I preface this by stating that not only can I not view the ad where I am, but I seem unable to view the articles about the ad. But I suppose there is the opportunity to expand the debate. It is seems to be their contention that showing graphic images will cause people to throw their support away from a candidate with a pro-choice position (if I'm wrong in that assumption, let me know). And the rules of free speech seem to indicate they have a right to televise these images.
I have always been of the opinion that if we televised executions, there would be far fewer executions. Because everything I've read by those who have witnessed said events indicates they are neither sanitized nor painless. Bodies convulse, bodily fluids evacuate, and it is not like watching someone fall asleep. I won't go as far as George Carlin who hypothesized corporate sponsorship, but I still think if we showed any graphic image such as a killing or unedited scenes from the field of battle, there would be much less support for aggressive, state sponsored actions. I recall watching the YouTube video of Saddam Hussein's hanging, and -- bad camerawork aside -- I was changed by the experience. My view on abortion has long been that I would discourage any women I know from getting one, but that they should not be made illegal because I'm not comfortable with the government dictating what goes on inside our (our as in humans -- as a male of the species, obviously this is a decision I would never personally have to make) bodies. I believe that televising abortions would probably lead to less of them, but that it would also lead to an unfair stigma against women. I would hope for the sake of those who can view the ad in their area, whatever the motivation behind the ad and whatever your personal feelings about the issue or the candidates, that it might stir a genuine debate about abortion. That the ability to see something firsthand in your living room might cause people to talk about the realities of all sides to the argument (I firmly believe there are more than two sides). It is why I still maintain television is the dominant medium, not the internet -- because even as we sit passively in our chairs and sofas, images on a screen can change the world, even in ways unintended by the dolt who paid for the potentially offensive images on the screen in the first place. I would also be curious, if a campaign ad contains images that cannot be censored, could a candidate theoretically televise an execution as a part of his/her ad? I would assume so, but I really don't know. On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 2:38 AM, Wesley McGee <[email protected]> wrote: > Nope, no relief for us until Nov 2, or she (really, Randall Terry) runs out > of money. > http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/10/26/anti.abortion.ads/index.html?hpt=T2 > > -- > TV or Not TV .... The Smartest (TV) People! > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups "TV or Not TV" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected] > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected] > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en -- Kevin M. (RPCV) -- TV or Not TV .... The Smartest (TV) People! You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TV or Not TV" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en
