This is from frequent commenter Jared.
We live in an era of fault finding. So much of what is presented in the many forms of media available in our day is skewed towards negativity, finding fault, and the prurient. This includes TV programming, Movies, News, etc. It is generally easier to find media exploring what is wrong about humankind than it is to find media exploring what is right about humankind.
Presenting what is negative isn’t the essence of the problem. The main problem is focusing on what’s wrong to the point that what is right becomes obscured. Take any topic in the media and compare the number of wrongs to the number of rights presented. Too often, the negative of whatever is being discussed or portrayed leaves out anything positive.
If consumers are not careful thinkers, they come away with just the negative of whatever topic was presented and don’t consider the positive. Maybe laws should be passed that require media to provide balance to whatever topic is being presented, so the audience is reminded that there are both positive and negative elements to the subject at hand. For example, producers of TV and movies that routinely present premarital sex and adultery in their programming, should be required to include programming that provides viewers with productions that show individuals valuing chastity prior to marriage and complete fidelity after marriage.
Years ago, lawmakers decided to put warnings labels on tobacco products because advertisers represented their product dishonestly. They presented just one side of the story. See example here. This led to warning labels being placed on all cigarette packages:
Surgeon General’s Warning: Smoking causes lung cancer, heart disease, emphysema, and may complicate pregnancy.
With this brief introduction to skewed, unbalanced messages conveyed by media producers, do you think lawmakers should consider putting warning labels on some TV and movie programming of our day–alerting viewers that watching ubiquitous portrayals of violence, irresponsible sexual encounters, pornography, and other depictions that appeal to the baser natures of humankind–could be harmful to the wellbeing of society.
How about the news? Should news anchors be required to state their political bias and warn viewers when they suspect that the next story might be fake news because the sources may not be reliable, or the details haven’t been investigated thoroughly?
Do you think that some of the content in the Bloggernacle should have a warning label stating that this blog post is written by someone who has turned lukewarm or hostile to the truth claims of Mormonism?
Do you think Mormon missionaries should encourage investigators to read all the Essays prior to being baptized?
Should the apostles and prophets disclose the details of their testimonies instead of veiling their testimonies behind the doctrine that some things are too sacred to relate? After all, they claim to be special witnesses of Christ.
Summary
Every time I go out to eat I am grateful that the Board of Health inspects restaurants to help keep the food we eat safe. All that I have presented in the post is related to the idea that government does what it can in a free society to promote the general welfare and secure the blessing of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.
Food inspections, warning labels, traffic tickets, licensing, etc. are helpful more often than they are not helpful. I complain about big government but having no or inferior government would be awful.
I don’t necessarily advocate some of the things I covered in this post. I am exploring ideas and hope to stimulate thinking outside of the box.
Consider the Book of Mormon’s teachings on promoting the general welfare.
7 Now there was no law against a man’s belief; for it was strictly contrary to the commands of God that there should be a law which should bring men on to unequal grounds.
8 For thus saith the scripture: Choose ye this day, whom ye will serve.
9 Now if a man desired to serve God, it was his privilege; or rather, if he believed in God it was his privilege to serve him; but if he did not believe in him there was no law to punish him.
10 But if he murdered he was punished unto death; and if he robbed he was also punished; and if he stole he was also punished; and if he committed adultery he was also punished; yea, for all this wickedness they were punished.
11 For there was a law that men should be judged according to their crimes. Nevertheless, there was no law against a man’s belief; therefore, a man was punished only for the crimes which he had done; therefore all men were on equal grounds. Alma 30:7 – 11)
Discuss.
Wheat & Tares 
Jared, I really like this post. Quite though-provoking. As a teacher of literature and as a writer, I would object to any kind of warning labels other than content. In other words, I’d be fine with: “Hey, there’s gratuitous violence in this show. If you don’t like it, don’t watch.” But I wouldn’t be okay with any kind of warning/conclusion about the well-being of society since I believe art, especially art that shows humanity in all its horror and glory, actually performs many more positive functions than negative ones (BTW, the writers of the Book of Mormon and the Old Testament apparently believed this, too), but I don’t want to thread jack here.
I think you raise a really interesting set of issues and questions. Since I don’t want my comment to be the length of a novel, I’ll just respond to one of your thoughts, the one about negativity and positivity. I do agree with you that the negativity in public discourse, on social media, in politics and the news do really seem to dominate our immediate sphere. And so I think it’s natural and logical that you make the point you make about that. I’d also suggest that positive/negative may be a useful but perhaps ultimately unhelpful binary in the context of what an issue/idea/phenomenon means to us personally. What if we thought of issues/ideas as issues/ideas in totality and didn’t label certain aspects positive/negative but instead helpful (to us personally) or unhelpful? I ask because I think looking at an issue from all sides and approaching it as objectively as possible (without making judgements about “positive” and “negative”) seems to me to the best way to really understand something. So to speak to your example of missionaries encouraging investigators to read all the essays, I’d say yes, and more. I’d suggest that it’s disingenuous and downright dishonest to sweep the more troubling aspects of Mormon history or doctrine under the rug. If an investigator looks at every bit of information about the church that they can reasonably access and read, I think it’s all for the better. Not so the investigator can judge whether the church is positive more than it is negative (or vice versa), but rather to make a judgement about whether the church will work for them. I think if we had investigators actually thoroughly investigate the church before committing to be baptized, we’d likely lose a significant percentage of potential members, but we’d likely get potentially stronger and more committed members who understand the church and can see it clearly, warts and all. Thanks for this post.
I think the point of discussing or reporting what’s negative (not that we’d all agree on exactly what is negative and positive) is to address the error, neglect or deficiency and make things and situations more constructive.
Too often our politicians are too invested in re-election and too fearful of doing anything that requires taking a stand or spending tax dollars ‘lest some voter be offended that things like retrofitting infrastructure or applying reasonable limits on murderous weapons require a groundswell of demand from the population before they’ll act. If we were to address those “negatives” we could eliminate their problematical aspects and add to the general quota of positives. That would be much more effective and efficacious than worrying about the volume or balance of positives and negatives or requiring that people keep their needs and opinions to themselves.
I really expected more comments.
Whilst I would agree that it’s a good idea to present all sides in an argument, it should be noted that this does not always result in a balanced perspective. For example, in the debates about climate change the vast majority of scientists see the evidence as supporting that this is happening, and that human activity is a contributor. Giving equal air time to the opposing view leaves the general public with the impression that either view is equally likely.
So far as entertainment media is concerned, dvds already come with a briefly worded description of the content regarding sex, violence and language on the back here in Britain (I don’t know what the situation is in the US). I’ve plugged the common sense media website before now, which gives a good breakdown of those things and more. My own gripe is that animated films seem to be given more leeway on those things when it comes to classification, because it’s less real; despite the message being no different.
Since I doubt people will agree on what exactly the media obscures by it’s negativity, I don’t know what can be done.
It might seem nice if satirical websites or joke news stories could be easily identified on sight. And for content warnings, I’d love to see an algorithm that could identify the logical fallacies I see in the news or on social media. I would really like it if that algorithm reinforced my preconceived notions. But I don’t see how any such system, legal, algorithmic, or otherwise, could be fairly applied. Except in the most agregious cases, one person’s negative could be another person’s positive.
The examples given of balance (provide positive examples of fidelity, etc., to balance out premarital sex) require an entity, presumably the government, to take a principled stand what media can or cannot say. It could be used against you. For example, if producer A markets a show depicting premarital monogamous sex, and producer B must have equal time for positive post marital bliss, then one can argue that equal time should also be given to producers X or Y, who wish to air a shows depicting the positive aspects of perhaps hedonistic or polyamorous lifestyles.
We desperately need critical thinking to be exercised by savvy media consumers. It would be nice if critical thinking were modeled in the mainstream media. We all need to see, hear, and share the kind of thoughtful analysis that can’t be well expressed in large font on a small picture to be shared on Facebook.
One possible content warning*:
“The following film depicts actions that are known by the state California to increase chances of getting divorced.”
* This film depicts a wedding. People that get married are more likely to get divorced than people who don’t get married.
Jared – I really appreciate that you wrote this up. It helps me understand where you are coming from on some of your comments on this blog.
I do agree with you in some ways that news (driven by society itself) has become more attacking of people. That has good and bad consequences. Sometimes it picks at a minor character flaw of someone that is doing great things and discredits their good works. It also helps expose bad people that can put on a persona and do bad things.
I think requiring a “balance” is hard as I don’t think in a pluralistic society can easily come to a consensus of what the “balance” should be. Should a premarital sex scene be balanced by a scene with no sex, with a scene that models consent, with a scene with marital sex, or a scene with homosexual sex, … It just gets muddy really quickly.
I for one do work out some of my issues with the church online. That is partially due to the church teachings and culture don’t tolerate almost any pointing out negative issues. If the church had a bit more tolerance towards discussing some items, it could take the wind out of the sails of much of the “online dissent.” I think you would probably be shocked if you knew me in real life as a ward member. My blogging on this site I have tried to check myself at times and look at some of the positives of the church. But I do still feel there is much good in thoughtfully bringing up issues. If those that are in the church won’t, then those outside the church will and they often will be more abrupt. Take the issue of 1 on 1 interviews with a bishop and youth. If 10-15 years ago the church would have listened to some that said this was an issue and at that time made the changes that they just made (and really educated bishops, parents, and the youth), then I doubt there would have been the pent-up pressure that Sam Young tapped into with his petition.
So I don’t feel a need to pat the church on the back as much as I do to bring up issues to be worked. It seems the church has a whole PR system and tons of members more than willing to (over) do that. More self-congratulations to me does not lead to growth – both for me personally nor for the church.
Thanks again for explaining a bit of where you are coming from. We need more of this type of interchange.
I don’t think the answer is in more warning labels. For many, seeing a warning label makes a dangerous product that much more attractive.
I think Rockwell has some really good insights that go to the heart of the issue. First quote; “Since I doubt people will agree on what exactly the media obscures by it’s negativity, I don’t know what can be done.”
And the second, “We desperately need critical thinking to be exercised by savvy media consumers. “
Of the two the second is the real big problem. Most people are not really good at critical thinking. But most people think they are good at critical thinking. The problem lies in that most people do not get any training or do not study critical thinking, logical thinking or problem solving.
But I really don’t like, ok I really hate, the whole warning label think. It is way too easy to control people who, remember have no critical thinking, logical or problem solving skill.
We have a few news sources here in the UK that source their facts on their websites and encourage their audiences to do so, and often present opposing views or alternate readings of the same facts. I’m thinking Newsnight, Channel 4 News and the BBC. There may be others. My kids often research stories of their own volition as a consequence of knowing this stuff is there.
Other than that, we’re looking at forms of censorship, and I wouldn’t want that. We can point out consequences, particularly those around us , but living in a pluralistic society we have to accept the hazards of making choices.
We are free to be manipulated.
Just curious, how does the guest posting thing work? Is there a secret email address for submitting potential posts for review?
Jared, would those “equality of viewpoint” labels be equally applied? Would the government also need to place a warning before LDS General Conference airs on KSL, alerting viewers that exposure to the ideas and attitudes contained therein could lead to ignorance, bigotry, intolerance, and religious delusion? I assume you’d be in favor of this, since you’re not arguing for your values to be promoted, rather that both sides of all issues be equally promoted, correct?
The media obviously shouldn’t be presenting only one side of any issue, as they have a self-professed responsibility to impartiality. When it comes to the arts and other media, though, I don’t think any such responsibility applies. Creators of art for public consumption are usually motivated by profit, which means, by and large, that content is going to be representative of the values of those who consume it.
The problem with your comparison of moral issues to health and safety issues such as tobacco and foot safety labels, is those are things that have been scientifically proven to be objectively bad to human health. As much as some would like to believe the same can be said of morality, it’s simply not the case. An individual may choose to smoke, and can rightly state that they’re happier as a person by doing so, despite any negative consequences that may follow. What they cannot rightly say is that cigarettes are not harmful to their health. By contrast, a person can absolutely state that premarital sex, or alcohol, or whatever other behavior some may see as immoral, is not harmful to them, and they are not factually wrong. Questions of morality are matters of opinion and personal conviction, and are not comparable to issues of public health or well being. Any question of right and wrong is inherently subjective.
brjones-
I think full disclosure and revealing both sides of all issues is idealistic. If it were possible to do so with accuracy then it would be helpful. Morality, as you pointed out, is optional in today’s world, however, the financial consequences of divorce are measurable. Society is benefited by a low divorce rate. Divorce rates are influenced by morality. For example, when a marriage partner decisions leads to to alcohol/drug addiction it obviously puts a strain on the marriage. There are many other examples that could be provided that show divorce rates are influenced by moral decisions.
With that said, maybe it makes sense to have a warning label on all kinds media that has moral implications that can influence divorce and thereby society.
We applaud all the safety devices today’s car have that reduce injury and death. Why not apply the same reasoning to moral issues that are injurious to society?
By the way, Jared, it’s good to “see” you again. It’s been some time since we’ve contended. 🙂
To clarify, I did not say morality is optional. I said morality is subjective. That’s an important distinction. I would agree that any particular concept of morality is optional (yours as well as mine), but I would strongly disagree as to whether that’s objectively good or bad. I agree there are consequences of divorce, but I don’t necessarily agree with the blanket statement that society benefits from a low divorce rate (at least to the extent there is a high marriage rate). And even if I concede that point, perhaps the answer is to encourage people to have safe, responsible sex among more partners, and not to pick one person and get married, particularly at a young age. I suspect you would strongly disagree with that, although I don’t think there’s any question it would also serve to lower the divorce rate. By the same token, abortion and teens having children are also bad for society, by any number of metrics, but whereas you would likely suggest celibacy until one gets married, I would again suggest the promotion of safe, responsible sex, and educating youth about such. So even if we agree on certain negative consequences, that doesn’t mean we agree on the best or most “moral” solutions to address those problems. And again, I would point out, there is little disagreement about either the harm of auto accidents or the best means to prevent them, which makes it a bad comparison. There is, however, considerable disagreement about what constitutes moral “harms” and even moreso, what are the best ways of addressing them.
Yes, is has been awhile. I hope all is well with you and yours. Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
In Australia we have basically 3 commercial TV chanels, and a national broadcaster (ABC) whose charter requires that they present ballanced news and a multicultural station.
Much of the “news” on the commercials is fear, and conjecture. The ABC provides ballanced news and current affairs, but is labeled by the right of politics as left leaning, and the just cut $84million from their funding. The ABC have investigative journalist and provide a fact checking service.
The idea of the post to balance morals could only work in a totalitarian regime. And then your idea of morality is decided by the dictator.
Geoff-Aus-
Thanks for your comment.
Regarding the totalitarian regime thought. The Nephites were not totalitarian but they had laws about moral conduct.
10 But if he murdered he was punished unto death; and if he robbed he was also punished; and if he stole he was also punished; and if he committed adultery he was also punished; yea, for all this wickedness they were punished. Alma 30:10
Searching google, I found in the United States “adultery is a misdemeanor in most of the states with laws against it, some — including Michigan and Wisconsin — categorize the offense as a felony. Punishments vary widely by state. In Maryland, the penalty is a paltry $10 fine. But in Massachusetts, an adulterer could face up to three years in jail.”
In my view, positive and negative are matters of opinion. They also seldom happen in isolation—nearly everything has both aspects to it. In my time at a church-run school, I was blessed to find a professor who encouraged us to think about content of movies (also alllies to other publications, like books, music, web content, etc.) instead of just going by ratings.
I remember one unconfirmed story of a GA from Europe, where movie ratings are different. When asked, he said that his favorite movie was Schindler’s List. Now, that movie has some stark portrayals of violence, as well as if what I call immoral sexual behavior. Based on that alone, this movie is terribly negative. But it is also a beautiful, inspiring story of a person who risked his life to save many, many more. So it’s also a powerfully positive movie.
Like other commenters say, we need to think critically about what we see around us, and make informed choices about what we do with it.
^^^where movie ratings are different from what Americans are used to
Eugene, if you would like to do a guest post, just send an email to guest post at wheat and tares dot org