sj writes in, in response to Smoking Ban Again. This is what he has to say:
If the govt thinks they can imbibe good moral in kids by banning smoking ads, consider this -
1. Do you agree reading newspaper daily help kids develop their general knowledge? Look at Times of India, especially the Bangalore Times supplement. Yes, it does help kids develop their General Knowledge - but of a different kind. Why not impose a ban on such tabloid newspapers.
2. Do you watch the "K" serials? Have you noticed the glorification of murders, rapes, teenage sex, conspiracy, extramarital affairs, divorce, infidelity etc.? I am sure kids think this is normal. How else do you explain incidents like Delhi Public School MMS? Smoking or not smoking is ones personal choice, but TV is something thrust on you and it is very difficult to escape from its influence, especially for kids
3. Ban or no ban, people will continue to do what they want to do. The number of Aids cases is increasing exponentially year after year. I have not seen any advertisement encouraging people to engage in more infidelity (or for that matter any other medium through which this disease spreads)
If at all government wants to do moral policing, they should probably first look at so called vehicles of social values - news papers, TV's etc. which are stooping to new lows every day purely for the sake of growing their business. Tobacco never had any moral obligation towards society. But Television and Newspapers do. That is what makes these more dangerous. I wonder if Ekta Kapoor ever thinks of Moral [ mail ends ]
Let me make myself clear: I do not think that the government is trying moral policing here. Smoking has moved beyond morality. It is now a public health issue. Kids are especially vulnerable - once hooked they are lifelong customers of the tobacco industry. The government is merely trying to stop kids from getting the idea that smoking is ok and even desirable while it is nothing of the sort. It leads to disease. Why would kids get the idea that smoking is ok? Because they see their favourite hero (and heroines nowadays too) smoking away with great satisfaction - in the movies and off the screen. Like Shah Rukh Khan. For good or bad Bollywood wields an uncommon influence on everyone including kids. One only has to look at the predominance of movie related programming on TV. Even the uptown Zoom has song-and-dance capsules. Adults may not pick up the smoking habit as soon as they see SRK puffing away. Kids may. As the report from IE notes:
Ministry officials said they took these steps after a recent WHO study ‘‘held Bollywood responsible for glamourising smoking’’. ‘‘Film actors have a lasting impact on the minds of children and young adults,’’ pointed out Dr Anbumani Ramadoss, Union health minister. ‘‘There are reports that more women and children are smoking these days,’’ he added.
So banning smoking in films and on the TV tube makes sense. Of course the premise is that kids are influenced by film actors.
There it is then : no moral policing. Kid sees favourite star smoking. Kid thinks smoking is ok. Kid becomes receptive to the idea of smoking and may even start smoking himself. Kid may then develop fatal tobacco-related disease sometime later in life. So don't let kid see his favourite star smoking. This may not stop him from ever picking up the habit, but it removes a positive reinforcement. As for developing a habit for murders, rapes, teenage sex, conspiracy, extramarital affairs, divorce, infidelity - it will be a difficult act to follow - at least more difficult than picking up a cigarette and lighting it. And not addictive except for those with a criminal bent of mind.
The third point is interesting and questions the premise mentioned above. Logically, we can then say that nothing is wrong in showing drug use, smoking ads, ads for alcohol, soliciting on TV. I don't think too many people would agree. Also, as sj points out earlier "TV is something thrust on you and it is very difficult to escape from its influence, especially for kids". A nice case for the ban. Moreover since we are already at a stage where we are banning certain kinds programming on TV - ads for smoking, alcohol, horse racing, soliciting - the ban on smoking in movies is just taking this to a logical conclusion. It prevents implicit advertisements for cigarettes.
The rest of this post maybe moot since I too don't believe the government should get into moral policing. (It is already in the moral policing game though - running around naked, prostitution, pornography, homosexuality, prostitution, suicide, euthanasia - are all illegal. But like Prakash Karat says - no more free power , but existing free power to continue).
One thing before anything else though - the line between acceptable and unacceptable is very thin. My sleaze might be someone else's beauty.
I agree with the points about Times's supplement and the K-serials. The Times supplements may be a complete parody of what newspapers should be and distasteful, but the regular dose of semi-clad women really has to be stopped. But much as I wish otherwise, I don't think the govt can ban it - until they actually start showing nude women or printing erotic writing. The line being thin the govt is sure to mess up.
Regulating TV is another tough nut to crack. What they should do is introduce certification for TV programmes and bring some pressure on the industry to spare a thought for the kids. Push adult serials to late nights and have good clean stuff during normal times. And it needs to be done fast since things are pretty bad. Every government makes polite noises about doing something but nothing happens. It is a shame. The onus is on the TV industry too - they should do a bit of introspection and come up with some standards on their own. We are a bit far from that. So yes, the government needs to do some prodding and pushing here even at the risk of crossing the line to moral policing. Till the industry reforms, parents would have to take care of their kids.
And I would go easy on the DPS MMS kid. Hot blood. Opportunity. And the latest technology. Did TV and tabloids push him to it or the old combination of the first two items? I don't know, but I favour the latter.
There it is then : no moral policing. Kid sees favourite star smoking. Kid thinks smoking is ok. Kid becomes receptive to the idea of smoking and may even start smoking himself. Kid may then develop fatal tobacco-related disease sometime later in life. So don't let kid see his favourite star smoking. This may not stop him from ever picking up the habit, but it removes a positive reinforcement. As for developing a habit for murders, rapes, teenage sex, conspiracy, extramarital affairs, divorce, infidelity - it will be a difficult act to follow - at least more difficult than picking up a cigarette and lighting it. And not addictive except for those with a criminal bent of mind.
The third point is interesting and questions the premise mentioned above. Logically, we can then say that nothing is wrong in showing drug use, smoking ads, ads for alcohol, soliciting on TV. I don't think too many people would agree. Also, as sj points out earlier "TV is something thrust on you and it is very difficult to escape from its influence, especially for kids". A nice case for the ban. Moreover since we are already at a stage where we are banning certain kinds programming on TV - ads for smoking, alcohol, horse racing, soliciting - the ban on smoking in movies is just taking this to a logical conclusion. It prevents implicit advertisements for cigarettes.
The rest of this post maybe moot since I too don't believe the government should get into moral policing. (It is already in the moral policing game though - running around naked, prostitution, pornography, homosexuality, prostitution, suicide, euthanasia - are all illegal. But like Prakash Karat says - no more free power , but existing free power to continue).
One thing before anything else though - the line between acceptable and unacceptable is very thin. My sleaze might be someone else's beauty.
I agree with the points about Times's supplement and the K-serials. The Times supplements may be a complete parody of what newspapers should be and distasteful, but the regular dose of semi-clad women really has to be stopped. But much as I wish otherwise, I don't think the govt can ban it - until they actually start showing nude women or printing erotic writing. The line being thin the govt is sure to mess up.
Regulating TV is another tough nut to crack. What they should do is introduce certification for TV programmes and bring some pressure on the industry to spare a thought for the kids. Push adult serials to late nights and have good clean stuff during normal times. And it needs to be done fast since things are pretty bad. Every government makes polite noises about doing something but nothing happens. It is a shame. The onus is on the TV industry too - they should do a bit of introspection and come up with some standards on their own. We are a bit far from that. So yes, the government needs to do some prodding and pushing here even at the risk of crossing the line to moral policing. Till the industry reforms, parents would have to take care of their kids.
And I would go easy on the DPS MMS kid. Hot blood. Opportunity. And the latest technology. Did TV and tabloids push him to it or the old combination of the first two items? I don't know, but I favour the latter.
No comments:
Post a Comment