Metropolitan Liberal Elite alert
The Church of England Newspaper has published some more reactions to Ofcom’s new Broadcasting Code (see below).
Nigel Holmes, a member of the C of E Synod’s Religion in Broadcasting group, has reservations:
It talks about protecting those under 18, but simply by imposing a watershed. In truth, most 18-year-olds have access to TVs and computer sets after that hour. Why should material inappropriate to children of this age therefore be broadcast immediately after 9pm.
The code actually states that “The transition to more adult material must not be unduly abrupt at the watershed” (Section 1, 1.6). Nige must have missed that bit.
He also expresses concern that decisions about broadcasting were being made by the “metropolitan liberal elite”. As opposed to what? The provincial authoritarian hoi polloi? Dear boy, are you sure they even own “computer sets”?
Sometimes ppl talk of the watershed as though it were something everyone agrees on – or should agree on. On the contrary, who was actually asked about whether there shd be a watershed? – and who decided? Were they representative?
(1) It gives carte blanche for the broadcasting of more questionable material;
(2) the time-of-day issue weighs less anyway in an age of video recorders, tvs in bedrooms, flexible bedtimes.
Christopher-
The watershed is there to allow adults the freedom to watch adult Television after 9pm. My view is that if an 18 rated film is shown, say around 10.30pm it should be shown uncut as it is after the watershed and if children are watching that’s their parents fault.
Many adults wonder why their viewing choicies should be restricted because parents by their kids TVs for their rooms.
I am confused by the suggestion that the fact that people have video recoreders should have any bareing on the watershed. Some adults will tape adult shows/films and watch them during the day but what has this got to do with the TV companies or Ofcom? Should Ofcom start a rule that says nothing adult orientated should be broadcast because people will watch it on their video recorders at the “wrong time”? I think not!
I suppose it tells parents when the naughty bits are coming on so they can ensure that the tiny ones aren’t up and about after they’ve enjoyed Songs of Praise long pre-watershed showing from time to time, no doubt, with camera pans, a picture of a man being tortured to death hanging from a piece of wood with nails bashed through his bands. Where Massa Beyer now. Why not Massa Beyer bay at that one when he done bayin’ at da moon?
Dan-
The watershed is rendered meaningless by the existence of video recorders. But that is separate from the question of whether the watershed is a good or bad thing in the first place. My reason for thinking it’s a bad thing is that it encourages an incorrect view of what it means to be properly ‘child’ or properly ‘adult’.
As I mentioned, I dont think there is any right or wrong time: we agree on this. There are some things for which anything is a good time; others for which nothing is a good time. How can the time of day affect the nature of the content?
Hi Andy-
Stuff like ‘The Passion of the Christ’ is neither dehumanising nor historically inaccurate (in the way that JSTO is historically inaccurate & cares nothing for accuracy in its portrayal of Jesus when faced with an audience that may largely be unaware of what would be accurate). The ratings for this film were intriguing: different countries couldnt agree how to rate it. Britain managed to rate at ’18’ a film with far less dubious material in than many 12A movies. In the shop where I work, pre-teens appreciate it.
Stuff like ‘The Passion of the Christ’ is neither dehumanising nor historically inaccurate
But where were the zombies? The Passion of the Christ would have been more “historically accurate” if it had included the zombies which rose from their graves and walked the streets of Jerusalem at the time of Jesus’ death on the cross, as reported in Matthew (Matt 27:52-53). Not only would it have been a truer rendition of this reliable historical document, but it would have been a more entertaining film – even if they weren’t actually flesh-eating zombies.
This I doubt. Mark is the original gospel. One of the ways in which Matthew embellishes Mark is by adding folk-tradition, which customarily includes ‘spectacular’ elements: e.g. the coin in the fish’s mouth, Peter walking on water, Pilate’s wife’s dream, the magnificent angelic descent at the resurrection, and the (as you so quaintly put it) ‘zombies’. I suppose Matthew thought he was being inclusive/comprehensive by including such stories, but that is no guarantee of their truth.
Er, Christopher, surely Q is the ‘original gospel’?
Hi Joe-
I am one of the increasing number who disbelieves that Q ever existed, & gave a paper in Cambridge some years back called ‘R.I.P. Q?’. The logical arguments for this point of view are strong, but I will not rehearse them unless you ask.
The best New Testament website is Mark Goodacre’s ‘NTGateway’, which also has a good site (and links to other sites) discussing Q (or the non-existence of Q).
Re the ‘zombies’: I have seen many Jesus films, but never yet (to my memory) one which included this episode. As Monitor said, it would make great ‘theatre’ – but rather incongruous & bathetic.
I agree, Matthew (or rather, the author of “Matthew”) was a bullshitter. He really overdid the walking dead bit. Who could believe a story with so many zombies in it?
“Mark”, by contrast, only features one zombie: Jesus. That’s much more plausible.
Jerry Springer: The Opera was unquestionably fictional, even to the most thickest of audiences. The Passion of Christ claimed to be fact.
There’s the fundamental difference.
Of course! It is the fundamental difference. That means that it is not the only difference, & that there are other differences. For example, the Passion would not reinforce uninformed stereotypes, whereas JSTO could do so.
JS:TO cannot reinforce stereotypes because it is patently fictional (which specific stereotypes do you laughably claim it reinforced, except that the reaction to it by Christian Voice reinforced the stereotype that Christians are morons?).
Meanwhile, there are people who believe the damaging fallacies contained within “Passion” to be actually accurate.
Phazer
What Im thinking of is that there are plenty of people who have only a very hazy idea about what is in the first-century documents about Jesus. They might (for example) prefer to be lazy and say things like ‘He was a bit of a wimp/pansy/zombie’ [had to get that last one in: delete as appropriate], or alternatively ‘Bet he wouldnt have minded if that woman that anointed him had gone a bit further’ (as Eve did in the production). The production reinforced both these cop-out points of view.
I also agree with Andy that as Jesus films go, the Passion is not one of the most accurate. It contains late legends like Jesus’s three falls and Veronica’s handkerchief.
I actually more meant the damaging fallacy that there is a god and that any Jesus was anything more than a David Koresh style cult leader (or possibly a few mixed together and massively elaborated on).
The two examples you’ve given of supposed stereotypes reinforced are beyond stupid. Even the most rediculously stupid of people could not fail to have noticed that they were completely fictionalised representations, and frankly you’ve no basis for saying that either of those things aren’t true anyway.
Phazer
hi Andy-
That’s slightly different from the point Im making. Take person A who is well-informed about the first-century documents on Jesus, and person B who is not. These two people will have two different perceptions of how the JSTO portrayal relates to reality: the first informed, the second uninformed.
No, they won’t. It’s like saying someone unfamiliar with the history of pre-Christian England will see Lord Of The Rings and assume that actually must have happened then.
This is an interesting one. The letters of Tolkien & his sons indicate that a Scandinavian location & a mediaeval time-period was envisaged for ‘Lord of the Rings’. I never understood how this squared with the maps or with the ‘Ages’ of Middle Earth.
I dont think that uninformed viewers would think Jesus was actually like he was in JSTO. Even viewers unaware that it was satire (if there were any) would not think that. My point is a different (& uncontroversial, yet rarely considered) one: namely that no-one can know what is false, in what ways it is false, and to what degree it is false unless they first know what is true or accurate.