It is time to rebrand the entertainment industry

It is time to rebrand the entertainment industry

Television has become little more than a vehicle that secular fundamentalists use to advance their worldview under the illusory façade of entertainment.

Network titan FOX kicked off the 2017 calendar year by promoting a nihilistic family sitcom dubbed The Mick.  This situational comedy features a responsibility-phobic woman assuming the parental responsibilities for her sister’s three spoiled children growing up in suburban Connecticut.

In a trailer to promote the new series, FOX executives present an exchange between Kaitlin Olsen, a 41-year-old woman pretending to be a guardian, and Jack Stanton, a little boy pretending to be her 7-year-old nephew.  In this scene, Jack is outfitted in a blue dress as he appears headed off to school.

Kaitlin:          “You look really good in that dress, by the way!”
Jack:               “Thanks!  It kind of breezes on my vagina.”

Presumably, this cheeky zinger was written to elicit laughter from an audience that has become conditioned to suppress reason and judgment in favor of mindless entertainment.

As a reminder, this is a conversation between a 41-year-old woman and a 7-year-old boy.

There is a reason I refuse to refer to either Kaitlin or Jack by their stage names.  To do so would validate three completely false premises.  First, I would be affirming that this little boy has the mental capacity to completely detach fiction from reality.

According to Jean Piaget, a man considered by some to be the fourth most influential thinker in human psychology, children lack the mental capacity to engage in logical thought until at least the age of seven.  Thus, this assertion is completely unsupportable from a scientific perspective.

Second, I would be upholding the notion that this exchange represents completely harmless entertainment intended to amuse the whims of its viewing audience.

Is there no societal harm to portraying adults as utterly unworthy of respect and wholly incapable of responsibility?  Might these depictions threaten to undermine parental authority before an audience of impressionable adolescents?

What about from little Jack’s perspective?  Is it culturally healthy to teach a little boy that he possesses certain anatomical features that he simply does not have?  Does positively reinforcing this behavior in the form of laughter help his intellectual and emotional development?  By using Jack as a means to the ultimate end of advancing a cultural agenda, might he learn a lesson that using people as a means to an end is acceptable conduct for societal engagement?

Jack, this culture will devour you like a swarm of frenzied locusts.  There is no amount of money or fame that can offset the assault on your innocence and the perversion of your purity.  There will come a time in your life when you will cease to be relevant to our insatiable appetite for depravity.  When this day comes, to what shall you cling?

These are certainly curious lessons coming from a culture claiming to be so obsessed with science, education, and child development.

Finally, if I were to refer to these “actors” by their stage names, I would be validating the framework of the vehicle being used to circulate depravity throughout our culture.

This is not entertainment; it is child abuse.

The Federal Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act defines child abuse and neglect as any act on the part of a caretaker which results in serious emotional harm, sexual abuse, or exploitation.  Is this not what we are witnessing in this scene?

We should not exempt an entire industry from federal child abuse laws simply because it transpires under the innocuous packaging of “entertainment.”

When an industry uses children as useful tools of depravity, it is shameful.  Exploiting Jack’s innocence to advance a cultural agenda is downright deplorable.  Bear in mind all of this transpires in just one scene of the show.

Consider the existing child labor laws in this country.  Our basic framework of laws largely makes it illegal to extend even the most insignificant of employment opportunities to any person under the age of fourteen, with the limited exceptions of delivering newspapers, babysitting, and making evergreen wreaths.  Outside of these three activities, it is completely illegal to offer non-agricultural employment to any unrelated minor under the age of fourteen.

Well, there is one additional exception.  It is completely legal to offer employment to children of any age on the small screen of television or the big screen of the movie industry.  We harmlessly refer to these trades as the entertainment industry.

To summarize, we now live in a country in which 13-year-olds cannot be trusted to productively ring a register, an activity that would instill work ethic, responsibility, and the fulfillment of gainful employment.  Yet as a society, we are completely comfortable employing children of any age to function as tools to destructively influence the overall health of our culture.  This is backward.  The former should be legal, while the latter should be illegal.

Yet not only are we comfortable with this legal arrangement, we eagerly and actively support it with monthly offerings in the form of a $123 average cable bill.

Why must we insist on funding the vehicle of our own destruction?

With increasing frequency, the content being broadcast over television frequencies is not entertaining, it is corrupting.  The television has become the carotid artery of our culture, principally responsible for circulating depravity to the furthest capillaries of our nation.

This episode serves as evidence that it is long overdue that we begin the process of rebranding the entertainment industry.  Entertaining implies that the industry provides pleasant amusement to divert the attention of an audience.  There is nothing amusing about depravity and cultural division.  So, what then shall we call it?

The industry of corruption.

Television corrupts by promoting passivity and complacency.  Is it really a stretch to see how a nation that tolerates child abuse under the cloak of entertainment winds up stomaching infanticide (otherwise known as abortion) in the name of convenience?

We must stop investing countless hours of time into an industry that holds no concern for contaminating the impressionable minds of our children.  We should end the practice of funding it with our economic resources.  Lastly, we need to start applying some legislative pressure.  We must cease and desist our cultural practice of granting child abuse exemption waivers to an industry hell-bent on exploiting our children to advance a venomous and divisive social agenda.

Conservative News

Michael Abbott

Michael Abbott, Jr. is a Christian author and apologist. You can directly engage with Michael on Facebook or Twitter @AbbottSpeaks or visit his website at

No Comments Yet

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

© 2017 The New Americana