Synod criticises media, calls for research
The Church of England General Synod last week heard various Revs and Bishops decry the state of the media in the UK. TV, cinema ratings, computer games, and lads’ mags all came under fire.
Even Strictly Come Dancing was criticised, not for the fact that the choreographers for that show seem to derive most of their inspiration from the Kama Sutra, but because it “exploits the humiliation of human being for public entertainment”. Edmund Marshall, a lay member from Wakefield, said
To me as a Christian, the ethos is to seek and save those who have been losers
God help them.
The British Board of Film Classification was slammed for giving 18 certificates to films such as Intimacy, Baise-Moi, 9-songs, and Destricted – all deemed by the Rev Richard Moy of the Lichfield to be “hardcore”.
To their credit, however, the Synod did reject a call for the government to investigate programme standards, voting instead to set up a research project to investigate the influence of media on behaviour.
Please tell me you’re making up that part about Strictly Come Dancing. I suppose as Christians they will be exempt from a ‘political correctness gone mad’ headline in the Express or Mail.
‘… but because it “exploits the humiliation of human being for public entertainmentâ€.’
Oh, wow! And just what does acting do, then, when, say, someone is humiliated as part of the plot? How about when a man in a frock gets hold of a baby and drops water onto its head while a load of twats stand around this stone sink approving of it? Is that not humiliation, Rev.? Ah, but perhaps the sprog can’t feel humiliation at that age. But, then, the Strictly CD folk obviously don’t feel humiliated, so that would rule that one out.
It says in the bible to turn the other cheek. Why don’t they just do that instead of having a go at everyone else.
I’ve always wanted to kick “Dog Shit” Green in the arse, and see if he turns the other cheek but what stops me from doing so is that we have a law that says assault is wrong. A secular law.
Actually I’d welcome some research into this. Proper, methodical, scientific, acredited research. Even if I didn’t like the results and it proved some of their opinions and disproved mine, I’d welcome it.
Of course it will never happen, they would never take the chance that they may be proven wrong. Any research that they undertake would only be deliberately skewed to prove whatever point it is that they are trying to make.
What about that ‘9 songs’ though, eh? What a load of absolutely despicable rubbish that was.
Paul, 9 songs is a hard film to watch, but that’s because it is such a high quality. Its a different kind of erotism, a harsh and cold one, but erotism it is – as it portrays and remain very focused on relationships. This kind of relationship that the couple has is iconic as it represents a certain core of contemporary life.
You might want to check the realm of the senses for a cinematic context…
Tiger, I fully agree with you that a proper research into alledged “media influence” will be welcomed. However, setting up a research like that will take a lot of work, as there are so many factors involved.. Something like a cultural, cern-like, superconductor will be required..
However, I’d suggest to set the synod 2 little benchmarks for an impartial research into media influence, or otherwise. Keyword here is media, and books are part of the media, including the bible, quran, and the such…
So, lets see if they include all media productions…
2nd benchmark is, ofcourse, education. Does the church, or any religious body, encourages to question what is being transmitted via media channels – including books – and does its best to provide tools for investigating what individuals and groups are being told? Not to my knowledge.
Hence the 2nd benchmark is to find how the church criticises itself.. Yes, lets see them try some self awareness…
Here’s one I came up with today while wrestling this one (sorry, it’s a little OT, but this is where their ideas stem from).
Christian writers (and other religious writers who “interpret” the real meaning of scripture (note, “REAL” meaning!) are called “apologists” or “apologetics”. Apologists find evience for Intelliegent Design and proclaim Chaz Darwin to be a hoaxer… They find meaning in the bible/Qu’ran to suit whatever they need to say
Most people haven’t heard the term, so your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to inform people what they really are. Apologists are SPIN DOCTORS.
For once I’m on their side, although as always I don’t see why their opinion should count more than anybody else’s. I’ve always found the “reality” shows incredibly distasteful. But then again, I vote with my remote-control and don’t watch. As for the “harcore” films, I can’t comment as I haven’t seen them. Research into whether we are bringing-up a generation of self-centred bestial sadists would be welcome, though.
NoJags – I agree, I think reality TV is the nadir of our society and nothing would make me more delighted than having this drivel off the screen forever. The millions of people who watch these programs are wrong and I am right obviously. I too have a system for dealing with this though. I don’t watch them. It’s revolutionary I know, but I think it might catch on. Do you think we should suggest this radical approach to the various god botherers, meddlers and interfering busy bodies who we loathe so much here at MWW?
How does Richard Moy know those films are ‘hardcore’ unless he’s watched them, and if he did, who paid for his tickets?
The idea of a sticky-fingered cleric dipping into the collection plate to fund his porn habit won’t go down too well with his parishioners, will it?
Umm, haven’t there been about a million research projects into the effects of media on behaviour in the past, none of which found any long-term negative effects?