A question of morality

For the purpose of our subject today, I hope to shirk the legalese lingo that bound me sometimes. I realized that in those few times when I had to use some legal terms, my articles appeared weird to some uninitiated readers. Today, I must sound simplistic as I can to make sure that I relate myself with ordinary mortals even if the intellectuals find this write up superficial and funny.

While it may be true that listening can be a beginning of understanding, it is listening with understanding that leads to a more profound learning. This statement is discernible if we take as an example television programming. At the start of any TV show nowadays, there are fair warnings worth listening to and understanding well. We have shows intended for general patronage, which advisory should be understood to mean they are open to viewership of all age levels. When we listen to the Parental Guidance warning, we are supposed to know that the program may be seen by a youngster with a parent beside him to explain the plot or guide him in comprehending what is going on. The warning “Strict Parental Guidance” tells us that the show may contain objectionable language, violent acts, indecent or sexually suggestive scenes that a young televiewer must be guided by a parent.

Why these warnings? What justified the creation of a board of censors authorized to adopt these classifications that somehow clash with our freedom of expression? When I still worked in the programming section of a national radio/TV network, decades ago, there were no alerts advising the viewing public what was forthcoming. Sometimes a young boy would just be jolted because a prior program produced to his level of understanding was followed with a show of an entirely different genre. Thus, to avoid that situation, all programs are preceded by appropriate advisories.

I believe that the board of censors’ alerts — requiring TV channels to flash before each show starts — are based on intellectual and moral perceptions. Specific shows are supposed to be viewed by specific audiences. Classifications of TV shows are done to see if their substance can either further the learning of the audience or challenge their mental capabilities. A film that once starred Jodie Foster dealt in serious psychological trimmings that a young mind could not comprehend had to be labeled for audiences, 15 years old and above. Censors classify a sexually demonstrative program as SPG so that no young child can see it. An old Elke Sommer movie, when aired on TV, had to be restricted to mature audience because an infidel husband had a torrid bed scene with a woman other than the wife — issues of decency and morality.

News programs are generally for all audiences. A young boy can be left to his lonesome watching either Leo Lastimosa or Bobby Nalzaro, as an old man like me usually does. It was different when, in a recent news footage, President Rodrigo Duterte was shown kissing the lips of another man’s wife. What if the young boy was my grandson? How would I answer him if he would ask me how come the president did what we have been telling him as an immoral act? The act of the president was shameful as it was immoral and media should not have aired it. Nonetheless, those of us who pass it as tolerable presidential mischief newscast, same philosophy underlies must have our values re-examined.