LGBQT Representation in Media?

[oldcatholicguy]

There is no evidence whatsoever that the media - TV and films - reflect the world around us. Not today. As a professional who works in the media, I’ve watched it slowly degrade itself over the last 40 years on all levels. The 1970s weren’t too bad, by the mid-1980s it was about 50-50. By the late 1980s, George Michael is yelling I Want Your Sex! on the radio. After that, into the abyss. Then shock jocks and the internet. And the volume was gradually turned up on sex and profanity, and now, graphic violence. A serial killer as the lead character? A doctor who has sex with just about anybody as the lead character? A meth maker and dealer as the lead character? I’m expecting the very nice family of cannibals next door next.

Oh yeah, EVERYBODY wanted all that desperately. Having spoken to people in Hollywood, I know it is a cesspool of dark, stupid and harmful messages and a source of extremely bad role models. Music? Same thing.

Standards? There should be standards. If you don’t agree with Church teaching about morality, why post here? Honestly.

Moral relativism leads to tribalism and a dysfunctional society. But, if you go to work, and disagree with what your boss tells you to do, you’re out of a job.

My brothers and sisters in Christ, be careful what you put into your heads.

God bless,
Ed

The media (TV, music, movies, etc) has increasingly moved toward a realistic portrayal of the real world over the years as the standards and norms restricting the media to an artificial reality have been removed or abandoned. This is why the character of Miss Kitty from Gunsmoke would be portrayed as a madam running a whorehouse today and not as a “we need to get it past the censors so she’s a saloon keeper, wink, wink” as she was during the production of the series.

 

[edwest2]

The media (TV, music, movies, etc) has increasingly moved toward a realistic portrayal of the real world over the years as the standards and norms restricting the media to an artificial reality have been removed or abandoned. This is why the character of Miss Kitty from Gunsmoke would be portrayed as a madam running a whorehouse today and not as a “we need to get it past the censors so she’s a saloon keeper, wink, wink” as she was during the production of the series.

That’s incorrect. Looking at the last 40 years of TV, the average person was gradually desensitized to sin. And if everything goes, it’s usually immoral and sinful. That was the plan.

The artificial reality on TV I see today is artificial. Even reality shows are scripted.

Ed

 

[commenter]

The media (TV, music, movies, etc) has increasingly moved toward a realistic portrayal of the real world over the years as the standards and norms restricting the media to an artificial reality have been removed or abandoned. This is why the character of Miss Kitty from Gunsmoke would be portrayed as a madam running a whorehouse today and not as a “we need to get it past the censors so she’s a saloon keeper, wink, wink” as she was during the production of the series.

How do you know that whorehouses were common then? You have data?
You refer to the censors of several decades ago. We still have censors today, who squeeze TV into a narrow view driven by ideology, allowing a much less realistic view than the censors of yesterday allowed.

In real life, I know many Catholic and Protestant clergy and laity, sincerely living out the gospel in daily life. They believe and affirm abortion is murder and same sex marriage is wrong; and they also are volunteering to feed the hungry, visit the sick and elderly, assist the disabled, and advocate for any in need. How many of these real life people will today’s censors allow to be depicted in TV or the movies?

 

[edwest2]

How do you know that whorehouses were common then? You have data?
You refer to the censors of several decades ago. We still have censors today, who squeeze TV into a narrow view driven by ideology, allowing a much less realistic view than the censors of yesterday allowed.

In real life, I know many Catholic and Protestant clergy and laity, sincerely living out the gospel in daily life. They believe and affirm abortion is murder and same sex marriage is wrong; and they also are volunteering to feed the hungry, visit the sick and elderly, assist the disabled, and advocate for any in need. How many of these real life people will today’s censors allow to be depicted in TV or the movies?

Good point. There is still censorship on TV. Certain words are bleeped out. Other times, not.

The ideology you speak of crosses all media - even comic books. It would be a great example to many to show real or fictional people carrying out acts of charity.

Ed

 

[ToeInTheWater]

In real life, I know many Catholic and Protestant clergy and laity, sincerely living out the gospel in daily life. They believe and affirm abortion is murder and same sex marriage is wrong; and they also are volunteering to feed the hungry, visit the sick and elderly, assist the disabled, and advocate for any in need. How many of these real life people will today’s censors allow to be depicted in TV or the movies?

I don’t think “censorship” is quite the right word, at least not all the time, it seems to me that much of Hollywood is so out of touch that they don’t even realize people like that even exist. There seems to be an arrogant belief that "our beliefs are so obviously right, that nobody could REALLY sincerely disagree; they must have some Hidden Agenda, they must be hypocrites.

I recall noticing this even as far back as Chicago Hope, where most of the doctors hewed to the liberal line when it came to life issues, and even the one token Catholic doctor, played by Hector Eliozondo, was at least strongly implied to be a hypocrite who didn’t practice what he preached; in one episode, one of the doctors winds up in a PVS, causing much debate over euthanasia. The doctor mysteriously dies before any official decision is made by the hospital, and then the episode ends with the Catholic doctor going to confession; it seemed pretty obvious that he had secretly euthanized his colleague despite publicly denouncing such a plan, and was about to confess to the priest that he had done so.

I also have noticed an assumption, that it is literally impossible for anyone except actual asexuals to live a celibate life and still be a healthy person. This is the essential secular assumption that I think is behind much of the emphasis on Catholic priests as pedophiles or sexual predators, as opposed to the clergy of other religions, or even secular authority figures who abuse their positions of trust.

BTW, I think even Jerry Sandusky is somewhat of the exception that proves the rule, I doubt the media would have gotten as worked about the story if Sandusky hadn’t worked for Joe Paterno, and, therefore, not given them a chance to pull Joe Pa down from his pedestal and expose him as a “hypocrite”. Not that he didn’t deserve it to SOME extent, but I do think that the story would not have been quite as hot if Sandusky had worked for a football coach who didn’t enjoy the same good reputation as Paterno did pre-scandal.

 

[petitfleur]

You have no idea how epigenetics works, do you? Environmental factors could massively impact epigenetic determiners. A couple of generations of the promotion and normalization of gay behaviour could, in fact, bring about an entirely altered epigenetic profile with regard to human sexual behaviour. That is why promoters are loathe to allow open research and target researchers who don’t get the narrative “right.”

    what do you hope to accomplish starting off with such a condescending attitude?. I think this whole paragraph is ridiculous and you sound like a nut, :takeoff:with conspiracy theories that "They" don't want scientists to study epigenetics because they are afraid it would prove what exactly? Since homosexuality is becoming more normalized  for lack of a better word what are "They" afraid of.Epigenetics has been studied in regards to cancer and other diseases. It is not widely accepted, and even if this THEORY, which that is all it is, was FACT it would be only one tiny piece of the puzzle. 
 You really don't know the difference between THEORY and FACT do you?
     
     You could of started out with a discussion on epigenetics in related to human sexuality and not come off like a condescending jerk.

 

[petitfleur]

It certainly does. Oh yes. Walter planting a car bomb and when his savvy rival decided something was amiss, having to crawl under the car to remove it… must have been embarrassing but I’m sure a few people were watching this “how to” part of the episode. Or how about luring this rival into the room of an elderly man with a bomb on his wheelchair? Time to take your notebook out again as Walter shows us the ways to kill your rivals.

He’s just your average heartless killer who could care less about the lives he’s destroying by producing his meth.

It’s immoral voyeurism. I only watched enough so I could get a first-hand look as a writer and editor.

What a bad show.

Ed

 I want to start out by saying I appreciate your patience and steadfastness in these discussions. I hope know I am not trying to come off as disrespectful or take it as a personal attack when I ask questions or comment on your point of view. I appreciate CIVIL discussions with people, it helps me form my own views, see the flaws in my thinking, and my strengths. 
 I do think we can become callous by watching an abundance of immorality in media. Do you think the point you are making here also applies to something like reading a biography of Hitler, Castro,  Rasputin,  Edward Teach(Blackbeard)? If I remember Walter White lost everything in the end and was completely hated by his family. What differentiates this from your standard good verses evil, eventually evil loses formula?

 

[edwest2]

I want to start out by saying I appreciate your patience and steadfastness in these discussions. I hope know I am not trying to come off as disrespectful or take it as a personal attack when I ask questions or comment on your point of view. I appreciate CIVIL discussions with people, it helps me form my own views, see the flaws in my thinking, and my strengths.
I do think we can become callous by watching an abundance of immorality in media. Do you think the point you are making here also applies to something like reading a biography of Hitler, Castro, Rasputin, Edward Teach(Blackbeard)? If I remember Walter White lost everything in the end and was completely hated by his family. What differentiates this from your standard good verses evil, eventually evil loses formula?

Thank you. I really appreciate civil discussions. Reading has a different effect on the mind than seeing it acted out. I pray God to forgive me if some think I’m boasting, I’m not. I’ve spent years studying the media and storytelling in all its forms. There is a book called The Hero With A Thousand Faces. I really disliked it. There should be a similar book titled The Villain With A Thousand Faces.

You see, I specialize in studying military history and intelligence. As an editor, I know there are a finite number of story archetypes out there. Hollywood knows this as well. In the end, the villain is captured and brought to justice, or he is killed or he is exiled or shunned by all. Over the years, all of these scenarios seem to change but the basic character archetype remains. The differences are a different era, country or motivations. My explanation is not exhaustive. In real life, there are people who kill others and do not get taken alive.

Human nature is a fixed quantity, modified by externals like clothes and cars and hairstyles changing. New slang, new technology, but under it all, the same basic villain with new ways to hurt others, but who dresses and acts like present-day people do.

The Church realized what the effect of the cinema, which extended later to TV, had on people, and commented on it.

w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_29061936_vigilanti-cura.html

Reading a biography of Hitler is far different than watching him deliver one of his impassioned speeches to the people at the time. Some have studied his technique: everything from hand gestures to tone of voice and facial expressions. This is not something I want to see often but I’ve seen it. It is not something I could keep watching.

Reading about his rise to power and the pre-war years, allows me to see the interplay between himself, other world leaders and the gradual progression of his plans. That distances me from the man himself. It doesn’t engage my eyes or ears. I don’t need graphic details about certain events that occurred. I only need to know they occurred. The same with Stalin or Castro.

Knowing there were Roman Orgies does not compel me to watch them graphically depicted on screen.

Ed

 

[petitfleur]

Thank you. I really appreciate civil discussions. Reading has a different effect on the mind than seeing it acted out. I pray God to forgive me if some think I’m boasting, I’m not. I’ve spent years studying the media and storytelling in all its forms. There is a book called The Hero With A Thousand Faces. I really disliked it. There should be a similar book titled The Villain With A Thousand Faces.

You see, I specialize in studying military history and intelligence. As an editor, I know there are a finite number of story archetypes out there. Hollywood knows this as well. In the end, the villain is captured and brought to justice, or he is killed or he is exiled or shunned by all. Over the years, all of these scenarios seem to change but the basic character archetype remains. The differences are a different era, country or motivations. My explanation is not exhaustive. In real life, there are people who kill others and do not get taken alive.

Human nature is a fixed quantity, modified by externals like clothes and cars and hairstyles changing. New slang, new technology, but under it all, the same basic villain with new ways to hurt others, but who dresses and acts like present-day people do.

The Church realized what the effect of the cinema, which extended later to TV, had on people, and commented on it.

w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_29061936_vigilanti-cura.html

Reading a biography of Hitler is far different than watching him deliver one of his impassioned speeches to the people at the time. Some have studied his technique: everything from hand gestures to tone of voice and facial expressions. This is not something I want to see often but I’ve seen it. It is not something I could keep watching.

Reading about his rise to power and the pre-war years, allows me to see the interplay between himself, other world leaders and the gradual progression of his plans. That distances me from the man himself. It doesn’t engage my eyes or ears. I don’t need graphic details about certain events that occurred. I only need to know they occurred. The same with Stalin or Castro.

Knowing there were Roman Orgies does not compel me to watch them graphically depicted on screen.

Ed

Thank You. I think the reason why I don’t like hearing this is because I like many of the shows that would be considerd immoral. I don’t like to admit I am risking harming my soul.

 

[John_Savage]

Were there a lot of homosexual relationships in media 25 years ago? No. Why? Because it was considered bad and creators knew they would lose part of the audience. Zoophilia or pedophilia is as common as homosexuality, but it isn’t shown as good because people still think it’s bad.

The reason children’s shows have less homosexuality is because most parents are conservative. The reason movies don’t have a lot of homosexual characters is because they have to sell the movies in places around the world where they think it’s bad.

Do you see a lot of characters smoking in movies today? Why? Because people started thinking of it as bad.

Remember, most people in Hollywood aren’t very courageous. They have an agenda, but they’re careful about it.

When more people start thinking of homosexuality as bad again, it will disappear.

I made up my mind that I wouldn’t watch shows like that.

 

[WonderAndAwe]

If TV and films have fewer characters like these clergy members you describe, it’s not because a puppeteer is telling the writers not to write these characters.
It’s because viewers are not so interested to see them.
You can only do so much with a character like this in a comedy or a drama.
They do exist, of course. (I’m having visions of Father Ralph in the Thornbirds. Only he wasn’t always so devout).
I’m writing a priest character into a TV series I’m working on right now but…he has many struggles and is far than perfect, like our Father Ralph. If they do not have struggles and they don’t fall from grace as it were, they are not interesting to the viewers
But these clergy are a minority in real life, so they are a minority on the small and big screens, too.

.

There’s just something about seeing a character fall that we somehow like, either because we want to see them rise above and beat what they fell against, because we are intrigued by a character study wherein we witness someone’s gradual decline from innocent to monster as a sort of cautionary tale, or we are just complete jerks who have no sense enjoyment from anything other than the failure of others.

Personally I’m a fan of the first option, it’s why I like superhero shows and the like. The Power Rangers/Goku & Friends/JLA/the Autobots etc. encounter a new and dangerous threat and proceed to try and beat the ever-loving tar out of it and fail, often miserably. They then retreat and spend the rest of the story learning about the magic of friendship or whatever and then come back with some fancy new weapon/power/character etc. and proceed to wipe the threat that previously bested them out of existence.

 

[John_Savage]

This is partially naive. Yes, the media reacts to trends, but are you saying that in the nineties people were clamoring for gay characters?

Hollywood is mostly liberal when it comes to sexual issues. Agreed? When they feel it’s safe to push it, they will. A little here. A little there. They will be considered heroes to their friends. If most of Hollywood were religious, it would be more prominent. The proof is the number of commercially nonviable left wing movies made compared to conservative flops. Or, is Hollywood the only place on earth where people are completely objective and without agendas.

Or, maybe you’re saying that media and art is completely reactive to audiences and not trend setting. You can’t have it both ways.

If TV and films have fewer characters like these clergy members you describe, it’s not because a puppeteer is telling the writers not to write these characters.
It’s because viewers are not so interested to see them.
You can only do so much with a character like this in a comedy or a drama.
They do exist, of course. (I’m having visions of Father Ralph in the Thornbirds. Only he wasn’t always so devout).
I’m writing a priest character into a TV series I’m working on right now but…he has many struggles and is far than perfect, like our Father Ralph. If they do not have struggles and they don’t fall from grace as it were, they are not interesting to the viewers
But these clergy are a minority in real life, so they are a minority on the small and big screens, too.

.

 

[Peter_Plato]

If TV and films have fewer characters like these clergy members you describe, it’s not because a puppeteer is telling the writers not to write these characters.
It’s because viewers are not so interested to see them.
You can only do so much with a character like this in a comedy or a drama.
They do exist, of course. (I’m having visions of Father Ralph in the Thornbirds. Only he wasn’t always so devout).
I’m writing a priest character into a TV series I’m working on right now but…he has many struggles and is far than perfect, like our Father Ralph. If they do not have struggles and they don’t fall from grace as it were, they are not interesting to the viewers
But these clergy are a minority in real life, so they are a minority on the small and big screens, too.

Uh, huh.

Next, you will be trying to sell us on the idea that commercials aren’t made merely to sell products by contriving innovations and lifestyles but, rather, serve the true public good by portraying what consumers really think about and want from those products, as if everything consumed in modern western culture expresses the deepest longings and aspirations from the profoundest depth of what it means to be ‘human’ without the slightest hint of adulteration.

If you want to tell stories that will find appeal with the most naively childish in us, then…

Liar! Liar! Pants on fire!

… would be an appropriate response.

 

[petitfleur]

Uh, huh.

Next, you will be trying to sell us on the idea that commercials aren’t made merely to sell products by contriving innovations and lifestyles but, rather, serve the true public good by portraying what consumers really think about and want from those products, as if everything consumed in modern western culture expresses the deepest longings and aspirations from the profoundest depth of what it means to be ‘human’ without the slightest hint of adulteration.

If you want to tell stories that will find appeal with the most naively childish in us, then…

Liar! Liar! Pants on fire!

… would be an appropriate response.

Are you capeable with disagreeing with a person without being condescending and in attack mode?

 

[edwest2]

If TV and films have fewer characters like these clergy members you describe, it’s not because a puppeteer is telling the writers not to write these characters.
It’s because viewers are not so interested to see them.
You can only do so much with a character like this in a comedy or a drama.
They do exist, of course. (I’m having visions of Father Ralph in the Thornbirds. Only he wasn’t always so devout).
I’m writing a priest character into a TV series I’m working on right now but…he has many struggles and is far than perfect, like our Father Ralph. If they do not have struggles and they don’t fall from grace as it were, they are not interesting to the viewers
But these clergy are a minority in real life, so they are a minority on the small and big screens, too.

.

On the contrary, studios are under pressure to write about certain things and avoid others. I’ve been watching the trends. Of course, a false type of “harm” is explicitly stated. A recent article I read about the cancellation of certain TV shows described it as a threat to “diversity.”

I’m mentoring a young screenwriter right now. He is in contact with someone I’ve met who just went from script editor at a name studio on his way to becoming a director. He sent us a short movie he had finished.

Ed

 

[Midwest88]

Are you capeable with disagreeing with a person without being condescending and in attack mode?

Are you saying that PP’s posts are generally condescending and “in attack mode”?

I prefer condescending and in attack mode, just sayin’.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Are you capeable with disagreeing with a person without being condescending and in attack mode?

I could be congenial with a side of syrupy, sweet condescension but then you would have to go see your dentist more than twice a year.

Put another way: my condescension is easier to recognize when it is written straight up.

That would be unlike DaddyGirl’s whose post implied that we were all born yesterday.

You don’t suppose she really believes what she wrote, now do you? Really?

She’s a journalist. Her bread and butter, these days, comes with the condescending assumption that those in the media are oracles of truth to the masses.

 

[edwest2]

All I can say about post #56 is that bias exists in newspapers, magazines, on TV, etc. The current rush to “inclusiveness” means that there are LGBT persons who ensure that the media promotes them. That sometimes stifles certain people when they express views contrary to the views they want to promote. But let’s not forget, it should all be on a case by case basis.

I find it amusing when a gay married couple suddenly appeared on a TV show with no history of it in the past. As if no one would notice.

Ed

 

[petitfleur]

I could be congenial with a side of syrupy, sweet condescension but then you would have to go see your dentist more than twice a year.

Put another way: my condescension is easier to recognize when it is written straight up.

That would be unlike DaddyGirl’s whose post implied that we were all born yesterday.

You don’t suppose she really believes what she wrote, now do you? Really?

She’s a journalist. Her bread and butter, these days, comes with the condescending assumption that those in the media are oracles of truth to the masses.

I guess not.

they say there is no such thing as a stupid question. Why would a person want to ask questions when they get scornful answers. They may be ignorant in your eyes, but they are trying not to be.
Sometimes I make a point in a thread and another person punches hole in it, and I see what they are saying and my opinion changes. Sometimes it doesn’t and I feel firmer in my opinion. People are allowed different points of view than me. It doesn’t make them bad people, and I can still have a civil conversation with them. It the purpose of these discussions “to win” or exchange ideas?

 

[Peter_Plato]

I guess not.

they say there is no such thing as a stupid question. Why would a person want to ask questions when they get scornful answers. They may be ignorant in your eyes, but they are trying not to be.
Sometimes I make a point in a thread and another person punches hole in it, and I see what they are saying and my opinion changes. Sometimes it doesn’t and I feel firmer in my opinion. People are allowed different points of view than me. It doesn’t make them bad people, and I can still have a civil conversation with them. It the purpose of these discussions “to win” or exchange ideas?

I agree with you, for the most part.

However, your two options (win or exchange ideas) seem to leave out completely a most important third one – **to come to know the truth **– as if that isn’t a live option, at all.

You see, often what is left unstated is more important than what gets repeated over and over, again.

Perhaps I am just getting grumpy in my old age and have become very impatient with and tired of the “commonly known” inanities being written up again and again as if by mere repetition they will come to encapsulate the epitome of all truth.