Login or register.
We’ve Lost The Outrage…

We’ve Lost The Outrage…

Remember a few weeks ago, when Janet Jackson flashed her jewelry-encrusted boob to millions of average Americans on primetime television, sending the entire country on a weeks-long bender of moral high horse-ery?  Everyone was outraged, and the fires of the age old debate about media and morality flared anew.  Even MTV, that great bastion of pop whoredom, got in on the act and moved some of its raciest videos to the overnight hours, long past the bedtime of its target market (who have to get up early in the mornings for junior high).

Which, of course, made one wonder if that left any videos out of the 7 or so that make up MTV’s current rotation for primetime.  But noone really seemed to care.  MTV did their civic duty, as any responsible media outlet should (Clear Channel recently did the same with Howard Stern and Bubba the Love Sponge).

Concerned parents and media watchdogs everywhere could now breathe a sigh of relief, knowing that Britney’s skin, Blink-182’s lesbian flings, and Ludacris’ booty-shaking would no longer influence their impressionable teenagers (at least, not this way).  Instead, such fare would be reserved for lonely thirtysomething males who couldn’t afford real porn channels, but still needed something to watch after a long day at the local 7-11.  And all was well in America.

Until now.

Don’t get me wrong—I think most of what MTV stands for and promotes is absolute shite and brings little, if anything, of real value to the culture.  But I expect that from MTV, and so A.) it doesn’t offend me when they do stuff like that, and B.) I can easily avoid it.  It didn’t surprise me one bit when they went back to the way things were.  But now I’m curious about the response.  Has there been any backlask, any decrying of MTV’s about face?  Apparently not, because MTV certainly feels comfortable bringing them back.

What with all of the outrage surrounding Jackson and her little friend, I found it rather ironic that MTV has been bringing back those raunchy little nuggets because—Surprise!—people want to see them.  Evidently, people actually want to watch half-naked girls shaking what God gave them.

That’s why I always find people’s “outrage” over the immorality in the media so perplexing, if not downright hypocritical.  On the one hand, people moan and wail whenever something like Jackson’s “accident” takes place (or when Bono drops the F-Bomb, or Johnny Knoxville sets himself on fire), bemoaning the lack of standards and agreeing that something needs to be done, examples need to be set, blah, blah, blah.

However, I hear no outrage or concern over shows like “My Big Fat Asshole Of A Fiance”, “Survivor”, and “American Idol” (Or, “How I Learned To Throw Away My Dignity And Enjoy Getting Reamed By A Snobbish Jack-Ass On National Televion”), which I would argue are far more damaging and questionable than any nipple flash.  Why?

Because they’re entertaining, almost subversively so.  It’s easy and enjoyable to laugh at people making fools of themselves, at people degrading themselves, because it allows us to feel superior to them, to lord over them and judge them.  I hear such comments everyday from friends and co-workers, judgmental statements that they’d never say to a person’s face, and… they… love… it.  And they’ll defend their right to love it, even when you point out the hypocrisy of enjoying people being turned into laughingstocks while being outraged when a silly publicity stunt gets out of hand.

You can never take the moral outrage of society seriously.  Why?  Because the things that provoke such outrage aren’t wrong?  No.  I find much of what pop culture promotes and shovels down our throats to be very immoral and unsatisfying—wicked even.  It’s because society doesn’t want to rock the boat.  We want to be outraged, to feel morally indignant—so long as indignation doesn’t interfere with the TV shows we want to watch, the food we want to eat, the clothes we want to wear, etc.  (Or in my case, as I’m just as guilty of this as anyone, the movies and CDs I want to view and hear).

Society wants the status quo—wherever that might rest.  And we’re perfectly fine with hypocricsy of it all, so outrage follows a cyclical pattern.  What was the last big media outrage?  Michael Moore’s speech at last year’s Oscars?  Bono’s use of “fuck” on live television?  Britney and Madonna’s liplock on the MTV Music Awards?  When was the last time you heard anyone decry those things, let alone mention them?  We’ve been bombarded by this crap so much, and for so long, that we’ve become immune to it (which is probably why noone’s voiced a protest like this over nudity in primetime before, although it has occurred).

We’ll voice some protest over it, Mr. Powell at the FCC will launch an investigation (which will quickly get bogged down by legislation), some fines will be levied against this TV network or that TV network (which may or may not get paid), and we’ll go on living the way we’re used to—leering over Britney as she flaunts her goodies at impressionable youth, laughing at a stupid girl getting embarassed by an obnoxious fat guy, wishing our husbands would get “queer” makeovers, holding our sides as wannabe divas get squashed by Simon Cowell, etc., etc., etc.

And it simply won’t matter anymore.

Comments

  1. adam

    February 27, 2004 10:39pm

    The genie is out of the bottle.  Any attempt at making our media culture seem somewhat “moral” is like putting a cotton swab on a gunshot wound.  Its basically just a nice thought.

  2. aaron

    February 27, 2004 11:26pm

    This country is too uptight about the wrong stuff anyway. Sure, kids can sit through a violent football game in which bone-cracking hits are shown in slow motion over and over, but a boob pops out for .5 of a second and everyone is in an uprage. I wonder how many killings kids see on tv per year, (acted-out or real-life) and the effect they have versus seeing some nip. Anything to distract the public from the real problems. Too bad Powell and the rest of the FCC doesn’t have a clue. Like B. Bertolucci said earlier this year in defense of his new movie “The Dreamers,”—I’d much rather have an orgasm than a bomb. Amen to that.

  3. Jason

    February 27, 2004 11:57pm

    I can understand, to some extent, why sexuality is a bigger issue in America.  I think a lot of it has to do with our puritanical heritage.  But I also think there’s an undercurrent in our society that has its origins in the Judeo-Christian nature of Western culture.

    Because sexuality is such a personal and intimate thing (obviously), and is of paramount importance in Judeo-Christian theology (although most would probably think Christians view sex only as a necessary evil), those things that are seen as mocking or subverting it—be it Janet’s nipple, gay marriages, whatever—are suddenly viewed as being much, much more detrimental to the culture than, say, violence.  And to a certain extent, I agree with that (being a Christian myself).  While I would probably agree with Bertolucci on the macro scale (and it IS one heckuva catchy quote), sex can be just as damaging as violence, though on a much smaller, more personal scale.  Which is why it really starts getting thorny, and almost impossible to regulate (you can’t legislate morality).

    That being said, I still don’t think that validates the hypocrisy I see in how we deal with the media, and react to its many faults.  It is hypersexualized (I don’t envy anyone raising a teenage daughter these days), but also, just as likely to promote violence, greed, stupidity, complacency, and other things that are quite deplorable in their own right.

    (I have no idea if any of this rambling made sense.  It’s midnight, and I just got back from seeing “Triplets Of Belleville”, which definitely messes with your head when you start getting tired.)

  4. charity

    February 28, 2004 9:51am

    i think the uproar about janet has to do with place and intent. parents who allow their children to watch the super bowl were intending them to see a football game, which is deemed a culturally/morally safe american pasttime. janet’s breast wasn’t part of the deal. now if you were watching nypd blue or sex in the city, you knowingly are subjecting yourself to explicit sexual content.

    i personally find two historical processes fascinating: first is the cultural/sexual revolution of the 60s and second is the response of the church. rather than engaging in dialogue in the issues that boiled up in the 60s, we continue to be defensive, sweep them under the rug, and horribly missing from the discussion table. this runs the gamut from civil rights to poverty to education. rather than engaging we build up our defenses, prepare for battle, fight, retreat, and start the process over again. the key is engagement. we are too fearful of not having the answers, being persecuted, or humiliated. underlying it all seems to be a lack of faith. if we truly believed that there is truth in the world and that we believe in that truth, then the church should be fearful of nothing, because we are built on the rock that cannot be moved. we are called to persecution and humiliation, not because of ignorance, but because we’re not afraid of battle. let’s enter the dialogue.

  5. Brian

    February 28, 2004 6:22pm

    I agree with what you said. People are so hypocritical. One thing is horrifying, while something equally horrifying (by similar standards) is absolutely ok. People really need to chill out and re-evaluate what’s really worth making a fuss over.

Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.