Michael Medved on Media and the Family

A very interesting book review from www.UCG.org  about media's affect on the family. This follows this post analyzing media professionals in the U.S.  This follows this post about the Black Caucus hurting Black Americans with their immigration stand. This follows this post about how to Report Illegal Immigrants! For more that you can do to get involved click HERE and you can read another very interesting book HERE.

Michael Medved on Media and the Family






article by Jerold Aust





An interview with Michael Medved, author of "Hollywood vs. America"



The Good News: One of the things that I noticed in your best-selling 1992 book Hollywood vs. America was your analysis of the way movie producers are out of touch with the American public's wants and needs as they relate to movies as entertainment.



Since the writing of that book was based on the prevailing data and statistics of the late '80s and '90s, would you bring us up to date as to Hollywood's ignorance-or willing ignorance-of what the public wants in its movies and television viewing?



Michael Medved: One of the things that has happened since the book came out, and the book played a role in achieving, was the deflation and destruction of the idea that the R rating [restricted: children under 17 not admitted without a parent] was some kind of advantage in marketing a movie. In 1992 there was a great emphasis by studios in releasing as many R-rated titles as they possibly could. Largely that was a response to the kind of movies that directors and producers wanted to make, but it was also based on the idiotic idea that more people embraced R ratings more regularly and more readily than they embraced other more family-friendly ratings. In the book I spent a good deal of time and effort debunking that idea.



There has been a series of studies confirming that research, showing that the R rating is in fact a commercial disadvantage. The result of all of these studies has been a deemphasis on that rating and a higher percentage of PG and PG-13 films. In fact, it has become common, and it never was before, that filmmakers-as part of their contract-have to promise that they will avoid an R rating.



So that's the good news, that there's a spreading recognition that people do not really crave harsh language and graphic sexuality and violence. One of the big surprise hits of the summer of 2001 was a G rated film. In fact, one of the most successful G-rated live-action films ever was The Princess Diaries , which is really a charming film. It's by the maker of Pretty Woman and Runaway Bride , Garry Marshall.



In fact, we've seen a whole tendency of some very well-known directors to release G and PG material, directors who were noted for other material. For instance, David Lynch did quite a lovely film called The Straight Story that was rated G-that's the same David Lynch, the maker of Blue Velvet , rated R. We also had David Mamet, a playwright and filmmaker known for harsh language, release an outstanding G-rated film-really one of the best films of recent years-called The Winslow Boy.



GN: So they can do it?



MM: They can do it, and again that's worked out fairly well. The downside of all of this, and there is a downside of course, is that to some extent the ratings have slipped. In other words, some movies that will slip in with a PG-13 rating now would definitely have been R-rated 10 years ago. The film that most disturbed me with a PG-13 was a film called Crazy Beautiful , which included very graphic sex and alcohol abuse by a 17-year-old, and it never, never should have been rated a PG-13.



GN: You wrote in your book Hollywood vs. America that, back in 1992, movie producers were attacking religion, assaulting the family and glorifying ugliness. In your opinion, has this condition gotten worse or better today?



MM: It's hard to say overall. America is a very complex country, and the movie industry is a very complex business. There are aspects of the entertainment industry that are worse than ever. Consider the music business. American popular music has never been so ugly, so profane, so degrading, so lacking in any restraints at all, so ready to promote larceny and rape. American popular music and the music-video industry are in terrible shape. By the same token, television is more sexual than ever before-more intense and edgy sexual references, lots of nuances of some gay sexuality. But at the same time the violence has been dramatically toned down.



GN: Let's turn to the amount and level of violence and sex in movies and compare what you found in 1992 with what we have on television and in the movies today. How can someone rate the level of violence and sex in movies, by what method?



MM: There are people who actually rate this, quantifiably. What they do is have graduate students watch prime-time TV for a week. So I don't think there is any question about this. If you look at any of the top-rated television shows, there are no top-rated violent shows right now. They just don't exist. But there are a lot of toprated sleazy shows. One of the most violent shows on TV is also one of the most critically acclaimed- The Sopranos , available on cable. So it's complicated.



In terms of movies, there has certainly been a deemphasis on violence. You can't mistake it. It's obvious. The popularity 10 years ago of what I call creeps and killer machines-movies with mass slaughter in them, that kind of film-has pretty much slipped from view. They're just not being made right now. That doesn't mean that the movie business is going through some kind of renaissance or that things are vastly better. Anyone who looks at the pathetic quality of movies today can't celebrate.



But there are notable exceptions. One of the notable recent developments was Prince of Egypt , the animated film that told the story of Moses, where for the first time a major studio made an effort to reach out to religious believers of every stripe.



It was generally true to the Bible, though perhaps borderline as a teaching tool. They were very, very careful not to offend anybody's sensibility. At the same time they made a visually spectacular, entertaining film and a quite successful one. But Jeffrey Katzenberg of DreamWorks Studio met with several hundred religious leaders, including people like Jim Dobson [of Focus on the Family], beforehand to have them consult and advise on what they wanted to see in the film-and he actually listened to people.



GN: Did he also involve rabbis in the process?



MM: He did. A number of them, including some Orthodox rabbis, and the film was a commercial movie. But it was such an obvious thing to do to try to get the goodwill of the religious community, and it's just amazing that it wasn't done before.



GN: On a related subject, you collaborated with your wife, Dr. Diane Medved, on a book titled Saving Childhood: Protecting Our Children From the National Assault on Innocence [1999]. How do the media figure into the assault on our children's innocence?



MM: The book is divided into two fundamental parts. The first part is called the assault, and the second part is called the defense. When we talk about the assault on childhood innocence, we talk about the assault coming at kids from four directions at once.



First is the media, which represent such a huge portion of everyone's life. Secondly, the schools, where the school system no longer has the least respect for childhood in a sense and in fact makes a point of scaring children often and assaulting their innocence.



The third area is the peer group, and the fourth is the parents, who often play a role in corrupting their own children.



GN: On the subject of television viewing, did you have any connection or collaboration with Steve Allen, whose book Vulgarians at the Gate was published recently around the time of his death?



MM: I did indeed. I knew Steve for many years, and he's terribly missed. He was an absolutely wonderful man. He really represented a lot of what was best about American culture three and four years ago. He was witty and cutting-edge, and he didn't change. He was always a decent, wholesome, good man.



What happened was that the culture changed around him. I worked with Steve in a group called the Parents Television Council, where we were both on the board. He and I largely agreed. The only area that Steve and I might have disagreed on is that ultimately I believe the real solution, particularly for people of faith, is not just working for more wholesome, more substantive TV but actually watching less TV, both for adults and children.



I've been telling people on my national show, actually telling them repeatedly, that the real problem isn't the low quality of media; it's the high quantity of media. Even if the quality were improved, it still would be disastrous for our kids and for us to be spending so many hours a week watching TV. The average American household now watches close to 50 hours a week of television.



One of the ironic things is that there is talk of a boycott by black families of network TV because of their treatment of African-American characters and issues. I think that would be a wonderful idea because there is a huge problem in the African-American community. The average African-American family spends over 62 hours a week with the TV on.



Blacks watch TV much more than whites do, which helps to explain differentials in school performance. It's become almost commonplace among educational psychologists that if they could cut back on the level of black TV watching some of the differentials in school performance could be reduced.



Children watch too much TV. Parents watch too much TV. It's a major contributing factor to marital breakdown. My wife wrote a book called The Case Against Divorce , a very controversial book that came out 12 years ago. It was a first of its kind. It was the first book to really attack the divorce industrial complex.



It's still generating controversy. One of the things that Diane found out in The Case Against Divorce , and we allude to in Saving Childhood , is that this obsession with television is a contributing factor to marital breakdown-and a major contributing factor because couples don't have time to talk to each other. They are spending a lot of downtime watching flickering shadows on a cathode-ray tube. That does nothing to enrich your marriage or to improve your communication.



GN: Can it also reshape our thinking, say, from a standard of morals that we were raised to follow?



MM: There's no question about it. But the point that I emphasize in Hollywood vs. America , and that I've emphasized in all my work, has been that the real power of TV, movies and popular music is not that someone is going to see something and then run out and immediately imitate it. That happens, but it doesn't happen with everyone. What happens with everyone is that we allow mass media to normalize outrageous and unacceptable behavior.



That deals with, for instance, language. I don't think there is any question, for anyone who is sensitive to this at all, of the deterioration in language, the breaking away of moral restraints.



I recently took my 14-year-old daughter on a trip to a big city where I used to live. It was the first time I had been there in three years. But walking down the streets with my daughter was incredible this time.



Of course people, like those on a construction site, would use a lot of four-letter words. For them that's normal. But here, walking down an upscale street and seeing elegantly dressed people hollering at each other, effing this and effing that-it's just really collapsed out there. There's no question that mass media have led that trend. They haven't just followed it.



GN: So it's not just a matter of art imitating life.



MM: Right. This is just one example. The other example would be homosexuality. If you read every study, gay behavior is very, very rare. It is not 10 percent of the population. It's not even 5 percent of the population.



GN: Aren't those percentages actively promoted?



MM: Yes, they are. Of course, on TV and in the movies there is such a tremendous emphasis on it. This was incredible to me: The Lambda Gay and Lesbian Education Fund released a study showing that gay behavior has gone up dramatically in America in the last 10 years, and nobody is able to figure it out-because they say you're programmed, you're born gay, you can't do anything about it. So why would this behavior go up? The spokespeople for these gay organizations said it was media influence. They said that the normal appearance of gay people in mass media made it more acceptable for people to express their gay sexuality.



GN: Doesn't that suggest our gullibility?



MM: Yes, it goes without saying because if you see the most glamorous people in the world engaging in some behavior, whether it is violence or promiscuous heterosexual sex or homosexuality or foul language or whatever it is, it provides a sanction, an acceptability, for others to do the same. That's the whole idea behind advertising. That's why they have sports stars and movie stars appearing in ads: because you want to be associated with these people, so you're going to imitate the behavior that you see. It not only works in ads, unfortunately. GN

.

Who's Telling You What to Think?

A very interesting book review from www.UCG.org  about media corruption from TV, movies, radio, and internet. This follows this post about being politically incorrect in the news. This follows this post about slanted news reporting.  This follows this post about the Black Caucus hurting Black Americans with their immigration stand. This follows this post about how to Report Illegal Immigrants! For more that you can do to get involved click HERE and you can read another very interesting book HERE!



Who's Telling You What to Think?






article by Jerold Aust





Some people accept the news they read in newspapers and watch on television as the gospel truth. Is such trust in our mass media justified? Do you really know who's telling you what to think-and why?



Consider for a moment what might happen if someone you knew who died in the 1950s or '60s, perhaps your mother or grandmother, suddenly came to life and sat down with you to watch some of today's evening television shows. What would she see? What would she think?



Imagine letting her take your favorite chair and handle the remote control. Since you probably receive TV programming from a cable or satellite company, listen to her shocked disbelief as she hears the profanity and crudity spew forth. Notice her face as she hears the actors and actresses blurt out vulgarities with an ease and indifference the likes of which she would have never heard only a few decades earlier.



You might well find yourself on the defensive, trying to explain why modern television programming so openly promotes casual sexual encounters, gratuitous violence and foul language. She might question why you would voluntarily allow such crudeness to enter the sanctity of your home. She might ask why you feel no sense of alarm at the filth and vulgarity you allow into your children's minds. She might urge you to "turn that trash off"-and she'd be right on the mark.



Spiral to depravity

Steve Allen, the longtime actor, comedian and songwriter who died in 2000, wrote thoughtfully and perceptively about the depraved vortex of television programming in his book Vulgarians at the Gate: Trash TV and Raunch Radio .



"There has always been a market for vulgarity and licentiousness," he observed, "but at present it is undeniable that motion pictures, theater, television, radio, the recording industry, and, to a lesser degree, journalism are enthusiastic participants in the general collapse of standards and behavior.



"Some people may find it hard to believe that television was a morally admirable medium as recently as the 1950s. With a few exceptions it was largely administered by gentlemen and ladies, and although it was, from the first, apparent that inferior cultural merchandise was likely to become quite popular, given the notorious imperfections of human nature itself, television programming in general at least consisted of fare that could be watched by the entire family . . . It is clear that the medium has changed . . . Corporate America, granting exceptions, has not only largely given up its former admirable participation in the maintenance of society's general sanity but has joined those who would undermine it . . ." (2001, pp. 32-34, emphasis added).



For those who believe in character and high moral standards, some obvious questions come to mind: Where have we gone wrong? Why have we gone wrong? What, if anything, can be done about our self-initiated spiral into media-induced depravity?



What messages are those who spoon-feed us through the media presuming to tell us? What do they want us to think?



Today's mass media-radio, television, movies, audio and video recordings, books, magazines, newspapers, the Internet-shape our perception of reality. But how accurate is that perception? Is it true? Sometimes media moguls would like us to believe that our perception-a perception they carefully craft and provide- is reality.



But it's important for us to differentiate between viewpoints that arise from standards that are healthy for us and based on a moral foundation and those that are rooted in amoral thinking. As the Bible cautions us in Proverbs 4:23Keep thy heart with all diligence; for out of it are the issues of life.



See All...: "Be careful how you think; your life is shaped by your thoughts" (Today's English Version).

An interesting article from http://www.ucg.org/ about slanted bias in the media. This follows this post about the agendas that media frequently have.  For a free magazine subscription or to get this book for free click HERE! or call 1-888-886-8632.

Who's Telling You What to Think?

article by Jerold Aust

Some people accept the news they read in newspapers and watch on television as the gospel truth. Is such trust in our mass media justified? Do you really know who's telling you what to think-and why?

Consider for a moment what might happen if someone you knew who died in the 1950s or '60s, perhaps your mother or grandmother, suddenly came to life and sat down with you to watch some of today's evening television shows. What would she see? What would she think?
Imagine letting her take your favorite chair and handle the remote control. Since you probably receive TV programming from a cable or satellite company, listen to her shocked disbelief as she hears the profanity and crudity spew forth. Notice her face as she hears the actors and actresses blurt out vulgarities with an ease and indifference the likes of which she would have never heard only a few decades earlier.
You might well find yourself on the defensive, trying to explain why modern television programming so openly promotes casual sexual encounters, gratuitous violence and foul language. She might question why you would voluntarily allow such crudeness to enter the sanctity of your home. She might ask why you feel no sense of alarm at the filth and vulgarity you allow into your children's minds. She might urge you to "turn that trash off"-and she'd be right on the mark.

Spiral to depravity

Steve Allen, the longtime actor, comedian and songwriter who died in 2000, wrote thoughtfully and perceptively about the depraved vortex of television programming in his book Vulgarians at the Gate: Trash TV and Raunch Radio .
"There has always been a market for vulgarity and licentiousness," he observed, "but at present it is undeniable that motion pictures, theater, television, radio, the recording industry, and, to a lesser degree, journalism are enthusiastic participants in the general collapse of standards and behavior.
"Some people may find it hard to believe that television was a morally admirable medium as recently as the 1950s. With a few exceptions it was largely administered by gentlemen and ladies, and although it was, from the first, apparent that inferior cultural merchandise was likely to become quite popular, given the notorious imperfections of human nature itself, television programming in general at least consisted of fare that could be watched by the entire family . . . It is clear that the medium has changed . . . Corporate America, granting exceptions, has not only largely given up its former admirable participation in the maintenance of society's general sanity but has joined those who would undermine it . . ." (2001, pp. 32-34, emphasis added).
For those who believe in character and high moral standards, some obvious questions come to mind: Where have we gone wrong? Why have we gone wrong? What, if anything, can be done about our self-initiated spiral into media-induced depravity?
What messages are those who spoon-feed us through the media presuming to tell us? What do they want us to think?
Today's mass media-radio, television, movies, audio and video recordings, books, magazines, newspapers, the Internet-shape our perception of reality. But how accurate is that perception? Is it true? Sometimes media moguls would like us to believe that our perception-a perception they carefully craft and provide- is reality.
But it's important for us to differentiate between viewpoints that arise from standards that are healthy for us and based on a moral foundation and those that are rooted in amoral thinking. As the Bible cautions us in Proverbs 4:23: "Be careful how you think; your life is shaped by your thoughts" (Today's English Version).

News slanted to tell you what to think

The New York Times , with the largest weekly circulation in the country, is the most influential newspaper in the United States if not the world. But more than just a newspaper it is also a news organization. It owns more than 20 regional newspapers and even network-television affiliate stations across the country. Each issue of the International Herald Tribune (the international newspaper published primarily for American travelers and expatriates) is published in conjunction with The New York Times and The Washington Post , including a selection of articles and editorials from both of those papers.
The Times 'reach, however, is far more vast and influential than even these facts would indicate. The New York Times Syndicate and its news service, which distribute the paper's opinion pieces and news articles, reaches more than 2,000 other media clients in 50 countries on five continents. No matter where you are in the world, glance through your local or regional newspaper and odds are you'll find articles, editorials and opinions generated by the staff of The New York Times.
That wouldn't be a problem if the Times -and other newspapers and news organizations, for that matter-did their job of simply reporting the news. The danger is when they selectively report the news or slant it to promote their social agenda (see "Why This Death Didn't Count," page 6).
Journalist William Proctor wrote an illuminating book titled The Gospel According to The New York Times. Mr. Proctor examines the profound effects the paper has on America and the world, playing a major role in shaping our thinking and values.
The New York Times, he writes, is a welldesigned belief system that touches every aspect of your life. "In effect, you are being exposed to a gospel, but one that is a far cry from the traditional good news of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Rather, this gospel is rooted in a kind of secular theology that purports to convey infallible social, moral, and political truth -a truth that the paper fervently promotes with all the zeal of the fieriest proselytizer" (2000, pp. 11-12, emphasis added).

Journalism to reshape

Mr. Proctor shows how the Times carefully communicates, as its slogan puts it, "all the news that's fit to print."What Times editors feel is right for Americans will wind up as stories on the front page. Yet they are careful not to be too overt in their secular religious fervor. For example, they might place a story on the front page and then support it in the op-ed (opinioneditorial) pages. This practice can repeat itself on alternate days.
There is also the problem of skewing stories to fit the editors' personal beliefs and agendas. Mr. Proctor continues: "It's reasonable to assume that a decidedly slanted or partisan report about a new pill that induces abortions, coupled with proabortion editorials and op-ed columns, represents a journalistic package designed to nudge the reader into changing social policy positions and personal beliefs" (p. 36).
Citing examples, his book documents many of the ways journalists slant their reporting to subtly change the way readers think. To be fair, the Times is not the only media outlet that tries to reshape our values and morals. Still, its influence reaches farther than most (see "The Media's Alternative Gospel," page 7).
Mr. Proctor quotes the Old Testament prophet Isaiah to indict modern media distortions: "Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil" (Isaiah 5:20).

Naturalism usurps morality

What is the basis for so much of the media's upside-down thinking? A pseudoscience known as naturalism forms part of it.
Phillip Johnson, author and law professor at the University of California, Berkeley, has written several revealing books on the uncritical acceptance of evolution in modern society, replacing creationism and belief in the Bible (among them Reason in the Balance: The Case Against Naturalism in Science, Law and Education, 1998, and The Wedge of Truth, 2000). As Dr. Johnson puts it, naturalism is a philosophy that substitutes unintelligent nature for an intelligent God.
His analysis of naturalism is straightforward: "This philosophy assumes that in the beginning were the fundamental particles that compose matter, energy and the impersonal laws of physics. To put it negatively, there was no personal God who created the cosmos and governs it as an act of free will. If God exists at all, he acts only through inviolable laws of nature and adds nothing to them.
"This philosophy controls academic work not only in science but in all fields, including law, literature and psychology. It is promulgated throughout the educational system and the mainstream media, and government backs it" ( The Wedge of Truth , pp. 13-14, emphasis added).
The media live by this no-God doctrine -if not deliberately, certainly by effect. This is one reason that science reporting in the mass media is overwhelmingly proevolution in its fundamental premises.
What happens when a society progressively abandons its belief in God? Can it self-destruct? The words of Abraham Lincoln in 1837, before his becoming American president, warn of the danger we have brought on ourselves: "If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide" (emphasis added).
Although astonishingly farsighted, even the reputable Abraham Lincoln likely could not have foreseen the enormous stakes behind the self-absorption, hedonism and self-destruction that are outgrowths of naturalism and the modern media.

Behind the scenes

Who-or what-is ultimately behind these circumstances and trends in our mass media? Who is trying to tell you-and your family-what to think?
The Bible reveals the reality of an enormously powerful presence hard at work behind the scenes trying to influence every man, woman and child on earth to a different way of thinking-a way of thinking built on a foundation of lies.
The apostle Paul calls this unseen force "the god of this age" (2 Corinthians 4:4). Other verses refer to him as "the dragon, that serpent of old, . . . the Devil and Satan" (Revelation 20:2).
The apostle John tells us how successful Satan the devil has been in his manipulative, deceptive work. He writes that "the whole world lies under the sway of the wicked one" and that this evil being "deceives the whole world" (1 John 5:19; Revelation 12:9, emphasis added throughout).
Of course, Satan doesn't present his ways as they really are-harmful and destructive. (This is spelled out in greater detail in our free booklets Why Does God Allow Suffering? and Is There Really a Devil? ) Instead, the devil "transforms himself into an angel [messenger] of light" (2 Corinthians 11:14).
In other words, Satan presents his ways as enlightened and wise when in truth they are the opposite. He cleverly appeals to our human nature, which is hostile to God (Romans 8:7) and, for the most part, concerned only with itself (Galatians 5:19).
In reality, Satan wants to permanently shipwreck the future God has planned for you. This is a fact. When you come to know the big picture of the spiritual forces at work on earth, such knowledge will sober you. Mankind stands in Satan's way. By virtue of the fact that we are alive, we threaten his position and power.
Satan was once an "anointed cherub," a kind of superangel serving at the very throne of God (Ezekiel 28:14). But he rebelled, and God cast him down to earth. When the devil realized he could not overthrow God and take over the universe, he became "Apollyon," meaning "the destroyer" (Revelation 9:11)-the enemy of God and all God's creation, especially humanity (1 Peter 5:8).
Since God will not allow Satan to destroy mankind directly (compare Job 1-2), Satan has concocted devious ways to influence us to destroy ourselves. He inspires men to lead nations into war, hoping to kill off thousands and millions. Short of war, but even more devastating, he has deceived humanity into substituting the false god of science as mankind's savior.
False religions, naturalism, the theory of evolution and related belief systems have kept humanity in darkness for centuries. Satan reasons that, if he can't kill mankind off wholesale, then he will work at keeping mankind deceived. Paul tells us the devil has successfully "blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel" (2 Corinthians 4:4, New International Version).
These are the big stakes in the battle our arch-adversary is desperate to win. He is determined to keep human beings confused, filled with harmful and distorted biases and separated from God, cut off from right knowledge.
Paul elsewhere calls Satan "the ruler of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work among those who are disobedient" (Ephesians 2:2, New Revised Standard Version). Writing many centuries before the advent of television and radio, Paul showed that the devil transmits what we might call a spiritual broadcast of moods and attitudes to which human minds are tuned.
Of course, as the god of this age, influencing human minds everywhere, he is also the ruler and manipulator at work behind the scenes in the world's electronic broadcasts and other media sources, using them to promote choices and behavior that are directly contrary to our Creator's instructions. But we are not helpless before the devil. With God's help, we can resist these negative spiritual forces (James 4:7).

Right media, right advertising

Because God created us, He knows what makes us tick, how we best learn and what is mentally healthful for us. The world's media outlets aren't inherently good or evil; they are simply means of communicating information. However, the way they are used, and the content they carry, can be helpful and positive, neutral or enormously destructive.
Paul said we should be aware of conditions around us (1 Thessalonians 5:1-8). However, before you accept an important headline or story as gospel truth, question it and reserve judgment-and maybe even take time to research it if it pertains to an issue that is important to you. Compare it with other sources and perspectives on the same subject.
With some digging you may find other media sources, such as better-researched newspaper and magazine articles, that can supply you with a more-accurate perspective on the story. Some Internet sources, such as NewsMax or the Media Research Center, often cover stories ignored by most media outlets and present alternative perspectives on many major stories and situations.
Major TV networks such as ABC, NBC, CBS and CNN, and major newspapers such as The New York Times , do present many stories that are unbiased. But, when it comes to stories that bear on moral values and ideology-and these are the most important stories-the major networks often present them with a liberal or ungodly spin that does not well serve their audiences. Fox News is currently the only conservativeleaning major television news network.
Of course, your best source for the unbiased truth as it relates to the world we live in is your Bible. It is the source that shapes the perspective of The Good News. This magazine's subtitle, A Magazine of Understanding, is there for good reason. Our primary purpose is to help you see major trends and events through the perspective of the Bible, helping you see them as God views them. It is our goal to make it the most biblically relevant and revealing publication on earth. But we encourage you to check the Bible references-to make sure we accurately present what God has to say.
Who is telling you what to think? It should be God's Word, not shortsighted and misguided human beings motivated by their social or moneymaking agendas. God alone possesses the wisdom we need to give us a clear perspective of what's going on around us in these dangerous times. Jesus, in praying to our heavenly Father, said, "Your word is truth" (John 17:17). He also says to us, "You shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free" (John 8:32).
More and more, modern media direct us away from the truth of God and toward Satan's widespread deceptions. What can you do? You can turn to God in prayer and ask Him to open your eyes to His truth, to set you free from the subtle darkness that envelops "this present evil age" (Galatians 1:4). God promises to answer those who sincerely set their hearts to find Him (Jeremiah 29:12-13).
You then need to allow God to instruct you-first through your own study of His Word, the Holy Bible. The publishers of The Good News offer biblically based media sources-such as this magazine, our Bible Study Course and booklets on many topics-to help you see and understand things from God's perspective. If you have a computer, we also urge you to become a regular follower of our Bible Reading Program on the Internet so you can learn even more by digging directly into God's Word.
With our individual cooperation, God can teach us what to think and do and how to avoid seduction by the dangerous messages of the modern mainstream media.
As you consider whether to accept the newspapers' or television news programs' gospel truth, or whether to view the violence and vulgarity on television and movie screens, or hear the seductive, suggestive lyrics of many songs, be sure to ask yourself who is telling you what to think- and whether you should listen. GN

Related Content

The Media's Alternative Gospel - (Article)

Good News Editor

The major media news organizations and outlets, says journalist William Proctor, have their own lists of rights and wrongs that they support or condemn through their editorials and reporting.

 

A Telling Profile of Media Professional - (Article)

Good News Editor

The entertainment establishment-writers, producers and stars of the movies, TV programs and music we consume-are overwhelmingly liberal in their political outlook.