Arnaud de Borchgrave, editor at large of the Washington Times, has written a thought-provoking column about whether the U.S. can export worthwhile democratic values when our own society has become so disgustingly decadent. He begins by citing the increasing amounts of pornography, including child porn, being trafficked in the U.S.
He writes, “Pity poor Karen Hughes, the undersecretary of state for public diplomacy. Her job is to persuade the rest of the world, particularly the Arab countries, that lack of democracy and First Amendment rights prevents them from joining the modern world.” The implication is that the “modern world” is morally corrupt and that you can’t expect the Arab or Muslim world to embrace the current “values” of American society if the First Amendment leads to trash TV and the sexual exploitation and abuse of women and children.
Honest conservatives have to admit that de Borchgrave, an opponent of the U.S. military intervention in Iraq, makes a point worth considering. Freedom is one thing. But anybody who takes a glance at American television or films these days has to wonder what America is trying to export to the rest of the world.
De Borchgrave notes that “Howard Stern and Jerry Springer, the uncrowned kings of unadulterated smut, have shared some of the highest ratings in television history.”
He adds, “Lecturing the rest of the world on the virtues of democracy is somewhat at odds with the deification of Mr. Stern and his elevation to the electronic pantheon of a recent 20-minute segment on ’60 Minutes.’ Mainstream media honor him with the title of ‘shock jock.’ But he would be more accurately described as the plug-ugly epitome of scatological sex schlock. The man who can get women to bare their breasts or behinds on the air, and nudge wannabe porn queens into explaining likes and dislikes with scores of casual sex partners, has been competing for media attention with the Iraqi insurgency.”
In addition to the appearance on 60 Minutes, Stern appeared on the O’Reilly Factor on Fox News, the NBC Today Show, David Letterman and Larry King. O’Reilly thought so much of Stern, the so-called “King of All Media,” that he conducted a three-part interview with him. One of O’Reilly’s questions to Stern was: “you’re still telling dirty jokes and [talking about] lesbians and all that?”
There are many other examples de Borchgrave could have cited. Like O’Reilly, Rita Cosby has used her MSNBC television show to promote the sexually deviant, appealing to the prurient interest of those with short attention spans.
Over at NBC, its sister network, the new program, “The Book of Daniel,” is trying to attract viewers by mocking Jesus Christ and featuring demented Christians, including a Catholic priest with Mafia connections. Created by an ex-Catholic homosexual, the show features an Episcopal priest who is addicted to painkillers and talks to a mystical wise-cracking Jesus. One of his sons is a homosexual and his daughter is arrested for selling marijuana. His sister-in-law has a lesbian affair while her husband steals millions of dollars from the church.
Even Tom Shales of the Washington Post couldn’t ignore the obvious agenda behind this program. Without declaring it to be overtly anti-Christian, he commented, “I cannot recall a series in which a greater number of characters seemed so desperately detestable?a series with a larger population of loathsome dolts. There ought to be a worse punishment than cancellation for a show that tries this hard to be offensive and, even at that crass task, manages to fail.” He called the characters “mean, venal and idiotic.”
A notable exception, reflecting the show’s pro-homosexual bias, is the minister’s homosexual son, who comes across as serious and in danger of being outed to the local community. He is the only sympathetic character.
The pro-homosexual theme, a concrete example of liberal media bias, has never been more pronounced. I previously noted that Shales’ paper, the Washington Post, has been cheerleading on behalf of the homosexual propaganda film, Brokeback Mountain. It ran nine stories about the film in only six days. Over at the Post sister publication, Newsweek, I found two stories?in the November 21 and December 19 issues. Here’s what Newsweek said: “Its emotional impact builds slowly, its rhythms in tune with the countryside?the rugged grandeur of the mountains; the arid, bleak vistas of backwater Western towns, where the rooms seem as cramped as the sky is vast.”
This flowery language is meant to disguise the fact that the film is about two married men with children who commit adultery by engaging in dangerous, unhealthy and immoral sex.
In a surprising development, Gene Shalit of the NBC Today Show called the film “wildly over-praised, but not by me,” and characterized one of the characters as a “sexual predator.”
These were fighting words to the censors at the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD), a group supported by Hollywood money. GLAAD says it was “irresponsible” for NBC News to have given Shalit a platform for his “offensive comments.” But GLAAD’s campaign has been complicated by the fact that Shalit’s son is a homosexual and he defends his dad as not “homophobic.”
The controversy demonstrates the thought control and intimidation at work in media portrayal of homosexuality. Anyone perceived to be critical of a lifestyle that is directly responsible for the spread of a deadly disease, AIDS, is immediately branded as an enemy to be discredited or destroyed.
If America wants to export something worthwhile to the rest of the world, then the forces of moral decadence have to be exposed and defeated. The cultural war at home is as important as the war against terrorism abroad. We have to win on both fronts if we are to survive.