From: eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Murphy Murphy Murphy
Date: 8 Sep 92 00:19:49 GMT
Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C.

Frederick.A.Ringwald@dartmouth.edu (Frederick A. Ringwald) writes:
"eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:
"> This however gets to be real interesting when it comes to the "it's only
"> a TV show" excuse. [much deleted]
"
"There's no doubt that fiction can have an effect on society: look at
"Dickens. But these matters should concern literary critics, NOT the
"President and Vice President of the United States, who even in the best
"of times have plenty of REAL issues to concern them.

But again the entertainment industry at times are dealing with real issues.
"Life Goes On" deals not only with a family coping with a child with Downs
Syndrome, but also with a teenage relationship between Becca and a boyfriend
who is HIV+. "Beverly Hills 90210" recently covered the issue of date-rape.
We can even cite history and see how Sinclair Lewis' _The Jungle_ helped
precipitate a movement in government that resulted in the establishment of
the Food and Drug Administration. Surely President Teddy Roosevelt would
be heartless if he didn't DO something about that problem. Sometimes the
entertainment industry does a good job.

But when do you draw the line? Sometimes the problems of society are
exacerbated by entertainment. Should "Cop Killer" be taken seriously
because of the message it espouses? Should "Do the Right Thing" be given
any attention? If I produced a 30-minute show on how the US is going down
like the Hindenburg blimp because Clarence Thomas was confirmed to the
Supreme Court -- oops, "Designing Women" did that! -- what would you
think of the message I was sending out?
	
>> How about those actors and
>> actresses who become "experts" in farmers' plights or homelessness or
>> life-threatening diseases who go to Congressional panels to testify
>> about their knowledge (Sally Field, Jessica Lange, Tom Cruise)? Why
>> should they be taken seriously if they're "only playing fictional
>> characters?"
>
>No argument here, either - look what one actor did, in the role of his
>life as President of the United States of America.
I don't think Ronald Reagan ever testified to a Congressional panel on
the plight of the cowboy in today's society, asking for more money to go
to the endangered cowboys of America.

"> Oh, by the way, ask Iowans back in 1986 when the Presidential campaign
"> started vis-a-vis the 1988 election. It may not be a blatent screw-up
"> as you might think. [...]
"
"Very well, we have our pick of V.P. gaffes that might have been just
"honest mix-ups in the spotlight (e.g., "What a terrible thing to have
"lost one's mind. Or not to have a mind at all. How true that is."). But
"we also have more than enough egregiously ignorant foolishness that
"cannot be explained this way, e.g., "We should develop anti-satellite
"weapons because we could not have prevailed without them in 'Red Storm
"Rising'." Talk about fiction vs. reality!

I like some of his gaffes. I particularly love his "What a terrible thing
it is to lose one's mind. Or not to have a mind at all. How true it is."
Granted, some of the things he says completely cracks me up.




-- 
Emil Thomas Chuck (Duke BME '93)		eyc@acpub.duke.edu
I'm too busy for my class, too busy for my clubs, too busy for my work.
I'm too busy for my mail, too busy for my news, too busy for my life.
I'm too busy for this .sig. 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush