Taken from the print edition of The Telegraph of July 5, 2009
public Inquisition
Mauro Cerbino
from bad to worse. Not only is there a serious discussion about the meanings of public television into the medium and in the country, but also strengthens a position that public television is to exercise control over the content being broadcast. This control is not even like the attitude of the "politically correct" any discussion becomes apathetic. Is more in the nature of censorship in the style of those perpetrated by regimes that are of a moral fanaticism north to take discriminatory decisions that violate the principles of equity smallest. Outrage
is what gives me the EcuadorTV learned that having a communication project that many have opted to "clean up" the swamp existing television for 40 years, censoring content that it considers not in keeping with its "institutional politics." I refer to the amputation (a term that gives shudder) the title of the documentary by Juan MartÃn Cueva this damned country that was reduced to "This Country."
And what are the arguments? Managers refer to decisions made by an ineffable programming committee has the duty to enforce the standard by which "can not submit titles or content which offend the susceptibility, beliefs, idiosyncrasies and values \u200b\u200bof the audience. " Go trick! The members of this committee have an idea (not knowledge) very strange about the "audience" (named after acquiring the meaning of a uniform and compact mass), because they think it would affect the "bad words" or would offend images of naked bodies. These advocates of "public morality", a term that recalls the worst attitudes inquisitorial, arrogate to themselves the right to define in advance what may or may not see the helpless and infantilized viewers when, less hypocrisy, might wonder if is possible mutilation films of what they claim is "beyond the rating we can give them, arouse interest and encourage reflection on some subject of a public nature. It is impossible not to relate these censures the mutilations and concealment that the Catholic Church has done in the past (and present) in different works. The veils in the paintings or the amputation of the male organ of the sculptures are a notorious example.
do not want a TV as well. Confusing common interest with moralizing. With the pretext of safeguarding the viewers (who do not know) falls into the same errors committed by private means hiding behind in an "editorial" content does not discriminate "convenient." The program committee and the directors of the channel is more involved in renewing languages \u200b\u200band aesthetics television, promoting plurality accepting expressions of those who never spoke in the media, to promote greater and more diverse generation of content themselves and not canned acquired Miami fairs that come with the letterhead "for public media." That left alone the contents of works of fiction that we do need to think about the country, whatever, which we define as we wish, without censorship.
from bad to worse. Not only is there a serious discussion about the meanings of public television into the medium and in the country, but also strengthens a position that public television is to exercise control over the content being broadcast. This control is not even like the attitude of the "politically correct" any discussion becomes apathetic. Is more in the nature of censorship in the style of those perpetrated by regimes that are of a moral fanaticism north to take discriminatory decisions that violate the principles of equity smallest. Outrage
is what gives me the EcuadorTV learned that having a communication project that many have opted to "clean up" the swamp existing television for 40 years, censoring content that it considers not in keeping with its "institutional politics." I refer to the amputation (a term that gives shudder) the title of the documentary by Juan MartÃn Cueva this damned country that was reduced to "This Country."
And what are the arguments? Managers refer to decisions made by an ineffable programming committee has the duty to enforce the standard by which "can not submit titles or content which offend the susceptibility, beliefs, idiosyncrasies and values \u200b\u200bof the audience. " Go trick! The members of this committee have an idea (not knowledge) very strange about the "audience" (named after acquiring the meaning of a uniform and compact mass), because they think it would affect the "bad words" or would offend images of naked bodies. These advocates of "public morality", a term that recalls the worst attitudes inquisitorial, arrogate to themselves the right to define in advance what may or may not see the helpless and infantilized viewers when, less hypocrisy, might wonder if is possible mutilation films of what they claim is "beyond the rating we can give them, arouse interest and encourage reflection on some subject of a public nature. It is impossible not to relate these censures the mutilations and concealment that the Catholic Church has done in the past (and present) in different works. The veils in the paintings or the amputation of the male organ of the sculptures are a notorious example.
do not want a TV as well. Confusing common interest with moralizing. With the pretext of safeguarding the viewers (who do not know) falls into the same errors committed by private means hiding behind in an "editorial" content does not discriminate "convenient." The program committee and the directors of the channel is more involved in renewing languages \u200b\u200band aesthetics television, promoting plurality accepting expressions of those who never spoke in the media, to promote greater and more diverse generation of content themselves and not canned acquired Miami fairs that come with the letterhead "for public media." That left alone the contents of works of fiction that we do need to think about the country, whatever, which we define as we wish, without censorship.
0 comments:
Post a Comment