NBC hypocritical with its violent shows

Advertisement

Considering the position expressed by many network and NBC employees on their programs regarding gun control and gun violence it seems hypocritical to broadcast shows such as “The Blacklist.”

On the two episodes we’ve watched, one involved the main character killing another by smothering the man with a pillow and the Nov. 25 episode showed very graphically the damage done by bullets on the human body and the blood splatter resulting from execution-style murders.

The argument that the show is on late does not mean that someone who may be influenced by viewing such violence could not see it — especially with the multitude of methods to record programs for viewing at a more convenient time.

Which is the true face of NBC — social voice or profits first? And why is this type of programming and its influence on teens not a focus of the administration given its history on gun control?

Jim Davison

Waitsburg

Comments

downhillracer 4 months, 2 weeks ago

This author possibly isn't aware that his favorite Fox TV news shows come from the same company as Fox 'News'. Many of which are just as violent and graphic as is described, above.

But I get it: Fox 'News' has never aired a program in support of sensible gun ownership laws, so they're not in the same category.

0

barracuda 4 months, 2 weeks ago

Any body hear of the off switch on the remote? Or the channel up and down button? Change the channel if you find something offensive . We should never be able to dictate what others need to see and watch. That includes religion and porn, etc. We are able to just change the channel. All of the shows are driven by ratings, if one does not get a good rating it wont last on TV. Show just shut it off, end of problem.

1

philbelcher 4 months, 2 weeks ago

While I'm sure it wasn't your intention, you made the authors point. NBC is hypocritical, Fox News isn't. Well done!

2

namvet60 4 months, 2 weeks ago

With this supposed anti-gun intellect is as ridiculous as the NFL turning down a Super Bowl Ad from a company that had the picture of a weapon on a poster in the AD. I would guess that the majority of the players all have a concealed carry permit. They would advertise Obamacare that supports abortions. This political correctness is really getting out of hand and guess who works it the most but the Liberals.

1

fatherof5 4 months, 2 weeks ago

The news, editorial, and entertainment divisions of the major networks are separate entities. This letter asks what is the "true face" of NBC? I imagine in all its divisions the drive for corporate profit is its primary commonality. Beyond that, though, a network shouldn't have an agenda through which its news, entertainment, and editorial content is filtered. Thus, we watched "The Sound of Music" last night on the same network that showed "The Blacklist" (an apparently violent show with which I am unfamiliar) and have viewed Rachel Maddow's liberal commentary on the same network as Chuck Todd's more objective reporting where he has justifiably explained failures in the Republican effort to shut down the government to halt Obamacare, as well as Obama's failures to launch the healthcare.gov website with competency.

It's not hypocritical to have variety on the same network. I just wish the news weren't so profit-driven these days.

1

barracuda 4 months, 2 weeks ago

Although not in the same vein, but in a similar one........

Why do we think nothing of listening to a couple of friends, family, and co-workers when we need advice. And using that same type of logic, why not listen to several different outlets to get our daily news?

Anderson Cooper, Katie Curic, Matt Lauer, Limbaugh, Maddow, Hannity, Fox, NBC, CBS, CNN, and MSNBC are all slanted in their stories. None of these outlets report neutral on a story and only the story. All of them tell it to give a spin on it to fit a agenda. We are fed only one version of the story in every one reported. So naturally if a single channel is listened to, that is only one side of it.

We see this in the debacle called Obamacare. It is now being said if there had been more indepth reporting and more investigation into all of the fine print, we would not have got it stuffed into our lives.

Polls show now, Obama would have lost re-election if it were held today, why? Because more investigation is revealing what a bad idea it is. But only one side (Conservative News outlets) did any type of investigation and reporting of it, why? Because they hate Obama and the liberal agenda.

See the latest find: Volunteer Fire Department and Obamacare. If this is true, there is only one all fulltime department in WW valley.

Now, and only now is the liberal media going public with the problems. If everyone would keep a open mind about a news story until they hear all sides (or at least two) they would save themselves some grief. I am not talking about CBS and/or NBC. I am saying try liberal AND conservative outlets.

]: https://www.google.com/#q=volunteer+fire+departments+obama+care&tbm=nws

1

fatherof5 4 months, 2 weeks ago

Actually, the big shift in public opinion has to do with the terrible launch of the federal website, and as you correctly stated, the media has been all over that. The media couldn't have reported on that during the 2012 election, because no one - including Obama - knew how badly the website was going to perform.

The other issue is the "lie" that we could keep our current insurance. Well, actually, the vast majority of us can. And what was meant was that the government wouldn't force you to choose a different doctor or insurance company. The way it played out, though, was that the newer, more consumer-friendly regulations, made it so that insurance companies chose to drop some of their plans, rather than bring them up to standard. Thus, some people found that their plans no longer existed and that they would have to find new ones.

Did Obama error by oversimplifying the impact of the new regulations? Yes, he did. In retrospect should he have tried to explain the more nuanced reality in the midst of a firestorm of rumor and wacko claims about "death panels"? I guess, but I understand why he didn't. Was it the lie of the century? Not even close. You'd have to look to the Bush administration for that one.

1

PearlY 4 months, 1 week ago

And that Bush Administration lie would be what, exactly? And if it's on WMD and Iraq, I frankly would have expected better of you.

0

barracuda 4 months, 2 weeks ago

Fatherof5......

If it was not the lie of the century, it was pretty high on the charts. The publics opinion was swayed by several things.... Yes, one of them was the rollout... but another reason is because of the flat out lies over the costs to us. And yes they were straight out lies! No misunderstandings, No misspoken words, No twisted meanings, just out and out lies! Lies told multiple times by President Obama and other multiple Democratic leaders!

I am very aware of how individual families can keep their currant plans....

My dad is paying about $912.00 more for a plan that is covering a lot less, with three times the deductible!

A friend of mine and his wife are going to pay $2800.00 more per year to get a plan that is equal to the currant plan.. Only he and his wife is now paying for a plan that includes birth control and optional abortion.... And they are way over the need for those options!

Need we go on? Ok, a co-worker's sister just got canceled and is looking at a huge significant increase in premiums....

Yes, most of these plans were dropped due to the extreme revamping of rules laid out by Mr. Obama. Wow! Really? Do you honestly think it is still a good deal? I am sorry, we greatly differ on this issue! I still like being able to mandate my own health care needs... My own Doctors, My own hospitals. I hate someone mandating me on what "my" options are....

Yes, most of us are keeping our plans (for now)... But, take a look into the future at 2014... Group plans are next in the bulls eye. Just after election time, we will be looking at more of this stuff.... and it will make this look like a bump in the road....

The best quote of this mess:

We need to pass this bill so we can see what is in it..... Nancy Pelosi

0

fatherof5 4 months, 1 week ago

Looks like we will have to see out it plays out so that we can see some data in a year or two showing how many people are covered, what is the quality of that coverage, and what is the average cost.

There's no question some people will pay more than before and others will pay less; we can find anecdotal examples of each. The question will be how the program performs overall for the many. Neither you nor I have the answer to that question yet. I remain optimistic.

0

barracuda 4 months, 1 week ago

Optimistic? At least one of us can be .......
I truly believe that every one should listen to "the other side" of the news. At least then a person can know what the other side is lying about.... If a person listens to NBC primarily for news, try Hannity on Fox for a whole show... just 1 day.... And then after the show, (if you haven't lost your lunch,) look up the talking points to prove he is wrong.. If a person listens to Rush only (((shudder)))) try listening to one of the big three (CBS/NBC/ABC) to see what that side is saying about todays news, then look up the truth etc ....

Fatherof5... Please Google the story of the volunteer fire departments and Obamacare, and tell me what you think, I sure it hope does not happen to be true here locally, WW valley cannot financially handle that.

If a person only likes and listens to only one news outlet, we become sheep, just believing what they want you to believe. And we all know that we have slanted news views.

1

PearlY 4 months, 1 week ago

fatherof5, the only way some people will "pay less" is by shifting their costs to others. And strangely, even though cost-shifting of poor people's ER bills to hospitals, the insured, and the State was denounced when Obama needed arguments for why we desperately needed to throw out our previous system and implement this new one, suddenly cost-shifting is no longer a negative, but a positive.

I assume that when someone picks my pocket, the pickpocket benefits. And if we induce enough people to become pickpockets, the "program" of picking pockets will perform well "overall for the many." That, however, will never be "the question" in my mind.

0

namvet60 4 months, 1 week ago

From a personal experience - the wife and I have been looking for insurance for her for a month and a half. We could roll over into a comparable plan that drops the deductible to $6350.00 and doubles the premiums. So we are going through the insurance company that she has had for a couple of years, but the prices remain the same so we are going down the route of seeing if there is a subsidy to at least bring it into a reasonable range. Well every time that she has contacted them - OOOPPPSSS the website is down. So far no policy.

Yes, if you have insurance from an employer furnished plan you can keep it until Jan 2015. After that you will be in the same boat as everyone else. The only people that are getting a cheaper deal is the amount of people going on Medicad.

Now what about the government not having any type of payment schedule so they have a honor system so that when the insurance company loses money they submit there losses to this Administration and they get a bail-out. How many of these bailouts can America stand before we are into a Socialist state?

I don't understand how anybody can justify that this Obamacare is a good deal unless if you go on Medicad, but then your not to sure if you are going to get any type of Medical attention?

As far as the Big Lie - Has this President ever told the truth about anything?

fatherof5 - to keep bringing past history into the present is abhorrent!

1

barracuda 4 months, 1 week ago

Fatherof5... One other thing I forgot the mention (complain about)... Lol....

So, If I go to a Doctor, for a normal check-up, then three weeks later go to my Dentist, and maybe a chiropractor (for three visits) and how about a "emergency" visit to the clinic for a accidental stubbed toe.... Nothing but fairly average and routine visits. And if I have a $5000.00 deductible, ALL of these visits would be at my expense... No help from our so called insurance... This is on top of our monthly premiums. All of the deductible MUST be paid and used up BEFORE our insurance will help, not paid per incident. So, while I am paying twice as much premiums, I am also going to get hit with a huge deductible bill every year.

0

PearlY 4 months, 1 week ago

barracuda, check-ups, spinal adjustments, dental cleanings and stubbed toes are not really something you should be insuring against. Do you expect your car insurance to cover oil changes, flat tires, and tune-ups? What do you think your car insurance would cost if you expected it to cover those things.

The reason premiums for individual plans are now skyrocketing under Obamacare is exactly because plans are being required to cover a lot of things that are not really insurance issues, like check-ups and office visits for minor issues.

If it's any reassurance, and it shouldn't be, your annual check-up WILL be covered under Obamacare. Of course, your premium will be increased far more than it would have cost you to pay for your check-up yourself.

0

barracuda 4 months, 1 week ago

I am comparing to my current coverage.... It covers (2) dental cleanings, spinal adjust, and if needed a possible toe problem. And yes, I expect the new insurance to cover these too! Remember, if I like it I can keep it......LOL.......

2

namvet60 4 months, 1 week ago

WOW - after almost 2 months of constant efforts to gain health insurance for the wife it was finally accomplished! Was it worth it - NO! The deductible held at $6350.00 with multiple coverage on areas that she doesn't need and less overall coverage for normal healthcare.

OH and the premium went down $34.00 from the previous policy. The biggest LIE should fit in with the biggest fiasco of the century.

0

fatherof5 4 months, 1 week ago

Just so I understand, namvet, you are saying despite the fact that:

  • People can now keep their kids insured until age 26
  • People with pre-existing conditions can now acquire insurance
  • Roughly 20-30 million uninsured people can now get insurance
  • Small businesses will get up to 50% tax credits if they choose to insure their employees
  • Contraception, cancer screenings, many vaccines, blood pressure screenings, and a whole bunch of other preventative procedures will now be free
  • Exchanges are now set up (and mostly working) to enable people to compare apple to apple insurance policies
  • The deficit will be slightly lowered (according to the CBO)
  • The doughnut hole is gradually closed for seniors trying to afford medications
  • Insurance companies are now required to spend most of their money on services for the insured
  • Insurance companies can no longer randomly drop you when you file a claim and they find "anomalies" in your application

....despite all of these benefits for millions of Americans, your conclusion is that because YOU only saved $34 per month it is a colossal waste. Look up "egocentric" and you will understand the heart of my criticism.

1

namvet60 4 months ago

Well fatherof5, I look at it as being frugal. You are very adept at skirting the issues as they are stated by people posting their comments. You most certainly did on my post. Further with your indulgence of the White House talking points I will only comment that the fallacies of your benefits outweigh reality. Check out some different websites that have current stats - then you would look so gullible.

I will not characterize your statement but I will suggest that you pick up a new book out written by Charles Krauthammer to probably save you from any further distruction. I believe that this book should be mandatory reading for the students at Whitman college allowing them to survive the brainwashing that they will receive.

0

fatherof5 4 months ago

My comments weren't White House talking points. They were simply a list of some of the benefits in the Affordable Care Act, which are now encoded into law.

0

namvet60 4 months ago

Of which over half are either delayed or waived for a year.

This President performs illegal changes to laws everyday from the bully pulpit and nobody uses the powers to stop him.

1

fatherof5 4 months ago

I must have been mistaken. I thought the Affordable Care Act was a long term program that was being introduced over the course of several years. It didn't occur to me that if the federal website didn't work well for the first two months and there were a couple of other delays that the whole thing was a failure. (And for what it's worth, 9 of the 10 benefits I listed are now on schedule.)

0

namvet60 4 months ago

lol - After almost 4 years and billions of dollars, what is considered long term? In case you have forgotten this is almost into the year of 2014. If it was back in the late 50's up to the early 70's I would agree but with todays high tech this is a major fiasco. If your also considering that 20-30 million will be insured - if your talking being put on Medicaid I guess your right. But then you might try to count how many have lost there policies due to non-compliance with Obamacare but perfectly fine for the policy holders.

Oopsss - sorry, I must have forgot - I'll bet its George Bush's fault?

btw - the wife found out yesterday that she does not have a policy yet due to a glitch in the system. Maybe we should go back to the pencil and paper and forget this high tech stuff. . . . . :)

0

Sign in to comment

4 free views left!