Is it just me or...?

the_new_mr

So, last night I was watching 24 and Law & Order (I don't usually watch either of these programs). It was late, I was lazy and I channel hopped till I found these on. They came one after another on the same channel.

Anyway, to my point.

Apparently, this series of 24 was all about fighting Muslim terrorists. I can understand that since this is something which has (unfortunately) become part of our lives that's it's a simple case of art imitating life but is it a really good idea? Anyway, fair enough I suppose. It's a hot topic and someone had to handle it.

But then, in Law & Order: Special Victims Unit, something which perhaps my conspiracy theory mind thought too much of... or perhaps not? I'll put the following text in a spoiler in case anyone hasn't seen this episode yet and they watch the show.

(Click and drag the cursor inside spoiler tags to show the text)

It was about these hate killings. A white American was mad at Muslims (and Arabs in general) and killed two and subsequently lit them on fire. The first victim was a woman and the police originally suspected the husband of the killing because there had been domestic violence (strike 1: portraying the average Muslim man as a wife beater). Apparently, one morning their neighbour saw her with a broken lip and heard them shouting all the time. Didn't like one thing he said as well. He said:

"She said she was true to Islam but I could see she had freedom all over her"

Now, whereas this could easily be brushed off as someone in the show not being educated well enough on Islam, I find it a little stupid to put in there. Without anyone else to correct his mistake in the show itself, an uneducated viewer will promptly take on this opinion themselves. (strike 2: portraying Muslim women as oppressed).

Now, one reason the police thought the man might have a motive for killing his wife was because she had become romantically involved with a Jewish man who was running a good-will organisation to bring Muslims and Jews together which the woman was involved in.

Thankfully, this was later flattened when it turned out the real killer was a white American.

The second victim was a man who was also involved with the organisation. When the police went to talk to the head of the organisation again, he said that it was a shame that this guy was killed because, and I quote:

"How many Muslims do you know say Israel is a great country?"

Now, let me state my position clearly so as not to give cause to any misunderstanding.

First of all, I have nothing at all against Jews or Judaism. The Quran tells us that Jews are People of the Book and are to be respected, loved and can be befriended without issue. The Prophet Mohamed (peace be upon him) has warned us against mistreating People of the Book.

Now, Israel is not a great country. Don't ask me, ask the UN and they'll tell you how many UN resolutions they are breaking. I don't want this thread to go down the political road (that would be a discussion for the politics forum) but the main problem I have with the above quote is as if it's saying that "to be a good Muslim in the society, you have to say that Israel is a great country" or "If you think that Israel is not a great country, I should be afraid of you". It has so much potential for creating misconceptions (strike 3: making any Muslim who thinks Israel is a criminal state look like a terrorist).

There were a few positives here and there. For example, the killer was made out to be a complete monster filled with hate and it showed how his thinking was somewhat backward. It turned out he was mad at Arabs because his father, after having fought in Desert Storm, left his mother for a Kuwaiti woman.

Another example was that the psychological profiler (or something) who's called Wong (I think?) was quick to correct a misconception. Something like when someone was talking about how "Muslims like to hijack airplanes and fly them into office buildings", he responded with "Excuse me! They were extremists".

Still, there were one too many bad sound bites in that show for my liking.

So, what do you think? Is this part of the media making out Muslims to be violent and alien to society either intentionally because they have a vendetta against Islam and Muslims or just to get ratings? Or am I being too paranoid?

Jesus Wept

It's just american tv, it used to always be the Russians?

They just have to keep it simple for their viewers.

Maybe in time they will switch targets.

Karl Hungus

the_new_mr wrote:

Or am I being too paranoid?

You're being Paranoid.

Think of a stereotype, and it'll be churned out ad nauseum on American TV. Just look at how the Irish are portrayed all the time. Take Family Guy for example, and every Irishman's a drunkard and wife-beater. There's an Irish pub in one episode called "Wifey McBeaty's"...

Or to quote Kent Brockman in The Simpsons; "Ladies and gentlemen, what you are seeing is a total disregard for the things St. Patrick's Day stand for. All this drinking, violence, destruction of property. Are these the things we think of when we think of the Irish?" There's another episode of The Simpsons where an Irish priest is being beaten up by his dad, who says "You're just like your mother, can't take a punch."

I could go on, but I think you get the point... It's all stereotypes. You should just learn to take fiction as fiction and shrug it off.

The Rigger also illustrates a good point, about how the Russians were portrayed as the bad-guys all the time. If you go even further back, like the 40's, there was some very crude depictions of the Japanese at the time.

BuffyBot

Lazy scriptwriting is all it seems to be. One could be all arty-farty and try and say that they were playing with their viewers expectations yada yada..but lets face it, it's most likely lazy scriptwriting.

PDN

Would you prefer it if terrorists in American TV shows were always portrayed as Russian, Irish or neo-Nazis etc? Since a proportion of terrorism in the world today is carried out by people who claim to be Muslims then it seems reasonable that the occasional TV show will feature terrorists who also claim to be Muslim.

the_new_mr

It's not so much the portraying of terrorists that I have a problem with. It's a current issue and that's why I wasn't too pushed about 24.

But all the subtle things on Law & Order are a little different to the Irish being portrayed as mindless drunks on the Simpsons.

wes

You expect way too much out of American TV shows. Law and Order can be good sometimes, but other times it goes into really odd and stupid places. The entire pro-Israel thing I have seen a couple of times on the show. There fully entitled to there opinion, but its a one sided portrayal, which there entitled too. Its a simple procedural show, I don't think they would want to start pointing out Human rights abuses etc that go against conventional wisdom in the US. Hell people apparently have to tip toe around evolution over there these days. I think there just trying not to offend the viewing public and a lot of people tend to see criticism of Israel as racist there as well. I wouldn't read too much into the show. US tv isn't know for its great geo-political analysis, so I wouldn't be to bothered with them falling on old lazy script writing.

Having said that there are some great TV shows in the US, the majority is rubbish (this goes for all tv not just US) . I would recommend the following shows: Battlestar Galactica, is a great show, the first 2 season are out on DVD and Sky is repeating the latest season. Lost, is a great show also, it take a while to get into, but it is very well done and features an Iraqi character who is very well fleshed out. Just 2 off the top of my head. Lots of other good ones I can't remember right now.

24 is pretty good, really just a mindless action show, but a damn good one.

Karl Hungus

the_new_mr wrote:

But all the subtle things on Law & Order are a little different to the Irish being portrayed as mindless drunks on the Simpsons.

If they're both inaccurate stereotypes, then there is no difference. It's both lazy writing.

wes

Karl Hungus wrote:

If they're both inaccurate stereotypes, then there is no difference. It's both lazy writing.

Well, one is played for laughs and the other is suppose to be taken in a far more serious context. So yes, both lazy writing, but not exactly the same.

Karl Hungus

wes wrote:

Well, one is played for laughs and the other is suppose to be taken in a far more serious context. So yes, both lazy writing, but not exactly the same.

Reguardless of the serious/comedic context, they're both indications of what the writers believe to be typical behaviour of two groups. In that reguards, they are the same.

They only differ if you want to believe that because of the serious context of Law & Order that it's some kind of conspiracy, as so:

Is this part of the media making out Muslims to be violent and alien to society either intentionally because they have a vendetta against Islam and Muslims

Now is it some kind of conspiracy, or is it simply indictive of the fundamental viewpoint behind American television as is fueled by stereotypes?

wes

Karl Hungus wrote:

-
They only differ if you want to believe that because of the serious context of Law & Order that it's some kind of conspiracy, as so:

Hardly a conspiracy in my opinion. Its probably just the writers point of view, which is what I am trying to get at. A lot of writers, write what they know. I reckon this is the case. The slightly more serious context of Law and Order as opposed to Family Guy, does make them a little different. Still both products of lazy writing. I agree with you for the most part, but I still think they are slightly different.

the_new_mr

Well, I think Wes is probably right in that it's just lazy writing and the writers expressing their views which they are entitled to.

Karl Hungus wrote:

If they're both inaccurate stereotypes, then there is no difference. It's both lazy writing.

They may both be the result of inaccurate stereotyping but one makes people laugh (and is generally harmless) and the other makes people scared. BIG difference.

Karl Hungus

the_new_mr wrote:

They may both be the result of inaccurate stereotyping but one makes people laugh (and is generally harmless) and the other makes people scared. BIG difference.

I think you'd have to be an incredibly ignorant and insensitive person to think that portraying someone in an inaccurate light even if it is played for laughs cannot be hurtfull, and brush it off as harmless. After all, some of the most hurtfull things are those said in ridicule, and some of the most potent counter-political points can made by bringing something into a comedic light, a parody if you will.

Reguardless of whether beliefs manifest themselves in a comedic light or a serious light, those beliefs still exist within the minds of many Americans; it's still a reflection of what people think of a particular group, and that's the key here. Would it make you feel easier if you saw a Muslim portrayed in The Simpsons beating his wife? Or would you think to yourself "This is what they really think of us?"

Anyway, I think it's going a bit off-topic here...

You asked whether it's all part of some media conspiracy against Islam, or not?

Well, I tried to illustrate that everyone gets stereotypical treatment from American media. That's the entire point. It's stereotype bumped off stereotype, fueling itself, and it's not going to stop. You're getting too bogged down with the "Comedic/Serious" argument to see that it all stems from the same underlying problem.

Savvy?

karen3212

I don't think this is in anything new. I remember when the Irish guy in Eastenders was always a drunk, and the Scottish guy a wife beater. In US the bad guy had a russian accent, I think now in sitcoms the French girl is always racist.

Nothing new, playing the stereotypes, conforming to opinion. edit Or should that be forming opinion.

pickarooney

Slight paranoia on points 1 and 3, IMO. In domestic violence situations, or when a woman is murdered, the husband is always the number one suspect, regardless of race, religion or what the neighbours say.

I've never seen the show in question, but I would take the comment about Israel as recognition of the man's open-mindedness.
"How many Irish people do you know who would say Britain is a great country" to me doesn't suggest that Britain is necessarily a fantastic place, just that (and I'm allowing for trans-atlantic rose-tint prejudice here) the average Irishman would have just cause for disliking the country and it would take a big man to recognise Britain's greatness.

Back when I did watch 24 there were far, far more frequent and obvious allusions that beardie=bad guy. The writing was very lazy then, I can't imagine it's improved with age.

metrovelvet

Well, how many Muslims do you hear saying Israel is a great country? Thats a practical question. It doesnt in any way claim that to be a good Muslim you have to love Israel. I think you got it wrong there.

Given that Law and Order takes place in New York and New York has the second largest Jewish settlement outside of Israel, our fictional media is bound to address these things.

And yes in New York Islamic women are perceived to be oppressed, but then Catholic school girls are perceived to be whores.

New mr - I cant blame you for your readings because I am the same when I watch these programs, as there are agendas and politics in representation. But you have to look at the whole picture.

For example, the Sopranos - utter scumbag Italian Americans. Now there are enough Italian Americans who are like this that it lends itself credibility but there are so so many more who are not like that who DESPISE that show because they fear it will provide a grid through which they themselves will be perceived. And you know its mostly in Ireland I have to say to people "you know they are not really like that."

I would read the plot you described quite differently from how you have reacted to it.

In the end, it is the white man who is the villan, as usual, and no wonder they are pissed off, and it is the Islamic woman who is the victim of his revenge.

So where is your sympathy supposed to lie in the end? Who are you supposed to feel pity for and who are you led to despise?

What is really incredible is that you are complaining about prejudicial representation but then you think its a positive that the bad guy turned out to be a "WHITE MAN."

What annoys me about that plot, is that I am SICK TO DEATH of watching dead womens bodies on television. The continued fetishisizing of violence against women in various forms of entertainment is out of control.

the_new_mr

Karl Hungus wrote:

I think you'd have to be an incredibly ignorant and insensitive person to think that portraying someone in an inaccurate light even if it is played for laughs cannot be hurtfull, and brush it off as harmless.

What a ridiculous remark. I'm surprised that you lowered yourself to poster bashing.

I think that it doesn't take a genius to see that the portrayals of Irish as violent, drunk wife beaters is not as potentially volatile as portraying a Muslim a wife-beater with all the stigma and ignorance when it comes to Islam and women and men's treatment of them. Hey, I'm Irish myself but I know it's a joke and I know that people know enough to know that Irish are not really like that. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for Muslims in this day in age.

It's enough to know that Irish people themselves forward on small clips from Family Guy to other Irish people that mock the Irish and get a laugh out of it. This actually happened.

pickarooney wrote:

I've never seen the show in question, but I would take the comment about Israel as recognition of the man's open-mindedness.
"How many Irish people do you know who would say Britain is a great country" to me doesn't suggest that Britain is necessarily a fantastic place, just that (and I'm allowing for trans-atlantic rose-tint prejudice here) the average Irishman would have just cause for disliking the country and it would take a big man to recognise Britain's greatness.

I take your point there but the difference with Israel is that it's currently in the center of the middle east crisis and there's no question of their bad behaviour.

metrovelvet wrote:

Well, how many Muslims do you hear saying Israel is a great country? Thats a practical question. It doesnt in any way claim that to be a good Muslim you have to love Israel. I think you got it wrong there.

I think you misunderstood me, I said that it made it out to be that in order to be a good Muslim in the society, you had to think that Israel was a great country. As if to say that any Muslim who has any sort of animosity towards Israel is a bit dodgy.

metrovelvet wrote:

For example, the Sopranos...

Once again, another example like the Irish one from earlier. People with any kind of common sense know that not all Italian Americans are like that. The situation is a little more sensitive with the Muslim population as they haven't been part of the western society for as long.

metrovelvet wrote:

What is really incredible is that you are complaining about prejudicial representation but then you think its a positive that the bad guy turned out to be a "WHITE MAN."

I'm not particularly happy that the guy turned out to be a white man. I'm white for God's sake!! It's just a white man is a like a Joe Bloggs and doesn't belong to any minority because he's part of the majority (obviously ).

metrovelvet wrote:

What annoys me about that plot, is that I am SICK TO DEATH of watching dead womens bodies on television. The continued fetishisizing of violence against women in various forms of entertainment is out of control.

I think you're right but I guess it's more to address the problem of violence against women which sucks and is a real problem.

metrovelvet

the_new_mr wrote:

I think that it doesn't take a genius to see that the portrayals of Irish as violent, drunk wife beaters is not as potentially volatile as portraying a Muslim a wife-beater with all the stigma and ignorance when it comes to Islam and women and men's treatment of them. Hey, I'm Irish myself but I know it's a joke and I know that people know enough to know that Irish are not really like that. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for Muslims in this day in age.

It's enough to know that Irish people themselves forward on small clips from Family Guy to other Irish people that mock the Irish and get a laugh out of it. This actually happened.

I would have to disagree with you. They are one of the last remaining groups that you can derogatorily make fun of. White ethnics and Catholics.

There is a reason why people ask me if I have 9 brothers and sisters when they find out what my last name is and if I have a bad temper. Or why its believed that Irish and Italian make bad blood mixes because you'll never stop hearing the arguing out on the street. Dont over privalege the sacredness of Islam as somehow something that should be more EXEMPT from this type of framing.

the_new_mr wrote:

I take your point there but the difference with Israel is that it's currently in the center of the middle east crisis and there's no question of their bad behaviour.

There are plenty of questions about it. Its New York, its half Jewish and their "bad behavior" is defended and justified and not really thought of as that bad.

the_new_mr wrote:

I think you misunderstood me, I said that it made it out to be that in order to be a good Muslim in the society, you had to think that Israel was a great country. As if to say that any Muslim who has any sort of animosity towards Israel is a bit dodgy..

Yes I get you, but I dont agree with your reading of it. It's not a value judgement, its an observation.

The Islamic community does not have a repulation for supporting Isreal, and that is both the Arab Islamic community and the Black American one descended from Malcom X.

the_new_mr wrote:

Once again, another example like the Irish one from earlier. People with any kind of common sense know that not all Italian Americans are like that. The situation is a little more sensitive with the Muslim population as they haven't been part of the western society for as long..

Every ethic group has to go through it until the generations assimilate. But these communities tend to keep to themselves and remain elect. They dont tend to mix.

the_new_mr wrote:

I'm not particularly happy that the guy turned out to be a white man. I'm white for God's sake!! It's just a white man is a like a Joe Bloggs and doesn't belong to any minority because he's part of the majority (obviously ).

Because you think he's generic? Doesnt that attitude reinforce the particularising of other ethnicities? They could have made it a woman who was the killer. They could have made it an arab non islam or a black american muslim. But they chose to make it a white man. In the US, that it not a default artistic choice especially in a plot that is obviously racially loaded.

the_new_mr wrote:

I think you're right but I guess it's more to address the problem of violence against women which sucks and is a real problem.

I think the whole plot and storyline was a way to calm the general public around the NYPD NOT racially profiling and it was indirectly connected to new security measures.

Don't forget in the end ; the white man is guilty.

Hobbes

Karl Hungus wrote:

I think you'd have to be an incredibly ignorant and insensitive person to think that portraying someone in an inaccurate light even if it is played for laughs cannot be hurtfull, and brush it off as harmless.

Inferring insults is the same as insulting. No more of that please.

One mans joke and all that. The problem is that some people can't see the difference between the two. I mean its ok to make fun of yourself, but making fun of others or even portraying them in a bad light gets you into trouble.

It is also easy to brush off until you start getting discriminated against based on a TV program or peoples actions. I've had it happen and I've seen it happen. Until your a target of it, it is very easy to dismiss it as just having a bit of fun.

They are one of the last remaining groups that you can derogatorily make fun of. White ethnics and Catholics.

I'd disagree. It could just be case of Tribal joking. I mean take Boondocks, very funny program but if a white person even said half of the crap they would be in trouble. Or to quote boondocks "It's ok if *they* say it". (you'd have to watch boondocks to get the joke).

metrovelvet

I dont know what the Boondocks are and Im not talking about these kind of remarks being made within a community where permission is implied[ie blacks who call each other nigga]. I mean from outside of your ethnicity. Its just not equal. Some groups are more protected than others.

Karl Hungus

the_new_mr wrote:

What a ridiculous remark. I'm surprised that you lowered yourself to poster bashing.

Hobbes wrote:

Inferring insults is the same as insulting. No more of that please.

I'm not 'Bashing' or inferring insults, because it is ignorance to think that something humourous cannot be hurtful or have a negative impact. If you two want to twist my intent and believe that I'm trying to make a sideline insult, then that's your prerogative. Keep in mind, I did not come here to bash anyone, but simply offer my opinion.

I think metrovelvet summed up what appears to be going on here eloquently with this point:

Dont over privalege the sacredness of Islam as somehow something that should be more EXEMPT from this type of framing.

I would agree entirely with that, and I think it's very much a case of cultural 'holier than thou' or proverbial sacred cow (No pun intended). So you can keep your righteous indignation, I won't be contributing further to this thread, as I don't even think it's worth discussing something with a person who won't even see themselves on the same playing field.

Goodbye.

the_new_mr

Karl Hungus wrote:

I'm not 'Bashing' or inferring insults, because it is ignorance to think that something humourous cannot be hurtful or have a negative impact. If you two want to twist my intent and believe that I'm trying to make a sideline insult, then that's your prerogative.

Karl Hungus wrote:

the_new_mr wrote:

They may both be the result of inaccurate stereotyping but one makes people laugh (and is generally harmless) and the other makes people scared. BIG difference.

I think you'd have to be an incredibly ignorant and insensitive person to think that portraying someone in an inaccurate light even if it is played for laughs cannot be hurtfull, and brush it off as harmless.

<-- ??

Karl Hungus wrote:

So you can keep your righteous indignation, I won't be contributing further to this thread, as I don't even think it's worth discussing something with a person who won't even see themselves on the same playing field.

Goodbye.

Sorry you feel that way. You're welcome to stay and perhaps we can discuss this using examples so I can explain the difference more clearly. It's not that I don't see myself on a level playing field. It's that I see the potential harm of one greater than the other. This is obvious to most I think.

Karl Hungus

the_new_mr wrote:

<-- ??

Sorry you feel that way. You're welcome to stay and perhaps we can discuss this using examples so I can explain the difference more clearly. It's not that I don't see myself on a level playing field. It's that I see the potential harm of one greater than the other. This is obvious to most I think.

If you don't feel that I'm attacking you, then I'd gladly discuss things further.

So... You think there's more potential for harm? I disagree. I think that there is enough harm being done to Islam (I'm assuming by harm, you mean harming the overall perception, and not that someone would be inspired by Television to harm someone) by the extremists, fanatics and zealots out there to make the idea of an episode of Law & Order having any affect on a person's opinion of Islam to be a proverbial drop in the ocean. Hostilities between America and Muslim countries have far more of an effect on the public opinion of the religion, and as such, a portrayal of Muslims as bad-guys in Films or on TV shows is just a reflection of public opinion.

On a base level, it's just something that fits a stereotype. Same reason that the Russians were portrayed as baddies in so many 80's films, as it slots in with public perception of who the 'real life' baddies are.

I think your concern that Islam is under attack from media is making you oblivious to the fact that just about every demographic is being stereotyped unfairly.

wes

Karl Hungus wrote:

I think your concern that Islam is under attack from media is making you oblivious to the fact that just about every demographic is being stereotyped unfairly.

I think you have hit the nail on the head there.

the_new_mr

Karl Hungus wrote:

I think your concern that Islam is under attack from media is making you oblivious to the fact that just about every demographic is being stereotyped unfairly.

That's not true at all. I'm well aware that other demographics are being stereotyped unfairly. My point is that one is very harmful to the society at large and the other is (relatively speaking) harmless or at least less harmful.

Karl Hungus wrote:

If you don't feel that I'm attacking you, then I'd gladly discuss things further.

Obviously, I can't know your intention. Only God can know that. But when you quote something I say and then go on to say that thinking that would have to be the thoughts of an ignorant and insensitive person, how else am I supposed to take it?

Anyway...

If we go back to the example of the drunk Irishman who drinks all day, beats his wife and has 10 kids. Is it unfair? Most definitely. Is it harmful to the image of the Irish? For sure. But does it create a serious "us & them" attitude to the point that people are quite literally afraid of the other and think they are plotting against them at every waking moment? No.

That's different to the stereotypes of Muslims. With people already wary of Islam and Muslims, does it make sense to make Muslims seem like they are a whole different species?

It's already been mentioned here more than once that the writers of Law & Order are free to their opinion and they're also free to express it. But the main difference is that people all over the world have mixed enough with the Irish to know that the stereotypes are a load of rubbish and that if an Irishman conforms to the stereotype then it's simply a coincidence. But is it responsible writing to fuel the flames of fear when it comes to stereotypes about Muslims especially when tensions are so high these days to the extent that people are getting harassed and beat up in the street? I think not.

Karl Hungus

the_new_mr wrote:

But does it create a serious "us & them" attitude to the point that people are quite literally afraid of the other and think they are plotting against them at every waking moment? No.

WTF... It's TV shows like Law & Order that are creating a serious "us & them" attitude? Not real world events like wars, terrorist attacks, kidnappings and such?

I'm geniunely at a complete loss as how to even begin with that.

I said I'd duck out of this discussion, and now I'm regretting not staying out of it... I'm just flabberghasted.

In fact... I don't think you're even reading my posts at all...

You said:

the_new_mr wrote:

But is it responsible writing to fuel the flames of fear when it comes to stereotypes about Muslims especially when tensions are so high these days to the extent that people are getting harassed and beat up in the street? I think not.

Which I had adressed in the previous post:

Karl Hungus wrote:

I think that there is enough harm being done to Islam (I'm assuming by harm, you mean harming the overall perception, and not that someone would be inspired by Television to harm someone) by the extremists, fanatics and zealots out there to make the idea of an episode of Law & Order having any affect on a person's opinion of Islam to be a proverbial drop in the ocean.

Or would you actually like to provide some proof that people are attacking Muslims in the streets because of Law & Order!? That's really, possibly one of the most ridiculous things I've read for a long, long time.

metrovelvet

the_new_mr wrote:

If we go back to the example of the drunk Irishman who drinks all day, beats his wife and has 10 kids. Is it unfair? Most definitely. Is it harmful to the image of the Irish? For sure. But does it create a serious "us & them" attitude to the point that people are quite literally afraid of the other and think they are plotting against them at every waking moment? No.

That's different to the stereotypes of Muslims. With people already wary of Islam and Muslims, does it make sense to make Muslims seem like they are a whole different species?

It's already been mentioned here more than once that the writers of Law & Order are free to their opinion and they're also free to express it. But the main difference is that people all over the world have mixed enough with the Irish to know that the stereotypes are a load of rubbish and that if an Irishman conforms to the stereotype then it's simply a coincidence. But is it responsible writing to fuel the flames of fear when it comes to stereotypes about Muslims especially when tensions are so high these days to the extent that people are getting harassed and beat up in the street? I think not.

Um ... no. Actually you should be more concerned with things like the recent exposure of a muslim plot to blow up a fuel line in JFK aiport than you should about Law and Order where the baddy is a white guy and the victims are an islamic couple.

Its this kind of request for special treatment in the arts and media that make surrounding communities resentful.

Perspective new mr... come on.

And what are you on about muslims getting attacked on the street. theres more muslims in New Jersey than there are in Baghdad.

the_new_mr

Karl Hungus wrote:

WTF...
...
In fact... I don't think you're even reading my posts at all...

You're a very aggressive poster, aren't you Karl?

Perhaps I should have said "helps create" or "contributes to" instead of "creates".

And while real world events play more of a role in forming people's opinions, Law & Order and other TV shows play a huge part in people's public opinion. Don't underestimate the power of TV and the media in general. Why do you think certain governments (many Arab governments included) want to make sure they are in control of the media?

And I'm not suggesting that TV shows are the sole motivator for people to harass others in the street but I'm suggesting that it's a contributing factor and may be the trigger in some cases. You don't have to agree with and you may even call it ridiculous if you want.

metrovelvet wrote:

Its this kind of request for special treatment in the arts and media that make surrounding communities resentful.

I'm not making a request for special treatment as such. All I'm saying is that it's smarter not to add to people's misconceptions. That's all.

Karl Hungus

the_new_mr wrote:

You're a very aggressive poster, aren't you Karl?

I'd say I'm just very forward, perhaps even blunt.

the_new_mr wrote:

Perhaps I should have said "helps create" or "contributes to" instead of "creates".

And while real world events play more of a role in forming people's opinions, Law & Order and other TV shows play a huge part in people's public opinion. Don't underestimate the power of TV and the media in general. Why do you think certain governments (many Arab governments included) want to make sure they are in control of the media?

Goverment controlled media is much more about the News and Information side of things, take the Iraqi Minister of Information for example, it's a fairly direct representation of what said governments want to be reported as fact, and supression of things they don't. It's not about creation of fiction.

Power of the media, I think, lies almost solely in what is represented as fact, such as news coverage. It's representing actual real world events, something that fiction never claims to do.

Besides, this whole thing is a case of art imitating life, not art setting the trend for life.

the_new_mr wrote:

And I'm not suggesting that TV shows are the sole motivator for people to harass others in the street but I'm suggesting that it's a contributing factor and may be the trigger in some cases. You don't have to agree with and you may even call it ridiculous if you want.

But that's all it is, a suggestion. A theory. Do you have anything to base that theory on, or to back it up? Any evidence, example, or even anecdote?

You're just pulling a proverbial Jack Thompson here, and I think that without any genuine basis, there's no reason for your theory to be considered anything but ridiculous.

metrovelvet

the_new_mr wrote:

I'm not making a request for special treatment as such. All I'm saying is that it's smarter not to add to people's misconceptions. That's all.

That is if you agree that they are misconceptions in the first place.

the_new_mr

metrovelvet wrote:

That is if you agree that they are misconceptions in the first place.

That's an indirect attack on Islam. Warning for breaking rule #1. I'm being very lenient there. This forum has rules written in the charter. Stick by them.

Karl Hungus wrote:

Power of the media, I think, lies almost solely in what is represented as fact, such as news coverage. It's representing actual real world events, something that fiction never claims to do.

Then you do underestimate the power of the media.

I can't exactly back up my theory with evidence. The only evidence that comes to mind (and I guess you can't really call it evidence) is the kind of chatter you hear coming out of people's mouths after having seen a particular film. It's amazing how people are nearly always ready to believe fiction more readily than fact. Quite scary really. I once heard my friend

Karl Hungus wrote:

Besides, this whole thing is a case of art imitating life, not art setting the trend for life.

Haven't you ever heard the phrase "Art imitating life imitating art" ?