I found out this week that at least one person agrees with me about this show.
In April 2005, I posted at the TranslucentBeauty forum my dislike for the television show Extreme Makeover: Home Edition. I also wrote a follow-up post on the subject, and another post on a EMHE copycat, Renovate My Family.

The gist of my comments were that I consider EMHE a socially unethical show, despite the show’s desire to portray itself, and its cast-members, as altruistic super-heroes, building needy people homes out of the goodness of their hearts. Considering that the main product that television companies sell is an audience, rather than a television show, my criticism centrally rested upon my own assumption, a good assumption if I do say so myself, that families chosen to receive new homes are, at least in part (I would think a large part, but I’m pretty cynical), on how large an audience their story will attract for their advertisers. In this vein, I asked whether the ends justified the means, and as with all questions of this nature, I answered that it depends on which ends and which means. If the ends are that a needy family gets a new house, and the means are a television network provides them with one, then maybe I could answer in the affirmative. However, I don’t think it is so simple. I think that the ends can very well be that advertisers make a lot of money through the means of exploiting the plight of needy families. While a simple explanation of my critique, it will do for now. For a fuller explanation, see the above links.

In those threads, some of my closest friends said that I was being incredibly unfair to the do-gooders over at EMHE. So, I decided to post my thoughts over at “Arts and Faith,” to see with the considerably larger community over there thought. I wasn’t impressed with the responses that came in right away. I received a particularly cheesy response that stated:

This is my response to those who criticize EMHE for being anything less than altruistic:

They may see the good you do as self serving. Continue to do good.

They may see your generosity as grandstanding. Continue to be generous.

They may see your warm and caring nature as a weakness. Continue to be warm and caring.

For you see, in the end, it is between you and God. It never was between you and them anyway.

This reply in particular turned me off to the forums there, and I never really went back.

That was a mistake, because apparently the discussion continued. Not a particularly popular discussion mind you, but I missed out on a few good posts. Particularly, a reply from user “kebbie,” who points out that she wrote an article about this very subject for catapult magazine, “Reality Servanthood.”  A sample:

Home Edition is the harbinger of a new television genre I would call “pornographic altruism.”

…

The show’s qualities of unabashed gawking (“Oh, my God, that poor cancer patient!”) alongside charitable gestures (“But at least now she has a grand piano signed by Elton John!”) are a deadly combination—one that gives us, the viewers, the emotional pay-off of good works without the actual, imperfect experience. Rather than developing true compassion, it provides us with a cheap and inauthentic substitute: sentimentality.

In the Home Edition universe, I am permitted to think that I am a good person for choosing this show and crying at the lavish displays of charity. Every single episode, I get a huge lump in my throat which spontaneously erupts into tears during the big reveal of the new house. I experience another spasm of emotions when Pennington tells the family that a Generous Corporate Benefactor has paid their mortgage or donated a full scholarship so their daughter can fulfill her dream of going to design school. I can’t stop myself from crying. My guess is that you can’t, either. What wonderful people! I think of the Home Edition crew as I blow my nose into my fiance’s t-shirt sleeve. What a marvelous corporation! I exclaim of Sears, the show’s main corporate sponsor. They really care about people!

I hope I don’t sound cynical when I say this, but I’m not sure this is such a positive response. Sure, we shed tears when we’re genuinely happy, moved, or overwhelmed. But we can also be manipulated, and I suspect that’s what happening when Home Edition tugs at our heartstrings and sends us into ecstatic paroxysms of benevolence. Let’s face it, a giant corporation that donates scads of money and products—thus ensuring that their logo is plastered on every square inch of the show’s set, plus its intermittent commercials—probably has ulterior motives. And when we, the audience, exclaim over their generosity and goodness at every turn, they’ve got us exactly where they want us: emotionally vulnerable, and ready to shop. (Which brings us to another question about Home Edition’s values: is gratuitous consumerist excess, the idea that a schmancy house will make you happy, really the equivalent of compassionate, sacrificial servanthood? We don’t have time to get into that here.)

This kind of sentimentality is the enemy of compassion: it allows to feel altruistic without actually being altruistic. Of course, we know that watching a television show about serving the poor is not actually the same thing as serving the poor—yet Home Edition is designed to make us, the audience, feel like we’ve done something productive for society by choosing it over a blatantly trashy program. Giving into this impulse is perhaps even more contemptible than devotedly watching, say, Desperate Housewives (which, personally, I admire for its critique of the American exurban dream, a little dose of which Home Edition could certainly use).

…

I would add to that last paragraph, that it is designed to make us feel good for watching this show over others, and this itself is designed to, and does, make the show/network/advertisers, a load of cash. Now, there’s nothing wrong with making a load of cash. My point is that I question the altruism displayed when it is used as a front to make a staggering profit…especially while exploiting the stories of the down and out.

Pornographic Altruism. What a fantastic phrase for it.

And I still can’t stand watching that show.

pop culture, media, ethics | No Comments »

is an excuse for not writing in the past three weeks or whatever.  That, I suppose, is the reality of having two jobs, and being a full time doctoral student.  The blog just falls last on a long list of to-do’s.

Oh well. It isn’t as if anyone out there is waiting with baited breath for the next thing I have to say…

I do enjoy writing though.  So, I should try to do it more often.

random, site maintenance | No Comments »

The inventor of “Instant Noodles” has passed away, at the age of 96. Millions of college students the world over express gratitude to Momofuku Ando, for feeding them on a small budget.

Mr Ando said the inspiration for his product came when he saw people lining up to buy bowls of hot ramen noodle soup at a black market stall during the food shortages after World War II.
He developed his first instant noodles, Chicken Ramen, in 1958.

The product came out as Japan recovered from the ravages of WWII and began a long period of economic expansion.

It was the masterstroke of providing a waterproof polystyrene container for the noodles that made his Cup Noodle an instant success in 1971.

Nissin has led the global instant noodle industry since then, selling 85.7 billion servings every year, according to Agence France Presse.

His firm also developed a version of Cup Noodle for Japanese astronauts to eat on the space shuttle Discovery in 2005.

In 1999, Mr Ando opened a museum in Osaka devoted to instant noodles.

Thank you Mr. Ando. I don’t know what I would have done without your “Cup O’ Noodles.”

news | No Comments »

I hope not.

Predictions for 2007:

Evangelical broadcaster Pat Robertson said Tuesday that God has told him that a terrorist attack on the United States would cause a “mass killing” late in 2007.

Does this guy ever shut up? I would be happy if the media would just stop publishing him.

(via RCB)

Update: Apparently, God has issued a rebuttal. God says Pat Robertson “Totally High”:

In quick and sighing response to beloved apocalyptic homophobic fearmongering ball of quivering godmeat Pat Robertson’s declaration on the vinegary “700 Club” that there would be “mass killings” of millions of godless gay-loving iPod-worshipping Americans sometime in 2007 because, well, God Himself visited Robertson in some sort of fever dream/spaghetti-gorging session and told him so, God has issued a rebuttal statement.

“Blessings and deep divine love to all beings everywhere. Pat Robertson is huffing Krylon,” smiled the Almighty, watching some rare, gorgeous black antelopes romp in the petrified forests of Australia in the year 2118, because She can do that sort of thing.

That is how the world sees you man. And by extension…all of us. Thanks.

news, religion | 2 Comments »

Byline: Animal has some trouble walking

The staff at Heldreth Dairy Farm in Wythe County were excited because they thought they were going to deliver twin calves.

To their surprise, only one calf came out — but it had two heads.

So far, the two-headed calf seems to be doing well, although the animal does have some trouble walking.

The veterinarian school at Virginia Tech University is studying the animal to see why it was born with the mutation.

Flashback to 10th grade biology class, San Luis Obispo High School. Learning about mutations, and the teacher goes into an office, comes back with a 5 gallon bucket. Opens the lid, and whips out the head of a two-headed calf, dripping with the formaldehyde that had just been its home. I think he had kept it for years.

Coolest. science. class. ever.

random, news | 1 Comment »

Happy New Year!

Better late than never.

random | No Comments »

The Reformed Chicks have a good point: It does say something about the Koran when you are put on trial for vilifying Islam, for reading accurately from it.

Two Australian ministers were convicted of vilifying Muslims at a seminar when they quoted from the Koran:

He wrote that much of the evidence against the pastors was that they, in fact, quoted the Quran accurately. “Yes, the Quran did tell men they could beat their wives. Yes, it did have verses calling on Muslims to fight infidels until they submitted.”

“The pastors were found guilty of vilifying Muslims even though the judge identified only one thing Scot had said that was factually wrong: he’d given the wrong birthrate for Muslims here. And, the judge, added, he’d failed to quote a verse that showed Allah was merciful,” Bolt wrote.

Interesting stuff. Although, the media/communication studies person in me cannot let this pass by without saying that, readings are not neutral. I have a hard time believing in such a thing as a neutral reading, and the ministers were probably pointing out what they thought were shortcomings, or even atrocities, that they found with Islamic faith. And good for them for doing so. So, it probably wasn’t that they were just reading from the Koran. Context and intent should be taken into account.

The real problem here, it seems to me, is the law enacted to prevent such speech. It seems such laws are set up to “protect” certain groups from other groups’ opinions of them. The problem, however, is that the same laws inherently limit the civil and religious rights of those they silence, while simultaneously not enforcing similar prohibitions against the groups they are meant to protect. Here is an example:

The Australian law was imposed in order to prevent the denigration of people based on their race or religion, and similar laws also have been approved in Canada, where critics of the law say they include sexual orientation and forbid pastors from condemning homosexuality as a sin.

In Canada, it would seem, as a minister I cannot say that homosexuality is a sin, even though my interpretation of my faith tells me that it is. However, homosexual advocacy groups can, and are protected in doing so, denounce me for holding the viewpoint that homosexuality is a sin, and even call it hate speech.

But, this stuff isn’t new. This is the world we live in.

Tags: Islam, Christianity, Free Speech

news, video, religion | No Comments »

At Dhimmi Watch:

NAZARETH – Islamic groups held a large militant march down the main streets of Nazareth this weekend, highlighting for some here the plight of Christians in this ancient city where Muslims have become a majority and members of the dwindling Christian population say they suffer regular intimidation.

…

Also at Solomonia.

news, religion | No Comments »

At Something and Half of Something.

If you think Steve Irwin was a very manly man, then check out this video. I had to watch it about 3 times, and I laughed out loud each time.

video, funny | No Comments »

Seems to be the story of my life!  At least right now.  Let’s see if I can blog something today.

random, site maintenance | No Comments »