MANILA, Philippines -- Since kids are watching practically all the time, television is supposed to be a “For General Patronage” medium. This means that, except for the late-late hours, when most children are presumable asleep, TV is required to dispense viewing fare that’s psychologically safe for young viewers to watch.
In other words, minimal violence and ***ual references, no profanity or negative values, and no nudity. If you’re a regular viewer, however, you know that the rule is observed more in the breach than in the compliance.
Wholesome entertainment
The major role-breakers are led by noontime variety shows. In the days of “Student Canteen,” they dispensed wholesome entertainment that the entire family could enjoy.
These days, however, they’re loud and feature money-oriented games, hosts who deliver “naughty” patter, and ***y dancers who cavort around in tiny costumes that would give a baby a cold.
What’s going on? Competition for top ratings on TV has never been as stiff, so major networks are doing everything to appeal to the least common denominator of viewers’ preferences -- and, when you put it that way, that’s really low.
*** and nudity at noontime are major no-no’s, of course -- not only because kids are watching, but also because some adults don’t want to be exposed to all that skin so early in the day.
But, noontime shows keep dishing them out in heaping dollops because other viewers get turned on by them -- yes, at noontime, would you believe?
Once in a while, a show gets reprimanded for thus exceeding the bounds of propriety, whereupon the hosts are less offensive and the ***y dancers wear more clothes. After some weeks, however, they’re back to (monkey) business as usual.
Instructive
Some recent excesses are instructive: One time, a singing star on the wrong side of 30 decided to spice up her image by performing a song number in a revealing costume. Right after she performed, however, she put a jacket on and was interviewed in that more covered state.
Our question: Why did the singer perform in the shockingly skimpy costume, then cover it up? Clearly, she realized that she had gone too far and had shown too much. Or, was she making a distinction between herself as a performer and herself as a person? Put that in your pipe and smoke it.
More recently, a female starlet hosted an event “honoring” the country’s ***iest women -- and she wore the skimpiest outfit of them all!
In other words, the emcee upstaged the ***y “honorees” and made them look relatively like old maids. Was that cricket?
Coverage
Even more tellingly, when the event was covered by one channel, the “exceedingly revealed” emcee was shown in her full glory. But, on another channel’s coverage, shots of her were shown blurred, so as not to offend viewers.
Clearly, the second channel had correctly perceived the excess and had kept viewers’ best interests in mind by blurring its coverage. Wish we could say the same for the first channel.
As for the female emcee in question, she won points with ***-oriented viewers, but lost points with perhaps even more viewers, who feel that there should be a time and place for everything. And she definitely ended up on the bad side of all those ***y women she had upstaged!
By Nestor Torre
Inquirer




Reply With Quote
