|
The Internal
Mormon-Media Conflict
by
Jonathan S. Walker
I must confess,
I was going to write a review on a documentary that I absolutely
love. It's not that the story itself is something I love. In fact,
it really is quite the opposite. The story disturbs me in a Kafkaesque
way. What is amazing about the film, though, is that the filmmaker
lays the story out and allows people to tell the story. He never
verbally editorializes—yet, he is involved. And the story is
moving, disturbing, and even shocking.
So, why didn't
I review it? Well, because people were telling the story their own
way. They are who they are—and that is not always clean and
polite. There was a single harsh vulgarity and a few profanities.
Additionally, the documentary director shows a sexual scene from
a bad Hollywood movie that plays a role in the story (and frankly
plays a very subtle, but significant role in the entire look at
one of the people in the documentary).
I suppose you
could say I was gun shy. I am painfully aware that the Meridian
readers are highly sensitive to sex and violence in media. And that's
okay, but there is something that I do find challenging about the
Mormon approach to the media. We are terribly harsh with each other.
We are more judgmental with each other than we are with the media—and
that's saying a great deal.
The purists
who do not believe that there should be a single instance of baseness—no
matter how mild—in a film look at those who watch a broad range
of films as heathens who are very nearly in the unredeemable clutches
of the adversary. And those who believe that entertainment and art
need not be sanitized look at those who aggressively protect themselves
and their families from the taint of the world as unsophisticated
and naive country bumpkins. Most members of the church fall into
one of the two of these categories. There are varying degrees of
acceptance within them, but most seem to sit on one side of the
fence or the other.
The purists
have bludgeoned their opponents with a decree from General Authorities
about not watching rated-R movies. The broad acceptors deflect the
argument by complaining that the "commandment" to avoid rated-R
movies crept into acceptance instead of entered with a decree. They
also counter with the complaint that ratings are political and subjective
and seldom take into account context. The broad acceptors accuse
the purists of being hypocritical by concentrating on evil instead
of looking for the good in the world. The purists counter that there
is never any advantage to letting a little sin creep in regardless
of the sophistry.
So, what is
the answer? Who is right and who is wrong?
I truly believe
that I see the issues regarding morality and the media with as much
clarity as anyone. In fact, I have grappled with the issues so much,
so often, and for so long that I believe I could be assigned either
side of the argument and win against anyone. So, what conclusions
has this clarity brought? Alas, none. What intrigues me most about
this issue is that both the purists and the broad acceptors pose
valid truths and yet both sides automatically slide down a slippery
slope that rests on an untenable conclusion.
It is not the
purpose of this article to lay out the arguments and how they will
both ultimately fail. In fact, it is that approach that I find to
be the driving source of the contention. The arguments never lead
to dialogue. The only thing that I have ever been able to do when
talking with either adherent is to help them at least understand
the position of the other.
I think that
we will only mutually understand each other when two things happen.
First, we have to truly understand our own position—whatever
it might be. We have to see why we do what we do. For some that
will be easier than for others. Some of the purists will be able
to say in honesty that they see their's as the only moral position.
Some of the broad acceptors will honestly admit that they do avoid
bad influences regardless of rating. But, some on both sides will
find that their actions do not live up to their ideal.
Second, we must
want to understand the other position. We must start out believing
that people are moral and good and—maybe even—right. Does
that mean that we will be "converted"? Probably not. Does that mean
that we will need to compromise for some middle ground? I hope not.
What it means is that we will see people for who they are, not who
they would be if they had my belief and their actions.
You see, I am
convinced of two things regarding this issue. I'm convinced that
there is a right answer and I'm convinced that we haven't
found it...yet.
However, let
me present you with a single thought. It is not a solution because
it doesn't resolve the issues, but in it you might find a kernel
of truth. For all the talk of the influence of the media in our
society and our lives, we might have missed one of the strongest
ways in which it attacks the church. We allow it to become a wedge
between us and other members of the church. Perhaps the first "media"
step on the way to becoming Zion is not allowing this issue to come
between us.
We ought to
be more like the documentary director I mentioned at the beginning
who lets people tell their own stories. Beyond the words and actions
that I might find unacceptable there is a good person. If we can
concentrate on seeing the good in them, then we may find ourselves
much closer to finding the moral approach to media.
Click
here to sign up for Meridian's FREE email updates.
© 2001 Meridian
Magazine. All Rights Reserved.
|
