TV Violence: Is the News Taking It Too Far?

2:00 am
I don't think I've seen this hour in months! For some reason (*cough* new meds *cough*) I can't sleep tonight. I keep having nightmares and I'm absolutely exhausted, but I can't sleep. I decided to get up because I felt bad for waking up my fiancé every time I moved.

The nightmare I kept having was about something I saw on television today. I was flipping channels around 3 pm; I'd just finished listening to/watching an episode of America's Next Top Model and I needed something to bring my IQ back up. I went through the news channels and stopped on CNN. They were talking about the possibility of a cease-fire in the Middle East. I am all for peace, so I decided to watch the story.

As the top of the hour rolled by, they showed the most recent development in the escalation of violence: a group of Hamas men on motorcycles dragging the body of an alleged Israeli spy through the streets of Gaza while crying out, "God is great!" I was horrified! I am an extremely sensitive person when it comes to seeing violence and this crossed the line. I was absolutely blown away that they would show this at three o'clock in the afternoon. They did not preface it with, "This shows graphic images" or anything like that. How many kids had yesterday off from school and could have been flipping channels like I was?!

Around 8 pm or so, my fiancé and I were watching Anderson Cooper 360 and for some reason he or his producers thought it would be important to show a bunch of "graphic images" while Anderson talked about what had been going on lately. Anderson prefaced it with, "We are about to show some very graphic images..." While I appreciate the warning (I hid my eyes, but I wasn't quite quick enough), AC360 is a primetime show. How many families are flipping through channels on their first night of Thanksgiving vacation and accidentally see a baby wrapped in a Palestinian flag being lifted in front of a crowd for all to see?! At 10 pm when AC360 came back on after Piers Morgan's show, he did the same thing. I, again, didn't watch; but I wasn't as bothered by CNN showing those images at 10 pm than in the middle of the afternoon and during primetime.

While I understand that this is news and it needs to be shared, I really feel like the brazen reporting needs to stop. I am extraordinarily sensitive to this kind of thing, yes, but as a future parent, I take exception to this. I wouldn't want my children watching the news for a school project or something and all of the sudden see someone being dragged behind a motorcycle. What kind of message does that send to my kids? That the networks care more about the ratings they can get with shock value images than they care about the fact that the person being dragged has a family who might not even know he's dead?

What if it had been an American soldier being dragged behind the motorcycle? The networks would never have shown it! It would have been news, sure; but they would not have repeatedly shown the clip of it actually happening. They would have mentioned it and said something about how it is just immoral and horrifying that those heathens would do that to one of our soldiers. But someone who isn't an American? Sure, let's show that to the world. Some ally we are, showing our ally spy's body being desecrated.

I have immense respect for reporters and their crews. The job they have is incredibly difficult and sometimes dangerous. I don't want Anderson Cooper to take this personally (not that he'll read it; but maybe he will) because I think he's a brilliant reporter. I just want to bring awareness to the fact that just because something happens doesn't mean we need to see it in real time. Wait until after 9 or 10 pm and then show it if you really think it has merit.

Parents, please consider what your kids are exposed to. Even if you're "doing the right thing" and limiting TV time and making sure they're not watching R-rated movies, or whatever you think is the "right thing," pay attention to what they're watching. Remember that if you're watching it with them in the room, they're watching it, too. If the news gets too violent, turn the TV off, have a family game night or something, and watch the news online after your kids go to bed. Violence breeds violence. We need to breed a generation of peace.

Enough. Time for some sleep.

11:30 am
I just proofed what I wrote last night and think it's ready to share. Have a wonderful Thanksgiving!

"Be the change you wish to see in the world." --Gandhi

Women's Reactions to Presidential Debate

This morning, like every morning, I watched "Good Morning America." Not surprisingly, last night's presidential debate was the top story. Interestingly, both Elizabeth Vargas (in for Robin Roberts) and Lara Spencer said that they were a little "taken aback" by both candidates' demeanors. Vargas said, "As a woman...it was a little much. The interrupting and talking over [each other] drove me a little crazy." George Stephanopoulos replied, "A point I've heard a lot. A lot of women turned off by that." Later in the show when Vargas was talking to the political analysts about the debate, she said, "Lara and I were talking, Beanna and I were talking, a lot of other women are agreeing with this assessment...they both seemed a tad aggressive, overly aggressive toward each other." Matthew Dowd, one of the political contributors replied, "You have to be strong and forceful without offending people." Vargas countered, "When they're both trying to get the female vote, I wondered if they alienated a lot of the women out there."

I have been accused of being one-sided in my presentations of political issues, so I immediately turned to Fox News. Fox was not talking about women's reactions to the debate at all. Frank Luntz was talking to "undecided" voters in Nevada and all but one said that Romney was "substantive," "pleasantly surprising," and "believable." The man who didn't say something "nice" about Romney said he was "average." Luntz ignored that man and, with a gesture of an open hand, asked the seven or so voters who said positive things about Romney why they liked what they heard. They gave their reasons and Luntz listened with eye contact and head nodding. Luntz then turned to the man who had said what he had heard was "average," pointed with a finger, not an open face-up palm, at him, and said, "Now you didn't hear that. Why." It was hardly a question. Luntz turned away with his eyes on the floor and didn't respond to the voter's answer, which was, "I didn't hear anything new." Needless to say, Luntz's obvious disregard for a voter who isn't sure if Romney is our country's savior or not really turned me off.

In terms of what I heard on the news, as a woman, I appreciate that ABC actually talked about the women's opinions. I'm not sure if I agree with it, but at least they talked about it. Fox didn't. I actually went to foxnews.com to see if they had any women's reactions that maybe I had missed; they didn't have one story on women in regards to the debate.

In terms of what I saw in the debate last night, as a woman, I didn't see anything wrong with the candidates' demeanors at all. I like the fact that Obama pushed the envelope. He was aggressive. He did interrupt Romney to correct his statements that were blatant lies. I want a President and a Commander-in-Chief who is aggressive. It is hardwired in women to want someone who will protect us, and I think Obama will protect me and my rights.

As a woman, what offended me most last night was Romney still not saying whether he would have signed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act or not. The fact that Romney will not say that women deserve to earn the same pay that men earn for doing the same job is extremely offensive to me. Why should I believe in someone who doesn't believe in my rights as a woman? Why should I vote for someone who doesn't necessarily think that men and I should have equal pay for equal work?

Wow--"equal pay for equal work..." That echoes the civil rights movement. We are still having to fight for civil rights even now in the 21st century. To me, this is an incredibly sad reality. How is it possible that the same demographic that runs around thinking that America is the best country in the world is also the same demographic that supports a candidate who will not commit to equal rights for women? We are not the #1 country in the world, if I can't expect the same treatment that men receive. We are not the best country in the world, if I still have to be concerned about my future children having equal rights.

Come on, America. Let's support a candidate who supports our country's women. Women are 51% of this country's vote. How is it possible in the 21st century that a candidate who doesn't support over half of the country's voters, even has a shot at taking the White House? Let's have some pride.

"Be the change you wish to see in the world." --Gandhi