Violent images shown in the media...why?

After seeing a video this morning of a 92 year old man being pummled in the head by a Detroit carjacker, I thought to myself, why on Earth does the nes media choose to show us this kind of imagery. It is bad enough that i have to read this horrific news in the paper, but to see it is too much.

What if my 3 year old is sitting there, and suddenly she sees someones grandpa getting the snot beat out of his head as he hangs onto his cardoor for dear life?

What the Western media does is pretty two faced to me. Here they are chastizing Middle Eastern news outlets for showing bloody scenes of mutilated bodies, which we deem unfit for the public in the West. But then, we go ahead and show something almost equally as violent (granted there are no corpses), such as the elderly being beat down by criminal thugs, helpless women bartenders being brutalized by a drunk, off-duty cop.

Why is there this double standard for Western media outlets? I know that sex and violence sells, but why on earth must these images be forced down our throats on a daily/weekly basis.

Do you think that this is necessary, or is it overkill? And what are these images and stories doing to our already decaying societal values?

Unfortunately, the public hungers for violent images. It ranges from violence in video games and movies to violent imagery in musical lyrics. Hence, it is a not-to-simple case of supply and demand.

If the media portrays violent and shocking images, then they probably feel it will boost their ratings. I'm not sure how true this last statement really is, though.

Either way, it runs along the same vein as so-called "shock jocks," such as Don Imus. We may not care for it much, but apparently there is an audience that eats it up.

Of course sex and violence sell, but if this is the case, then why will we not show coverage like the Middle Eastern outlets do, of bloodied corpses and mutilated bodies?

Why do our media outlets limit themselves to a tamer version of violence compared to others?

This just seems outrageous to me?

No more takers on this subject?

Well for two reasons I can think of.

1. It has to do with people in this country, and people generally seem to care more about
'there fellow American' than they do about others, especially in the Middle-East.

2. I do believe that there are limits to the violence and carnage that can be shown,
the news does not show things that are to gruesome because they would technically be
rated R and would not be allowed on normal TV like that.

I'm fortunate enough to remember the days when sanitary napkins (menstrual napkins) were NOT advertised on tv at ALL -- and especially not at a time when mom and dad were seated at the dinner table with Master Three Year old and Miss Five Year old and the Grandparents.

I remember the days when situation comedies focused on humour, ethical behaviour, family-values and generally held a moral.

I remember the days when movies concentrated on story-line rather than breasts, tongue-kissing-in-close-up-complete-with-slurping-noises, simulated sex, blood, filth, horror.

I remember the alleged 'censorship debates'. The conclusion had been corruptly predetermined anyway. The result was increasingly distasteful tv and movie content.

I remember realising that standards were heading rapidly downhill. That vulgarity was being presented as 'humor' and 'reality'.

And guess what? Society's standards were going down in direct proportion to the filth to which it was being exposed.

To excuse these unwarranted excesses, the whore media trumpted the 'right' of everyone to 'decide for themselves' if they did or did not wish to watch total strangers having sex; to watch people being decapitated by chainsaws, etc.

Which is similar to claiming that pedophiles have the 'right' to decide for themselves whether or not to peek through cracks in the children's change rooms.

It's not all that long ago that the media actually had standards: it referred to prostitutes as 'ladies of the night', to gays as 'limp wristed' or 'effeminate, and to particularly horrible crimes as 'appalling'. That was sufficient: people knew what those terms meant. People did not wish to dwell on detail, most of them. They simply wished for a decent way of life for themselves and their families.

So we should ask 'who' engineered the media's descent to the gutters.

And when we ask that, we learn that a certain group of people undertook to gain a monopoly within the media, after which, the media soon echoed the vulgarity and excesses for which that group of people is reknowned.

That particular group of people promoted 'psychiatry' and 'marketing': the two are inextricably entwined of course.

And that group of people KNEW that 'monkey see, monkey do'.

The same group of people were aware (and boasted thus) that if you repeat something often enough -- no matter how outlandish -- it will eventually be accepted (by the goyim sheep) as 'true'.

And they also boasted that advertising/marketing 'creates the demand. Then we supply to that demand'.

All is clear now, isn't it?

Show people smoking, swearing, blaspheming, behaving violently, promiscuously, sexually. Put those images in people's living rooms.

Subject them to those images/behaviours frequently.

Soon they will accept those behaviours as 'normal'.

The frequency of the repeated images will persuade them that such behaviours are 'kewl'.

Children will accept such behaviours as 'desirable', 'normal, kewl, even mandatory.

Such brutalization of people's sensitivities and emotions will result in the development of 'emotional callouses'; they will develop 'tough or thick skin' regarding such disgusting behaviours and images. They will lose their sense of discernment aka 'good or decent taste'.

Soon, any programme or tv show or movie that does NOT provide brutal, sub-human behaviours will be regarded as 'lacking' -- as 'boring' -- as 'having something missing'.

Thus the demand for foulness is created. Producers may then claim that in order to be profitable, 'viable' --- all shows MUST contain explicit (horrifying, brutal, distasteful, violent, overtly sexual) content. Yes, create the demand then claim to be 'only' catering to such demand.
Filth and depravity, violence and emotionally harmful content is now considered 'normal' behaviour.

Money see - monkey do. Now pre-teens are foulmouthed, overtly sexual, emotionally-brutalized.

Mom, Dad, the Grandparents and the wee-ones now watch without comment as people are beaten and raped, as they swear and tote guns and hack others apart. 'Normal' family tv fare.

Oh, are families breaking up? Are children depressed and depressing, suicidal, lacking motivation, sense of self ? Do husbands and wives now 'spice up' their sex-lives by using porno movies in place of foreplay? Are men and women less than satisfied with their spouses? Are young children falling pregnant and experimenting with sex and drugs, alcohol, etc?

Gee. Wonder how THAT happened ?

Turn it off.

Better still, throw it away.

Decide to swim against the stream of filth.

The filth-makers WANT your family to fall apart !
They WANT your kids to end up in the gutter with a needle in their arm !
They WANT you and your loved ones to scream hatred and despair at your god before you blow your brains out !

WHO is in control of your life --- you --- or THEM ?

Better show them. Better let them know. Better stop watching and listening to their filth.

They DO want to destroy you.

But they ALSO love money.

Don't buy their filthy product.

Confront THEM with a choice for once. Stop giving it to them easy.

Make them choose between destroying you and your family --- or LOSING the MONEY they worship so much !

Go on.

You can DO it !

The media is in direct competition with the Internet. People will have what is demanded. Thresholds accepted.

You would think there was no limit for the demand for inexcusable violence. But, I have learned through the course of several actions that most will shut out what they find unacceptable.

The key is not really sensationalism, but a selling point. If it can lead to argue/debate/demand for censorship, then it has trailing ad space attached at the end.

People take so many stupid pills these days though that they will blatantly ignore shear violence if it is unanticipated/unwanted. It will end up in the bin of "What about..." where those interceded are still ever present. And all is well in "Magic Land".

With the advent of the YouTube generation, I think that our media outlets are going to start broadcasting more and more violent images.

As the populus has been feeding off of the video sites that let their users post such images and videos, the most bizarre and off the wall ones seem to make it onto legitimate news sources.

If the organ donor show ends up getting off the ground, I have no doubt that within 10 years, the world will see some sort of programming that bears a striking resemblance to "The Running Man". If the government would allow it, I wholeheartedly believe that we would start removing the worst prisoners in our system, shipping them to live camera fed islands in the middle of nowhere, giving them weapons and seeing who survives.

Pretty sick, but so is society. It will happen in time.

that and for some reason we dont seem to see that seeing crime on tv inspires more crime it doesnt make people more aware but we have this wierd fascination with crimes and violence i agree in full though i believe if we didnt see this kinda stuff everyday on the news maybe we could begin moving in a new direction

Some little old lady was shown weeks ago getting the @#$% beat out of her too. I thought it was rather disturbing, but maybe its the new times we live in.

Why hold back anything?? We're supposed to all be shocked at all times.