Misc. Media Comments and Lists

Richard F. Taflinger, PhD

THIS PAGE IS STILL UNDER CONSTRUCTION

 

Completed sections have links; those still pending are listed only.

This page has been accessed since 28 May 1996.

During the course of the last ten years or so, I've written many comments to students on their papers. Some of those comments, I believe, are valuable to other students, particularly those that explain where they have made errors or missed something. Thus, I've included here some of those commentaries in hopes they may guide present and future students to avoid those same errors or omissions (especially since they AFFECT YOUR GRADES!!! (not too subtle, I trust)).

I've also included elements of various articles I'm working on. They are incomplete, being in the process, but may be of use as you work on your own writings.

Contents of this page:

 

LAWYER SHOWS 1949-1996 TITLE YEARS TYPE

  • AGAINST THE LAW 90-91 Def
  • ANTAGONISTS, THE 91-91 Def/DA
  • ARREST AND TRIAL 63-64 cop/DA
  • CIVIL WARS 92-93 Divorce
  • D.A., THE 71-72 DA
  • DEFENDERS, THE 61-65 Def
  • FOR THE PEOPLE 65-65 DA
  • GABRIEL'S FIRE 90-91 Def
  • GREAT DEFENDER, THE 95-95 Def
  • HAWKINS 73-74 Def
  • JOHN GRISHAM'S THE CLIENT 95- Def
  • JUDD, FOR THE DEFENSE 67-69 Def
  • JUSTICE 54-56 Def
  • KATE McSHANE 75-75 Def
  • KAZ 78-79 Def
  • L.A. LAW 86-94 Def
  • LAW AND MR. JONES, THE 60-62 Def
  • LAW AND ORDER 90- cop/DA
  • LAWYERS, THE 69-72 Def
  • MATLOCK 86-93 Def
  • URDER ONE 95- Def
  • OWEN MARSHALL, COUNSELOR AT LAW 71-74 Def
  • PERRY MASON 57-66, 73-74 Def
  • PETROCELLI 74-76 Def
  • PUBLIC DEFENDER, THE 54-55 Def
  • REASONABLE DOUBTS 91-93 DA
  • ROSETTI AND RYAN 77-77 Def
  • SAM BENEDICT 62-63 Def
  • SHANNON'S DEAL 91-91 Def
  • STOREFRONT LAWYERS, THE 70-71 Def
  • TRIALS OF O'BRIEN, THE 65-66 Def
  • TRIALS OF ROSIE O'NEILL, THE 90-92 Def
  • WILLY 54-55 Def
  • WRIGHT VERDICTS, THE 95-95 Def
  • YOUNG LAWYERS, THE 70-71 Def

Return to Table of Contents

COP SHOWS

 

10-8

21 Jump Street

87th Precinct

Adam-12

Amy Prentiss

Arrest and Trial

Asphalt Jungle, The

Baretta

Beat, The

Blind Justice

Blue Knight, The

Bones

Booker

Boomtown

Brenner

Brooklyn South

Burke's Law ('94)

Cade's County

Cagney and Lacey

Caribe

Castle

CHiPs

Chopper One

Closer, The

Cold Case

Commish

Cop Rock

Crime Story

Criminal Minds

Crossing Jordan

CSI: Crime Scene Invest.

CSI: Miami

CSI: NY

Dan August

Dan Raven

Delvecchio

Detectives, The

District, The

Dragnet

Due South

87th Precinct

Eleventh Hour, The

FBI, The

Flashpoint

For the People

Fringe, The

Get Christie Love

Good Guys, The

Handler, The

Hardball

Hawaii 5-O

Hawk

High Incident

Hill Street Blues

Homicide

Hunter

Ironside

Joe Forrester

Karen Sisko

Killer Instinct

Kodiak

Kojak

Lady Blue

Law and Order

Law and Order: SVU

Law and Order: CI

Life

Life on Mars

Lineup, The

M Squad

Magruder and Loud

Mann and Machine

Mancuso, FBI

Martial Law

McCloud

Medium, The

Miami Vice

Michael Hayes

Missing Persons

Mod Squad

NYPD

NYPD Blue

Naked City

Nakia

Nash Bridges

NCIS

NCIS: LA

New Breed, The

New York Undercover

O'Hara, US Treasury

Police Story

Police Woman

Protectors, The

Psych

Racket Squad

Reasonable Doubts

Robbery Homicide Div.

SWAT

Sam

Saving Grace

Serpico

Shannon

Shield, The

Southland

Starsky and Hutch

Standoff, The

Streets of San Francisco

Strike Force

Third Watch

T.J. Hooker

Tightrope

Today's FBI

Toma

Under Suspicion

Untouchables, The

Unusuals, The

Walker, Texas Ranger

White Collar

Without a Trace

X Files

 

DETECTIVE SHOWS

 

Archer

Banacek

Barnaby Jones

Bourbon Street Beat

Bronk

Burke's Law

Cannon

Charlie's Angels

Checkmate

City of Angels

Columbo

Cosby Mysteries

Cracker

Crazy Like a Fox

Dangerous Curves

Dark Justice

Dellaventura

Devlin Connection, The

Diagnosis Murder

Eisheid

Ellery Queen

Equalizer, The

Eureka

Eyes

Faraday and Company

Father Dowling Mysteries

Gideon's Fire

Griff

               Hardcastle and McCormack

Harry-O

Hart to Hart

Hawaiian Eye

Hawk

Honey West

Investigators, The

J.J. Starbuck

Jake and the Fatman

Johnny Staccato

Khan

Law and Harry McGraw

Leg Work

Lie to Me

Magnum, P.I.

Manhunter, The

Mannix

Markham

Matt Helm

Matt Houston

McClain's Law

McCoy

McMillan and Wife

Meet McGraw

Mentalist, The

Michael Shayne

Mike Hammer

Monk

Moonlighting

Moon Over Miami

Murder, She Wrote

My Friend Tony

New Amsterdam

Numb3rs

Outsider, The

Over My Dead Body

Partners in Crime

Peter Gunn

Private Eye

Pros and Cons

Quincy, M.E.

Remington Steele

Richard Diamond, Private Eye

Riptide

Rockford Files

77 Sunset Strip

Shaft

Silk Stalkings

Simon and Simon

Snoop Sisters

Snoops

Sonny Spoons

South of Sunset

Spencer:  For Hire

Strange Report

Surfside Six

Sweating Bullets

Switch

Tenafly

Thin Man, The

Traps

21 Beacon Street

21 Jump Street

Vega$

Wolf

Return to Table of Contents

Comment on unsupported assumptions

I do have some caveats about what you've said here. Let's look at some.

First, you say, "When television and movies first began [I presume you realize that movies and television began about 50 years apart?] people were fully clothed and basically polite and non-violent." However, one of the first major films, "The Great Train Robbery," was almost non-stop shooting and beating (apparently part of your definition of violence, although you never actually define the term). "Birth of a Nation" was filled with shootings, beatings, lynchings, sexual assaults, etc.. Biblical spectacles, such as DeMille's "Ben Hur" and "The Ten Commandments" (the silent versions, not the modern ones) and Griffith's "Intolerance" included orgies and parades featuring topless women in compromising positions and the slaughter of thousands. Actually, it wasn't until the Hays Office was founded by the movie industry in 1931 to head off possible governmental censorship that the code you refer to was implemented, and it applied almost exclusively to sexual imagery and sensuality, not violence (of the ten "Thou Shalt Not Show" rules of the Hays Office, two -- pointing a gun and showing a tommy gun -- are the only ones that relate specifically to violence: the other eight are either sexual imagery ("bosum" or "inside of thigh") or ambiguous ("a dead man" (how he died didn't matter)).) Sexual behavior had specific rules (for example, length of kiss (no more than 35 seconds), or, during love scenes, the man must have both feet on the floor (Leslie Howard, in "Romeo and Juliet" (1936), had a torrid love scene with Norma Shearer following that rule, but turned himself into a pretzel doing it (living up to the letter of the rules often resulted in as much a violation of the spirit of the rules possible)). Even after the Hays Office was instituted, exceptions appeared, such as 1924's "Dante's Inferno," with naked people being whipped, and 1932's "Tarzan the Ape Man," with Maureen O'Sullivan's (Jane's) less than concealing outfit (her modified Mother Hubbard came later), and Weissmuller's (Tarzan) skimpy loincloth. Thus, I think your comments about "when . . . movies first began" is somewhat off the mark. And, of course, when your comments are accurate (after 1931), they only apply in the U.S.. As for television, most of the old Hays Offices rules still apply, even though there is no Hays Office anymore.

However, most of the above is moot, since you state that you are writing about violence, not sex, in the media, thus comments about nudity are not clearly applicable to your topic.

Next point: you state, "Many would contend that violent crime and pornography rates have risen." This needs some discussion. Who are those "many"? Are they right? What evidence do they, or you, provide to support that contention? Risen since when? Risen in what way? How do they, or you, define pornography (nudity? sexual activity? to what degree? in what way?). FBI crime statistics indicate that the level of most violent crimes (armed robbery and burglary, muggings, assaults, etc.) has actually fallen over the last decade; has pornography actually risen or merely come out of the closet (the Victorian Era, when pornography was absolutely suppressed and outlawed, was also the era of the raunchiest, most explicit and violent pornography in history and produced in great quantity, bearing out the old cliché, that which is forbidden is the most attractive and desired; that which is common attracts little attention.).

Also, in regards to your quote from Eysenck and Nias (1978), they state, uncategorically, "There is no doubt, . . . that the increase in crime, violence and vandalism, and what might be called unorthodox or unsual sex practices,* over the past twenty or thirty years has been paralleled by an increase in the portrayal of violence in the media, particularly films and TV ..." This quote implied a cause and effect relationship. What proof do they provide that such a relationship exists, always assuming that they've proven that there has, indeed, been an increase in both crime and unusual sex practices and an increase in the portrayal of violence in the media? Parallel developments do not prove cause and effect, only that different things happen at the same time. The airplane was developed at the same time as motion pictures -- does that mean planes caused movies, or that movies caused planes? Has the parallel improvements in aircraft design and improvements in motion picture technology been the result of a cause and effect relationship? As stated above about the Victorian Era, there was a parallel increase in the suppression of violence and pornography, and the increase in the production and debasing quality of pornography and the increase in violence, both criminal and sexual. Is there thus a cause and effect relationship between the suppression of violence and pornography and the increase in both? Does that then imply that pornography and portrayals of violence should be increased to reduce the actuality of violence? The arguments are mirror-images of each other, yet the former, Eysenck and Nias', appears to be accepted as axiomatic while the latter (mine) is rejected out of hand as ridiculous. Yet, what's the difference? A priori assumptions about what is "right and proper"? An attempt by someone to promote a "utopian concept" without regard to the real world? A desire to maintain the belief of humans as "next to the angels" rather than "heir to the temptations of the flesh"? Is either argument viable at all?

Finally, there is the comment that people are being desensitized to violence to the point that they find it humorous, that they laugh at depictions of violence. However, using "Natural Born Killers" (hereinafter, NBK) as the proof of this contention has some problems. If you examine the criteria for humor (see "A Theory of Comedy" in Sitcom: What It Is, How It Works), people laugh at that which violates societal norms. Obviously, NBK must violate societal norms about depictions of violence; that is, it is so violent that it's ridiculous. Another criterion is that people perceive the event as harmless. NBK is so far out that it's cartoonish, it's Road Runner/Coyote violence, not reality. Those that laugh at it perceive the violence as harmless since it is obviously unreal, just actors. (Those that don't laugh, of course, perceive some harm, either to the actors, or to their own well-being, to the well-being of other audience members, or to society at large.) In any case, NBK cannot be equated with the nightly news, that "Viewers see and hear reports of horrible massacres, rapes and beatings, and they laugh" (provide citations in support of this contention); NBK is fictional, uses recognizable actors rather than real people, and is over-blown (no pun intended) to the point of parody. Thus, I don't see support for your final contention, "Viewers have difficulty distinguishing between real life pain and violent fantasy crafted by film makers, thus real life tragedy has become everyday news."

______________________________
*Whatever that means: how do they define unorthodox or unusual sex practices -- hanging from trapezes? Anything but the missionary position between middle-aged married couples on Thursday nights with the lights off and the door locked? What are their qualifications to make such judgments about what other people do?

Return to Table of Contents

Second comment

Generally excellent: well written, well organized, a nice lit review on the topic. I only have a caveat about the support. In your conclusion you state, "Today's media representations of women does not reflect the significant strides made by women in the last two decades toward equality and into the workforce." This may be true. However, you are basing that conclusion on content analysis research that is, in the main, 10 or more years old (the major exception being magazine article topics). Thus, you cannot arrive at a conclusion about the last 10 years, and thus you cannot arrive at a conclusion about the present. To counter this caveat, it would be advisable to do your own random sample content analysis of what you are discussing, such as commercials (multiple products, multiple target audiences), magazine ads (multiple products, multiple target audiences (of both the ads and the magazines)), comic books, TV shows and newspaper story gender content in order to confirm (or dispute) that the results of the old analyses are still current. One must always bear in mind, when doing sociological analysis, particularly in the United States over the last several years, that structures, institutions and relationships, especially those relating to gender, are constantly under massive flux, and that what was true 10 years ago is not necessarily true today (think of attitudes and presentations on or about sexual harassment, date rape, employment, child abuse and repressed memories, spousal abuse, dating and courtship customs and mores, parenting, etc., etc.). It is exactly such research as you cite that has led to much of the change in media depictions of women in the last 10 years or so; it is the change or lack thereof that you need to document.

Return to Table of Contents

Comment on Greed in the Modern World

However, in the modern world greed is more than a societal issue. It is now a global issue. Greed is altering (many people say destroying) the world. For some African tribes, such as the Watusi, wealth is measured in cattle: the more cattle, the wealthier a person is. Thus, each person tries to have as large a herd as possible, is greedy for more cattle. However, all these cattle need to eat, and they are stripping the arid African lands bare of grass and shrubs, and churning up the land with their hooves. These lands have a difficult time recovering, even if they are given a chance, which is rare. Thus, the African deserts constantly expand (the Sahara is moving south at the rate of five miles a year, the Kalihari and Ethiopian deserts only slightly slower), putting an even greater strain on the remaining land.

In South America, the greed for cattle grazing-lands, money crops (agricultural products that are exported for money rather than grown for home consumption) and gold is resulting in the destruction of the Amazonian rainforests. Since the soil of the rain forests is extremely poor, the land quickly becomes useless for grazing and agriculture, and is easily washed away after (or even during) mining operations. More land must be cleared to maintain the pace of gathering wealth and more of the forests are destroyed. The poverty of the soil guarantees that the forests won't come back. The death of the forests could have major effects on the global climate and atmosphere.

Even worse, the legal and religious proscriptions against greed do not apply to the greatest reason why excessive greed can be considered harmful to society. Indeed, their proscriptions are against fighting this reason. Remember that "the real problem arose when the population increased and the possible wealth became limited. There was only so much land and money and other resources to go around. Thus, for one person to amass a lot of wealth, rhe had to reduce what somebody else could get. This created conflict in the society between the haves and have-nots, the go-getters and the no-getters." Thus, greed is not much of a problem until the population rises to the point where it outstrips the available resources.

However, laws and especially religious tenets insist that nothing be done to restrict population growth. Indeed, they demand that people do their best to increase the population. At one time, such proscriptions made sense: population was low, mortality was high, every society or culture was xenophobic, bodies were needed to do the work before they died. However, with the increase in life span and medical science, the decrease in mortality and viable environmental support, policies and proscriptions that require an ignorance of the effects of human over-population on the world are counterproductive (read, stupid).

Return to Table of Contents

Return to place in text of Sociological Basis of Greed

Return to Table of Contents

Return to Richard Taflinger's Home Page

 

You can reach me by e-mail at: richt@turbonet.com

This page was created by Richard F. Taflinger. Thus, all errors, bad links, and even worse style are entirely his fault.

Copyright © 1996, 2011 Richard F. Taflinger.
This and all other pages created by and containing the original work of Richard F. Taflinger are copyrighted, and are thus subject to fair use policies, and may not be copied, in whole or in part, without express written permission of the author richt@turbonet.com.

Disclaimers
The information provided on this and other pages by me, Richard F. Taflinger (richt@turbonet.com), is under my own personal responsibility and not that of Washington State University or the Edward R. Murrow College of Communication. Similarly, any opinions expressed are my own and are in no way to be taken as those of WSU or ERMCC.

In addition,
I, Richard F. Taflinger, accept no responsibility for WSU or ERMCC material or policies. Statements issued on behalf of Washington State University are in no way to be taken as reflecting my own opinions or those of any other individual. Nor do I take responsibility for the contents of any Web Pages listed here other than my own.