In a society where it is increasingly common for the perpetrators of violent crimes to cite their favorite movie or song lyrics as the inspiration behind their actions, one has to wonder - are pop culture audiences so mindlessly impressionable that they become victim to any or all media suggestion? Does pop culture have as large an affect on morality as the critics claim, and are current attempts to police pop culture necessary? Not really, says Nick Gillespie, editor of Reason magazine and author of the article "View Masters": "What is on the screen or on the stereo is not irrelevant, of course. But it matters far less than one might suppose."
In Gillespie's opinion, viewers are not merely passive receptors of pop culture; instead they use the context of their own lives to create meaning and value in what they watch. Consumers of the pop culture phenomenon have always viewed media technology like the television, the telephone, and the computer as an interactive experience. Through dialogue with friends, station surfing, posting to a show's computerized bulletin board, or even turning off the television, viewers demonstrate the ability to become "what's known in literary studies as 'resisting readers.' " In other words, these reactions demonstrate a mental engagement with what is presented, and not merely an uncomprehending reception of what is offered. "Individuals sitting in a theater, or watching television, or listening to a CD don't always see and hear things the way they're 'supposed' to", says Gillespie, and the variety of human viewpoints are what allow for interpretations and "misinterpretations" of the media's particular message.
According to media analysts, most audiences sit passively while, "Hollywood merely projects morality - good, bad, or indifferent - onto us." These proponents of media censorship support the careful supervision of the entertainment industry, chiefly because they do not perceive viewers as intelligent critics, able to form their own opinions or to make independent decisions. To censors, media is capable of only two functions: instilling greater moral and educational ethic in society, or a provoking a craving for chaos and depravity. The government and many skeptics play a key role in this ideology, not only through a belief that good entertainment should be solely didactic, but also by underestimating the viewer's ability to make independent choices, "or to bring his own interpretation to bear on what he sees."
Critics claim that the solution to the growing problem of pop culture immorality is to allow a small group of censors to determine what is inappropriate viewing and listening content for the entire population. Censors would create a series of questions determining whether or not violent and sexual actions are placed in appropriate contexts - if either act is glorified, intentional, or gratuitous, it is deemed objectionable. Censors assume that once certain unacceptable acts are presented within a suitable moral structure, the viewer will understand the behavior within the context of its moral framework and act accordingly. Unfortunately for regulatory agencies, humans aren't so easily simplified.
What censors overlook is the importance of viewer response over the author's intentions - once a director or artist releases their work into the pool of consumers, the author can no longer maintain "control of an audience that is inherently beyond control." Gillespie uses the example of a normal television viewing experience to emphasize his point: "If a viewer, for instance, tunes into or out of a show midway through, he may have no idea of whether violence is integral to the story." The interpretation a viewer places on a program, an album, or the purpose of certain media is determined completely from his or her own set of personal experiences. So when a show is broadcast or a song heard on the radio, it is fruitless to contemplate the context of sexual or violent content in these particular media because, regardless of the circumstances presented in a narrative, each audience member is going to bring their specific perspective to the situations presented.
However comprehensive the article, Gillespie's ideas disregard important issues of identity in younger children. It is easy to assert that human beings hold their own set of values, instilled at an early age and developed throughout their adulthood, that allow them to acquire their own opinions regarding popular culture. Many of these people are exposed to several types of media every day, and are able to bring the context of their familial, political, religious, and educational backgrounds to what they view and hear. They also hold the advantages of a traditional upbringing at a time when movies, music, computers, and television were still a feeble influence when compared to the commanding force they are today.
What happens to the children of the last two decades, who were raised on the uncultivated frontiers of technology? Their underdeveloped contextual abilities, once left solely to parental influence, are now barraged with images and ideas that no parent, good or bad, can possibly control. Explicit Internet pop-up windows, graphic prime-time cable television shows, commercials that now accompany educational programs at schools, and even sexually specific song lyrics often seep into grade school culture. Child identities are soon based on a truth founded by the absurd reality of pop culture; a world greatly exaggerated and over-glamorized. While child viewers can find aspects of television, radio, and Internet programming creatively stimulating, it is undeniable that the horrific violence and blatantly sexual undertones, from which even the most vigilant parents often have trouble shielding their children, can greatly affect a child's psyche.
Gillespie would argue that media context is unimportant in these instances; that if a child is raised with a specific set of values, they will be able to place any possibly damaging content of pop culture media in an intelligent context. However, Gillespie ignores the importance of a viewer's ability to develop the life experiences needed to be a discerning media and pop culture critic. Today's children, now in their fundamental stages of growth, are creating their social and intellectual context from the actions they witness on movie and television screens, over the radio, or on the computer terminal. It is the very media interactivity championed in Gillespie's article that makes pop culture so dangerous - if a child can easily imitate the interactivity of life using the situations presented in television, telephone, and internet activity, what is to prevent them from developing an inability to distinguish between reality and fantasy? Instead of censorship, should we saturate the market with every possible type of social interaction, in order for children to select the personality that most suits their identity? Or should we limit the forms of interaction presented in the media so that children may wait until they are ready to choose or experience these ideas for themselves?
Gillespie's solution to stemming the flow of sex, violence, inflammatory lyrics, and offensive content from the evolving pop culture phenomenon is painfully absent in his article, unless the idea of remaining passively indifferent to the ensuing technology can be considered an answer. In fact, he uses the tired analogy, "trying to nail Jell-O to a wall," to describe the governmental attempts towards any regulation of this unadulterated media frenzy. Says Gillespie, "It's messy difficult, and doesn't make a whole lot of sense." What the author is endorsing here is the same passive acceptance to all pop culture media he was so quick to denounce earlier in his article. The mental capability that makes humans discernable critics of the media is the same skill that encourages us to censor what we feel is unacceptable for our children and ourselves.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|