I
I
MTV turns 20
CHARLTON
WIMBERLY
TV, pioneer
of the music
.video and the
enemy of parents
everywhere, celebrat
ed its 20th birthday
this month. Mark
Goodman, one of the
five MTV VJs who
debuted with the net
work in 1981, demon
strated that he now numbers himself
among those parents who do not allow
their children to watch MTV when he
told ABC News, “My kids are not
allowed to watch MTV. Have you seen
what they put on that channel?”
MTV certainly has evolved since
Goodman’s days at the network.
President Judy McGrath said, “We com
pletely turn over [our programming]
about every two-and-a-half years.” And
with each turnover, the new programs
stretch the boundaries of acceptability
just a little further.
The cable television juggernaut —
which currently is received by 350 mil
lion homes in 83 countries — promotes
increasingly lax attitudes toward sex,
violence and morality in general.
Because its programming is becoming
more provocative, each year those teens
reaching adulthood have been exposed
to more explicit sexual and violent
behavior than the ones who have gone
before them. MTV is helping to mold its
more impressionable viewers in a direc
tion that should not be encouraged. The
cable channel prides itself in pushing the
envelope with its programming.
Recently, it ran a special on breast
implants that showed nude females
preparing for surgery — ostensibly
because showing nudity in medical con
text makes it easier to show nudity in
other ways. The network used this same
strategy last year when it ran a program
titled “Scared Straight,” showing juve
nile offenders being taken to prison to
interact with inmates. The goal was to
dissuade them from participating in
criminal activity. The program contained
extensive profanity not previously heard
on the network. One can only assume
that the profanity was deemed accept
able because it was in the context of a
public service program.
However, once the network got away
with broadcasting these profanities, it
paved the way for the use of those same
words in any context. This proved true
when Fred Durst repeatedly used the
word “f—k” on MTV during the prime
time airing of its 20th anniversary cele
bration.
As the boundaries of acceptability
continue to expand, society slowly is
accepting behavior that at one time
would have been intolerable. Today’s
teenagers, MTV’s targeted audience,
accept the behavior they are exposed to
on MTV as normal, although this same
behavior may have seemed unacceptable
to the teens that preceded them. And as
the next group of kids enter their teens,
they will be exposed to new and even
more explicit programming, but they
will consider it the norm because they
have nothing with which to compare it.
This downward trend can perpetuate
itself indefinitely.
For example, look at societal views
on homosexuality. Before the 1990s,
homosexuality was viewed by much of
America as a deviant lifestyle and large
ly was absent from television program
ming. Teenagers who grew up with the
MTV of the 1990s were the first to see a
gay couple kiss on television, and they
regularly were bombarded with the issue
on shows such as “The Real World,”
“Sex in the 1990s” and “Undressed.”
The rest of the media followed
MTV’s lead, with homosexual
characters soon playing a variet)
of roles both on network televi
sion and in mainstream movies. As a
result, kids growing up today think
nothing of seeing homosexual rela
tionships portrayed on television,
whereas a decade ago, it would have
been extremely risque.
The point of this example is not to
make a statement about the validity of
homosexuality. It is simply to show how
MTV set the stage for wide-scale accept
ance of behavior once considered inap
propriate for television. The same chain
of events could have been demonstrated
with programming promoting profanity,
violence or sexual promiscuity. MTV
pushes the limits in all of these areas.
In a 1995 study titled “Sex and
the Mass Media,” performed
for the Henry J. Kaiser ^
Family Foundation and
the American
Enterprise
Institute,
researchers
asked:
“Does the
talk about and
images of love, sex
and relationships
promote irresponsi
ble sexual behav
ior? Do they encourage unplanned and
unwanted pregnancy? Is popular enter
tainment partly responsible for teenagers
having sex earlier, more frequently and
outside of marriage?” The researchers
concluded that the answer to all of these
questions is a qualified yes.
This study only confirms what com
mon sense would expect. Former New
York University professor Irving Kristol
said that if you believe that no one was
rupted by the media, “you have also to
believe that no one was ever improved by
a book, play or movie. You would have to
believe, in other words, that all art is
morally trivial and that, consequently, all
education is morally irrelevant.” And no
one believes that -— not even the
entertainment industry.
It is evident simply from watching
the evening news that kids are becom
ing more violent and more sexually
RUBEN DELUNA • THE BATTALE |
active at even
earlier ages. A more explicit media'll
have an increasingly negative effect?!
society. MTV is certainly not acting^-1
to define down our nation's morality.h: H
has been a major contributor to the efe §
for 20 years. The influence of theenteit j
ment industry and MTV in particulartal
large. It is best to simply ignore them. [;
Charlton Wimberly is an accom |
graduate stills
i
i
t
t
t
i
i
f
i
>
f
*
t
Battalion editor in chief
welcomes Aggies to Fall ’01
Unbelievable, isn’t it? Our summer
vacation has come and gone, and here
we are in Aggieland again: traveling the
trodden, and sometimes-mundane,
path of academia. But, like our Of
Army predecessors,
we will persevere.
We must: There are
tests to take and
Aggie football games
to win.
To the Class of
2005: Howdy and
welcome. I am cer
tain I need not tell
you that you have
made a wise decision by choosing
Texas A&M. My advice to you, in its
simplest form, is this: Don’t worry.
Details really are inconsequential. Your
starched wardrobe and incessant
primping will not last long. Ramen noo
dles and flannel pajama pants soon will
become your staples, while mid-term
exams and Friday-morning hangovers
will become the bane of your existence.
Good luck.
As the Fall 2001 editor in chief of The
Battalion, please allow me to welcome
everyone back to Aggieland and anoth
er semester of The Battalion. This
semester, the newspaper has undertak
en a revolution'. The editors and I have
made many changes, including the
addition of a new section: Politics, We
are working toward a contemporary
design theme that I hope you will enjoy.
But new design and stunning artwork
are secondary to the number-one item
on my agenda. I hope to further estab
lish for The Battalion a reputation of
credibility and integrity within the A&M
community.
No one needs to tell me that The
Battalion is sometimes unpopular on
campus. Seldom does a day pass that
I fail to hear someone express their dis
dain for The Battalion and”its staff. But
we are Aggies, too. We come from
among your rank and file, and our job
is not easy. Newspapers do not just
appear on the racks. The staff is a
hard-working group of people, and they
spend countless hours in the news
room working for you.
Trust me, we are not the enemy.
Rather, we are on your side, dedicated
to maintaining a stronghold on all
fronts, protecting the interests of the
students, faculty and staff. Our task is
simple: report news fairly and accurately.
The Constitution guarantees us that
right — a charge I take very seriously.
We fight the fights that can be fought
by no one else.
'Contrary to public belief, we are not
the bloodsucking parasites many of you
would believe; nor are we the pinko
Commie liberals that you imagine —
not all of us, at least (the Uncartoonist
notwithstanding). We are not perfect
either, nor do we purport to be. In our
business, accuracy is the name of the
game. We take great strides to avoid
mistakes, but we make them, just like
everyone else.
Objective journalism is essential to
democracy. This newspaper is not, and
— God help us — shall never be, a pup
pet of the administration. Nor are we a
campus bulletin board. Our duty is
more important. As third-person
observers, we often must set aside our
Aggie pride and sense of kinship to the
University so we can take a bird’s-eye
view and fairly report the news. For us,
there are no strings attached, and we
owe nothing to anyone, except the
truth. I am not prepared to sugarcoat
anything — I can promise little more,
and you should accept nothing less.
My philosophy is not to print “all the
news that’s fit to print.” Instead, we print
the news. Period. Like it or not, Aggieland
is far removed from the Utopian bubble
many believe we live in, and when news
happens, we will report it.
The readership of The Battalion has a
right to the truth, something I plan to
provide relentlessly. And the truth
should evoke thought, regardless of
your opinion about the matter at hand.
The Battalion will be the match behind
the flame of intellectual debate and
contemplation at A&M. If it is not, then
I have failed (and I am sure someone
will tell me so).
If, at some point this semester, you
see or read something in this newspa
per that angers you, take a moment to
think of the flip side. Consider its
potential benefit before you outright
condemn us.
My pledge to you is one of fairness
and integrity. The staff and I are at
your service, because we are, indeed,
working for you. If you have questions
or ideas, I welcome your feedback. And
when you think we have erred, you
should question us. I ask only that you
do so professionally and fairly. Mark
Twain once said, “Never pick fights
with people who buy ink by the barrel.”
Of course, he also said, “I never let
schooling interfere with my education.”
Yes, the truth really will set you free.
Friday night will not be here soon
enough.
Again, welcome to another semester
with The Battalion. Let the party known
as Aggieland begin (and unleash the
officers from the College Station Police
Department). I hope you enjoy your
newspaper, and Gig ’Em Aggies.
Brady Creel is a junior journalism
and management major.
Social Security woes
As Boomers retire y new options are necessar] \
A s an increasing number of the
nation’s 77 million baby boomers
approach retirement age, America
is finding itself faced with a momentous
Social Security problem. The increase in
Social Security benefit recipients means
an increase in governmental payouts.
The resulting dispute is where the
money needed to back these payouts is
going to come from. The answer lies in
individual-investment accounts.
In July, President George W. Bush’s Commission to
Strengthen Social Security issued a report concluding that
Social Security benefits could be supplemented by the creation
of individual-investment accounts. Though this approach to
Social Security reform is often criticized by some members of
Congress, it presents the only feasible solution to an ever-
expanding problem.
The creation of these investment
accounts, or partial privatization of Social
Security, is more than just the best of
some bad options. First, according to the
Bush Commission, payouts for Social
Security will begin to exceed Social
Security tax revenue in 2016. By 2038,
the country’s Social Security surplus will
be depleted, possibly leading to many elderly poor who
depend only on those benefits to survive.
Faced with such a future. Social Security reform is a must.
The eligibility age for Social Security collection could be
raised from 65, resulting in older retirees. But no one wants to
retire and start claiming Social Security at 75. This is above
the average life expectancy for Americans.
Another option is to increase taxes to make up for the
deficit, but that is also not very likely. In its report, Bush’s
commission described a potential tax increase as “painful,”
and the American public certainly would be hesitant to support
“painful” tax increases.
Since increasing the eligibility age and raising taxes will
likely not work, why not try cutting recipient’s benefits?
Unless living in poverty sounds enticing, this is not a realistic
alternative either. Today, Social Security pays some 53 percent
of a low-income worker’s pre-retirement revenue, leaving
many of today’s elderly below the poverty line. According to
Social Security analyst Andrew Biggs, if benefits were cut to a
more govemmentally feasible level by 2035, this same woffi |
would be receiving just 41 percent of what he earned before
retiring.
If all of these approaches fail, the only other solution is
borrowing the needed money. Unfortunately, the United States
has already borrowed several billion dollars for Social
Security deficits. At this rate, by the 2020s, this numberispra I
jected to be in the trillions. Even if the money is borrowed,it I
is unlikely that this money could be paid back any time soot i
The best option is to privatize Social Security partially a#i|
let people choose how to invest their own money. How wonlif
it work? For example, a worker could choose how to invest 1
roughly a sixth of his Social Security taxes into financial mar
kets, like the Dow Jones and NASDAQ. Then, based on the |
success of the stock market, that worker would reap thegaiffi I
or losses of his investments upon retiring.
Critics of Social Security pri vatization say the problem it I
here. They believe privatization effortsil
be much too risky because its effective-1
ness depends on the success of the stodl
market.
In all fairness, the only risk is innoi I
taking advantage of the stock market |
now, while there is still time to make tit■
needed improvements. When compared'!
a Social Security system that is on the i
road to bankruptcy, the stock market is not all that risky.
Besides, it is people’s own money, let them do with it what |-
they will. In the long run, despite economic setbacks, apersK*
will see a higher return on their investment than the govern- ;
ment could ever provide.
Consider that a person may work and pay Social Security
taxes for roughly 45 years of his life, and there has neverbef 1
a 45-year period in which the stock market has failed to gain I
money. In fact, the stock market has about a 7 percent return ,
for a 20-year period. Not only would this approach help to fr
the nation’s Social Security woes, but it would prove to be
more economically rewarding than the current system.
This country is in dire need of Social Security reform.To
not utilize the stock market, is to close a window of opportuu
ty. Americans can provide better for their retirement than a
government program about to go broke.
George Deutsch is a juniorjournalism nutf
Americans can provide bet
ter for their retirement
than a government pro
gram about to go broke.
CARTOON OF THE DAY
The Battalion encourages letters to the
editor. Letters must be 300 words or less
and include the author's name, class aod
phone number.
The opinion editor reserves the right to
edit letters for length, style and accuracy
Letters may be submitted in person at 014
Reed McDonald with a valid student ID
Letters also may be mailed to:
The Battalion — Mail Call
014 Reed McDonald
Texas A&M University
College Station, TX
77843-1111
Campus Maii.Tlll
Fax: (979) 845-2647
Email: opinion@thebatt.com
Mail Call: mailcall@thebatt.com
Please do not send attachments.