They Make It Sound So Appealing

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/12/19/2776557.htm

Just one day after it was made official, there are calls to shelve changes to the code of practice for commercial television stations.

Television programs like the crime series Underbelly thrive on on-screen nudity and raunchy sex scenes. And while they attract controversy, they also corner huge audiences.

Now, the Christian group Family Voice Australia is worried that a new code of practice gives commercial TV networks the green light to push the boundaries of decency further.

Ros Phillips, the group's national research officer, says she is concerned that it waters down the guidelines to allow explicit pornography at 9pm, "when many children are still watching".

What has piqued her concern is a change to the guidelines for sex scenes in programs rated MA. Previously, the industry's code of practice required sex to be portrayed discreetly.

But the new guidelines only require sex scenes to follow the storyline and not be high in impact.

"Higher than what?" says Ms Phillips.

"As we've seen over the years, what one person thinks is high is not necessarily what the program manager for Channel 10 thinks."

That is a reference to a long running stoush over the Channel 10 show, Californication.

The Australian Communications and Media Authority has upheld a complaint by Family Voice about one of the show's sex scenes.

"Absolute ... it was a threesome and it was extremely explicit," she says.

"I won't go into details, but if it wasn't for that word 'discreetly' in the guidelines, that complaint wouldn't have been upheld."

But media commentator Sue Turnbull from La Trobe University in Melbourne says the group is overreacting.

"If this particular group don't know what real pornography looks like, then maybe they should see some, so that they can actually make the kinds of distinctions that the people that are doing this classification make every day," she said.

Family Voice Australia is also worried about new guidelines for the new digital channels the networks have launched.

While the core channels will still be required to show only G-rated programs in the hours before and after school on weekdays and in the mornings at weekends, the new channels will not be.

"The new digital televisions provide all sorts of capacities for parents to lock their children out," says Ms Turnbull.

"In fact, if this family organisation is being really sensible, what it should be doing is talking about sex education, media education, media literacy.

"And what parents can actually do in the home as responsible parenting just to ensure that their kids know what's out there, know how to cope with it and are not traumatised by something that they might come across that can just kind of switch on past it and go 'yeah, I don't want to look at that'."

I liked Californication when it first came on the air. I got bored of the show midway through season 2 which by that time had descended into the formulaic escalated by the ever-more improbable storyline. So I stopped watching.

I remember that threesome scene. And that counts as porn? This demonstrates that we don't need an internet filter, it seems that if that is what counts as porn to this group then the internet is self-censoring enough already. From memory, the scene was quite funny. Like most of the sex in that show, it seemed more for comic effect than arousal.

But to be serious for a moment, once again the notion of a nanny state is rearing its ugly head. The guidelines for free to air already put such content on at a late time, but that never really seems to be good enough. The fact that there is a ratings system already should be enough to inform parents about how to make decisions affecting their parental responsibility for their children. But no, it's not enough.

Sue Turnbull makes a lot of sense here, and it's a shame that these moralists don't go down such a pragmatic path. Like the abstinence-only education proponents, it seems to be that those moralists are set on pushing their agenda (in this case the removal of sex from television) than it is for better practical outcomes for children. Why not put forth opportunities to help parents on how to use new technology? Why not push for more awareness of ratings? Instead we get hyperbolic rhetoric and the hysteric cry of "won't someone please think of the children!?!"

What adults watch in their own homes is their business. The law is already quite restrictive on what can be put on television at what times. Even on at adults-only times I've seen sex scenes cut from movies, profanity cut from dialogue, violence reduced, etc. Even something innocuous like Homer Simpson's infamous line "To alcohol, the cause of and solution to all of life's problems" doesn't air with the reruns of that memorable episode.

And what is all of this over? Essentially nothing. You can see more arousing television at 9am on a Saturday morning, just that they call them music clips. There's more arousing imagery put on billboards to advertise pretty much everything. Even a recent trip to a clothing store was full of scantily-clad women suggestively posing. Porn at 9pm? I wish. Hyperbolic rhetoric makes the concept sound so much more appealing than the reality.

Review: Did Darwin Kill God?

I wasn't sure what to expect going into this documentary. I was already in agreement with the host, that it is evidentially true that one can both be a Christian and a supporter of evolution. And if one wasn't perturbed by the notion that one can ascertain truth through empirical investigation in the time before Darwin, then why would it change after? One thing that has cropped up in recent debates has been whether this is philosophically true, after all only 14% of people in America think that evolution happened unguided (~35% guided by God, ~50% special creation) where about 12% of the population is non-religious. I went in seeking an understanding of how a Christian can reconcile God with this modern universe and came away completely dismayed at what I saw.

Don't get me wrong, the content was still solid. But it didn't really seek to answer the question posed - rather that position was assumed as the default and anyone who said otherwise was attacked. It started off calling Dawkins a fundamentalist and pretty much stayed at that level for the next 60 minutes. Which is fine, I disagree with his assessment of course about what constitutes a fundamentalist. But more than anything, such language was indicative of the argument to follow.

He started out showing that the bible should not be taken literally, showing the disparity between Genesis 1 and 2. Then followed by a few quotes from prominent theologians, there his case that Christianity was compatible with evolution was set. I couldn't help but think watching him quote Augustine of Hippo (I even quote this guy when it comes to biblical literalism) that it would be like someone in the future quoting John Paul II supporting science and claiming from there that historically there's no incompatibility. Methinks that such statements by the likes of St. Austin demonstrate that the same battle was playing out back then as it is now - that agreement isn't unanimous, rather that there were individuals on both sides hence the need for the excellent prose in the first place.

So apparently everything was fine and dandy among the church in England and in the US until the early 20th century when fundamentalism rose for the first time in history (which again makes me wonder why St Austin had to write such words in the first place) and that put religion at loggerheads with science. But, as we find out, it's not that William Jennings Bryan opposed evolution, but the moral decay posed by social darwinism. He was an old earth creationist, so that's different. Likewise in 1961, the modern creationist movement was started by Henry Morris called The genesis flood. And this was again caused by apparent moral decline, because it was the 60s. Just forget to mention that JFK made a huge push to get science taught nationally at that time, play the morality card.

Today, it's pretty self-evident that the morality card is still played against evolution. So I agree to an extent that its a problem. And for the biblical literalists? Well he kind of played it down with a No True Scotsman argument, apart from that opening where he tried to show that genesis is myth, there wasn't really much to his taking down this position. It doesn't fit with the church fathers (well the ones he quoted) so it isn't true Christianity.

The final third of the program was dedicated to the other extremists who say that evolution and God are incompatible - the Darwinists. While he lined up Richard Dawkins in the opening monologue, he had to settle for the likes of Dan Dennett and Susan Blackmore. His focus? Ultra-darwinism, whereby memes mean that one can't really know anything (hello Plantinga) so the atheist objection is absurd. And there was atheist philosopher Michael Ruse to give credence to the notion of compatibility between Christianity and Darwinism.

I know it was an hour program, but his response felt shallow. After allowing Susan Blackmore to explain her case, he argued against it in a matter of seconds - asserting that such a case is absurd and that there's no counter argument to this. And his argument here may be right about a certain form of argument against the existence of God, but it didn't cover what seem to be the mainstream arguments the likes of Dawkins propagates - that evolution makes God unnecessary. Maybe Conor Cunningham accepts such an argument could be valid, though it seemed a blight on this show that such an argument was missing.


So in the end, I was left feeling somewhat empty. The structure followed a simple format - present the opening, tear down the arguments from the creationists, then tear down the arguments from the atheists. Though I felt that at all stages he didn't give a satisfactory explanation, at least from what I've seen from my contact with both believers and non-believers regarding this issue. It might just be my position as a hardened atheist, but it seemed that he didn't address the underlying issues at all. I could picture a creationist watching it and dismissing his arguments against biblical literalism, and I could see the likes of Dawkins watching it and thinking he missed the mark against the atheist position.

I went in hoping to gain some insight into the theist mindset regarding the intersection of God and science. What I saw seemed not to make the case, but an attack on others who say there is no case. It seemed overly apologetic towards creationists, and tried to pin it on a wider societal movement, and that the Darwinist position puts itself into an untenable position - so it's invalid? It didn't feel like he made much of a case at all, and that is sad. It didn't try to paint a picture of how God fits into reality, I'm guessing that being nebulous has some advantages when contemplating the infinite, and because of that it for my mind didn't make the case for the topic at hand.

Maybe I'm way off the mark, that my beliefs got in the way. I've been dealing with creationists online for a while now, but I didn't get anything out of there which would help in my understanding of how one could be a Christian and support evolution. I was expecting there to be something of that nature, something that would show that the position is intellectually tenable. But I can fully accept that my expectations would mean that what Cunningham presented would be unsatisfying to me. Maybe Only A Theory should be next on my reading list. But in the absence of that, the words of Jerry Coyne still echo in my mind:

Attempts to reconcile God and evolution keep rolling off the intellectual assembly line. It never stops, because the reconciliation never works.

"The Atheists"

For those who don't know, Australia's public broadcaster ABC has a weekly religion show called Compass. Most weeks the documentary shown is pretty ordinary, but on the rare occasion it's worth watching. In the past they have aired documentaries like The Story Of God and The Root Of All Evil?, and this week there was a look at the world's fastest growing (non)religion - atheism.

The host being a good Catholic has shown hostility in the past to atheism and the expression thereof (describing Dawkins' program as "highly personal") so I was sceptical going into it. But I've got to say after watching the program, it gave a good appraisal of what it means to be an atheist. Having the likes of Dr Shermer and Philip Adams on the program gave it a reputable basis, this was atheism from an atheist point of view, and hopefully it's going to help the understanding of what it means to be an atheist in the religious who watched the program.

Having the atheists talk about the concerns of religious fundamentalism while paralleling it with imagery of religious fanatics was a good touch, it really rammed the point home that atheists perceive this religious fundamentalism a genuine threat to the future of this planet. And that was just one example of many in the program where it sought in as much fairness as possible to portray the atheist message. All 4 atheists who talked on the issue were concise and to the point.

Any documentary about atheism was going to have to mention "the new atheists" and while short it seemed to cover the topic quite admirably. It is divisive and intolerant as Adams pointed out, but it's a necessity thanks to the pre-conceived notions of atheism as Shermer argued. The only criticism I could have of the show was the last few minutes where it talked about the continuing role of religion in society. It seemed to take the Voltaire path, that people are not able to cope without religion thus fuelling it's necessity. While this may be evidentially so, it's not quite at the stage yet to write off people as needing a religion.

Overall it sought to dismiss a lot of myths about what atheism is and isn't, and in that it did as admirable a job as a 30 minute documentary should. If nothing else, it tried to show in the most intellectually honest way possible what it means to be an atheist and that should be commended. It will be interesting to see what Dawkins felt of the program, that is meant to be up on the Compass website but at time of writing it has yet to appear. Hopefully it will be put up along with a podcast for the show, so that anyone wanting a basic insight into atheism will have a source of information.

Passing The Use By Date

I don't normally watch a lot of television, most shows don't appeal to me. But the few I do watch, I have a sort of religious devotion to them. But there always comes a point where the show has run it's course, and instead of just ending the show persists into a downward spiral where it becomes so unwatchable that it feels amazing I stuck with the series for so long. It seems especially apparent with American series, a show's longevity is decided by ratings so series go well on past a date of expiry.


Don't have a cow, man
The Simpsons was and still is a landmark television show. It's staggering success as a prime-time animated comedy has led the way for TV of a similar ilk. But really the show stopped being funny a decade ago, and these days it's a shell of the greatness it once exhibited. Over Christmas, I sat down with my youngest brother to watch season 4 of the show and I was blown away by the quality on all fronts. The storyline were compelling, the jokes were funny, it complex characters, it may simply be nostalgia but while watching I remembered how great the show once was.

In this decade, only one episode stands out: Behind The Laughter. Aside from that even the best episodes have felt like average episodes from seasons past. The movie was an improvement but still had nothing on what came before it. The characters are too one-dimensional these days, weighed down by 20 years of previous character development. It's painful to watch new episodes for that reason, it's destroying my memories of a once great show. But that's just me, maybe the new episodes work for a new audience.

Likewise the re-emergence of Family Guy is really just a continuation of the same formula that persisted in it's early years, and for that the non sequitur jokes are becoming again stale. Ever since South Park lampooned the show, it's also become quite unwatchable because the formula is apparent. It's getting tired and repetitive. South Park on the other hand is one show I can point to as being a successful series more than a decade later, it stands alone in that it's able to capture an element of the zeitgeist and push the boundaries that other shows will not do. Not even Penn & Teller are able to get away with lampooning Scientology, and I don't know of any other show that could be able to show George Lucas raping Indiana Jones.


The Fawlty Towers principle
One of my favourite TV shows of all time is The Office, Ricky Gervais cites Fawlty Towers as the reason why the show ended after two seasons. In that time he was able to tell a compelling story, yet not have the material get stale or repetitive. By contrast the US version of the show is now in it's 6th season with no sign of ever going away. Now I actually like the US version of the show, it has taken the British format and created it's own show around it. It's not a pale imitation, it's good on it's own merits and that's something I've never seen in a remake before. Without an end in sight, the TV show does suffer in that there's really no climactic arc to obtain. Each storyline is a mini-arc that will vaguely draw the show in some unspecified direction as the need to keep capturing the audience makes each episode ever more slightly incredulous and fantastical. Scrubs has gone that way, the show has lost most it's charm by continuing ever onward in the evolution of a never-ending show.

In some ways shows like Arrested Development are the lucky ones, it was cancelled while the show was still quality. While it's cancellation forced the final series to compress plot lines and there is talk of a movie, the show was able to maintain a high standard throughout. Californication could have done with the same culling. The first season of the show was one of the best shows I've seen in recent years, each episode was constructed all towards a climax that the show finished on. Yet the second season had to pretty much disassemble that ending in order to continue in the same spirit as season 1. The second season to me was a pale imitation of the first.

A movie really has a set period of time to tell a story, usually between 90 minutes and 2 hours in order to lay down the antagonists and protagonists, create the setting, begin a conflict, search for a resolution, then wrap it all up. Television on the other hand has two real options: use each 22 / 45 minute episode to tell it's own story, or use each episode as a chapter in one long story. In recent years, I've particularly enjoyed shows like Dexter that have done the latter. Each week is a new chapter which all is building up to that grand finale 3 months down the line. But even then, is Dexter ever going to end? Will the writers of the show (or even the novelist) decide that enough is enough and the show has reached a logical or artistic endpoint? How many seasonal arcs can be sustained until the idea has been pushed past the use by date? Will it be decided by ratings, by network funding, or by some other means? And if so, will it even reach the climactic ending that all shows deserve to have?


... But then you get to the end and a gorilla starts throwing barrels at you
Futurama would have to be my favourite show of all time. I remember when it was cancelled, those final few episodes were treasured like no other show before it in my eyes. And the final episode felt like an ending. Now it's been resurrected and the 4th of a series of straight-to-DVD movies is due out in a month, and the producers have stated that the movie has a finishing point regardless of whether it's renewed - something that is looking unlikely. While I nervously wait for the final episode, knowing that it will possibly be the last time I ever see new content, in some ways I'm glad that it was cancelled before it's time. Seasons 3 and 4 of the show were sublime, and the 72 episodes combined with the 4 DVD films will stand as they are - a great science fiction show that only got better as time went on.

"another great sci-fi show cancelled before its time." - Bender