COMMERCIAL TV's TWO V'S: AND WHY IS IT
AMUSING TO SEE ADULTS EXHIBIT
INFANTILE EMOTIONS 
AND THINKING?

© 2003 by Orchid Land Publications

[20030606]

     The writer is not familiar with the daytime shows other than news-reporting.  But in the evening, what comes on if you leave your TV on after the news shows is worthy of comment.  We have two kinds of V&V shows on commercial television--vulgarity and violence--many combine both.  The non-violent shows exhibit vulgarity and infantile adults without the violence.  I will leave others to comment on the effects of violent shows on young persons' outlooks and confine myself simply to their intrinsic "value."  Two shows still running--i.e. not repeats of former shows--use highly paid actor/actresses to exhibit emotions and thinking that many a juvenile would be ashamed to fall into--the portrayal of an alleged professor is as bad as the rest. . . . and this is supposed to be funny?
    I have no objection to the occasional swear word in a very emotional situation where it is appropriate, and I am liberal enough to prefer hearing ass to the asinine butt, though I would personally use prat or our local word okole . . . or even rear end.    (In fact, some find it amusing to say "I don't give a rat's okole for that" or "Your half-pratted kid doesn't know his prat from a hole in the ground.")   What is so out of place is routine profanity, inserted where the plot does not need it, let alone call for it.  As an ex-navy man, I think I've heard just about all there is to hear.  But the TV that comes into one's home should not emulate such situations.  One can even grant the humor of sometimes slightly off-color creative or "poetic" statements like saying on a hot day, "Today's gonna be anuvvah dubble muvvah"; these may not seem out of order in many situations, unless one is a bluenose.  It the sheer pointlessness of the profanity that grates; it's as though the writers try to cover up their inability to write amusing prose with the diversion of profanity--evidently viewed as a crowd-pleaser.  That the owners of the networks are happy to gain their $$ in this manner displays more crudity and greed than refinement.
     The producers of such shows obviously have a very low opinion of the average viewer's discernment--so low that one should feel insulted even to view such programs, although that may mean jumping up from one's work to turn the TV off the moment the news is over.  I doubt if even the shock value of vulgarity shocks us any more, so used to all of this have we become.  In the end, this may be the cure for the whole mess; even vulgarity can and will get boring.  Where refinement is possible, it may happen as public broadcasting financed by the viewers themselves establishes the model.  The fact that TV and films haven't always been so argues that audiences can be sufficiently amused by a Bob Hope and various family shows that rely of real humor; there may even be a market for for other kinds of programs to help a network survive.  What evidence is there that what was once possible no longer is viable?  Don't listeners even pay to support the public broadcasting of better materials?

PAGE UNDER CONSTRUXION