But there are other violent episodes in my life I witnessed, heard, and experienced up until the age of 12 that I would be confident in attributing the blame to. I could go on and on of how those statistics were true in my life, but the point is I can attest to their authenticity; I was a part of it.
Last semester I was really feeling like I needed to crack down on how much I played video games and watched television. I had come to ASU with all my gaming gear, envisioning tournaments with my floor, new levels reached, scores surpassed, moments of the virtual conquest of Eddie achieved. And for a few weeks, Eddie reigned. I had dominated my roommate at all our games, explored new areas of imaginary worlds never witnessed,. And then God really started to change my heart. I started to see the damage this lifestyle was causing, not only in me, but between me and my God, my peers and myself. Although I was saved early, I was headed in a direction not pleasing to God, and frankly, not pleasing to the person I had become. So I vowed to simply stop playing video games entirely. It was not as difficult as I thought it would be; it is hard to honestly identify value in them. Along with this oath, although I was already barely watching any television, I decided to limit it to none.
So here I was, a new, entertainment emptied Eddie, ready to take Jesus to the world with a newfound vigor. But what happened? I became irritable toward my roommate whenever he watched television next to me. I declined numerous offers to play video games with my unbelieving friends, bringing the time I spent with them down to zero. Instead of the loving, Christian Eddie I had imagined, I had turned into the Eddie who was never around. Was I involved in good things? Sure; but how many more good things that benefit me do I need? Was I being bolder with faith outside of my residence? Yes; but I was ignoring the great opportunity and responsibility I had with the guys I lived with. So after feeling convicted, I started to ease down on my self-imposed limits.
What happened next? I began accepting invitations to play video games with my roommates. Now, I had to be cautious; I did not want to start using them as an excuse to “consume” entertainment, to gratify my own worldly desires. But as I experimented with this “group entertainment,” I soon realized that I no longer possessed some of those desires. I did not want to spend 6.5 hours a day in front of a television or computer screen indulging myself in mindless entertainment; I was not anxious for the next episode of that “awesome” show. Instead, I found myself longing to be around my friends, to be in the presence of those people I had enjoyed those things with. What am I doing when participating in earthly activities with my roommates because I love them, for the specific purpose of becoming closer to them, thus augmenting my ministry to them? I am glorifying and serving God! However, when I begin to argue with my convictions, to compromise my God-given passions to simply delight in what the world has to offer, then I know it has gone too far.
I think far too often we use the excuse of “rest” to indulge in entertainment that is not pleasing to God. I will admit I have had a pretty negative, narrow definition of entertainment; I have seen entertainment as “a painless activity that gratifies and satisfies me.” But I think this is more because I have seen a considerable division between self-indulging activity and God-glorifying pleasures. I truly agree with your definition of entertainment, Dennae. I just recognize that far too often we entertain ourselves with things that are not God-glorifying, that we take part in pleasurable things for the sole sake of pleasure. I think you are agreeing with me when you say, “That one word “consume” sums up the purpose of entertainment in the lives of many.” Because I have grown up in a society that approaches entertainment as consumption, it is hard for me to tag those God-glorifying pleasures under that same name so darkly saturated with wholly self-indulging activity.
Like you, Dennae, I compromised my unenthusiastic approach to television to give “24” a chance (but as a result of a different Pierre’s appreciation of the show). Likewise, you could say that I was not exactly thrilled with that last episode. As I have considered what action to take in response to that violent scene, I have noticed something: For me, the issue is not the pain I will feel from giving it up, but the pain I will feel from sacrificing that time I had enjoyed with friends. Is 24 an entertaining show? Absolutely! But in light of its increasingly violent overtones, is it worth continuing watching?
As I mentioned to you before, I have been trying to draw change-oriented value out of the show. My thoughts following pretty much every episode of 24 have been, “Wow, the world is messed up!” But like you communicated, how many times do I need to receive that message while exposing myself to that level of violence? Is the fact the world is screwed up not obvious enough already?
You are right in identifying the danger here: Instead of watching a show and being further motivated toward social change as a result, we can become desensitized to violence, negatively influenced by it, consequently bringing about the exact opposite outcome! Instead of seeing the horrible reality of our surroundings and being “compelled and pushed forward toward being a vanguard of social change,” we will accomplish a frightening alternative: nothing.
true eddie, it is important to think about the reasons behind what we do. Like you said, there are times that are appropriate to be spending engaging in certain activities. I am not against people gathering together to watch a show.
I guess my challenge to you would be to not just stop at, "I enjoy the time I get to spend with friends watching this and we have good God-glorifying conversations before and after." I would also encourage you to think about how you might engage them in conversations that would challenge and encourage them to think about the things they view.
I think you would be a bad friend to just stop attending Monday night 24 parties; however, I think you would serve them by challenging them to think about how shows like this might effect culture, children, and this world.
Yeah, I think you are right, Dennae. The last couple of days I have been thinking about what we as followers of Christ can do to "take a stand against violence in our society and culture." Apart from challenging each other to consider the things we witness, our reactions to them, and how society is affected, is there a more direct way to deal with the problem? Will anything but a relationship with Christ cause significant change?
FCC TV violence study igniting firestorm
It links aggressive behavior in youths to violent TV shows, says lawmakers can limit what’s shown
By DAVID HO - Cox News Service
NEW YORK —
The prospect of the government regulating gun battles on “24,” creatively killed corpses on “CSI” and other TV violence is triggering opposition among media companies and free speech advocates who say parents — not regulators — should decide what kids watch.
A long-awaited report to Congress from the Federal Communications Commission issued this week concluded that television violence is linked to aggressive behavior in children and can be harmful.
It said lawmakers can restrict mayhem on broadcast and subscription television without violating the First Amendment.
Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D.-W.Va., may introduce such legislation in the coming weeks.
“Violent television content is reaching epidemic proportions,” Rockefeller said.
The report promises to spawn heated debate in Congress and ripple through presidential campaigns. The TV violence issue also could wind up in the courts — like the ongoing fight over regulating indecent broadcasts.
Opponents of regulation say the government should not be defining appropriate viewing, even though the FCC already restricts sexual content and some vulgar language on broadcast radio and TV.
“Violence is an even more difficult question. Violence is a very broad term and it can encompass everything from Old Testament scenes to the Road Runner cartoons,” said Caroline Fredrickson, director of the Washington legislative office for the American Civil Liberties Union.
She said since views on violence are so subjective, a handful of lawmakers or FCC commissioners should not make those decisions for everyone.
“Trying to get in and determine show by show, episode by episode what exactly is violence that can be shown and what’s violence that can’t be shown is an impossible task,” she said Thursday.
The FCC report, requested by lawmakers in 2004, stopped short of saying Congress should restrict TV violence. It did invite lawmakers to define what qualifies as excessive televised violence using specific language that agrees with past court rulings.
The agency suggested the industry voluntarily reduce violent programming viewed by children, perhaps by creating a violence-free hour at the start of prime time.
Rockefeller said his upcoming bill may include the FCC’s suggestions. He wants a Senate Commerce Committee hearing to discuss the report next month.
The FCC also concluded that existing technology meant to block unwanted programming, such as the V-chip found in many TV sets, is often ineffective. It also criticized the voluntary TV ratings system that warns of violent content.
Congress could require cable and satellite providers to offer tiers of family-friendly channels or channels that can be purchased individually, the report said.
FCC chairman Kevin Martin, a Republican, has pushed for pay-TV providers to embrace both options, citing the need to give consumers more choices and control. Facing political pressure, many companies began offering family tiers last year.
In a statement accompanying the report, Martin said parents need to be the main defense for children, but they need more and better tools. He said the “a la carte” approach of selling channels one at a time would raise fewer free speech issues.
Broadcast networks and the cable industry also said parents have a critical role, but the agreement ended there. They defended the current rating system and parental control technologies.
“These allow viewers to decide what is appropriate for their families, while at the same time keeping government from becoming a national censor which, as the courts have consistently found, inevitably leads to intrusions upon the rights given to all of us by the Constitution,” CBS Corp. said in a statement.
News Corp., which owns Fox media properties, said courts would find government attempts to regulate violent TV unconstitutional.
The cable industry sees Martin’s proposals as simplistic and misguided, said Brian Dietz, spokesman for the National Cable & Telecommunications Association. He said they would “endanger cable’s high-quality family friendly programming, leaving parents and children with fewer viewing options.”
In contrast, the Parents Television Council, a group critical of violent and sexual TV content that often complains to the FCC, said media companies need a government push.
Council president Tim Winter said he hopes the FCC report will “motivate the industry to step up to the plate, take responsibility for its product, and fix a problem that it has not only created but perpetuated.”
While all five FCC members approved of the report, Democratic commissioner Jonathan Adelstein also criticized it for failing to consider constitutional implications, for not addressing violence in commercials and for being too vague.
“Are we saying ‘Law and Order’ should be banned during hours when children are watching? It’s anyone’s guess after reading this.”
Martin said context would be important in any regulation of violent shows. He made a distinction between “real-life violence” shown on a news show and “fictional violence” shown for entertainment.
But such exceptions are a window into a “thicket of problems,” said Fredrickson of the ACLU.
“If they’re going to exempt the news because it’s critical that people understand what’s been going on, what are they going to do when there’s a simulation on a news show of a violent act?” she asked.
“Is a TV movie about the shooting at Virginia Tech prohibited, but the news can show these images all day long at all hours?”
Oh my goodness! Have you heard Vocab's poem "emTV"? I think you might love it :)
You really did nail it Dennae. It is so hard not to get caught up in "consuming" entertainment. But you are so right! I think it is our responsibility to challenge others. I was thinking about this on my trip because I went 2 weeks without "entertainment" and it did not affect me at all (in a negative way at least). I actually thought that it was so much more enjoyable and I wish I could do it more. This is a great challenge and I do not get sick of you talking about things that you are passionate about!
Post a Comment