posted by ![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
terryfrost at 08:55pm on 23/05/2007
terryfrost at 08:55pm on 23/05/2007Usually I go for a walk at lunchtime, but today I merely slipped out for a coffee at Cafe Solah and back in to work to continue reading Eric Sykes' wonderfully titled autobiography. If I Don't Write It, Nobody Else Will. But a whining voice saying hideous things impinged upon my tympani and spoiled the break for me.
There's a character on US TV called Dr Phil, and the show today was about a man taking a polygraph test to see if he'd been molesting his three year old child. The polygraph questions were hideous and graphic and the sick, rockspider fuck who molested the kid spent the rest of the episode trying to avoid the fact that he'd torn a three year old's vagina up, among other things. Apparently, it's a two part episode, too. More monstrous behaviour exposed tomorrow. Same time, same channel.
My question is this: in which way is a revelation of child-molesting any form of entertainment? Why didn't the TV producers merely hand their evidence over to the cops and get the life-ripping fucker into a holding cell? Channel 9 made money showing the crap, Phil McGraw got richer by filling our heads with images of a man tongue-kissing a baby (to use the least nauseating example) and the sick fucks of an audience for this kind of repugnant programming got the same joy a Roman Colisseum crowd felt back in the day. Also, the kid was named, which is illegal in Australia, but not, it seems in the USA and the female parent clearly identified.
Fortunately, I only endured 10 minutes of what passes for daytime TV these days. A family's tragedy is flensed in front of a studio audience for the financial enrichment of the makers and distributors of this program. Yeah, they can spin it any number of ways, but it was ugly, relentless, unnecessary and in its own dark way, a kind of pornography.
There's a character on US TV called Dr Phil, and the show today was about a man taking a polygraph test to see if he'd been molesting his three year old child. The polygraph questions were hideous and graphic and the sick, rockspider fuck who molested the kid spent the rest of the episode trying to avoid the fact that he'd torn a three year old's vagina up, among other things. Apparently, it's a two part episode, too. More monstrous behaviour exposed tomorrow. Same time, same channel.
My question is this: in which way is a revelation of child-molesting any form of entertainment? Why didn't the TV producers merely hand their evidence over to the cops and get the life-ripping fucker into a holding cell? Channel 9 made money showing the crap, Phil McGraw got richer by filling our heads with images of a man tongue-kissing a baby (to use the least nauseating example) and the sick fucks of an audience for this kind of repugnant programming got the same joy a Roman Colisseum crowd felt back in the day. Also, the kid was named, which is illegal in Australia, but not, it seems in the USA and the female parent clearly identified.
Fortunately, I only endured 10 minutes of what passes for daytime TV these days. A family's tragedy is flensed in front of a studio audience for the financial enrichment of the makers and distributors of this program. Yeah, they can spin it any number of ways, but it was ugly, relentless, unnecessary and in its own dark way, a kind of pornography.
angry
There are no comments on this entry. (Reply.)