Thursday, September 24, 1992
by Alicia Hartman
What is it? Pornography.
Who produces it? The
Media.
Where can you find it?
Everywhere-magazines, movies,
books, etc.
Why is pornography
produced? Because sex and
violence sell.
How can the media be
permitted to produce
pornographic material? The
"They're posing for
a purpose,and that
purpose might be
money,
but no one is
forcing them to
pose."
First Amendment,
What is pornography?
Writings or pictures intended to
arouse one's sexual desires. It is
portrayed through violent sex or
sexual implications.
Example: A nude woman
posing, with her sexual body
parts accented in red and black
lace. Her body is covered with
sweat. It trickles down her face
and arms and comes together at
her chest. It proceeds down her
stomach and onto her pelvis.
The beads of sweat then
separate, as they flow onto each
thigh and then down her legs.
The Media Is Doing An Accurate Job On The Campaign
As the nation enters the
"home stretch" of the 1992
election race, it's time to address
the question of whether we in
the new media are doing an
accurate, fair and responsible job
of covering the bozos running
for president
I would have to say, in all
objectivity, that we are. Oh, I
realize that there are some
critics who believe that we in
the media are a bunch of
childish, irresponsible snots
with zero attention span and no
interest in real issues. Well, let
me tell you something, Mr.
Media Critic: Your fly is
unzipped. Ha ha! Made you
look!
Seriously, I'm sick and tired
of this media-bashing. I happen
to be darned proud of the job
that we journalists do,
sometimes under very difficult
circumstances. Fll give you an
example from the Republican
Convention:
It was the night that George
Bush was to give his' speech
accepting the and
all of us in the media knew
that unless he gave The Speech
of His Life, his candidacy was
doomed. We had learned this
the same way we learn
everything, namely by
Porn vs. Art
A picture of a nude woman
tied up with rope and chains,
bound to the bed. Her legs are
spread apart as a man forces her
to have sexual intercourse with
him. She is crying, but she is
deathly afraid to scream for help,
fearing he might hit her again.
His touch is rough, threatening,
and unmerciful. He has total
control over her. She has fought
back as much as she can. She
is exhausted and weakness
overtakes her. She succumbs to
him.
Who is to blame for this
pornographic material? Society?
The Media? How can the media
produce such material? The
answer- because of the First
Amendment:
"Congress shall make no
representing an
establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise
thereof; or abridging the
freedom of speech, or of
the press; or the right of the
people peaceably to assemble,
and to petition the government
for a redress of grievances."
There has always been the
argument of whether
pornography is a form of art or
not.
Example: a statue of a nude
human. Some Would say that
this is pornography because of
the "unmoral"exposure of the
human body. On the other
hand it's considered "art",
because it was created by an
"artist". What if it was a
picture of a nude human?
Many would say that this is
conducting a scientific poll of
549 people.
Perhaps you are
saying:"Wait a minute. You
can’t get any kind of
meaningful information by
polling only 549 people."
Oh yes we can. Because
this is a SCIENTIFIC poll.
These are not just any old 549
people. These are, by scientific
measurement, the 549 stupidest
people in America who can still
answer the telephone. We in
the new media get all our major
facts from them. That's why, as
the presidential race has
developed over the past two
years.we've beat able to inform
you, with complete confidence,
that: (1) George Bush was
unbeatable;(2) Bill Clinton was
doomed; (3) Ross Perot had a
very serious chance; (4) George
Bush was doomed (5) Bill
Clinton was unbeatable; and (6)
Ross Perot never had a chance.
You do not obtain information
of this consistency without the
aid of science.
So anyway, when the
Republican Convention was
held, our polls showed that
George Bush was scientifically
doomed, and his only hope was
to give The Speech Of His Life.
Everybody in'the media was
saying this: A gang of leading
pundits roamed the convention
press center, and if they found a
The Collegian
pornography because it wasn't
created by a true artist
So how do you draw the
line between pornography and
art? Some say that sculptures
and paintings of nude humans
are "art" because they are created
by a professional. Nude
sculptors and paintings are not
exact images of the human.
On the other side, pictures and
movies with nude humans are
"pornography" because an
exact image of the human
body is portrayed.
Fine. But what about
comparing a statue of a nude
man and a nude woman making
love, versus a picture of a
nude woman. Which of the two
has a stronger sexual
implication? The statue is the
worse of the two evils here,
because it has a stronger sexual
implication.
Back to my question: how
journalist who had failed to use
the words "The Speech Of His
Life" in a news report, they’d
knock this offender down, and
Jack Germond would sit on him
while David Broder yanked off
his press credentials in a painful
manner.
Dave
Barry
I was with a group of
journalists who had decided to
cover the President's speech
from a Houston establishment
named, but rarely
can you make a distinction
between porno and art? You
can't. Everyone sees things
differently, and we all have our
individual opinions and ideas.
What's art to me may be
pornography to you and vice
versa.
Why is porno such a
popular thing? Because sex and
violence sell, especially when
you combine the two.
There are people who say
that pornography influences
men to rape or sexually abuse
women and children. Possibly,
but there are also cases where
men who physically harm
women and children in sexual
manners were abused themselves
earlier in their lives. However,
not all men who read porno
magazines are going to go out
and sexually molest their wife,
girlfriend, or children.
I know there's someone out
there saying, "but look how
those poor, innocent women are
victimized!" They don’t look too
"innocent" to me. These women
are preuy and have good figures.
They're posing for a purpose,
and that purpose may be money,
but no one is forcing them to
pose. They choose to.
And why is it always
women who are victims of
pornography? There are porno
magazines where males are
pictured nude.
So what should our country
do, ban pomo material? If you're
going to ban magazines like
Playboy and Playgirl, then you
better wipe those lusty love
books (that women love so
called,"Richard Heads'
Restaurant and Bar." Our idea
was that we'd find ordinary
voters we could gauge
their reaction to the speech,
using a battery-powered reaction
gauge.
The problem was that this
particular night turned out to be
Bikers' Night at Richard Heads'.
And when I say "bikers",Tm
not talking about the health
fanatics you see pedaling
furiously around on their 10-
speeds, wearing what appear to
be girdles from space. I'm
talking about people who ride
Harley-Davison motorcycles;
large, muscular, hairy people
who have individual tattoos
larger than my entire body. And
those are just the WOMEN.
Fortunately the bikers were
basically friendly,by which I
mean they did not pick us up by
our small-circumference
journalistic necks and use us in
a game of Human Wall Darts.
But they did not seem at all
interested in the President's
speech. You could see the
President on a ceiling-mounted
TV, but you couldn't hear him,
because there was a very loud
jukebox playing heavy-metal
songs by bands with names like
Ear Discharge.
We Were able, however, to
follow the speech, because one
of us, Craig, had a cellular
Page 5
much) off the shelves too.
How about adding a clause
to the First Amendment?
''..Freedom of the press, but
nothing pornographic may be
published." Freedom of the
press means freedom of the
press, whether it's a picture of
Behrcnd College or a picture of
a naked woman. Some may
favor adding such a clause to the
First Amendment, but once you
give up part of your right to do
something, little by little, more
"Freedom of the
press means
freedom of the
press, whether it's
a picture of
Behrend College or
a picture of a naked
woman."
is taken away from you.
I for one, would like to
leave the First Amendment as
it is and have pornography
published. No one is forcing
you to look at pomo material.
Isn't it easier to just not buy
porno magazines if you don't
like them than to have to fight
for a right you were guaranteed
over 200 years ago?
Alicia Hartman is a first
semester communications
major. Her column appears
every other week in The
Collegian.
phone, which he used to call a
friend of his in Washington,
D.C., who was watching TV.
"WHAT'S HE SAYING
NOW?" Craig would shout to
his friend. Then he'd turn to us
and shout: IT'S SOMETHING
ABOUT CAPITAL GAINS.
OR MAYBE WAR WITH
SPAIN."
Meanwhile, the rest of us
,as trained observers, were
sharing our observations on the
speech. "HE HAS ONLY ONE
STRIPE ON HIS TIE,"
somebody would observe. And
somebody else would say: "I
THINK HE'S MAKING THE
HAND GESTURES OF HIS
LIFE.”
And thus, using gritty
determination and advanced
journalism techniques, we were
able to overcome major
obstacles to journalism
techniques, "get the story" and
report it to the American
people, who were unable to
watch this vital speech
themselves because they had
rented "Revenge of the Nerds."
And so, Mr. Media Critic,
don't try to tell ME that we're
not doing a heck of a job. The
U.S. new media corps just so
happens to be the finest corps of
new media in the entire nation.
And that statement is not just
my opinion. It's backed up by a
scientific poll.