DEFENSE OF TALK SHOWS.   Term Paper ID:28175 Click to get this paper

Essay Subject: Discusses usefulness for society, Jenny Jones, Oprah Winfrey & other talk show hosts.... More...

6 Pages / 1350 Words 6 sources, 12 Citations, APA Format $24.00 Return to List of Papers

Paper Abstract: Discusses usefulness for society, Jenny Jones, Oprah Winfrey & other talk show hosts. Paper Introduction: TALK IS JUST TALK: DEFENDING THE TALK SHOW IN THE 21ST CENTURY It is an exercise in redundancy to make the case that our society is a violent one. It is an arguable contention(one that surely will be validated on the pages of any history book) that humankind is simply a quarrelsome breed; one that has, since the inception of the social contract, existed amidst countless acts of violence and indiscretion. As a matter of course, we have always sought to determine the causes of such violence and social degradation, and to trace those elements in society that are assumed to perpetuate aggressive and uncivilized behavior in the masses. Theater, art, music, political rallying, propaganda- all of these and more have been branded as contributors to the deterioration of our collective moral fiber. Today, talk shows have emerged as the culp Text of the Paper: The entire text of the paper is shown below. However, the text is somewhat scrambled. We want to give you as much information as we possibly can about our papers and essays, but we cannot give them away for free. In the text below you will find that while disordered, many of the phrases are essentially intact. From this text you will be able to get a solid sense of the writing style, the concepts addressed, and the sources used in the research paper. 92). "Television's Assault on Civility", USA Today(Magazine), Sept 1998, v127 n264 p62(2).Willis, Ellen. 92-4). Talk shows illustrate the extent to which these ills have takenhold of us, and then they allow us to confront them, condemn them, andlearn from them. And homophobia is certainly not perpetuated on talk shows. ReferencesEhrenreich, Barbara. Real life, as itexists. Thepreaching...is relentless"(1995, p. Schmitz, overcome with humiliation, acted on impulse andpicked up his 12-guage shotgun(Weinberg, 1998, p. In the end,the crowd decides whether to applaud(acquit) or to boo andridicule(convict). Those who propose the removal oftalk shows from the screen, or the censorship of the content of such shows,are, in McCarthy's estimation, joining the ranks of "those who believe thatsilencing a speaker can remove that speaker's thoughts from society andthereby- magically- prevent citizens from acting on those thoughts"(1995,p. 15). 1 6).This daring approach to social issues is not limited to homosexuality."The messages[on talk shows]," writes Fillion, "are staunchly progressive:promote tolerance, don't blame the victim"(1996, p. 2 ). In March, 1995,a guest on the Jenny Jones' program named Scott Amedure was murdered byanother guest, John Schmitz, after the show was taped. Geraldo Rivera hasspent countless hours encouraging battered women to leave their spouses.Even Jerry Springer, in his "final thought" at the conclusion of his showroutinely makes pleas of the "can't we all just get along" variety; eventhe violence that the Springer show is famous for illustrates not the gloryof such acts, but the baseness of them, as those who brawl on screen losebits of clothing, wail and flail, and fall gracelessly on the ground. People with moralfailings...are introduced to external standards of morality. The anger and humiliation Schmitz endured did not stemfrom Jenny Jones. 2 ). It may even be said that talk shows not only do not harm society, butthey actually may help it. Every month, a show is dedicatedto the exploration of one social issue in particular. This point holds true even in the most extreme cases. 55-6). Most ofus(hopefully), would not take up arms against one who had a crush on us,even if that person was a member of our own gender. On thecontrary, as Kate Fillion argues, talk shows are the "lonely broadcastchampions of gay rights"; she adds, "Whereas the few gay characters onprime-time programmes are strictly forbidden to hold hands, much less kiss,shock talk portrays homosexuality as a fact of life..."(1996, p. And yet talk shows do not perpetuate these conditions. Probably. Did the Jenny Jones' show lureSchmitz to appear under false pretenses? It is an arguable contention(one that surely will bevalidated on the pages of any history book) that humankind is simply aquarrelsome breed; one that has, since the inception of the socialcontract, existed amidst countless acts of violence and indiscretion. Specialists and "experts" are called(expert witnesses).Witnesses are introduced to support or betray the participant. Ellen Willis, in her piece, "Bring in the Noise" makes the observationthat "talk shows reflect the peculiar contradictions of today's social andpolitical climate..."(1996, p. Surely it is difficult to name any other publicfigure(let alone politician) who has made so many enduring, positivecontributions to society(Moore, 1994, p. Oprah has, in her fourteenyears in syndication, made a habit of breaching social issues that have notgained sufficient attention in the media. Ehrenreich elaborates: "People with problems...areintroduced to rational methods of problem solving. Our social ills exist already; they have always beenthere. As amatter of course, we have always sought to determine the causes of suchviolence and social degradation, and to trace those elements in societythat are assumed to perpetuate aggressive and uncivilized behavior in themasses. Does not this courtroom formatutilized on talk shows serve to illustrate the folly, not the glory, ofmoral ineptitude? Colman McCarthy, in the National CatholicReporter, writes: "violent and extremist speech has little if any power topersuade people to be violent, other than those already predisposed"(1995,p. In 1993 she went to Washington, DC to make a plea for a nationaldatabase of all indicted and convicted child abusers. The modern talk show debate is not a variation of the ageold paradoxical question: Does art imitate life, or does life imitate art?On the contrary, on a talk show, the art form is life. To suppose that the ideas expressed or theactions taken on the screen actually contribute to the degradation ofsociety is to suppose that individuals do not generate any ideas, emotions,or opinions of their own accord. The thrust of this argument is simply that nothing manifestsitself in a public forum that does not already exist somewhere in theconsciousness or habits of the private sector. It is also widely understood that Oprah hasdone more for children's rights than virtually any other celebrity; her199 Year of the Child installments, for instance, grappled with childrenliving in poverty, parents raising disabled children, and child sexualabuse. 62). The key word in this assessment is"reflect". Until then, if we don't want to see whattalk shows are airing, we should content ourselves with changing thechannel. Did the JennyJones' show prompt the murder? 93). That Schmitz felt thatthis was his recourse is a matter much larger than talk show ethics;ultimately, as theorist Ellen Willis point out, Jenny Jones didn't make himdo it. Talk shows truly expose for us, in a medium that we all may access,our faults and indiscretions. It is a decision that is made along markedly moral anddemocratic lines. Nor did it stem from any other talk show. The result: a billsigned by the President which allows child care providers to conductnational criminal background checks on any prospective employees. "Free to Talk Trash is American as Apple Pie", National Catholic Reporter, May 26, 1995, v31 n3 p14(1).Moore, Trudy S. Of course, on the other end of the talk show spectrum is OprahWinfrey, whose antics on-air can be seen to bolster strong moral behaviorin her viewers more than any other personality. "How 'The Oprah Winfrey Show' Helps People Live Better Lives", Jet, April 18, 1994, v85 n24 p56(5).Weinberg, Lee S.; Vatz, Richard E. In this McCarthy exposes the problem with talk show bashing; it isa vast over-simplification of the issue. If we removetalk shows from the airwaves, or tone down the content, we will not solveour social problems. At the very least, poor behavior is shown to bereprehensible, and certainly is not encouraged. Certainly. In the past, thesehave been titled "How to Make a Happy Stepfamily"(which challenged busyfamilies to reestablish basic family values), "Unsolved Murders of theCivil Rights Era" and "Too Little Too Late: Native Americans SpeakOut"(which explored the roots of racism), and "Problem Marriages Due toSecret Scars" and "Compatibility Quiz"(which helped viewers explore thefacets of human interaction). Thesecontributions, added to the emotional punch that hits her millions ofviewers, serve to raise consciousness, increase tolerance, and provide asense of moral solidarity. If we wish to see talk shows correct themselves and become moresugary and palatable, we must commit ourselves to the larger task:correcting our society at large. Talks showsprovide a forum for discussion, and in this provide the viewing public withopportunities to examine the limits of their own tolerance, moralstandards, and powers of condemnation. As we witness acts of hateupon the screen, it cannot be assumed that this is where hate is born.Conversely, if we attempt to remove that hate from the screen, we cannotassume that we have eliminated it where it truly exists: in each and everyone of us. That the bulk of talk show participantsare drawn from the underprivileged classes is a testimony to the socialrepercussions visited upon us by poverty, poor education, and socialdiscrimination. 21). An impromptujudge and jury setting, the talk show format places willing participants onthe stand who are questioned alternatively between the host(judge) and thecrowd(jury). Theater, art, music, political rallying, propaganda- all of theseand more have been branded as contributors to the deterioration of ourcollective moral fiber. Today, talk shows have emerged as the culprit-of-choice for many social theorists, who have, from their elite platforms,made a habit of criticizing the talk show phenomenon as one that threatensthe sanctity of our society. Did the Jenny Jones'show cause Schmitz to feel the way he did, or react the way he did?Absolutely not. Sally Jessy Raphael has made a habit ofreforming troubled and disruptive teens by placing them in "boot camps".Ricki Lake and her audience roundly dismiss with verbal stonings thoseguests who cheat and lie to their significant others. 1 7). We cannot allow ourselves to be convinced that an "out ofsight, out of mind" approach will work in this day and age. TALK IS JUST TALK: DEFENDING THE TALK SHOW IN THE 21ST CENTURY It is an exercise in redundancy to make the case that our society is aviolent one. 15). "Why Talk TV Isn't All Trash", Saturday Night, April 1996, v111 n3 p1 6(1).McCarthy, Colman. Amedure hadadmitted on the Jenny Jones' show that he had a secret gay crush on hisfriend John. Itis difficult to imagine any viewer, no matter what the age, to beencouraged to mimic such acts(Willis, 1996, p. The idea that talk shows harm society is foolhardy. Above all else, they are also anopportunity to view the perils of moral decay, the horrors of violence, andthe humiliations of infidelity. "In Defense of Talk Shows", Time, Dec 4, 1995 v146 n23 p92(1).Fillion, Kate. Onthe contrary, they seek to eradicate them by condemning violent behavior,exposing the fallacy of intolerance, and showcasing the consequences ofpoor parenting, domestic abuse, and neglect(Ehrenriech, 1995, p. His own homophobia- and the latent, sociological impulses relatedto that homophobia- made him do it(Willis, 1996, p. Ultimately, the business of talk shows is to preach. BarbaraEhrenreich echoed this sentiment in Time magazine, writing, "...in talkshows, the moral is always loud and clear: Respect yourself, listen toothers, stop beating on your wife"(1995, p. "Bring in the Noise", The Nation, April 1, 1996 v262 n13 p19(3). Talk shows reflect, not create the social and political climateof the day. If this paper is not what you are looking for, you can search again: Search for: or Click here to request an essay written just for you.

Many of our Papers can be Downloaded From This Site!

PLEASE READ THIS, IT IS IMPORTANT!

Office hours are Monday through Friday, from 9 am to 5 pm (PST). You may place orders for custom research over the phone during office hours. E-mail requests can be made to our graduate and undergraduate department any time, and will be reviewed during office hours. You may also contact customer service any time through e-mail, and we will review your message during business hours. A great many papers can be downloaded right from this site, but not all of them. If you would like to know if a particular paper is downloadable, just look in the description for: "Available for Internet Download: Y" or "Available for Internet Download: N" If you wish to purchase a paper which is NOT available for immediate download, you will need to make other shipping arrangements. Also, please be aware that these orders are processed Monday through Friday from 9 am to 5 pm (PST). If you place your order after 4:45pm on Friday, it will not be processed until the following Monday morning. We charge $8 per page for all of our pre-written reports, plus shipping (and tax for California residents). However, the highest cost of any ONE report is $136, or 17 pages. Please, take a moment. Make sure you have chosen the report you want or need BEFORE you complete your order. If you are not sure, allow us to help you. We do not offer refunds or exchanges, so it is important for you to let us answer your questions during office hours. Reports which are e-mailed or downloaded are in Microsoft Word format. We are making more reports available for e-mail delivery faster than we can update our listings. Please call to check on the status of particular reports. There are many other shipping options which are listed on the Checkout page.