"HOLLY" WOOD: A Woman's World?

For decades society has perpetuated the idea that women do not belong in the business world. Fancy suits and expensive clientele are exclusive only to men who make it in the business. However, society is changing and soon men will see that America is evolving into a woman’s world when it comes new ideas and success. Women have suffered greatly to make it in the film industry. Men in the field suggest that the business is too rough for the sensitive, loving nature of women. Lynda Obst, a successful and top notch Hollywood producer has another opinion. In fact more women than ever write, direct, and produce movies. Even Hilary Clinton feels that this era should be the reign of all women. However, Hollywood has other plans and Hilary's timing might just be a little off.

Lynda has produced such blockbusters as How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days, Contact, The Siege, and Sleepless in Seattle. She takes her work very seriously and believes that women hold a very powerful position in Hollywood. So what is it going to take for society to agree? Women have been told throughout history that they are not good enough or they will never be able to make it. Women like Lynda Obst are walking contradictions of that old philosophy. In her article in New York Magazine, "Chicks with Flicks" Obst talks about the declining quality of films due to the decrease of women in the film industry. Nowadays, consumers are forced to watch movies geered towards young men such as 300 and Silver Surfer. Both are movies where men dominate society and ultimately save the day. What message does this send to society? Men are portrayed as the caretakers and heroes of the universe, bringing the food to the table. Well, women are just as capable of bringing a lot more to the table.

Women are never going to make a place for themselves in Hollywood if the men in the business refuse to see the problem and help do something about it. Movies like The Heartbreak Kid, The 40-Year-Old Virgin and Knocked Up degrade women, making them look foolish. The leading men of these films are unemployed, socially akward, nerds. Is that what women have to look forward to in a future mate? Are women supposed to feel content with the gorgeous leading lady ending up with a chubby, unemployed loser? Although there are very successful women at the heads of Hollywood's studios such as Amy Pascal and Stacy Snider, a mode of attrition continues to inhibit talented women from entering the industry. The industry requires sleepless nights, lies, difficulty in putting a film together, and the sacrifice of any sort of life. However, women in the business do it and they find time to have husbands and raise a family at the same time. Let's see a man in the film industry do all that and still come home to make dinner and get his children ready for practice, school, and help them with their homework. For a woman?- Piece of cake!

Hollywood is clearly a woman's world.

Catching the "Big Fish"

He is known in the media as the man who got away with murder. Now with the desire to get back at O.J. Simpson, the FBI is caught in the middle of an alleged set up. If O.J. goes live will the FBI be exposed or has the proverbial “Big Fish” finally been caught?

In FBI resports from the Associated Press, it is discussed that the FBI was aware of Simpson’s “sting” operation three weeks in advance and they chose to do nothing about it. Is it possible that the FBI kept their information secret to set O.J. up? He once got away with homicide and the FBI refuses to have him let off the hook once again. They had him in the plan of their hands. All they had to do was wait for him to go through with it and they caught him red handed. The Las Vegas FBI chapter was completely unaware that the FBI had been given any information prior to the crime. By letting O.J. carry on with his plan, the FBI risks appearing underhanded and deceptive.

Whenever anyone thinks of O.J. Simpson, the first thought that pops into his or her head is how the system failed to catch a cold-blooded killer. There is no doubt that Simpson’s ill image in the media will remain the dominant one throughout his trial.

However, unless the FBI can come up with a good explanation it looks like Simpson might once again be able to slip through the system. The FBI claims that regardless of their information, Simpson still committed a crime. They also asserted that they had no knowledge that any weapons would be used.

Thomas Riccio, a memorabilia dealer admits to scheming with Simpson. He confessed to speaking with a collector named Mr. Beardsley regarding some of Simpson’s belongings that he was planning on selling. Riccio and Simpson wish to go live when confronting Beardsley about the items that were allegedly stolen from Simpson’s Florida home by his previous agent.

The FBI is at high risk of being exposed for withholding information and failing to prevent a crime that they knew was going to take place. If O.J. goes live, the FBI is going to have to explain why they chose to hide the information and what role their actions played in their political agenda. Everyone has wanted to nail O.J. ever since he was acquitted in 1995. Was this what the FBI has been waiting for? They had the perfect opportunity to catch a criminal in the act and they took it, a chance to finally put him behind bars- a place he should have been over a decade ago.

Television: Religion & Politics Perplexing Society

It is obvious that political views are pressed upon viewers by what is presented on television and in the news. Consumers have grown dependent on television for entertainment as well as news updates. How much do religious and political intellectuals actually influence these forms of media? Although there are several shows that encourage high moral and personal standards, television has become so full violence, sex, and immoral activities that it is hard to believe there is any religious authority behind the scenes. If that is the case, then perhaps religious intellectuals are needed to aid in more honest, wholesome, and uplifting programming. This will contribute to a decrease in negative effects that violent & sexually explicit programs have on young viewers. Society is a reflection of what we broadcast and therefore viewers should be more aware of what they are accepting from television and news networks.

Current primetime shows that promote sexual promiscuity include Gossip Girl, Greek, Desperate Housewives, and Dirty Sexy Money. Such programming targets a young demographic, encouraging sexual explicitness in an entertaining fashion. The standards presented range from pre-marital sex to cheating on one’s partner. Television makes these issues appear dangerous and exciting. However, I do not agree that it is sophisticated for networks to condone such behavior and communicate a sense of acceptance to society. This raises the question of who is behind programming and what message are they trying to send? The only political agenda that could be interpreted from such immoral shows is a clearly liberal one with no limits or restrictions. Perhaps, the influence of religious intellectuals can shift the direction of where television is headed.

Creators such as Dick Wolf and Tim King are responsible for the creation of religiously controversial shows such as Law & Order and Crossing Jordan, respectively. Then there are creators with religious backgrounds such as David E. Kelly, known Catholic who is behind the creation of Chicago Hope and Boston Public. Such shows delineate moral dilemmas and the various ways to overcome such obstacles. Furthermore, Barbara Hall, a Catholic turned Methodist is responsible for the popular Joan of Arcadia and Judging Amy.

In congruence, television shows are also formatted to suggest specific political views and agendas. Shows that predominantly do so are news media networks such as FOX. A prime example of how politics affect society through television media is the coverage of political campaigning. During these phases, networks and local stations dedicate the majority of their time to covering political candidates. News coverage has become so enticing to viewers that it is possible to argue that television coverage of politics often inhibits and brings down the reputation of political parties due to the networks desire for power. It is becoming increasingly difficult for candidates to clearly get their messages across to the public. Instead of Democrats or Republicans communicating their platforms and values to viewers, FOX, NBC, and ABC are handling all communication through their stations and what they choose to broadcast.

Society: A Religious Democrat or Political Conservative

In his posting, Stephen Mack discusses the concept of the religious intellectual stating “both religion and democracy draw the individual into a larger cosmic or social order—then define obligations that go along with one’s place in that order.” I want to know to what extent do religious intellectuals influence the mainstream media, especially news and television? This further raises the question of how similar and how different are religiously intellectual are Democrats and political conservatives?

First of all, “religious” is not necessarily synonymous with “conservative” and just because someone is a Democrat, it does mean that they are not religious. For example, Rupert Murdoch, Head of News Corporation is very politically conservative. However, he is known for his support of liberal and more presently immoral programming. He is in so much control of the news media and he is willing to air whatever sells (whether it is sex, drugs, violence, or war). When his media ownership exceeded the limit, Murdoch had no trouble persuading the Republican congress to adjust the restrictions. People like Rupert Murdoch who has so much influence on what information is broadcasted by the media ultimately dictate or suggest what norms and values society should accept.

After the rainfall of controversy surrounding “The Passion of the Christ” and “The Davinci Code,” the TV industry has certainly seen a shift to more religiously grounded programming. An article from FOXnews.com states,

“TV networks are embracing a newfound faith. A miniseries about the Book of Revelation airs next week, while shows about a Catholic priest probing the supernatural and an Episcopalian minister who converses with God are on the drawing board.”

Television shows such as Crossing Jordan, CSI and The Guardian all promote Catholic ideals. What impact do shows like these have on viewers? While on the contrary, consumers are enjoying entirely immoral programming such as Temptation Island and Race to the Altar. Explicit television shows as well as graphic and violent news broadcasts are sending negative perceptions to the young viewers of America. There is clearly not enough religious or ethical input behind the creative process. Although, Murdoch promotes highly entertaining programming, he should concentrate on what message he is sending to the public. Although entertaining and suspenseful, violent and sexually explicit shows send a message that society should accept morally objective values, lacking any sense of conservatism. Religious and political intellectuals need to come together to form an alliance, ultimately improving programming for all viewers.