On Mon, 25 Mar 2002, Rick Froman went: > The Frontline episode also discusses "salacious dress" (they discuss > MTV's invention and marketing of the alleged prototypical adolescent > male, the mook, a Tom Green-type character, and the alleged > prototypical adolescent female, the midriff, a Britney Spears clone) > and the negative effects these images have on real adolescents.
I would agree that these images probably have negative effects--not because midriffs are being bared, but because the midriffs being bared are skinny. There's a big difference between criticizing "salacious dress" and criticizing the eroticization of only certain body types. This is a difference I don't see mentioned on the Fox News site. > Overall, [Frontline] takes a very negative view of the effects of > the media on teens and their culture (they conclude there basically > is no teen culture that is not generated in corporate boardrooms). > Although the problems are exacerbated by the fact that the power of > the media is concentrated in only a few large conglomerates, that > fact basically just makes the conspiracy of teen marketing easier to > accomplish. The program comes down very strongly on the side that > mass media focused on teens is having a very negative impact on > teens. This still seems like a different argument from the one I saw on the Fox News site, which lists its grievances as "salacious dress, obscene lyrics, violent bullying, and sexual promiscuity" and implies that the perpetrators are such acts as "Insane Clown Posse, Marilyn Manson, and 'shock jocks' Opie and Anthony." But those are just items on a menu. Kids who don't like Insane Clown Posse or Marilyn Manson can listen to Dido or Indigo Girls; kids who don't like "shock jocks" can listen to NPR; kids who don't like violent video games can play You Don't Know Jack; kids who don't like _Celebrity Deathmatch_ can watch _Once and Again_. To imply that there's something bad about the availability, or even the proliferation, of lurid material, you have to show that it causes harm. I don't accept "kids are seeing things I don't think they should see" as a type of harm. On the contrary, I would argue that it is inherently good when people--including kids--can make informed choices about what to see and hear (with obvious context-specific exceptions such as traffic lights). The Frontline site, unlike the Fox News site, seems to focus on the latter issue. Kids' ability to make an informed choice is subverted by the marbling of information and advertising (as on Channel One or in teen magazines). I say that that's bad on its face, whether or not any further resultant harm is demonstrated. --David Epstein [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
