2007-05-16 05:17:05 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous in Entertainment & Music ➔ Polls & Surveys
Very, very good question! I don't think its an obligation per se because my feeling is that the obligation to guide the youth falls primarily on parents and adults in a child's life, but I do think there should be some more thought given to what the media is putting out there, especially in today's society. Children these days are more and more dependant on media outlets for entertainment and we have to remember that just as our level of tolerance for the absurd increases, so does theirs. Children are SO much more aware these days than I was in my day and I'm only 39. I remember back in the day when Lucy and Ricky slept in seperate beds (I've often wondered how little Ricky was conceived myself) and they were married!!! Today, woman are slobbering women on prime time TV and its perfectly acceptable. There is so much more nudity, violence and profanity in the media these days and our kids aren't blinking twice at it. If our children are not shocked, appauled or outraged at what surrounds them now, what kind of hope is there for their future? That, I think is truly, truly sad.
2007-05-16 05:33:37 · answer #1 · answered by Gibbsy girl 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think they do, but instead they are only telling half the story most of the time. The media is very one sided and I think it's too bad that our youth are only getting part of the story. Just like the Iraq war, they only show the bad, the killings, not the good things our soldiers are doing over there. I was there in 93 and believe me, you are not getting half of the story. I think it's time the media went back to showing all sides of a story and letting the people decide what to think and feel about it.
2007-05-16 12:23:54 · answer #2 · answered by vanhammer 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No. Parents have a moral obligation to the youth. The media has a moral obligation to the truth. Neither is exactly living up to their responibilities at the moment, but it isn't the media's job to raise our kids for us.
2007-05-16 12:22:13 · answer #3 · answered by Tut Uncommon 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
morally, yes. in reality, no. they have an obligation to the shareholders to make them money. and, if you don't like what's on, there is that little thing called a remote by which you can change/block the channel. even more extreme is the OFF button. the moral obligation begins and ends with the parent(s).
2007-05-16 12:22:32 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
It's not the media who has an obligation nor it is the parents. There are many websites I have seen that make fun of people for their weight or the way they look in general. And, these are average people who are not associated with the media in anyways.
People have made fun of or critisized people for their weight, hair, looks, etc, average or famous, since the dawn of man.
2007-05-16 12:21:28 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
yeah right!
youth have a moral obligation to expand their horizons and broaden their views by not choosing one network and tracing the story from the country of origin.
always check both sides truth would probably be somewhere in the middle.
2007-05-16 12:21:35 · answer #6 · answered by grace g 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The "media" and "morale obligation" are not compatible with one another with any age group.
2007-05-16 12:23:15 · answer #7 · answered by EvelynMine 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The media has a moral obligation to us all. Although they rarely honor that. $$$ just makes people lose all sorts of perspective doesn't it?
2007-05-16 12:20:08 · answer #8 · answered by babygyrl_nyc 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Close. To the truth.
2007-05-16 12:19:53 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
You'd think so. Unfortunately it just isn't going to happen.
2007-05-16 12:20:03 · answer #10 · answered by luckford2004 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋