PDA

View Full Version : Parental Responsibility and Today's Media


JediAthos
11-25-2009, 03:04 PM
Adam Lambert on Outrage: "I'm Not a Babysitter, I'm a Performer"
By Gina DiNunno Wed Nov 25, 6:13 AM PST

Following a racy performance on the American Music Awards, Adam Lambert says he got carried away, but he is not apologetic.

ABC cancels Adam Lambert's Good Morning America performance

"I'm not a babysitter, I'm a performer," Lambert said Wednesday on The Early Show. "Honestly, [children] didn't cross my mind. It was almost 11 o'clock, it was a night show, I was there with an audience full of mostly adults. Sometimes I forget, 'Oh, there's a camera on.' I'm come from the theater, and I'm programmed to look at who's in the live audience."

According to Lambert, there was a lot of "adult material on the AMAs this year" — including Lady Gaga smashing whiskey bottles and Janet Jackson grabbing a man's crotch — and it's up to "parents to discern what their child is watching."

ABC receives complaints over Adam Lambert's AMA performance following Lambert's S&M-themed performance at Sunday night's ceremony, during which he flipped off the audience, kissed a keyboardist and fondled several of his backup dancers. Lambert also pulled the head of one dancer into his crotch.


The Idol finalist also feels that there is a double standard when it comes to male and female performers. "If it were a female pop performer that were doing the moves that were on the stage, I don't think there'd be nearly as much outrage at all," said Lambert.

"I think it's because I'm a gay male," said Lambert. "It's a double whammy."

Though the 27-year-old admitted he "did get carried away," he also said he was not trying to offend anyone in the process. "My intention was to interpret the lyrics of my song and have a good time up there."

So what would he do differently if given a do-over? "I would sing it a little bit better."

Article by Gina DiNunno on Yahoo! TV(http://tv.yahoo.com/news/article/tv.tvguide.com/tv.tvguide.com-adam-lambert-outrage-not-babysitter-performer)


Now honestly...I don't care about Adam Lambert...I don't like his music, and I didn't watch the American Music Awards. What I do like however, is the stance he's taken here. He's not apologizing, at least in so many words, he's not saying he wished he hadn't done it, and outwardly he doesn't appear to care about any complaints about his performance.

Mr. Lambert states something I've been thinking for a long time...parents need to take responsibility for their children and what they see and don't see on television as well as on the internet etc...I'm sure I might take some flack for this, but I am a parent and my children, while young(3&2), do not watch anything on television(when they watch it at all) that my wife and I do not approve of nor will they as they continue to grow up. My parents did not let me watch things on TV that they didn't approve of.

Granted..I'm sure some complaints may have come from single adults or people without children, but those people can change the channel.

I don't think I'm off base with my thinking, but perhaps there will be those that do. Thoughts?

*edit* I don't necessarily approve of the content of the performance but more Lambert's stance in the aftermath.

machievelli
11-25-2009, 03:30 PM
I remember a few years ago a tongue kiss shared by Britney Spears, Madonna, and another singer whose name escapes me. There wasn't half as much crap about that. Lambert is right in that if you don't want your kids to see such things, you have the remote in your hand, change the channel! We don't need censorship or watchdog committees, we need parents willing to accpet their own responsibility

JediMaster12
11-25-2009, 05:05 PM
To tell the truth Lambert is right about the double standards. It may be shocking to most folks but even some of the mundane things have adopted a more pornographic image. Let's face it we live in a consumerist culture and the one thing that can be agreed upon by capitalists is that sex sells particularly if it is a woman who is being idolized as a sex object.

Simple advertisements have this "soft porn" present because it has become mainstream. The average American is bombarded with 500,000 images in advertising and programming. When you get the musical performances like Madonna and Britney kissing females on music videos, it is acceptable because women are seen merely as objects of enjoyment for the male spectator.

I know I am going on a lecture over this but in regards to parenting, I agree that it is the parents responsibility to govern what their child sees and if seen, explain it to them for what it is and not sugarcoat it. I have always been grateful that my mother was very direct when explaining things of sensitive nature and I am glad that she took resposibility for what my brother and I watched on television.

lockhead
11-25-2009, 05:54 PM
On the one hand there are quite a few people who could live with scaling back the idea that sex sells, that in order to sell a product they have to try and generate controversy or entice young boys. I think people have become considerably better at this though. On the other hand how far does parental responsibility go? Are they meant to be keepers to their children? If they neak out to watch the American Music Awards when they were not meant to should the parents be held responsible?

Darth Avlectus
11-25-2009, 07:08 PM
This does raise several issues.

First Amendment: we'll not censor someone just because they have a view another does not agree with, or may be offended by their art.

This is a perfect example of what parental discretion is supposed to be all about. It is the parents' job to moderate for their children, not the government's job to babysit. IMO it must be done with full involvement. As we've covered, isolation is bad, yet as is under-parenting is bad as well.

Lockhead does raise a good question about parental responsibility if the kid is obviously defiant and is a beginning point to glimpse whether or not kids do bad stuff just because they know that they'll get off easy and the parents will be blamed. More to the issue, I do think America could stand to mediate or moderate. Perhaps some general decency guidelines and standards ought to be adopted. Yes, and maybe do scale back the sex appeal from being blatant to more subtle. In that, I am not saying censor or that the next step ought to be the USA without freedom of expression. However, when I see/hear semi graphic descriptions on drugs for impotence at the dinner table I do tend to think it is a bit egregious, were kids there with me and watching the TV.

Don't even get me started on concerts that ought to at least have the 18+ label on, and yet I see kids admitted in as young as 13, 14 years old. An occasional exposure? Fine. More and more exposure with no limit, though, will really lead the young person into a 'whacked-out' mindframe.

Another thing it seems like is that the media is so all encompassing that it leads one to wonder how families even make the time to spend together. With school hours seemingly increasing, then hours worth of homework, I'm surprised kids have any time at all to spend with the family.

Anyone feel free to disagree with what I have said so far.

lockhead
11-25-2009, 08:10 PM
In terms of censorship, I don't agree with denying freedom of expression. But if we were to have something like a game marketed on the basis of seeing full frontal male nudity, should the people responsible be called out on it?

machievelli
11-25-2009, 08:35 PM
COmplaining about mass marketing does no good, because only about 20% of the population is that young. When it comes to kids, you have to try to monitor their contacts and age monitoring software is standard in modern TV remotes and internet access. The only reason adult sites have the 'if you're under 18 go away' button is to avoid lawsuits. As an example, it is illegal to have a picture of a girl under 18 in a sexual situation even in comic books.

All well and good. But an anime store in OKLA City was shut down because a mother (Definitely over 18) went into the adult section of their display, a section where you had to pass by a store clerk to get in. She found an anime where a demon (I.E) unnatural being had taken the form of a child to draw in women. It would act like a frighten child, the women would protect it, try to take it to safety, then the demon would suddenly return to it's true form and rape her to death.

Because it had been a child a one point, she had the place closed down on the grounds that they were selling child pornography

For that matter a nude beach in Texas was closed under the existing laws because if someone sees this and is offended, they can file charges. A minister drove down, used binoculars to view the beach and used that law.

That is stupid. Telling the kid to stay out of the adult section, not to watch movies that are rated harder, or checking their rooms is one thing. But they don't want that. They want it their way and to hell with everything eles.

Case in point, back in the early 70s, Richard Nixon created the President's committee on obscenity and pornography. It was a totally stacked committee. It was made up of business men, parents and churchmen. They were trying to create a sweeping 'this is porn law'.

What they got was, 'Porn is in the eye of the beholder'

Darth Avlectus
11-25-2009, 08:51 PM
In terms of censorship, I don't agree with denying freedom of expression. But if we were to have something like a game marketed on the basis of seeing full frontal male nudity, should the people responsible be called out on it?

Depends on the scope of such a game featuring such content.

IIRC, everyone had a *****fit over GTA:San Andreas when the "Hot Coffee" thing was discovered. As it stood it already had the Adult Only designation in europe (or so I heard) so it made little difference there. In America they recalled it and met the demands that such be either removed from the game to keep its M label and perhaps tone down overall, OR adopt an Adult only rating if they kept the 'Hot Coffee' feature. So essentially to anwer your quesiton, I think product makers of various media already are held responsible to a degree. Figure if the M rating has some flex on the low side and minors get hold of it, the company is looking at what it can get away with, so far as a minor ending up potentially viewing it. That is as it stands, anyways.

Potentially the scope of such matters might extend if general decency standards could be agreed upon by vast majority.

lockhead
11-25-2009, 09:38 PM
In the same context though, would it be fair that those who raise such a stink over something such as Hot Coffee cannot see the forest for the trees? By that we have what is essentially a crime simulator, where you can act out any number of criminal acts. It uses the F word and racist language more than just about any game of it's time. Yet somehow consentual sex was considered worse than violence, language, the portrayal of black people (a decently positive portrayal, though the N bombs wouldn't help) and the fact that it glorified crimes such as sneaking onto army bases and killing soldiers, or as the title implies car jacking? I could just see people getting a headache banging their heads against the nearest desk or wall.

Tommycat
11-25-2009, 10:17 PM
I agree with Lambert on the main issue. Parents need to take more responsibility for not changing the channel. I mean what parents are letting their kids stay up til after 11 on a school night.

I disagree that it's because he's gay. I think our society has gotten too used to blaming media and the entertainment industry for being unhealthy for kids

Darth Avlectus
11-26-2009, 12:26 AM
In the same context though, would it be fair that those who raise such a stink over something such as Hot Coffee cannot see the forest for the trees?

Which side are you on exactly? Or are you still trying to figure that one out? I'm fine with apathy. :xp: I suppose it was a tad overblown, yes. The groups do often make a stink about it bigger than it needs to be. Though TBH, I guess I agree with you because nobody was really missing anything. Personally I'd say only somewhat overblown because there is the valid argument and good chance that they will still be exposed to, and partake in, the game.

By that we have what is essentially a crime simulator, where you can act out any number of criminal acts. It uses the F word and racist language more than just about any game of it's time. Yet somehow consentual sex was considered worse than violence, language, the portrayal of black people (a decently positive portrayal, though the N bombs wouldn't help) and the fact that it glorified crimes such as sneaking onto army bases and killing soldiers, or as the title implies car jacking?

I don't think it was a call of "worse than" so much as: "No no no, it's already got all of that crime glorification, we don't need pixels in explicit detail having sex on TV and simulating real life people on TOP of all that." Afterall, do teens *really* need any more encouragement?

I suppose otherwise, it is a quesiton of what is the least of multiple evils.

All things considered, in the immediate I would agree a "hot coffee" feature is mild in terms of consequences compared to the crimes it glorifies. However, life goes on and there's other long term consequences for that one way or another.

I agree with Lambert on the main issue. Parents need to take more responsibility for not changing the channel. I mean what parents are letting their kids stay up til after 11 on a school night. I disagree that it's because he's gay. I think our society has gotten too used to blaming media and the entertainment industry for being unhealthy for kids

Carlos Mencia jokes on that point about how for some kids their punishment is merely parents taking their game system taking away and their cell phone. While others still get a more substantial punishment. And then Carlos talks about how he'd get a real whooping as a kid.

This is not a new trend either, but yes. Sweep it under the rug and blame the media is essentially the mentality. Like back when they tried to blame Ozzy for that one kid comitting suicide. There hasn't really been any material in popular media that has caused someone to commit suicide and the only incidents where suicide has occurred with possible encouragement by music, etc. is where the individual was already likely to do so in the first place. That's like claiming "Oh, I didn't drink the booze, it just poured itself in my mouth." Ultimately you can't really control (and sometimes even predict) what other people are going to do, but you can control the inward traffic of all that. Restrict the TV. I mean, they all practically have password protection by now. And V-Chip and all that.

lockhead
11-26-2009, 02:21 AM
Which side? I don't really like to be seen to take sides in an issue, but since you ask I don't agree with preventing freedom of expression. With that said I also think that if there is a form of freedom of expression that goes too far, then I think we should state exactly what is wrong with it. Case in point, the No Russians level in the new Call of Duty...even if we were to forget about September 11 I think it would be fair to say that the game goes too far in it's confronting portrayal of terrorism and war and it goes to the point where it doesn't seem fun. I'm not saying that Infinity Ward should not have been entitled to put this in the game, but they did, and that's my opinion.

As for teens needing more encouragement, well that's part of the reason why there needs to be some parental and media responsibility. The question of course is how much is too much?

Darth Avlectus
11-26-2009, 04:12 AM
Ok for the first part, essentially what you are saying is that media (I.E. games, tv, movies what have you) essentially needs to take heed to...some decency standards? I more or less agree. Specifics are perhaps a way of avoiding broad sweeping generalizations, yes. As to where on the continuum of distaste it should be, that is uncertain because it all depends on the person's perception. What one might find distasteful, another wouldn't even notice.

Second part: I think the rating system for games is a good system. I don't think it too much, I think it to be just right and it would be so much more effective if parents exercised discretion. Some do, some don't.

One way to do that is with family time which is far superior to the password lock or v-chip. Get involved. Not isolate, not devil may care. If the event in question will be on TV you don't want the kids to see, be sure that maybe you take the kid out to dinner or a movie or somewhere. Divert or distract them even if it is only marginally more productive. Just my opinion.

Jae Onasi
11-27-2009, 03:04 AM
Which side? I don't really like to be seen to take sides in an issue

I'll take sides in the issue of you re-registering after a ban, Nancy. It's dead wrong, and re-registering again and again just makes it worse for you. I've been watching your account since the day after you registered, waiting for you to make the mistakes necessary to confirm it's you. The Rogue Warrior reference in another thread was very cute, btw. The staff will be contacting your ISP about TOS violations since you refuse to abide by the rules here by staying away after multiple bans. Find another forum to troll, you're done here.

Q
11-27-2009, 06:00 AM
Damn, another one! :eek:

http://www.theinternetwizards.com/images/whackAmole.jpg

This particular one's been at it for years, now. You'd think they'd learn...

Astor
11-27-2009, 06:22 AM
I think one of the main problems is that many parents seem to rely on television and games consoles as a babysitter - and then they complain when something bad is on television, as if it's the fault of the broadcasters that they saw something bad.

I agree with Mr. Lambert's stance - there seems to have been a reasonable expectation that the AMAs were directed towards adults, so it's not something that kids really should have been watching in the first place.

Lord Spitfire
12-07-2009, 08:53 AM
Adam Lambert is totally justified to do whatever he wants on stage. Now, some people have said that parents should control what their children see on television, and I for one disagree; if you block a child from what is really in the world; including the fact that there are gay people, then you're not 'shielding' them from the 'bad influences' - its called the real world.

It's no better than racism (something that I, someone who is in an extremely international society, experience quite a bit). It's born out of the ignorance inflicted on children from the over-protectiveness of their parents. How can the child think for themselves if their parents don't let them? If the parent puts homosexuality as somethng that should be cenored, the child becomes ignorant and sees it as something bad