The Pits
I've complained that Michael Medved used bad numbers to prove Hollywood turned its audience off in the 60s with too much sex and profanity. So I was on my guard when I heard him recently on the radio. He was talking about our current political problems, and said it's not acceptable to sit back and do nothing. He then said Dante put people who did nothing during a crisis in the deepest pit of hell.
This is wrong. The lowest pit of hell is reserved for those who betray their benefactors. In fact, those who are indecisive or neutral on moral issues don't even make it to the first circle of hell, but are stuck in the vestibule just before circle #1.
posted by LAGuy @ 12:17 AM
3 Comments:
So I read the link and what you actually said was that Medved used a study that was flawed.
I suppose you might put the burden on Medved to validate a study, but that hardly seems reasonable. It seems more accurate to say that many people including Medved relied upon it to their loss of accuracy.
You report, without citing authority, that the numbers plateaued, recovered slightly and, you imply, have remained absolutely stable for 30 or 40 years.
If so, that is still a continuing relative decline, since the stable absolute number is a decreasing percentage of an increasing population. I admit I have no idea what relation that might have to sex and violence. If I had to guess I'd say they should crank it up if they want the numbers up.
Now excuse me while I go beat up my wife, in anticipation of better sex.
Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle's Inferno is a sequel to Dante's. They suggested some interesting updates: Ultra-thin Hollywood starlets receive the same punishment as gluttons, and environmentalists who had blocked nuclear power even though they knew it was safe were punished as well....
Medved's study was flawed=Medved's study was wrong. I've seen a lot of evidence, including two specific studies of grosses and attendence figures, as well as secondary research, which goes against this study, and nothing supporting it. In fact, whenever I hear similar numbers, I check the source and it always goes back to this flawed study. I didn't cite the other studies because this is a blog, not a research paper.
But forget that. The study taken by itself is absurd. It asks us to believe that grosses, after being level for a few years, were essentially cut in half during a one year period in the mid-60s and then stayed at a low level. Note also that this unbelievable study is quoted dishonestly by Medved and others, who try to show that as Hollywood adopted more violent and profane entertainment, there was a clear slide in audience attendance. So what they do is quote the number in 1965 and then the number in 1969, but there were no gradual drop. The numbers fell of a cliff in one year, according to the very study Medved and others rely upon, even though Hollywood didn't change overnight.
Post a Comment
<< Home