Last night on Law and Order SVU....

Status
Not open for further replies.

Hokkmike

Member
Joined
Feb 28, 2006
Messages
3,968
Location
Snack Capital of the US
Last night on Law and Order SVU....they made a gun owner (bad guy of course) out to be a wacko by having him say that the second amendment states that he doesn't have to explain anything to the cops about a gun that might have been used in a murder. I saw a worse senario on Cold Case Files where a gun dealer told the police at a gunshow that "he was a dealer and didn't have to tell them nothing - cause he was 'protected' ".

Slowly but surely these shows are sending out the gun owners=idiots message.
 
I don’t usually get into these type discussions but I happened to catch this show last night and I’d like to put in my .02 on this one.

I agree the fact that shows such as this one get pretty left sided. I think the serious message however was a lot subtler than a Neo-Nazis, bigot, white supremacist spewing his second amendment rights. He already had no credibility because of that which he was portrayed to be. He was shown to be just a nasty person who illegally gave a firearm to a convicted felon. Anything out of his mouth, IMHO, was just window dressing.

Now for the part of the show that I thought was the underlying message. A bolt-action rifle was used. It did have a folding stock but they made sure to discuss the fact that it was a Bolt-Action Rifle. They even made sure one got a good look at the action and optics with the stock locked open. Not the typical TV military looking semi-auto but a bolt-action rifle used to shoot kids from afar. This seems to be new territory.

Also the number of rounds the young man fired in the courtroom. I didn’t count them but he did do a lot of shooting using a normal looking pistol thus supporting limiting capacity.

Like I said just my .02 but pretty much the way I read it. Either way they got the anti message across.
 
was this the episode where the female white supremacist is actually an undercover FBI agent who shoots the young nazi punk in the courtroom?

that was a good episode. :neener:

-slut, unabashed L&O junkie in spite of the show's general anti-gun slant
 
IMO, it's tough to just say that "it's just a show"...but the media plays a strong role in influencing the public's mind.

But don't most of these dramas have DISCLAIMERS at the beginning of the program? People need to take heed into that.
 
IMO, it's tough to just say that "it's just a show"...but the media plays a strong role in influencing the public's mind.

But don't most of these dramas have DISCLAIMERS at the beginning of the program? People need to take heed into that.

So the theory goes. Unfortunately, sheep eat what's fed to them, and the folks producing these shows know this all too well. Same with the newsies. Propaganda is very effective, especially if put out there enough.
 
The dirty little secret in television programming AND advertising is that it's almost all (99%) aimed and marketed to women. Males barely exist when network executives decide the type, style, and flavor of brainwashing that they're going to push. The obvious marketing to females is why most programming are DRAMAS. This is also why there are so many shows now that endlessly (and in an over the top way) glorify government agents. Women as a group are just extremely loyal to government, whereas men tend to hate/mistrust it. The network's research tells them the obvious that males watch a lot of sports but not much of the rest of their crappy programming. I've also caught a lot of advertising for shows where they PUSH this "war on terror" crappola. Their prime time dramas have almost completely merged with the garbage drama the nightly "news" pushes about fearing the world and a "terrorist" under every rock.

The biggest component in this is ADVERTISERS. I started muting commercials because I noticed that they were all marketed to women. Women control most of the wealth now and they spend in certain predictable patterns that can be influenced easier than influencing males. There's also been an explosion in shows (almost all dramas) where the lead character is a female who is a quasi super hero. As I said, prime time dramas have been almost merged with the entertainment driven national "news," so it's no surprise that CBS wanted Katie Couric. She's the "news" version of that stupid "Medium" quasi superhero, or that "Crossing Jordan" quasi superhero. :barf:

These networks know that women will move heaven and earth so they don't "miss their show." Sometimes this gets pitiful because, no joke, I have a neighbor who dates a lot of ex-cons and she would tell the paramedics to go away before she missed and episode of "Prison Break." :barf:
 
Local FFL: Got any support for any of those statements?
What is THAT supposed to mean, I'm supporting them. If you disagree with something, then have the courage to be specific instead of taking a veiled jab at the speaker.

Sounds like I said some things you don't want to deal with.

Ahhhh, I get it, you mean, does the GROUP stand behind what I said. See, I don't engage in group"think." I believe that the truth is self evident and only needs to be spoken once if the hearer is one who searches for truth and is willing to test it for HIMSELF (as opposed to asking the group for approval).

You just reminded me of this:

The three stages of truth was originally penned by the German philosopher, Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860), who said "All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed, second it is violently opposed, and third, it is accepted as self-evident."
 
I was watching one of those L&O series, I think it was CI. They were taking a bullet out of a corpse and one person holds it up and says, 9mm. Another chimes in, "Glock?" I thought that was some amazing detective work. The writers seem to get thier background info from other shows. They just feed thier own ignorance and give me a laugh.
 
The most fun on SVU is seeing their use of firearms and tactics. They should all be fired on those grounds. Wonderfully incompetent.

Of course, that is just part of the silliness of that show.
 
localFFL said:
The dirty little secret in television programming AND advertising is that it's almost all (99%) aimed and marketed to women.
An observation?

localFFL said:
Males barely exist when network executives decide the type, style, and flavor of brainwashing that they're going to push.
If this were a policy, I am sure it would be easy to look up

localFFL said:
Women as a group are just extremely loyal to government, whereas men tend to hate/mistrust it.
Can you point out this study for us?

localFFL said:
Women control most of the wealth now . . .
Is that a fact?

localFFL said:
. . . and they spend in certain predictable patterns . . .
ORLY?

localFFL said:
. . . that can be influenced easier than influencing males.
HA

You have made a lot of declarative statements that you haven't backed up with facts. People around here don't take too kindly to that.

Either re-write your post with a heavy dosing of "I think"s and "I noticed"s or site your sources.

30 cal slob said:
-slut, unabashed L&O junkie in spite of the show's general anti-gun slant
 
What is THAT supposed to mean, I'm supporting them. If you disagree with something, then have the courage to be specific instead of taking a veiled jab at the speaker.

I think what the poster meant was, do you have scientific facts to back up your (somewhat misogynistic) claims or are these just things you've noticed while watching television?

<rant>

Allow me to share another "self-evident" truth with the "group." The cat I just shaved now has, by mere chance, a pattern in the shape of Elvis underneath its outer coat of fur. Clearly this is sign that the end of the world is nigh.

Ridicule it if you like.
Oppose it if you can.
You will come to accept it as self-evident.

My cat's back is the Word of Elvis.

</rant>

To the original post, I was turned off by most television even before I became interested in firearms. My suspenders of disbelief are worn out and no one has gotten me a new pair.

jm
 
Last edited:
What is THAT supposed to mean, I'm supporting them. If you disagree with something, then have the courage to be specific instead of taking a veiled jab at the speaker.

Sounds like I said some things you don't want to deal with.

My heck, get over yourself already.

You may have noticed this trend, but you can't just make a bunch of opinions, and throw it out on THR, and expect everybody to just swallow it with a mighty grin because it is the gospel truth because you said so. Especially when you throw out a bunch of stuff that is far fetched, and doesn't seem to pass any sort of smell test.

Kind of like you getting all offended in L&P, when you ask people to start calling their legislators to strike down a Tenn. law, that nobody understands, and you can't even cite at the time.

Or like calling for all of us Utahns to attack a pro gun organization because you've formulated a personal beef with it. And then getting offended when we immediatly don't side with you (we don't even KNOW you) against this gun organization. (which by the way, when I was testifying up at the capitol this session against the UofU, I saw USSC up there fighting, but I didn't see you, ironic).

And those are the ones off the top of my head.

As for specifically in this thread, CNYC pointed that out pretty well.

And when you get called on passing off your personal rants as ULTIMATE TRUTH, deal with it. If what you're saying is true, it should be pretty easy to validate.

Now back to your regularly scheduled thread where we can all complain about TV...
 
made a gun owner [...] out to be a wacko by having him say that the second amendment states that he doesn't have to explain anything to the cops about a gun that might have been used in a murder.

If he thought that, then he IS a wacko!

It's the FIFTH amendment that says he doesn't have to explain anything to the police. The second amendment just says he can have a gun.
 
No-one else here took a marketing class? FFL isn't wrong, well he probably is about things but that women is the most cherished demographic is correct. 18-34 iirc, networks will murder each other to get them, that's why it seems like there's a lot of kind of pussy shows, because they are all competing for the segment and that means it gets a bit over-represented.

And not exactly corroborating him, but women in civil wars have been documented as being the most fanatical of the genders. Not sure that supports him, but something good to remember nonetheless!

I personally find it amusing when it's 1 in the morning and you're watching some old war movie, and a commercial for feminine hygiene comes on. Strange, because I had an assignment where you do reverse marketing, and figure out who is watching the show based on the commercials.

As well US gov't does influence media portrayals. I remember near 7 years ago when there was some dispute with France, and it got recorded in the newsprint a gov't department telling production companies to 'think French' when it came to casting villains. It was the Guardian (so sue me, I was in college, everyone experimented with liberals at some point).
 
The dirty little secret in television programming AND advertising is that it's almost all (99%) aimed and marketed to women. Males barely exist when network executives decide the type, style, and flavor of brainwashing that they're going to push. The obvious marketing to females is why most programming are DRAMAS. This is also why there are so many shows now that endlessly (and in an over the top way) glorify government agents. Women as a group are just extremely loyal to government, whereas men tend to hate/mistrust it. The network's research tells them the obvious that males watch a lot of sports but not much of the rest of their crappy programming. I've also caught a lot of advertising for shows where they PUSH this "war on terror" crappola. Their prime time dramas have almost completely merged with the garbage drama the nightly "news" pushes about fearing the world and a "terrorist" under every rock.

The biggest component in this is ADVERTISERS. I started muting commercials because I noticed that they were all marketed to women. Women control most of the wealth now and they spend in certain predictable patterns that can be influenced easier than influencing males. There's also been an explosion in shows (almost all dramas) where the lead character is a female who is a quasi super hero. As I said, prime time dramas have been almost merged with the entertainment driven national "news," so it's no surprise that CBS wanted Katie Couric. She's the "news" version of that stupid "Medium" quasi superhero, or that "Crossing Jordan" quasi superhero.

These networks know that women will move heaven and earth so they don't "miss their show." Sometimes this gets pitiful because, no joke, I have a neighbor who dates a lot of ex-cons and she would tell the paramedics to go away before she missed and episode of "Prison Break."

No arguments here. He may not have scientific sources on hand to back this up, but hasn't anyone watched TV lately? When was the last time you saw a commercial involving a man and a woman that didn't end with the guy looking like a buffoon, or displaying the woman's superiority or focus in some way? It's become so ingrained that no one notices it, but it's obvious if you are paying attention. Heck even kids shows are female centric, Hilary Duff anyone? Want references? Watch TV during primetime any day of the week.

P.S: I did not post this to condescend women, but to point out what I see as an inequality going the other way; men should not be portrayed as inferior anymore than women should be.
 
Well, getting back to the TV show, the protrayal of bad guys, and how
they're dealt with --it always seemed to me that the BGs had some kind
of final consequence by the end of the show. They always either went to
prison, committed suicide, killed by the victim/family/friend of the victim,
or killed by some other BG they were involved with in either the same kind
of lifestyle or a different shade of the underworld.

Everything was always wrapped up nicely by the end of show one way or
another.

Doesn't reflect reality at all.

The BG who commits a sexual crime will rarely see the inside of a prison,
and probably not even see the inside of a courtroom at least for the sexual
crime --maybe something else, though, like drug dealing, theft, etc. I can
think of one case in the last 20 years where one was killed by a past victim
(who also committed suicide and this was 10-20 years after the sexual acts
were alleged to have happened --I have to say "alleged" because the original
complaint by the victim never made it through the court process, right?). I'm
not recalling a perp who committed suicide --accidental death by DUI, yes. I
guess we could sort of consider that some lifestyle choices biting back. I
can recall one case where the BG was done in by other BGs in the BG ring
(which has nothing to do with his past sex crimes --it was about the family
drug business). However, it was interesting in that case to see the defense
for one of the BGs use the "...and he (the dead BG) was also a sexual abuser!"
[gasp] :eek: as part of the defense for their BG.

SVU does a great job portraying the victims, BGs, and the circumstances of
the crimes involved. Just not the aftermath. It's great old Soviet style
socialist realism in which reality is portrayed as it should be, not as it is. ;)
 
The worst was on Cold Case. There was a mass murder at a mall based on the two columbine killers.

Well the cops confront the dad because his "Tec 9" :rolleyes: was used in the murder.

The man says with conviction "A man has a RIGHT to his hobbies" Then he says "Im a hunter."

Cops: "what do you hunt with a semi-automatic assault weapon"

Then the man just sheepishly looks away.

It was the stupidest display of gun convo I have ever witnessed. At first I thought they were going to try to have the man defend the 2A, but he just said "Im a hunter." So now everyone looks like idiots. :banghead:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top