The moral minority

If I have to hear one more time how perfectly moral this country has become, I'm going to scream.\nThat's quite a shock to common wisdom because most scholars, pundits, sociologists and other masters of public opinion clamor for a more moral America. \nAt first look, the country is becoming more morally sound. If not, at least those pundits claim the majority of Americans want it that way. Within the past few months, the moral guardians proudly have flaunted that 22 percent of Americans are so morally perfect that their primary reason for voting was for "values and morals." All of these factors show the moral direction in which America is moving. And these factors also highlight the moral gap between what we say and what we do.\nFirst, there's the talking point that's been repeated ad nauseam for the last three months: "22 percent of Americans are values voters." That seems like an impressive feat, especially in tough times like these. Impressive and, ultimately, misleading. The British magazine The Economist, which tracked the motivation of American voters, reported in its Nov. 11 issue that 22 percent is down from previous years. In 1996, 40 percent of Americans listed morals as their primary reason for voting; in 2000, 35 percent replied the same. The percentage of moral voters has been going down for the past eight years. It is only since these recent elections that moral values have become a priority on people's agendas.\nA vocal minority makes enough trouble to give the impression of a staunchly moral country. After the "Monday Night Football"/"Desperate Housewives" cross-promotional stunt on Nov. 22, The New York Times columnist Frank Rich researched the 50,000 complaints concerned viewers sent to the NFL. First off, none of the morally outraged viewers called ABC Monday or Tuesday night. Only two Philadelphia newspapers mentioned the incident, probably because they wanted to hype up the hometown Eagles. \nIt wasn't until Wednesday that the complaints came pouring in. The FCC was unable to determine how many complaints were duplicates because numerous "moral culture watch" Web sites often post e-mail responses. Since it's a standard form, it's quite possible that a very small percentage of people just constantly clicked "send" to overflow mailboxes with indignation.\nSimilarly, blogger Jeff Jarvis, of www.buzzmachine.com, used the Freedom of Information Act to investigate the FCC's fine against the canceled FOX show "Married by America." Of the original number of 159 complaints, there were actually only 90 complaints written by 23 people. Assuming the form letter was written by one person, there were only two other people who wrote original letters to the FCC.\nBut if the public is so upset about all this "filth" in our culture, why does it seem like more "filth" is produced each month? Television is a free-market system; if a product is unpopular, then eventually it will disappear. Despite what pundits and preachers say, people actually like what they're seeing. \nWhy is there this double standard? If people are really upset about what they see, then shouldn't they be upset enough to do away with it? Bad morals make good television. Outrage brings viewers. Value discussions fill up talk radio air time. Perhaps people care about media values because it's an easy discussion to get involved in. There's right and wrong. Complaining about moral decay distracts people from real, complex issues. Decrying a valueless America gives a higher profile to the morally bankrupt examples. Then the morally bankrupt get a wide audience. Finally, the popularity of morally bankrupt shows brings about more people decrying how bad our culture is. The cycle repeats itself.\nComplaining about what you call "morally deprived" only gives it free publicity. It's much more effective to turn off what you don't like rather than complaining about it.