Weather | Sports | Forums | Comics | Classifieds | Calendar | Movies
© St. Petersburg Times, published September 24, 2000
Re: Attacks on entertainment industry are baseless, by Robyn E. Blumner, Sept. 17.
In her column, Robyn E. Blumner draws conclusions that I find hard to believe. She compares the music of Elvis and old cartoons to rap music and the very graphic violence of modern videos. There are so many misconceptions and such shallow reasoning involved in this column, I found it hard to believe that this isn't just a story meant to provoke outcry.
Yes, the music of today and the violence of television and visual media are not the "cause" of the "corruption of our youth," but surely one must be wearing some mighty dark glasses (or rose-colored ones), not to see that there is a definite correlation between what we see and hear in our entertainment and the way we react to the world around us.
More and more children are being "raised" by television. There are more and more single- parent families and families where the children come home from school and wait hours for a parent or adult to appear.
Never before have our youth been more saturated by media. On the Internet, on television and on the radio, sex, violence and aggressive behavior are the norm. Couple this with a lack of parental guidance and a world where the neighborhood and family are disappearing and the result is that very often real relationships are not being formed because so much time is spent in the fantasy relationships with "stars" of the media and Internet friends. Yes, there are many pieces to the puzzle of why our youth are carrying guns to school, buying drugs, rebelling against parents and the very codes of ethics that make a civilized society.
I don't believe that a ratings system infringes on our freedom; I believe it enhances it. If I know from a rating that a video or CD is more profane or violent then I have an easier choice as to whether or not I want to watch or listen. To define something is not to limit it. To label something is not to steal our freedom. What steals our freedom is a lack of knowledge, not an increase of it.
I also believe people need to know the content of whatever input our children are getting. Children need to be protected and nurtured. Part of nurturing is making sure their worlds are filled with love and laughter and learning and childlike things. To watch somebody's head being blown off or listen to someone shout profanity is a choice adults can make; these are not things that help in the development of a child.
So many people are hardened by all the graphic sex, violence and profanity in the media today that they wash over many of us and don't even register. Along with everything else, they are pieces in the puzzle. To deny the pieces is to never get the picture and therefore to never solve the puzzle.
-- Michael Dan Ehmig, Clearwater
Re: Attacks on entertainment industry are baseless, Sept. 17.
Robyn E. Blumner's argument, straightforward enough, is: Show me the proof, the studies. As a chemistry major and physician, I well appreciate the foundation of experiment and studies upon which my profession depends. But when one discusses the social sciences, no such claims can be made.
Isn't it obvious to all that a child (or adult) who fills his days watching multiple acts of murder and senseless graphic violence will be less empathic and less sensitive than one who fills his days identifying with, say, the Dickens protagonist David Copperfield? Would Blumner insist that a young man who reads pornography or watches repeated acts of gratuitous sex will be as sensitive and loving as one who dwells on the writings of Jane Austen or Susan B. Anthony? Do we need studies to prove such discernible truths? John Maynard Keynes said, "It is ideas . . . which are dangerous for good or evil." Will good or evil most likely result if one is filled with the ideas of love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control? (These are motifs sadly lacking in Hollywood.) And conversely, will good or evil most likely result from one whose head is being filled with hatred, jealousy, envy, anger, lust, selfish ambition and drunkenness? (These themes dominate film and television.) Again, I need no studies to prove this -- I believe the answers are clear to any thinking person.
To quote Oliver Wendell Holmes, "Every idea is an incitement." Why shouldn't our legislators castigate Hollywood and ask what ideas its products are inciting in our citizens. Why can't we expect more noble purposes from television and film? Do we really need to wait for some study?
-- James A. Avery, M.D., Clearwater
Re: Risky hospital politics, editorial, Sept. 17.
The logic in this editorial falls way short of that which I have come to expect of the St. Petersburg Times. It does not take into account that the St. Petersburg City Council is responsible for setting the policy, and the mayor has responsibility for implementing it. In addition, it doesn't recognize that the respective boards of directors of Bayfront Medical Center and St. Anthony's Hospital have a responsibility to the community, particularly since they fly under the banner of non-profit organizations as opposed to investor-owned facilities.
These two boards were very deceptive when they secretly incorporated a restriction in their mutual agreement that imposed the religious beliefs of one organization on the other, just to satisfy the bottom line. Both organizations needed a cooperative arrangement for their financial health. But St. Anthony's prevailed in insisting on the non-financial provision. This was done even though it put Bayfront in jeopardy of violating its agreement with the city.
The editorial would put the total blame for the failure to correct this mess on the shoulders of the mayor. It doesn't recognize the policymaking role of the City Council. It doesn't even acknowledge the responsibility that individuals assume when they agree to become members of the boards of directors of these hospitals, and that they created a situation and now have a responsibility to correct it. It doesn't acknowledge the freedom of religion and tolerance that we attribute to the provisions of our Constitution. And it doesn't acknowledge that the leadership of our City Council and of both hospitals has failed in this matter.
-- Paul V. Yingst, St. Petersburg
Re: Risky hospital politics.
I disagree with your editorial stance regarding Bayfront vs. the city of St. Petersburg. The issue is not only a "handful of" procedures (i.e., abortions) per year, but also end-of-life decisions, elective sterilizations and possibly other procedures that in the future Catholic doctrine may prohibit.
This issue is not just about Bayfront/St. Petersburg, but about religion-influenced hospital alliances all over the country. The greater concern is the precedent-setting decisions involving church/state separation.
On this issue, it is incorrect to blame Mayor David Fischer and the City Council for a secret alliance that was not made in good faith. I believe it would be better to bite the bullet and either nullify the alliance or take the case all the way to the Supreme Court if necessary.
-- Kay A. Paul, Indian Rocks Beach
Re: Give voters two choices, by Martin Dyckman, Sept. 17.
I was very interested in Martin Dyckman's column, as I too have arrived at the decision his son is facing.
However, I have come to a different conclusion as to my course of action on Election Day. I've come to believe that as long as we voters who cannot stomach either one of the main parties' candidates hold our noses and vote for one of them, the parties will continue to ignore me and those like me.
Until large numbers of dissatisfied voters punch the number or pull the lever for a third-party candidate, the Democrats and the Republicans will refuse to change the way they do business.
I have not yet decided for whom I will vote -- Ralph Nader of the Green Party and Harry Browne on the Libertarian ticket are both options. In addition, there are likely to be a number of write-in candidates. I do know that I will not vote for a Republican or a Democrat for president this year.
Will either party allow the changes Dyckman suggests? Not a chance -- those in power never relinquish it willingly.
However, I resent being told that my refusal to vote for one of the main-party candidates means I do not care about who will be remaking the Supreme Court. Change for the better does not come without a short-term cost -- let it begin soon and let it begin at the top.
-- Ray Eydmann, Valrico