or Connect
TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › MTV maintains it's pathetic standards...
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

MTV maintains it's pathetic standards...

post #1 of 17
Thread Starter 
This is absolutely disgusting!
I'm not a fan of MTV, or MTV music but this... is just absolutely disgusting! Reality TV has just gone too far!

MTV’s Road Rules Tortures Chicken for Ratings

On Monday, August 4, 2003, MTV’s 11th episode of Road Rules 12: South Pacific featured a grisly and disturbing act of cruelty to animals. Cast members were participating in a “challenge†that required them to spend two nights and three days “roughing it†outdoors near a cabin stocked with food. If they resisted the temptation to enter the cabin for provisions, they would win the challenge. Drinking water and a live chicken in a cage were provided to the cast as props.

Road Rules’ Web site states that on the second day of the challenge, one of the cast members named Chris “decides that he’s going to choke, er, kill the chicken … [to] provide the Roadies with some much-needed food and hopefully keep them alert and prevent them from getting irritable.†Despite the objections of one compassionate cast member who asked that the chicken be spared, two participants slaughtered the chicken. One held the frightened chicken down while the other used a knife—and then an axe—to behead the animal. Cast members then cooked and ate the chicken for dinner.

Animal abuse is not entertainment and there is no justification for the exploitation and killing of an animal in the Reality TV ratings wars. The torture and killing of this chicken was unnecessary and gratuitous. PETA has issued a letter to MTV officials, urging them to ban all acts of cruelty from their network.

MTV and its parent company, Viacom, need to know that their viewers will not tolerate animal abuse! Please politely voice your objections to MTV’s use of live animals:

Jonathan Murray and Mary Ellis Bunim, Executive Producers
Road Rules
c/o MTV
6007 Sepulveda Blvd.
Van Nuys, CA 91411
818-756-5140 (fax)

Mel Karmazin, CEO
1515 Broadway, 52nd Fl.
New York, NY 10036
212-846-1980 (fax)

Please copy all your correspondence to MTV:

Drew Tappon, Vice President of Current Programming
c/o MTV
2600 Colorado Ave.
Santa Monica, CA 90404
310-752-8801 (fax)
post #2 of 17
while I certainly don't condone cruelty to animals, I did see this episode of road rules, and the set up wasn't that much different than survivor, where a lot of times a luxury challenge reward is a live chicken or 2.

They were given the chicken to eat, if they chose to go that route. the episode didn't 'glorify' the killing of the chicken, if anything it made you think. So many of us pick up our chicken already killed and plucked and wrapped up neatly in the meat section of the grocery store, and we don't have to actually think about what went into the chicken getting to that point. It's messy, and it's disturbing, but the majority of people don't have to consider how the chicken ended up in saran wrap. the road rule kids had to do the dirty work if they wanted to eat, and ultimately their stomachs won out.

I personally didn't see it explotation.
post #3 of 17
Thread Starter 
I'm a vegetarian so, to me, this was quite disturbing
And i find it especially disturbing that it was on MTV.
It's unlikely that the millions of teens watching it were able to see the philosophical side of the killing, (though i'm sure some may have).

And i see your point airprincess, and it is a valid one, but i think if that really was the point MTV was really trying to make, and if they were trying to make it in good faith, there were a whole bunch of less cruel ways they could have illustrated it.

As far as I am concerned, willfully setting things up so that a chicken may or may not be killed, was out of line. It would have been a different story if they had to make their own bow and arrow an hunt for food, or if they had to make their own fishing line and go fish ... that would have been a lot more tasteful than deliberately planting a chicken to be killed ...

I don't watch reality TV. I find it jammed with uninteresting unworldly people -- which sometimes begs the question, Who's the culprit? the people who want to be in a reality tv, or the people who watch it? ... anyway, i have a feeling this thread is going to wind up in the I.M.O. forum, which might not be a bad idea
post #4 of 17
I agree that MTV didn't put the chicken there to spark any theological debate, I think they did it to challenge the contestants, to see if they got hungry enough to do the 'dirty work' of actually having to prepare their own food.

This has been done before, more notably on survivor. Almost every season they give one of the teams a couple chickens. And every time they end up eating them instead of using them for eggs. Since it's been done so many times, when road rules did it, it didn't really register with me. If anything, the entire challenge smacked of a mini-survivor challenge and made RR look like they were runningo out of ideas. And survivor is more widely watched here than RR, it's on a mainstream network during prime time. WAY more people saw the chickens end up as food on that show than RR.
post #5 of 17
I hate peta. Yes, they should not have shown a chicken be killed but most people eat chicken. I have been told my great grandmother used to kill chickens for dinner. Its not like they were killing it for the fun of it.
post #6 of 17
Remember that episode of Survivor where that idiot went hunting wild pigs with a spear? I believe he ended up eating more mud than the pigs! I heard that he actually speared a pig and they ended up having to shoot it, but they didn't show it on television (of course not)

I think the point is with PETA being involved, there is an agenda here.Reality shows are popular among the television viewing audience now. If PETA can create a furor like they are so adept at doing, then they gain the attention for their organization, net some profits and further advance their form of hysteria.

My husband a long time ago, worked in a chicken slaughter house. He saw intentional forms of torture on poor chickens in a place that was supposed to humanely destroy them. PETA once again has their priorties all wrong because in the long run, their agenda has nothing to do with protecting the animals. I had a PETA spokesperson get in my face a few years ago when my horse was at the University Vet Hospital. He told me that my horse would be 100% better if I took him home and turned him loose in the mountains! Oh ya, I can really see that as a feasible alternative! LOL
post #7 of 17
I've been a vegetarian for several years and not because I think eating animals is wrong, but because I don't agree with the commercial process. However I saw that episode of road rules and I didn't see anything wrong with it. How is it any different then showing someone eat a hamburger on t.v.? At least in this episode people are reminded that the meat on their plate comes from an animal that was once live. The cast members thought long and hard before deciding to eat the chicken. And I will admit, if I had gone without food for that long of a period of time and I saw a chicken I think I would eat it too. The death of the chicken isn't glorified, it showed how they had a hard time with this desicion because going to the store and buying a chicken all packaged up is much easier that slaughtering the chicken yourself. While I think PETA has done some great things I often think they choose the wrong battles.
post #8 of 17
my bf is a hunter.. I have seen him kill turkeys, deer, and squirrels, then skin and gut them, then eat them. I find it much less disturbing than how they kill animals that end up in the grocery store.
post #9 of 17
Ewwwww! Everyones Stories!

I love chicken!
post #10 of 17
The way that big commercial companies slaughter their animals, beef, pork and chicken and whatnot, is very disgusting and should be something that concerns PETA. Slaughtering it the way all our ancestors did and people in thirdworld countries and other countries or even farmers here in American, with a knife/ax/ is more natural to me than with an electric prod.

Luckily I don't have cable so I don't have to force myself to watch crap like that but then again it's seeping into regular cable so the best thing is to change the channel.

And I agree, sticking people in a situation to see what may happen or not happen I find pretty non-interesting considering that people in third-world countries actually live like those conditions that are 'set-up' for people who have nothing else to do but win money and be on t.v.
post #11 of 17
All I have to say is if you people don't like what is being shown on tv, why not turn it off and quit complaining?? It's TV .. what do you expect? Just because of what MTV showed, it doesnt make the channel "pathetic" It's the same concept of radio -- people complaining about Eminem's lyrics, etc ... Well, if you don't like it, turn it off.
post #12 of 17
Thread Starter 
I somehow just doubt that MTV had a philosophical/theological/ideological debate in mind when they came up with the chicken idea. It's great that we're all able to see it for what it could be, but I doubt that was what the producers had in mind.

And i'm not singling out MTV. I think that in general, shows like survivor and RR shouldn't have their participants killing animals on TV. If they want to make the point of how our food gets to us, then maybe they should have the contestants work in a poultry packaging factory, and handle vast amounts of dead meat in order to get a certain amount of money, or finish one level of a game. I quite frankly think that would have more impact.

It just isn't right to condone killing by airing it on TV. I think it is a bit different from eating a hamburger on TV.

One thing i didn't realise was how many people don't seem to like PETA. I'm not aware of any really bad things they've done. It's true that organisations like PETA and Greenpeace have their own agenda, which very probably is to get more publicity so that they can get more supporters and thus more financial backing to do what they say they do. But i find it very hard to believe that those funds are misused. And that they haven't at the end of the day done good.

And there are a lot of non-environmental causes, that are of absolutely no use to humanity, who employ the same tactics as PETA. I don't think it's fair to single PETA out for trying to be heard in a world that's getting really noisey...

But then i suppose it wasn't fair of me to single MTV out... I should have entitled this post: Reality TV shows like survivor, RR & MTV maintain their p******* standards...

The killing gets to me as a vegetarian. The killing doesn't get to me ethically though as hundreds of people in small villages in africa kill chickens all the time right? and you can't complain about that. What gets me ethically is the bad ethics that a lot of TV shows use these days to get ratings. And i just think that MTV is an exapmle of bad ethics where programming is concerned.

Enuff said.
post #13 of 17
I can't stand MTV anyway. The thing that really gets my goat is VH1 and how they do music videos with death row inmates and show them. How that must be for the families of their victims!
post #14 of 17
I agree with that mzjazz, I definitely feel bad seeing a rapist or a murderer live on t.v., singing.

Tigger, some of us complaining don't watch these shows, I don't have cable but am aware of what's airing and I'm all for changing the channel or not listening to a song. Considering that I'm paying for it so that I can get DSL service, I think the producers owe it to us customers/consumers to give us good quality shows, whether we watch it or not. I rather hear a real talent in singing, not how naked one can get without being rated X. This 'media' is messing up our kids, the rise for belemia/anorexia should be blamed for what producers show on t.v., the sensationalism of being skinny with fake boobs, fake hair, fake lips, whatnot. Now that I'm a mother, how much more degrading will the media get by the time my son comprehends it? To some people, showing stuff like slaughtering an animal is offensive, just as shows that shows a woman or a man set up with 15 individuals fornicating with however many and then deciding on one to marry. What happened to good quality shows?

PETA has good intent on some stuff, sometimes though they get overzealous. And there aren't 'alot' of people here hating on them, just a few not in agreeance with some of their tatics.

Some vegetarians I have as friends don't like to eat fish because of the whole concept of 'killing' something living. I have a married couple, the wife doesn't eat fish or milk, etc., but her husband eats fish, milk, cheese. Must make for interesing meal times conversation?
post #15 of 17
Thread Starter 
You know i often say they don't make movies/tv like they used to...
remember i love lucy?
now that was good tv...
it was funny, it was decent...
remember all those old movies, made in a time when you HAD to have a good story because there were no special effects....
those were the days... and this is odd coming from me because i'm only 24...almost 25, and i'm supposed to like the newer movies but i don't...

i'll watch an old movie over X-men anyday!

but that's just me...
post #16 of 17
i think that M.T.V. is disugting, most of the stuff on is awlful, just like the music awards, maddonna and spears kissing yuk! i mean whats that all about. i dont think any program should be allowed to let animal cruelty go on, and if one does i wont be watching it thahs for sure!!
post #17 of 17
Thread Starter 
ha ha... thanks for moving this thread... i was beginning to regret posting it in the cat lounge...

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: IMO: In My Opinion
TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › MTV maintains it's pathetic standards...