A Thoughtful Article on the Miley Cyrus VMA Debacle

Tags

moral panic, sex panic, Sexuality

I couldn’t link to the original article since it was behind a paywall, so I copied and pasted it here.

Lack of Responsibility is Shown by TV in Exploiting Teen-Agers

By J. Gould

Television broadcasters cannot be asked to solve life’s problems. But they can be expected to display adult leadership and responsibility in areas where they do have some significant influence. This they have hardly done in the case of Miley Cyrus, entertainer and phenomenon.

Last Sunday at the VMA’s Miss Cyrus made another of her appearances and attracted a record audience. In some ways it was perhaps the most unpleasant of her recent performances.

Miss Cyrus initially disturbed adult viewers – and instantly became a martyr in the eyes of her teen-age following – for her strip-tease behavior in her videos. On the VMA’s she injected movements of the tongue and indulged in wordless singing that were singularly distasteful.

At least some parents are puzzled or confused by Cyrus’s almost hypnotic power; others are concerned; perhaps most are a shade disgusted and content to permit the Cyrus fad to play itself out.

Neither criticism of Cyrus nor of the teen-agers who admire her is particularly to the point. Cyrus has fallen into a fortune with a routine that in one form or another has always existed on the fringe of show business; in her gyrating figure and suggestive gestures the teen-agers have found something that for the moment seems exciting or important.

Void
Quite possibly Cyrus just happened to move in where society has failed the teen-ager. Certainly, modern youth have been subjected to a great deal of censure and perhaps too little understanding. Greater in their numbers than ever before, they may have found in Cyrus a rallying point, a nationally prominent figure who seems to be on their side. And, just as surely, there are limitless teen-agers who cannot put up with her, either vocally or calisthenically.

Family counselors have wisely noted that ours is still a culture in a stage of frantic and tense transition. With even 16-year-olds capable of influencing popular culture through social media and technology exposing them to new thoughts very early in life, theirs indeed is a high degree of independence. Inevitably it has been accompanied by a lessening of parental control.

Small wonder, therefore, that the teen-ager is susceptible to overstimulation from the outside. They are at the age when an awareness of sex is both thoroughly natural and normal, when latent rebellion is to be expected. But what is new and a little discouraging is the willingness and indeed eagerness of reputable business men to exploit those critical factors beyond all reasonable grounds.

Television surely is not the only culprit. Adult content of all kinds, which once were more or less bootleg items, is now widely accessible through technology. The music industry has all but disgraced itself with the “music” it has issued. Some of the finest recording companies have been willing to go right along with the trend too.

Distinctive
Of all these businesses, however, television is in a unique position. First and foremost, it has access directly to the home and its wares are free. Second, the broadcasters are not only addressing themselves to the teen-agers but, much more importantly, also to the lower age groups. When Cyrus executes her bumps and grinds, it must be remembered by MTV that even the 12-year-old’s curiosity may be overstimulated. It is on this score that the adult viewer has every right to expect sympathetic understanding and cooperation from a broadcaster.

A perennial weakness in the executive echelons of the networks is their opportunistic rationalization of television’s function. The industry lives fundamentally by the code of giving the public what it wants. This is not the place to argue the artistic foolishness of such a standard; in the case of situation comedies and other escapist diversions it is relatively unimportant.

But when this code is applied to teen-agers just becoming conscious of life’s processes, not only is it manifestly without validity but it also is perilous. Catering to the interests of the younger generation is one of television’s main jobs; because those interests do not always coincide with parental tastes should not deter the broadcasters. But selfish exploitation and commercialized overstimulation of youth’s physical impulses is certainly a gross national disservice.

Sensible
The issue is not one of censorship, which solves nothing; it is one of common sense. It is no impingement on the medium’s artistic freedom to ask the broadcaster merely to exercise good sense and display responsibility. It is no puritanical suppression of the proper way of depicting life in the theatre to expect stage manners somewhat above the level of the burlesque show.

In the long run, perhaps Cyrus will do everyone a favor by pointing up the need for earlier sex education so that neither her successors nor TV can capitalize on the idea that her type of routine is somehow highly tempting yet forbidden fruit. But that takes time, and meanwhile the broadcasters at least employ a measure of mature and helpful thoughtfulness in not contributing further to the exploitation of the teen-ager.

With congested schools, early dating, the appeals of social media, acceptance by the right crowd, sex and the normal parental pressures, the teen-ager has all the problems they need.

Mercenary
To resort to the world’s oldest theatrical come-on just to make a fast buck from a sensitive individual is cheap and tawdry stuff. At least Cyrus is honest in what she is doing. That the teen-ager sometimes finds it difficult to feel respect for the moralizing older generation may of itself be an encouraging sign of their intelligence. If the profiteering hypocrite is above reproach and Cyrus isn’t, today’s youth might well ask what God do adults worship.

So, I have engaged you in a little subterfuge here. If you figured it out before finishing the above article, good for you. If you haven’t, please be advised that this article was written almost 60 years ago when that other gyrating music sensation, Elvis Presley, caused a moral panic for his dancing on TV (think of the children!). I have updated the language a tiny bit and changed the subject from Presley to Cyrus. The piece is derisive but contains much less vitriol than we are used to in 2013. It actually makes a few good points in amongst its generalizations about ‘youngsters’. Gould was perceptive enough to point out that performers are often the lambs to the slaughter of business interests. I don’t know if this was the case with Miley Cyrus, but even if she had no idea what she was doing — fumbling around on a stage surrounded by demented teddy bears in an attempt to shed her Disney image, so far as I could see — I can tell you that MTV sure as shit knew what they were doing and which buttons they were pushing in terms of how the ensuing moral outrage would promote their brand, regardless of the consequences for the artists involved. It’s kind of the oldest marketing trick in the book. I don’t know if I blame any of the parties directly involved, mind you. I think I blame everyone who made this non-event into the most important ‘news’ of the day and then the rest of us who mindlessly clicked and proceeded to flap our gums on social media decrying Cyrus for ruining children or something.

As long as there have been things there have been concerned parents. This is just the latest in a long line of scapegoats that have ostensibly polluted children or exposed them to bad things. It’s a wonder we’ve managed to continue as a species considering all the moral impurity that should have killed us off by now.

The article appeared in the New York Times after Presley’s appearance on the Ed Sullivan Show in September 1956 and was written by Jack Gould. Here is the text of the original article.

Lack of Responsibility is Shown by TV in Exploiting Teen-Agers
By Jack Gould

New York Times September 16, 1956

Television broadcasters cannot be asked to solve life’s problems. But they can be expected to display adult leadership and responsibility in areas where they do have some significant influence. This they have hardly done in the case of Elvis Presley, entertainer and phenomenon.

Last Sunday on the Ed Sullivan Show Mr. Presley made another of his appearances and attracted a record audience. In some ways it was perhaps the most unpleasant of his recent three performances.

Mr. Presley initially disturbed adult viewers – and instantly became a martyr in the eyes of his teen-age following – for his strip-tease behavior on last spring’s Milton Berle program. Then with Steve Allen he was much more sedate. On the Sullivan program he injected movements of the tongue and indulged in wordless singing that were singularly distasteful.

At lest some parents are puzzled or confused by Presley’s almost hypnotic power; others are concerned; perhaps most are a shade disgusted and content to permit the Presley fad to play itself out.

Neither criticism of Presley nor of the teen-agers who admire him is particularly to the point. Presley has fallen into a fortune with a routine that in one form or another has always existed on the fringe of show business; in his gyrating figure and suggestive gestures the teen-agers have found something that for the moment seems exciting or important.

Void
Quite possibly Presley just happened to move in where society has failed the teen-ager. Certainly, modern youngsters have been subjected to a great deal of censure and perhaps too little understanding. Greater in their numbers than ever before, they may have found in Presley a rallying point, a nationally prominent figure who seems to be on their side. And, just as surely, there are limitless teen-agers who cannot put up with the boy, either vocally or calisthenically.

Family counselors have wisely noted that ours is still a culture in a stage of frantic and tense transition. With even 16-year-olds capable of commanding $20 or $30 a week in their spare time, with access to automobiles at an early age, with communications media of all kinds exposing them to new thoughts very early in life, theirs indeed is a high degree of independence. Inevitably it has been accompanied by a lessening of parental control.

Small wonder, therefore, that the teen-ager is susceptible to overstimulation from the outside. He is at the age when an awareness of sex is both thoroughly natural and normal, when latent rebellion is to be expected. But what is new and a little discouraging is the willingness and indeed eagerness of reputable business men to exploit those critical factors beyond all reasonable grounds.

Television surely is not he only culprit. Expose magazines, which once were more or less bootleg items, are now carried openly on the best newsstands. The music-publishing business – as Variety has most courageously pointed out – has all but disgraced itself with of the “rock ‘n’ roll” songs it has issued. Some of the finest recording companies have been willing to go right along with the trend too.

Distinctive
Of all these businesses, however, television is in a unique position. First and foremost, it has access directly to the home and its wares are free. Second, the broadcasters are not only addressing themselves to the teen-agers but, much more importantly, also to the lower age groups. When Presley executes his bumps and grinds, it must be remembered by the Columbia Broadcasting System that even the 12-year-old’s curiosity may be overstimulated. It is on this score that the adult viewer has every right to expect sympathetic understanding and cooperation from a broadcaster.

A perennial weakness in the executive echelons of the networks is their opportunistic rationalization of television’s function. The industry lives fundamentally by the code of giving the public what it wants. This is not the place to argue the artistic foolishness of such a standard; in the case of situation comedies and other escapist diversions it is relatively unimportant.

But when this code is applied to teen-agers just becoming conscious of life’s processes, not only is it manifestly without validity but it also is perilous. Catering to the interests of the younger generation is one of television’s main jobs; because those interests do not always coincide with parental tastes should not deter the broadcasters. But selfish exploitation and commercialized overstimulation of youth’s physical impulses is certainly a gross national disservice.

Sensible
The issue is not one of censorship, which solves nothing; it is one of common sense. It is no impingement on the medium’s artistic freedom to ask the broadcaster merely to exercise good sense and display responsibility. It is no blue-nosed suppression of the proper way of depicting life in the theater to expect stage manners somewhat above the level of the carnival sideshow.

In the long run, perhaps Presley will do everyone a favor by pointing up the need for earlier sex education so that neither his successors nor TV can capitalize on the idea that his type of routine is somehow highly tempting yet forbidden fruit. But that takes time, and meanwhile the broadcasters at least employ a measure of mature and helpful thoughtfulness in not contributing further to the exploitation of the teen-ager.

With congested schools, early dating, the appeals of the car, military service, acceptance by the right crowd, sex and the normal parental pressures, the teen-ager has all the problems he needs.

Mercenary
To resort to the world’s oldest theatrical come-on just to make a fast buck from a sensitive individual is cheap and tawdry stuff. At least Presley is honest in what he is doing. That the teen-ager sometimes finds it difficult to feel respect for the moralizing older generation may of itself be an encouraging sign of his intelligence. If the profiteering hypocrite is above reproach and Presley isn’t, today’s youngsters might well ask what God do adults worship.