Alt for Norge Killing Controversy
On episode four, the Alt for Norge reality series had a competition to catch and kill a chicken for dinner. The sequence was done in such a way that the actual clubbing and chopping off of the chicken’s head was not shown. However, this wasn’t good enough for animal rights activists who reported the tv channel to the police. Today on the front page of Norway’s biggest tabloid newspaper, VG, was a picture of an axe raising contestant of the show – the folk enthusiast, Kari Tauring.
In Norway it is against the law to hurt or kill an animal for competition or entertainment. However, this is a new law that came into effect on the 1st of January 2010. TVNorge was unaware of this new law and said that since the episode was shot last year in 2009, the show or contestants hadn’t broken the new law. (I wonder how the Norwegian deep sea fishing contests will fare this year with the new law.)
This controversy highlights a double standard in Norway when it comes to Norwegian and English-speaking TV. In the last week alone I have seen Jamie Oliver shoot an aligator in the head with a pistol after a teenage girl, Robson Green cut off the living head of an octupus and Han Solo slicing open a tauntaun. Even though the Norwegian TV stations didn’t make the shows they are still screening them with no peep out of activitists. The one thing I find hard to understand is how Norwegian TV can be strict when it comes to violence but not sex – for kids TV they are happy to show two young girls making out in Julia or men and/or women making out (or pretending to) on a music skit on children’s NRK Super.
Subscribe
RSS
Traditional Norwegian cuisine is based on natural resources.
Runes were the written language of the Vikings.
In the winter we rest.
Today herding reindeer is synonymous with the Sami culture. It is recently thought that the Vikings were the first people to herd reindeer.
I think we all think sex is Good, and natural and fun.
No need to Censor that.
____________________
from L-Jay:
Sex in the right context is ‘good, and natural and fun’ but sex aimed at kids is not.
Well this is typical of Norwegian double standards. Norway must appear to the rest of the world to be far ahead in everything from animal rights to the environment. Nothing could be father from the truth. The authorities can ban cruelty on Norwegian TV because most of Norway wouldn’t even notice, they are all watching really bad US TV, can’t get enough of those cheap reality productions.
The fact that you can still buy Whale meat in a Norwegian supermarket, a thing that most of the civilised world would be in shock at hearing, just proves they have little regard for the most intelligent of creatures. Sure they can protect children from seeing where their dinner really comes from leaving them to grow up thinking meat is produced in those nice little plastic trays. The truth is just too much reality for the Norwegian sensibilities.
I think a reality show based in a slaughter house is in order. Make people think a little they could do with a wake up call!
Diane
_____________________
from L-Jay:
I agree how Norway keeps up appearances (especially with equality) but I don’t know whether ‘intelligence’ should be a decider on whether a thing should be eaten or not. Pigs are extremely intelligent, however, nearly every culture eats them. I’m sure a lion doesn’t think if its food is intelligent or not before it eats it.
As mentioned in a comment below – whales are cows of the sea and the whales that are eaten in Norway are not endangered. In every country it is custom (and smart) to eat what the land and sea provides. (In the States they eat alligator.) The sea provided Norway with arctic animals to eat. It just so happens that today some of them are considered cute and intelligent. If they weren’t considered this I’m sure no one would care if they were eaten.
I was always puzzled by that conundrum of Norwegian entertainment as well. I recall, and this may be only hearsay or legend, that when The Little Mermaid was released in Norway the scene where the sea witch Ursula is killed at the end was edited out. Simultaneously there was supposed outrage that the little mermaid was wearing shells to cover-up a bit as the statue in Denmark has no shells.
The little bit of barneTV that I caught now and again while in a person’s home in Norway, I learned it was best to avert my eyes anytime a commercial for shampoo or soap came on, because there was certain to be some nudity.
I think that with both violence and sexuality, it is risky to portray anything inappropriate on TV because over time, we get programmed to think the same way. If you constantly see folks acting violent on TV, I believe your tendency toward violence may increase. Similarly, if promiscuous behavior is portrayed enough on TV, it will have the same effect – which in the long run can be damaging to committed relationships and families.
____________________
from L-Jay:
I think this is very true. But it is not only the violent that I don’t like but also the death and gore, even on the news. I know people die and I know that people suffer but I get angry when I watch the news and they have filmed people lying dead in the streets as I feel it is a lack of respect. Often it just erks me how people, even children can be running in the street who need help and the camera just keeps filming. I find myself yelling at the TV, ‘Put down the camera and help them!’ The graphic nature of the news these days is allowing horrifying images to be acceptable because of ‘context’. However, these images also desensitize people.
One of the things that is common to see on Norwegian TV is drug use. Reporters and documentarists often can’t find something to film (especially during the Summer season) and so a regular ‘tell all, show all’ program is produced about the drug epidemic in Oslo. Everyone knows it is a problem but explicitly filming a drug addict shooting up and getting high does no good for the viewer.
I think one of the major problems of TV in Norway is that most programs do not have ratings. Back home every show has a rating and states why: violence, drug use, course language, nudity, etc – which enables parents to make better choices and protect their children. They do have certain time slots for programs here – like 21.30 for most adult concept movies – however, what is the point of this if all the violence, drugs and nudity from the movie is put in the advertisement trailer and screened during the family shows?
I didn’t know that about the Little Mermaid. However, I’ve heard this myth that Finland banned Donald Duck because he didn’t wear pants…lol
I completely agree with Joel on his point about what you see enough times becomes ‘normal’. I’ve been away from Norway for so long now that I can barely remember these things.
As a Norwegian I am actually baffled the other way around regarding US censorship showing violence and heavily censoring any nudity.
While I am personally probably somewhat conservative in relation to the typical Norwegian I still feel that nudity is not a problem on television. I’m more concerned how the nudity is being displayed, and for what purpose. Porn would be one extreme end that falls far into the category of not being alright, at least not in any media where children have access.
My problem with outright censorship of any nudity is that it could connect the naked body with the feeling of shame, which creates a whole bunch of problems for those exposed to it.
Violence on the other hand I am much more worried about as I suspect it can cause children growing up to become more desensitized to it. Becoming “used” to violence as a child, even through only a media such as the television or even computer games is something I consider quite a problem.
—
As for the whole whale thing, I find it almost offensive to claim that eating whale meat is somehow uncivilized. I understand the perspective, and I have problems coming to grip with eating dogs or cats myself even though I realize there are cultures where this is the norm. I grew up on a farm so I’m no stranger to animals being used for food, and I am for as humane a treatment of animals as possible.
Still, if I can eat beef on a good conscious, then I have no problem eating whale meat. The same reason I’m not used to eating horse meat, but I would not have any problem with it.
____________________
from L-Jay:
Nudity on TV is a big issue for me mostly because it creates an unrealistic and unhealthy view of the human body. Most nudity is of ‘body beautifuls’ as it suggests what a body should be rather than what it is. This has brought about all the crazy ideas with dieting and surgery, and encourages eating disorders. Children grow up with an obscure sense of what their body should look like – hairless and skinny. If their body isn’t perfect like the bodies on TV then they feel shame and embarrassed. (I recently taught dance at an ungdomskole and some girls didn’t want to join in. They told me in a round-a-bout way that they were too embarrassed to sweat.) Unfortunately, all the bodies that are shown on TV that are ‘imperfect’ are people portrayed as either villains, druggos, bums, sex fanatics, dirty old men, people who had been caught in a practical joke or trailer-trash, or are about to have correctional surgery. The problem is is that nudity isn’t seen as important or as destructive as violence. However, even though nudity doesn’t physically harm people, the phycological effects can be just as brutal.
As for the whale eating thing – we have had this discussion before in another post.
I used to think that it was cruel to kill whales for blubber (I didn’t even think they were for eating…lol) but since living in Norway I have changed my mind. Whales are like cows of the sea. The whales that are eaten in Norway are not endangered and if they were Norway would be the first ones to stop whale fishing (as it wants to be a leader in animal rights etc). It seems that people think humans should only eat animals that are domesticated like cows and chickens. But fish is one of the biggest food sources of the world and they aren’t domesticated. In fact, I don’t think anything from the sea that is eaten is really domesticated. Some people think you shouldn’t eat animals of intelligence but pigs are one of the most intelligent creatures and I don’t see anyone wanting to ‘save the pigs’. In fact, pigs are also bred as organ donors for humans. Being so close to humans in DNA it almost seems like eating a pig is like eating yourself…lol. (Sorry for the visual 
) I don’t know how far removed whales are from human DNA but I’m sure it is further away than a pig (or a horse!) 
I think you bring up a very important point, and I agree with the sentiment regarding nudity. I am curious however if becoming more sensorship focused on nudity will help prevent this unhealthy focus on what is “good”, or if it will enforce it.
I agree that sadly a lot of nudity, especially in tv-shows and movies (and later on reality shows) tend to impress upon the viewers a sense of “this is ideally how you should look.”
On the other hand, medical show about breast cancer showing naked breasts during a mammogram (can’t spell this) to me is no problem, and most likely will reflect a reality rather than an unhealthy ideal about the human body.
But for me what you point out is not a problem caused by nudity in itself, but rather a problem that stems from a general view of the body from society through everything from modelling, beauty magazines etc.
I don’t know… I feel your argument might be circular: nude bodies are only shown in a context that will make people (“children”) feel that their own bodies are shameful – so stop showing off nude bodies on television, for shame!
I don’t really believe sexual activities (such as kissing if you want to include that) or nudity is shameful. It’s supposed to be something fun and joyous and shameless. And there’s nothing wrong with children knowing it exists – in my opinion there’s no need to pull a smokescreen over their eyes. I don’t believe the knowledge is harmful.
Nudity and sex =/= violence
I don’t think I can ever understand how someone can believe so. But that’s my opinion only, you are of course entitled to your own.
____________________
from L-Jay:
I understand your point, however, I think the issue is that nudity on TV discrminates against the real human body.
I’m sure people who don’t mind nudity on TV, even for children, would start minding if all they see is nude obese people with a hair problem. Even though ‘body-beautiful’ nudity might be ‘tasteful’ or serves a purpose to storytelling, the nudity on TV is not truthful. It creates an obscure view of the body. Young girls beat themselves up physically and emotionally to look like the girls on TV. Teenagers (and adults) are already so conscious of their body looking too ugly – saggy, fat, whimpy, stretched etc – seeing the ‘perfect’ naked body in the media all the time only makes an obscure national psyche. Gone are the days of the Renaissence where real women were portrayed and appreciated. Where are those women naked on tv? – on the plastic surgery programs, dead on CSI or in the butt end of a joke (the BI ad where peoples’ clothes come off when they are embarressed.)
I think nudity is tasteful in the right context but only if it is a realistic portrayal and doesn’t discriminate or create stereotypes.
________
Another point that I have just thought of in reguards to nudity on TV is the regret. Once your naked body is filmed and put on TV you can never take it back, even after you are dead. There have been countless people who have been naked on TV and years later regretted it. It is always something actors do at the beginning of their careers to get ahead but then they are shamed later in life. This is what has happened with Madonna (now a mother) and there is also a Norweian actress, Gøril Mauseth, who tries to sue anyone showing her footage of ‘having sex’ on a pile of dead fish. (And there are countless others.) At the moment in the media there is an argument of whether children should be shown on reality TV shows as it is thought it can be detrimental to them later in life (especially when it is concerning bad behaviour, abuse or disease). This is also a good argument for people who go nude on TV. Even though a viewer might enjoy or approve of watching an actors naked body on TV year after year, this can haunt the actors for the rest of their lives. It is like a bad tattoo on your forehead – it was a good idea at the time when you were drunk on a girlie night out but because you don’t own the rights to it it can never be removed and will be with you even til your grave.
Is it a little hypocritical if you don’t mind seeing nude bodies of other people on TV but you would never dream of doing it yourself? A peeping-tom syndrome.
Oh, I agree with you very very much that only showing stereotyped body images are bad and that realism is something to strive for. Any body type, from skinny to voluptous to muscular – male or female and anything inbetween – is okay and we shouldn’t accord people’s personalities to their bodies in such a way as is done in fiction (and often in real life), definitely not.
Would I mind it if all nudity on the telly was of people with more weight? Yes, I would. That would be just as bad as showing only thin people. A varied and healthy portrayal of bodies would be best, whether dressed or undressed.
I do not think most Renaissance art “portrayed and appreciated real women”. This is also a case of very stereotyped bodies – skin untouched by sun, hands and feet small and dainty, muscles never having been allowed a moment of free movement, and eyes and postures leaving them submissively open to the observer and so much more. I would also question why women with this one type of body are “real”, thus leaving women who are skinny – like me – unreal. To me this is not very realistic at all.
The word tasteful always seems off to me. Whose taste? How do they decide that some things are more tasteful than others?
Again, I couldn’t agree more with the argument that children shouldn’t be portrayed publicly in a harmful way – they have no way to consent to such portrayals. Adults need to be aware and careful of the authority they have to make decisions for their kids.
And I do believe there should be careful considerations of the consequences for adults going nude in a public media or at least that they should always be giving the opportunity for such consideration. However, in the end, these people are adults – not children as in the previous case. They have the right to make their own decisions and bear the brunt or reap the rewards for them afterwards. It’s not right for us to infantilise anyone else just because we believe they could (or should) regret their decision afterwards. If they were inebriated at the time, such as with the case of the tattoo, then they aren’t of a clear mind and can’t consent – that is a very different matter and media (and everyone else) should always be careful to respect that.
Do I think it’s hypocritical to defend the rights of others to make their own decisions even though I might not make those same decisions myself? Respectfully, ma’am, I really do not.
On critisism against Nudity:
If you go to watch hollywood movie like Kill Bill, V for Vendetta, Iron Man etc. You see that they have no problem showing someone getting killed bloody and brutal.
But Janes Jackson “accidently” showing her boob causes media hysteria? Somehow killing and beating are okay but breasts arent? My culture doesnt allow me to understand that chain of thought.
In my(and most other scandinavians) opinion there is no problem in showing violence on TV as long as it’s at a responsible time. And no problem showing nudity at any time of the day as long as it’s in a normal context. And those who react to a chicken beeing beheaded and eaten are maybe 0,005% of the population, they just make alot of noise…
Parents have to take responsibility themselves for what they allow their kids to see and do, and stop blaming others.
On body image:
When it comes to “the perfect body” issue this is something women themselves have created. All women magazines only show skinny women(best business model in the world? Let women pay for a magazine filled with commercials and product recommenedations that the advertisers also pays for) If you want to protect young girls from anything protect them from those magazines.
Men just likes to watch women, and have much lower expectations than the women themselves. And would much rather be with someone cozy and fat than skinny and boring.
De fleste av oss er nok enige med Joddski: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sB3GhOURMWo
On whale meat:
It’s good, try it.
I find both post and comments very interesting. It’s always exciting to find issues where Norway chooses its own path. Even if I agree with L-Jay that its important for kids to be comfortable with their own bodies. I do not think censorship is the way to go. I think fashion magazines and the like are a far bigger problem that TV. While the TV-channels are pretty much aware of their role in society some magazines are not.
The fact that Norway has some the lowest violent crime rates and the lowest murder rate in the world shows that these policies work. It is harder to measure possible negative effects of sex and nudity, but statistics such as eating disorder and teenage pregnancy might be useful indicators. I do not know much about eating disorders but I know most English-speaking countries have much higher teenage pregnancy rates.
On the other hand Norway has extremely strict drug laws and the highest number of drug related deaths in Europe. I think the strict laws sometimes are counter-productive as you end up alienating the very people you want to protect.
I’m quite disappointed in you. I noticed that no-one else commented on this but; why is it so bad for children to see a man kissing a man and a woman kissing a woman, but no problem if they see a woman and a man kissing? You wouldn’t mind your children watching cinderella and the prince watching but if it was the prince and the prince or the princess and the princess, you would be shocked? So you say that the “kysse sangen” video is bad for children of young age to see because Erik solbakken is kissing other guys?
Well, I believe that children should know of love between the same sex and find it acceptable! If they are taught this only when they have grown up with prejudice around them, then how will we evolve the world?
Sorry for rambling but I am really tired.
Sleep tight and think over what I just wrote and cast aside your prejudice and homophobic nature <3
p.s no. I'm not gay
____________________
from L-Jay:
I think you are jumping the gun (like most people who cry ‘homophobic’). Just because I said ‘man kissing man’ etc doesn’t mean that I think it is any more appropriate for a man and a woman to pash just for entertainment on children’s TV. You are only just picking out one little mention of something from a whole collective thought. The point is – what is the purpose of that kissing clip? To say that you should just go around kissing anyone and everyone for entertainment? People don’t do that in life – whether you are gay, straight, purple or green. (Not to mention that it is obvious that some of the males in the clip certainly did not want to be kissed by Erik Solbakken – shouldn’t have that grabbed your attention more as homophobic? What if they just thought he wasn’t their type
) I even find it a bit funky that Opsy Daisy and Hinkle Pinkle from Drømmehagen keep kissing each other. My two year old daughter the other day at a toy store grabbed the toy characters and made them make out on the shop floor…lol.
Plus there has been some controversy with Erik Solbakken saying (and writing) some really nasty swear words on children’s TV – do you have no problems with this too?
I actually think that affection should be taught by parents and not by a stranger on TV. However, TV takes this away from parents. Producers and directors are now the ones educating children in sex at extremely young ages. (And who is to say it is good education? The TV clip in question promotes kissing people without an emotional connection.) It would be silly to just say ‘well, don’t let your kids watch TV’ as then they won’t learn about other worlds than their own – and they too have a right to be (appropriately) entertained. I personally just want things like kissing to be taught to my two year old by me and Moose. She is too young for reasoning and therefore learns by watching and doing. I can’t monitor everything she watches on TV because programs throw in whatever they want and there is no censorship or ratings of shows in Norway so I can’t make an educated choice for my daughter. I want to be able to choose whether my daugter watches kissing, swearing, violence etc – she is only two and there are just some things I don’t want her to know about yet or I want to teach them to her in an approriate way.