Comedy Central censors "South Park" in response to Revolution Muslim

The adult cartoon “South Park,” which airs on Comedy Central, is known for its characteristic satirical humor. A recent episode of the show included caricatures of religious leaders, including Jesus, Buddha, and Muhammad. The cartoon version of the Islamic prophet Muhammad wore a bear costume. In response to the episode, an Islamic group called Revolution Muslim posted a message on their website warning South Park’s creators Matt Stone and Trey Parker that they might be dealt violent retaliation for portraying Muhammad on their show.

The new “South Park” episode which aired Wednesday night included the Muhammad character for a second time. Yet due to censorship on the part of the Comedy Central Network, the character was essentially erased from the show. In addition to audio bleeps which altered the show, Comedy Central prohibited the show from being streamed online. In statements made on SouthParkStudios.com, Stone and Parker made it clear that the censorship of Wednesday’s episode was imposed by the Comedy Central Network.

There are several key issues at play in this story.

First is the representation of racial and religious groups in media. The members of Revolution Muslim warned that the creators of “South Park” would “probably end up like Theo VanGogh,” a Dutchman who was killed in 2004 after releasing a film which exposed abuse experienced by women in certain Islamic communities. Viewers of “South Park” should be aware that the show thrives on irreverent humor. While some may take offense to the content of the show, it is important to realize that “South Park” does not continuously single out one group as an object of ridicule. Rather, its satirical representation of different groups within society is fairly equal; they make fun of everyone at one point or another. I’m not making a judgment about the nature of the show, nor am I saying it was wrong for Revolution Muslim to take offense to the content of the show. However, on “South Park,” every group is an equal target. This is an important consideration for those who dislike the show.

The response of Revolution Muslim to the representation of Muhammad on “South Park” prompted the Comedy Central Network’s censorship of this week’s episode. In the text Media/Society, David Crouteau and William Hoynes often discuss the constraints which are present in the media business. On the surface, the actions of censorship on the part of the Comedy Central Network may be viewed as actions taken to protect the show’s creators from potential harm. However, from the statements made by Stone and Parker, it seems that they were not concerned about a reaction to the edgy humor:

“In the 14 years we’ve been doing South Park we have never done a show that we couldn’t stand behind.”

Even though “South Park” and other shows on Comedy Central are full of irreverent humor, it seems the Network was concerned about its image within the Islamic community. Media Networks must consider the implications of offending audience members. In this case, if a significant number of members of the Islamic community were offended, the network could lose viewership. If the network draws in a smaller audience, that could mean the loss of advertising revenues for the company. It seems Comedy Central’s choice to play it safe upset a large majority of its viewers who expect to be entertained by the satirical nature of “South Park.”

Women portayed as weak sex objects..

I've recently began to think about the exact same thing this article talks about. The Parent Tekevision Council did research on how women are usually the victimes of violence and sex on television. Storylines including violence towards women are also becoming an epidemic. Its becoming miore and more popular. In a PTC report, they focused on victimization among women in storylines and the depiction of teen girls becoming victims, and an increase in female victimization as punchlines in movies or stories. I feel as though this report is very true and a shock to our reality. I don't think many people pay much attention to these facts. Myself, being a male, i do not realize how shows portray women as weak sex objects.
This article relates to the media and how the media suggests our women to be weak. We have women portray poor roles in shows and make them look incapable of doing what a man could do. We discussed in class how women are used as sexy idols in commercials. This is kind of along the same subject, except they are using these women to lure men into watching their entertainment. There is difference among how women are treated now within the media to the past media. Nicole Kidman comments in the article about how this is becoming a big problem within our society, i agree.
This article says a lot to me about what is becoming of our society. In the article they show all the negative changes about how the media makes our women look. From 2004 to 2009, there was an 81% increase in partner abuse, meaning men are beating women. I think the media is portraying our women in the wrong way and at some point in time, our women will become the indominant ones in our society. It is still quite possible for the husband to take care of the children and the mother to go to work, but the way we are portraying our women in television suggests otherwise. Our women are much stronger then how the media is making them look.

Family Guy Pushing Limits

Family Guy....hilarious, drop-dead funny, and ridiculous are three words that come to mind when i think of this show. Family Guy is known to push the limits of it's humor and do some ridiculous things on the thirty minute show. However, Fox is getting bolder in pushing the offensive content into the living room of American households. The animated comedy has recent episodes that have the daughter (Meg), showering with the father( Peter) after Meg returns from jail. The show caught criticism as some felt it was suggesting that fathers are in a wrong way attracted to their daughters. The episode also included a mother coming on to a 14 year old and a dog coming on to an infant, absolutely ridiculous circumstances. Some parent's feel its wrong as Taco Bell, KFC, and Pizza Hut are choosing to pay for it with their advertising money. The show pushes the limit with every week it comes out.
Why should we care about what Family Guy puts on the Fox channel? For a few reasons. Fox, is one of the biggest news channels, and during these news broadcasts, advertisers are advertising their favorite show. The show is a huge hit in American homes, and our kids are watching these shows and learning from them. I mean, i understand that it is just a show...but the average kid watches two or more hours of television per day. I don't even think the show is bad if the person watching is old enough to understand the jokes they do. But, If our youth is watching and observing ridiculous behavior, how can we be so sure that they aren't taking notes? Also, the media pushes Family Guy onto the audience. It's played at quite a coincidental time, usually being around seven or eight at night. What i mean by this is, football practices are done, homework is getting done, or dinner is being served. So, like a lot of American families, they like to turn on the tube as they eat. Our youth is being swallowed by some shallow humor.
It is inevitable that children will come across material that is not suitable for them. But i do think they should have the choice to do so. Fox pushing these shows upon them will not help them in the long run. Our youth is already subject to so many other things, i don't think it will necessarily kill them, but Family Guy does promote violence....Bid our youth good luck as i will!

Catholic Watchdogs Get Barked At By the Church

There are few things that make more interesting news than scandal—especially when it takes place within the world’s largest international institution—the Catholic Church. The sex abuse scandal within the Catholic Church has been on the media’s radar on and off for the past few years. Most recently, the current pope, Benedict XVI, has been accused of failing to report sexual abuse while he served as an archbishop and as a cardinal.

The Catholic Church has rebuked the media which have brought to light the injustices allegedly committed by clergy. The Church claims that the condemning media reports are part of a conspiracy which aims to defame the Pope and his aides. The most severe renunciation of the media reports is that they are “‘prompted by the Devil.’”
But it is not a popular secular news organization which has burned the Church the most. According to a story by NPR’s David Folkenflik, a low circulation, non-profit newspaper—the National Catholic Reporter— has been most consistent and critical in its coverage of the scandal.

The Reporter is a unique publication because although it is dedicated solely to reporting stories relevant to and about members of the Catholic Church, it is produced by independent Catholic journalists rather than an agency of the Church. This is a good thing for readers, because it means the journalists do not have to protect the reputations of the Pope and other important figures within the Church. Readers of the Reporter get stories from the perspective of others who share their belief system, who combine “faith with a desire to seek and report the truth — including things that reflected critically on the church.”

The Reporter’s critical view of the Church was especially evident in a recent editorial. The editorial content makes the Pope seem partly culpable for the continuation of the sex abuse scandal, if he did indeed know about and fail to report cases of abuse in the parishes he served.

According to the NCR’s editor Tom Fox, the question of what the Pope knew and how he chose to act “‘are questions Catholics around the world are asking.’” The Reporter thus acted to present a story of interest to its constituency, which is an important role of news media.

The right to Freedom of the Press gives the producers of the National Catholic Reporter the right to question the Pope’s credibility. Yet Church authorities have berated the assemblers of the Reporter for apparently betraying their loyalty to the Catholic Church.

Those who desire truth are not afraid to say when something is wrong. One of the major functions of news media is to serve as a “watchdog” for society; journalists have the responsibility to inform the public of misconduct of individuals or institutions which are relevant to society.

The Reporter staff members showed their commitment to seeking ultimate truth, even though they faced disapproval and resentment on the part of Church authorities. As both journalists and people of faith, they remained true to the aim of their religious tradition and their duty as journalists by questioning the Pope’s credibility. --MDW

Surfing the Web or Swimming in Pages

Quite often during this decade, we have been warned that the "power of print" is fleeting; the age of the internet and technology is upon us and we need to embrace this aspect to its fullest potential. Looking back just a few years ago, media consumers were getting much of their news from magazines and also the newspapers.Because that time is fleeting, magazines were supposedly going through a transformation specifically onto the internet. The article, "Magazines Team Up to Tout 'Power of Print'"counteracts this new dispute.

Many people were appalled by the threat of reducing magazine related news and producing more and more internet related news and advertisements. Recently, advertisements have been advocating a renewal to redefine the age of magazine advertising, reading, and news. Michael Phelps is animated with the slogan, "We surf the Internet. We swim in magazines." How true is it that we can be consumed with the medium of a magazine. Magazines as opposed to online articles contain pages which are flexible to the usage of highlighters, pens and sticky notes- simple media which can make a larger impression in this case. Magazines can be easily transported during periods when laptops are unnecessary.

The effects of advertising have sky rocketed causing magazine viewing to make a come back. The conventions and routines of the media depict the types of media mentioned as competitive. Because we experience the majority of our world through forms of news, it is our decision in which form we prefer it to come in. Print works for some, but technology suits others. We may even choose to view different types of news from different sources because news is always going to ignore certain aspects and embellish others. In order to decide which medium of news is most appropriate action must be taken.

"The spark for the campaign was a "manifesto" Mr. Wenner penned last year, in which he said that just as TV didn't kill magazines, the Internet was a threat only to publications that lost focus on what makes magazines unique. "In a certain way, this campaign is aimed at the magazine business itself," Mr. Wenner.", The production and advancement of new media does not ensure an extinction of various older forms of media. There are some instances where consumers surely should hold onto the past.
Will we be swimming in pages or surfing the web in the days to come?

Iphone Applications...Good or Bad?

There is very arguable that the Iphone is one of the best phones to ever be on the market. With the intelligence and information it can hold, it is very marketable and media induced. The fact that i have an Iphone and know how it works made this article very interesting for me. I was not aware that Apple had to remove some 5,000 applications from itunes due to sexually explicit content. In fact, this shocks me. The Parental Teacher Council urged people to contact the Weekly Wrap and ask Apple to remove these silly and sexual applications from their selection. They did this because they felt these "apps" were too easily accessible by children. What child would have an Iphone? Im not too sure, but the question still remains whether or not these "apps" should be available. It is logical that Apple had removed these apps but it is known that many people do not agree. On a blog thats particularly used by app users, they said "Regardless of parental control ratings, 17+ rated apps show up when casually browsing the app store…Unlike music and movies, these apps typically have icons, names and screenshots that border on obscene just by themselves. It's gotten so bad that it's actually not possible to allow a typical young child to browse the app store by themselves without them being assaulted by various softcore porn apps".
I feel as though no application should be banned but the "smart phone" should not be used by children, its just not very safe.
I think that when it comes to the media, the Iphone is something that is mentioned a lot. It has an internet browser built into it, and makes it available to buy/download apps and music from the Itunes store. Some people fear the inability and limitations put put us by the media, and the Iphone allows us to access this information within a matter or seconds. There are arguments that since Netflix has made all of their movies available to the public, so it is believable that pornography producers will do as well. So why is it so bad that sexual applications are available on the Iphone? The Iphone is a big advance in how we receive media.
The Iphone, in my opinion, will be the phone that starts up a totally different type of phone. "Smart phones" will be in almost everybody's hand as they are knocking down the shelves at cell phone stores and making it almost essential because of the information they can withhold, that you need one. I believe Apple should make apps more family friendly, but on the same note, i do not think children or younger people should be using an Iphone. They are not meant for little kids as they could look anything they wanted up on you-tube. Problems with restrictions on apps are for the people who believe that since they own the phone they should be able to buy whatever they want, regardless of whether or not its appropriate for children. The Iphone is one of the best technologically advanced phones in history

Google and Gadgets

A few weeks ago, I wrote about an Italian legal battle that might lead to the imminent death of Google. Don't worry too much, though; even taking into account this bothersome court case, my personal belief is that Google is here to stay. And it this post I'll tell you why: It's everywhere.

And soon it might get even bigger.

Picture this: You're in your living room watching the news when, during a report about a protest march, you see a full-screen shot of your friend's son, wearing a very large panda costume. With a click of the remote, you open your email on the bottom of the TV screen and then, with the miniature keyboard built into your remote, tap out a short message to your friend, including a link to this news segment. By the time you finish writing, a news anchor is talking about some recipe contest you don't care about, so with another click of the remote you open up your browser, Google Chrome, to surf the web.

According to a New York Times article, "Google and Partners Seek TV Foothold," Google, Intel, and Sony are joining forces to bring the Internet to your television set—Google providing the software (i.e., the web browser), Intel bringing the Atom computer chips that will give TV sets the power to run Web software, and Sony contributing the actual TV sets.*

Now, I didn't realize this, but apparently the technology is already available to run certain websites, such as Netflix, on your television. But what the Google-Intel-Sony consortium is planning is so much more than just a few websites—it's the whole Internet, right there on your TV, accessible with a click of the remote.

Folks, this is what's called "horizontal integration," when a corporation sinks its teeth into another industry. This is also "synergy," when those parts in different industries support each other (ex. Google using its Web browser in televisions). But it's also something else: It's the fusion of two different technologies.

We've been seeing this happen a lot lately. Look at cell phones, for example. In recent years, they've become "smart," integrating such technologies as Web browsers, widgets (little applications), and GPS and navigation systems. The line between a phones and computers is becoming seriously blurred. And the same thing is true of MP3 players, cameras, and a host of other gadgets. Basically, if it has a screen, it's being given as many different functions as it can handle.

At the rate we're going, will there come a day in the not-too-distant-future when, instead of owning a TV, computer, camera, video camera, MP3 player, and GPS all separately, we'll just have one device for them all? My guess? Yes. But I don't think that this will mean the end of any of these devices. For instance, photographers will still need cameras that are just cameras, with interchangeable lenses and whatnot. And portable computers like laptops and netbooks (miniature laptops) just aren't as powerful as desktops—not to mention that, the smaller and more portable you get, the smaller and more cramped screens and keyboards get—so I doubt that larger computers will be leaving us any time soon.

Still, I think we're going to be seeing a lot more integration of technologies in the near future. And that means integration of the media that go along with them: Entertainment news with viewers' comments in a scrolling bar along the bottom of the screen is just one of the concepts mentioned in another article, "Old and New Media Coexisting Nicely, Thank You," which discusses the emerging synergy between the Web and TV. (Apparently, although initial predictions had the Internet more or less replacing television, it's actually served to boost viewership by make TV a more interactive experience.)

Having said all that, I must say that I'm having this really weird feeling like time isn't working quite right. Is it just me, or does it seem like we're living in the future?


Peace,
blogdor





*Technically, this is all still speculative—there hasn't been an official announcement yet, and all of the article's quoted sources are anonymous because, they said, they aren't allowed to talk about this yet.