From: kilroy@gboro.glassboro.edu (Dr Nancy's Sweetie)
Subject: Appropriate Entertainers (was Political speeches)
Organization: Glassboro State College (Tanya Tucker Never Played Here)
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 16:58:00 GMT


In an earlier article, I said it was inappropriate for people who claim to be
for Christian values to publicly criticise some entertainers for portraying
immorality, and then endorse others whose lives are immoral in the same ways.

Kerry Stephenson has replied:

> The difference between Murphy Brown and Wynona Judd is that Murphy Brown is
> a *fictional* character, whose situations are *made up* by someone to make a
> *point*.  [...]  Wynona Judd is a *real* person whose life has not been made
> up by any human being.

I am hesitant to speak too directly about Murphy Brown, as I have seen the
show only a few times.  However, let's suppose the Vice President was correct
in his assessment.

We have a TV program in which a woman has extramarital sex, becomes pregnant,
and chooses to have the baby without marrying the father.  I agree that this
is not the kind of example I would want my kids to follow, but I recognise
that the TV people do things to make money.  This kind of programming must be
well-liked, because lots of people watch Murphy Brown.  The Vice President
criticised this program because it portrayed, for whatever reasons, morals
that he dislikes.

However, we have a real human being -- Tanya Tucker -- who ALSO had extra-
marital sex, and who also became pregnant, and who also chose to have the baby
without marrying the father.  (In fact, she did this twice.)  This is ANOTHER
example I would not wnat my kids to follow.  To top all this off, Ms Tucker
publicly ridiculed Dan Quayle for chastising Murphy Brown -- flaunting the
standards that he claims to find so important.

However, where the Vice President criticised the TV producers for presenting
this behaviour, his own political party endorsed the EXACT SAME behaviour by
hiring Tanya Tucker.  In other words, if you portray immorality on TV, that's
bad.  But if you actually DO the immorality, that's okay.

Surely there are some entertainers who would have performed at the Convention
who are ALSO good role models for children, and who do not publicly flaunt
Christian morality.  If the Republicans are really concerned about Christian
morals, as they claim to be, why did they have questionable role models at
their Convention?


> All Dan Quayle did was point out that the values our media culture (arguably
> the most important socializing influence we've got, both in this society and
> in exporting our culture to other societies) is transmitting are contrary to
> the values that the American people have always held dear.

And all I'm doing is saying that the values lived out by the Republicans'
entertainment are contrary to the SAME values Dan Quayle was trying to defend.
I agree that conservative Christian sexual ethics are taking a beating in our
society; but the Republicans' choice of entertainment -- especially since they
included one of the very people who attacked the Vice President's comments
about Murphy Brown -- suggests that they don't actually care one bit.

I don't underestimate the power of television (one episode of Happy Days was
about a character called `the Fonz' getting a library card; that week, the
number of new library cards issued was half a million more than usual).
However, I think it is hypocritical to say "they shouldn't portray XXX on TV"
when you hire people who live out XXX in public life, and who flaunt the
values you claim to be defending.


Darren F Provine / kilroy@gboro.glassboro.edu
"Do as I say, not as I do." -- author unknown
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU