Sex and Violence

The "new" MTV show Skins (yet another US /adaptation/ripoff of a BBC show, but that's another point for another time), has been getting a lot of attention recently, due to a campaign against it by the Parents Television Council.

I think we all know what happened when a similar campaign was launched against Married With Children. So far, Skins seems to be following the same pattern by getting a lot of free publicity because of the controversy.  Time will tell if its ratings follow the pattern, after the show's strong start.  And time will tell how many of those lost sponsors return.

PTC has a Family Guide to Prime Time Television, where most of the shows they rate get their worst rating "Show may include gratuitous sex, explicit dialogue, violent content, or obscene language, and is unsuitable for children."  I can't help but wonder how they'd rate Glenn Beck or his program.

I'm sure most who would ever be reading this are already aware that Glenn Beck's program is losing sponsors like he's allergic to them, but I doubt the general public is as aware of Beck's sponsor losses as they are Skins'.

With good reason, the man behind those sponsor losses, has been wondering about the difference in attention.  Beck is one of the most talked about people in our country, but his tremendous loss of sponsors gets very little of that attention.  Personally, I don't think there's anything special behind the difference.

We're treating the two things like we do most controversies over content.  The controversy over Skins is about sex.  The controversy over Beck is mostly about about (potential) violence.  Traditionally, the way attention has been for these two shows is how it goes for other things.  

The best example I've been able to think of is Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas.  This game series is well known for its violence, including killing police.  Each game in the series received mild criticism for its depictions of violence, but never with as much attention as when a controversy erupted over sex.  Google "gta san andreas scandal" and the search finds only stories about the "Hot Coffee" mod that wasn't even a part of the original game and wasn't created by the makers of the game.  But it's what is most remembered and discussed about the game.

How much controversy was generated by the shows 24, Dexter, or The Shield?  All involve a great deal of violence as a regular plot point.  24 & The Shield were wildly popular, and Dexter is still in its successful run and getting very little attention from potentially inspiring real violence.  Each of those shows received mild criticism, just like GTA games did before the Hot Coffee mod scandal.  

But all of it combined doesn't compare to the intense attention received from a one second flash of Janet Jackson's right breast seven years ago today.  That one second changed how the FCC did its job.  It also affected the the lineup for subsequent Super Bowl halftime shows, with this year having the first modern act since the incident.  It did all this even though the number of people seeing it would have been far less without the help of DVR.

There are times when violence will get attention though, but it seems to require real blood being shed.  Not only are we still talking about the recent Tuscon shooting and attempted assassination of Arizona Representative Gabrielle Giffords, but we're still talking about two young men who shot up their Colorado high school 12 years ago.

A much more recent near massacre was reported, but got very little attention after the initial reports.  Does this mean that someone has to actually be killed for the general public to take true notice of the clear problem Glenn Beck's hate speech poses?  I certainly hope not, but if Byron Williams' failed attempt on the Tides Foundation barely got noticed, what will it take?