Posted on 02/14/2003 9:12:00 AM PST by fight_truth_decay
In 2000, many media critics had a fit when they learned that TV entertainment executives had negotiated with the federal government to place anti-drug messages directly into their programs to avoid having to air free public-service announcements that would cut into their profits.
Now Viacom, the parent company of CBS, UPN, Nickelodeon, MTV, VH-1, and Showtime, is at it again. This time, however, it’s for a noble cause, the "public interest," not ad savings. Viacom has joined with the liberal Kaiser Family Foundation for a "public education initiative." Viacom is touting that its programs on various networks would "incorporate HIV/AIDS themes" into their sitcoms and dramas.
If a red flag just went up, it’s for good reason. What Viacom and Kaiser call "public education" is what most anyone else would call propaganda. And when that indoctrination includes ideas like getting condoms to children without parental consent while learning to drop outdated, intolerant (i.e., Judeo-Christian) ideas about homosexuality, it’s beyond "progressive." It’s radical.
To give you an example of CBS’s "public education" in action, take the February 2 episode of the Ted Danson sitcom "Becker." Danson’s title character, a doctor, sees a 15-year-old boy named Brad who comes in complaining of painful urination. (He told his mother only that he had a sore throat.) When Brad admits being sexually active, Becker replies, "Fine, I guess, as long as you’re wearing condoms." The boy is screened for sexually transmitted diseases and says he doesn’t need condoms to prevent AIDS and could get that "cocktail thing" if he contracts the disease anyway. Becker has the liberals’ appropriate political answer: "Congratulations, you just reached a level of stupidity only found in Republicans and lower primates."
Becker punishes the boy by withholding his test data until he’s nearly in tears over the thought he has AIDS. It all ends happily with the boy – now publicly educated – accepting a bag of condoms.
On UPN’s "Half and Half" on February 3, Mona demands to know if Spencer used "protection." He says no. "You had sex without a condom? That is possibly the stupidest thing you’ve ever done." When her friend Dee Dee says she doesn’t keep a stash of condoms, Mona shows more contempt: "Are you like Sister From Another Century or something?" In another scene, a gay man lectures: "I can’t believe you’re out there waving that thing around without the safety on. It’s so 1981."
Ain’t it grand to be in enlighted 2003?
Is this true health education, or just condom promotion? In July 2001, a study for the National Institutes of Health found that while use of condoms was about 85 percent effective at preventing transmission of HIV, that’s a failure rate of 15 percent. Human papilloma virus, or HPV, is the cause of more than 90 percent of all cases of cervical cancer, which kills more American women each year than AIDS. The NIH analysis found no evidence that condoms prevent HPV transmissions.
Other serious venereal diseases – including chlamydia, syphilis and genital herpes – also showed no reduction with condom use. These diseases also increase the risk of contracting HIV. So what Viacom and Kaiser are promoting is not "safer sex." It’s promoting a sexually "liberated" viewpoint that at best is controversial and is not established science.
Not every one of the CBS and UPN shows contained health education. Some lashed out against "intolerance" of homosexuality. The January 24 episode of "Presidio Med" on CBS tells the story of 15-year-old Curtis, who says he’s gay. His father is accepting, but his mother thinks he’s just confused. Despite a pediatrician assuring him that being gay is okay and things will get easier, a janitor later finds Curtis hung himself, another casualty of "intolerance."
On UPN’s "Enterprise," the February 5 episode went intergalactic with the agenda. No one here had AIDS at all, but a Vulcan obtained a social disease through a mind-meld. The mind-melders – the metaphorical stand-in for homosexuals – are "part of the telepathic minority. One of the reasons they left [that evil planet] Vulcan was to escape prejudice. Their behavior is considered unnatural. They’re seen as a threat." One doctor complains "there’s more intolerance today than there was a thousand years ago."
If the Knights of Columbus came to Viacom proposing a joint project to promote the joys of virginity, or a patriotic pro-America message in a time of war, you know the reaction. The Hollywood crowd would wail in protest over this propagandistic abuse of artistic products. But that’s not the case when the message fits Hollywood like a glove – or a condom.
Voice Your Opinion! Write to Brent Bozell
In the study he cites, condoms prevented seroconversion over 99% of the time.The rate of prevention in the NIH study (thanks for the link) attributable to condom use is 85%, not 99%.
Overall, Davis and Weller estimated that condoms provided an 85% reduction in HIV/AIDS transmission risk when infection rates were compared in always versus never users.
"Where are we going, and why are we in this handbasket?"
How could anyone ever come to that conclusion? Your saying that people who got HIV, 13.4% would have still gotten it even if they ahd used condoms? No one could know that and there is no way to determine that. If I misunderstood your statistics, please be mroe clear.
You agree with a stat that no one could know is true?
Your saying that people who got HIV, 13.4% would have still gotten it even if they ahd used condoms?Assuming the accuracy of the NIH study (see link in post #4 above), yes. The NIH study concluded that condoms had an 85% effective rate in preventing HIV transmission. As I see it, it follows that condoms would have been ineffective in preventing HIV transmission 15% of the time.
But that doesn't make sense. Each person would have sex with varying frequency. I could see it being 100 times or 100 people; e.g. One in a hundred would contract the disease. The comment you made about having sex for 50 years with an HIV positive partner doesn't make sense.
I'm getting ready to shove off and I rarely FReep on weekends. I've enjoyed our discussion, and appreciate its civility. Have a great weekend, madg.
I'm not sure I'm right. But if the disease is as hard to get as you said earlier, there would be no disaster in Africa. I have to sign off for the night, but I'll check back on this. Go ahead and tell me where I'm wrong. I'll look at it tomorrow.
It would be easier to compare this per exposure. I might be misunderstanding something.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.