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that indoctrination includes ideas like getting condoms to children without parental consent while learning to drop outdated, intolerant (i.e., Judeo-Christian) ideas about homosexuality, it’s beyond "progressive."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
Before you go.....if you have a better understanding of person years will you post it before you leave? Thanks.The "person years" is obscure to me as well, but I'll look at it again over the weekend. I also find it as difficult to believe as you do that the incidence of HIV transmission without a condom is less than 7%.
Have a good one, RP.
"Never" using condoms is ~93% effective, "always" using condoms is ~99% effective, therefore "always" is 85% MORE effective than "never."The major and minor premises of the above-stated syllogism are both false.
Major Premise: Never using condoms is never effective, as can be demonstrated by a simple syllogism:
Every effect has a cause;To say that "never" using condoms is 93% effective is like saying that condoms are 93% effective when not used, which is absurd. As the poster in #6 above correctly pointed out, condoms are 0% effective when not used.
Inaction is not a cause;
Therefore, inaction has no effect.
Minor Premise: The effectiveness of a prophylactic is calculated by (a) subtracting the total number of unfavorable events that occur in the group using the prophylactic from the total number of unfavorable events that occur in the control group (i.e., the group not using the prophylactic, and (b) dividing the difference by the total number of unfavorable events that occur in the control group. For example, if we wanted to know how effective seat belts were in preventing traffic fatalities and we knew that 7 of 100 motorists who never wore seatbelts were killed in traffic accidents but only 1 of 100 motorists who always wore seatbelts were killed, we would subtract 1 from 7 and divide the difference by 7, giving us an effective rate of .85, or 85%.
The data in our example do not support the onclusion that seatbelts are 99% effective. To determine the effectiveness, we have to compare the results of the test group to the results of the control group. Comparing the actual number of traffic deaths in the test group (1) with the total number of motorists in the test group (100) doesn't tell us how effective seatbelts are, only the chances of surviving a traffic accident while wearing a seatbelt -- that is, 99 out of 100 times, or 99%.
The data support Bozell's conclusion that condoms fail to prevent HIV transmission 15% of the time . Condoms are 85% effective against HIV transmission, not 99%.
Maybe these were couples who found themselves in the situation of one partner being infected and one not. Yet, that would mean either someone had a blood transfusion, is an IV drug user, or has not been monogamous. There would be study problems with some of those?
I haven't read the study, just its conclusions. I didn't want to download the whole thing. Maybe I will later if I have time.
You're kinda missing the point.Your point was that Bozell is distorting the test data, and he is not.
Less than one chance in a hundred over a hundred years. That is NOT "85%."One chance in a hundred hundred over a hundred years v. 7 chances in a hundred over a hundred years is 7 minus 1, which is 6, divided by seven, which yields an 85% effectiveness against transmission.
No, Madg, I think that's PER YEAR. It is not possible that they mean to stretch the risk ratio out over 100 years. Most people don't even live that long. It is just a way of calculating your risk over time. I think this study says you have approx. a one percent chance PER YEAR of getting the disease. If your years of risk increases, then your total risk increases.
I'll get back to you when I have time to find the facts on time versus risk factor.
Correct and consistent condom use is a HECK of a lot better than 85%.The NIH data don't support such a statement, so your beef is with the accuracy of the NIH data, not with Bozell's interpretation. Assuming the accuracy of the NIH data, Bozell correctly states that condoms failed to prevent HIV transmission 15% of the time. There's nothing even remotely deceptive about that.
A 1% transmission rate in the "always" group tells us that the risk of transmitting HIV in that group is 1%. A 7% transmission rate in the "never" group tells us that the risk of transmitting HIV in that group is 7%. Neither group by itself can tell us anything about the effectiveness of condoms. One can only assess the effectiveness of a condom by comparing the number of transmissions in the "always" group with the number of transmissions in the "never" group. Assuming the accuracy of the NIH data, condoms were only effective 85% of the time.
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.