I like to think that I can be a productive kind of guy, but honestly, I don't know how some people are able to maintain a viable social life, keep on top of work, and keep a blog that's interesting and relevant. Mine most certainly hasn't been for quite some time.
Check out what I've been up to at NewsWire and Scoop - I've got a reason for being a tardy blogger... honestly. (Actually I don't - I'm just lazy - which you would be aware of had you delved back many many months.)
Since this is an effort to ease myself into the fine art of blogging, I wanted go to my favourite lobby group... Family First.
Today they put out this press release on the BSA ruling upholding a complaint about a gay sex scene on Shorters.
I'm going to leave the actual issue to far better minds than mine in explaining the problems with both of these pieces of literature.
I have but one problem facing me that one could possibly construe as a Monday night rant.
Go up to the Family First press release, scroll down to the fifth paragraph and read this stupid, stupid line:
"Television viewing is an integral part of family life"
There is something tragically wrong when an organisation that proclaims itself as putting the family before anything else, makes a statement like this.
It's reminiscent of Newmarket Business Association GM Cameron Brewer's wonderful phrase: "shopping these days is a favourite family leisure activity."
Bob McCroskie and Mr Brewer are not unintelligent people - why they believe such drivel will be bought by a media savvy public I do not know. Perhaps that's why they're earning the dark dollars of public relations, and I'm pursuing the relative hardship of journalism...
Anyways, when a lobbyist can convince me that watching television or exchanging currency for goods or services (most likely goods) makes an integral family leisure activity, please inform my nearest and dearest that they may need to have me committed.
If you can drag them away from the telly or the mall that is...
PB.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
2 comments:
Good points!
I also have a problem with McCroskie saying "Standards should be developed according to a family perspective, not an individual rights or freedom of expression perspective."
Well I'm sorry to say that there are grown adults out there who are not members of a young family, but who also enjoy watching content realistic to their maturity level.
Every family has different standards anyway, and because of this it should be up to each family to enforce these standards and if they feel strongly about it then control "family viewing time" more strictly.
And in this wonderful, perfect family that Garth McVicar of the SS (no, not that one, the SS of sensible sentencing! - although there are similarities) envisages, no doubt his agenda of the father (leader) mother (helper/servant) children (whack recipients) regime will love this idea. Then Mum and Kids get no rights at all, as in the past, which is where McVicar wants to drag us.
Post a Comment