I want to start by saying that. You know essentially my sense is that the same people are raising our kids is always have which is to say that we are you know, I think that you know, there's there's a description perhaps in the in the program, which maybe I ought to read so we can have a little context here. It says the title of this is who is raising our kids families and media in the age of MTV. It says in the not-too-distant past children grew up in homes where parents told most of the stories today television movies and pop music do it for us. Is that influence negative? If so, what should we do about it? Now as far as where the stories in our culture come from, I mean, I think that you know, even when you know, the family was probably much more of a focus of things than it may be today still, you know, even family stories and family mythology cheese. Have social roots and a current in the context of a larger culture families, like everything else don't exist in a vacuum. I think the kind of stories that make sense to people the kind of stories that make sense to children are stories that they have a kind of frame for understanding stories that in some way correspond to the reality that they encounter around them and to the kind of understanding that they've been given about that reality. I think we should keep in mind, you know, when we use a phrase like the age of MTV and you know for a variety of reasons, you know, that maybe we can talk about later. I mean, I think MTV is For Better or Worse kind of central to where we are right now. I mean when I'm in a situation if I've been traveling or away or simply working and not able to pay attention if I want to sort of hit on where mass culture is right this second, you know, an hour of MTV will provide a kind of interesting set of information not necessarily for what's on its surface. But you know, I think you know, it requires kind of interpretation, but but MTV's definitely tapping something so it's not like I'm necessarily opposing the notion that you know for the sake of this discussion. We're calling it the age of MTV but MTV really delivers a wide variety of messages as does popular music, which is you know the area that I'm most familiar with and we'll be we'll be talking about primarily during this initial presentation. I think the real question however among those messages is which questions and which messages get picked up and why and even more significantly which messages get targeted and why I mean popular music has been, you know, a target for social critics, you know, really going back into the 50s and even before and a lot of the discussion a lot of the complaints about, you know, the content of this music, you know are things that really anyone who's been paying attention has certainly heard before When you're one of the examples I'd like to talk about this morning is of course the you know iced tea song cop killer which was you know, quite caused quite a future or last year, you know, not a rap song incidentally a song that he recorded with his thrash metal band body count now cop killer describes, you know a confrontation, you know with the police and as you may know the theme of police violence and police harassment has been an important element in rap music from the early 80s. This is something that in terms of this point about what people respond to rappers are not putting this kind of information in their songs because they're making it up and they think it's dramatic. They're responding to a situation that exists in their communities, you know, one of the very first rap songs to introduce wrap again is party music. It was really the soundtrack to you know, social get-togethers and you know in the South Bronx and when it began to take on social themes interestingly as those themes moved out of the mainstream news media rap musicians began taking them on and I really don't think it's an accident that that rap began getting increasingly militant, you know during the reagan-bush years, but The first rap song virtually that began taking on this kind of you know, social content was a song called The Message by Grandmaster Flash and the furious five. It's still extremely compelling and it ends with an assault by the police and it was a steady theme that no one ever really cared that much about that is to say he wasn't paying a you know attention to it. There was a in in the late 80s KRS one a rapper, you know from New York did a song called who protects us from you about the police. Now the situation with cop killer was exploited by right-wing police organizations and generated a public boycott, you know, put enormous pressure on Time Warner who of course back down and you know, essentially Ice-T was you know voluntarily in quotes, you know left his label. Now, I mean, I would hesitate to I mean I would hasten to add as an aside in that is that you know, black police organizations supported iced tea, you know, they are aware I think of you know, you know, the incredibly racist elements that you know exists within many police forces, and certainly I mean just right now in New York, there's a situation that exists in which the police department is being investigated for not only protecting drug dealers in Black communities, but you know seizing drugs themselves, which they then would either use or sell that's not an isolated incident either. You know, there was in the 77th Precinct in Brooklyn just a few years ago. There was a very similar Scandal and of course any of you who are familiar with the movie Serpico know that you know back, you know now more than 20 years ago. There was a similar Scandal so If your dramatizing a situation as far as violence against the police, you know, well that's occurring in a context and it's occurring in the context of a kind of harassment. That's not taking place in songs, but that in fact it's taking place in the real world and that the idea that it's the songs that are undermining the authority of the police or established authorities in these communities is just simply a translation into an aesthetic context of a social problem. You know, the rappers would not be putting those ideas into their songs unless there was a way for the people who were listening to that music to understand what they were talking about if the police were just totally as law-abiding and as interested in the welfare of the community as we would all like them to be, you know, people would you know, those things just wouldn't have the kind of resonance that they do, you know, you you put out the Suggest that connect with people and that they can identify as true. Now. I Ste song was recorded before the Rodney King beating and before the kind of Investigation that's going on now and still, you know, it became a focus. Now. How does the media how does the media response to this kind of thing? Well, as a result of this ongoing investigation of the police in New York, you know, you're not likely to see a page one story in the New York Times along the lines of the one that they did about rap music just about a month or so ago talking about negative messages about violence and rap music and and actually, you know, also discussing. I mean think the very serious issues of you know, anti-women images or anti-gay images that occur in this music. That's a page one Sunday story in the New York Times. Somehow I don't expect to see that story as well. Gee the rappers were kind of right, you know as we look at this as we look at this Scandal of what's going on in the police community and with these police precincts and Brooklyn and there, you know, just horrible cooperation is it would be the kindest way to put it with you know, the most damaging elements of those communities, you know, I don't expect to see that story that says well, I guess really there was an issue here and there really was something and in fact this music is, you know, the only way that you know people were you know, we're dealing with this. I mean the fact of the matter is is that rap music and rock and roll in the 1980s, you know became important conveyors of social and political information and they continue to be you know, the standard news media, you know, the classic, you know the central Any of the news media during the 80s is called on bended knee and it's about the news media is response to the Reagan Administration where you know, the fact of the matter is if you wanted to know how the underclass was faring under Reaganomics, you wouldn't find out from the news programs. They were too busy with sound bites and photo ops, you know, you'd find out from the songs of Bruce Springsteen and similarly. If you wanted to gauge the mood of the black community, you couldn't get it from the newspapers. You needed to listen to Public Enemy, you know, those grounds were kind of seated to popular culture by the failure of the mainstream news organizations to carry those messages. So and interestingly, I mean that's I think that we saw the the kind of full development of that during the campaign. We're finally, you know, you're encountering presidential candidates on MTV or on Larry King. Now there are problems with that as well. But there's a reason why people don't trust, you know, the mainstream media organizations that are supposed to be conveying all of this information, you know that there's a sense in which You know, that's an ongoing kind of relationship that's not going to tell very much new to people who want messages outside the realm of what you know, either governmental authorities or you know officials want them to hear. So those are among the kinds of messages that people are getting from MTV and from popular culture. You know MTV of course was very active in registering people to vote during the last during the last campaign and there's a great many kind of of issues concerning the environment and certainly concerning, you know, sexual education using condoms. These kind of things that are part of what the programming on MTV is about part of what you know pop stars and other you know, pop culture figures speak about in interviews part of the debate that goes on in magazines like Rolling Stone and Vibe and spin and musician and other magazines that cover this culture. um, so consequently, I mean, I think that if people are concerned about the values that their children are absorbing they have to pay attention to the full variety of the messages that this culture like any aspect of our culture since out, you know, you wouldn't necessarily You know want a child of a certain age to read Jean Janae, you know, those kind of certain kinds of literature certain kinds of movies certain kinds of music require the kind of perspective that you know, an informed adult can provide but it's not as if the exclusive messages of that culture are either negative or deleterious, you know to our social fabric. I mean, that's simply not the case so consequently, I would say that If people are concerned again about the kinds of values that their children are getting from popular culture or anywhere, they really need to provide the frame in which those things can be understood by their children. No one you mean you can unless you you know, put your kid in a Skinner box or something. No one can protect children from violence certain kinds of sexual messages and all the other kind of complicated issues that surround us in society, you know, even if you unplug your television forever, you know, those things are there and they exist the ability of children to deal with them depends on the kinds of ideas and perspective that their families, you know instill in them at the very start consequently. I think that in order to, you know, create a better Society for all of us for children and adults, you know, I think it's important to stop. Demonizing the bearers of bad Tidings and to begin addressing real problems in the real world not the confrontations with the police in an iced tea song but the problems with the police in the neighborhood in New York, not the characterization of you know, government malfeasance in a Bruce Springsteen song, but the problems about you know entire communities that are being ignored by our government and I think that once we square a way that kind of focus and focus on the things that really affect how we live, you know, the other issues about popular culture will come into perspective. We want have this situation where you know, we're holding up. Issues in movies and songs as you know, somehow essential reality a causative factors in you know problems that we're facing problems that our children are facing, you know, I think we'll look those things squarely as they exist in our society and try to solve them there. Thank you. I hope it won't. See my digression if I talk a little bit about the family. I have to admit I was rather enchanted with Anthony's description of what pop culture and television because I really never thought of popular culture doing the work of Mother Teresa, but began to sound that way for a while. Then I was very taken with. The line he quoted from the brochure about a time when parents told most of the stories in the family. Well, I grew up in a family in which the parents told a lot of stories. My parents came as immigrants from Russia. when they were still in their teens and they were Jewish and people in Russia in those days fled for their lives if they were Jewish and this is before the Communist before the Russian Revolution, which of course made it much worse. And so I grew up in a family in which everyone was made to feel very really acutely conscious that you lived in a world in which people want to kill you. So this notion that somehow the and kind of endangered lives that we live today is something new is of course a myth. and the idea that poverty is something new perhaps even created by Ronald Reagan is of course something that people of my generation don't believe because we grew up in the depression. When what we now call the poverty level term that was never used in those days was something we all lived below and got along remarkably. Well actually And amazingly there was much less divorce much less a legitimacy virtually. No drugs to speak of blessedly. No television. They're wonderful movies that had rather cheerful and upbeat liberal messages to dispense. Even the gangster movies always had a nice tidy liberal our conclusion. It was a kind of benevolent narcotic I suppose but it was innocent of the kinds of really disgusting violence Mayhem sexual decadence. That is now our standard fare. I think in any discussion of the family today. We have to begin by recognizing. That our society has become a very decadent and immoralist Society. A lot of Pious talk is rendered to the family as the pivotal institution providing stability security moral Vitality to society but in practice we know long live our lives that way. For the most part if you look at the statistics on divorce on a legitimacy on sexual abuse on the abandonment of children. The conclusion is unmistakable that in practice though not in principle. The American family has become something like a disposable convenience. It's not that people don't still get married at a great rate. They do it over and over again. They do it all the time. It's like you know that what we say about giving up smoking. Oh, it's easy. I do it every week and that's the way people tend to get married now. The family is really in deep trouble. There are a lot of Institutions that dispense a lot of blather about the importance of the family here at in the media from time to time when they're not trashing the family you hear it in the schools. And the church is you hear from politicians, especially from politicians even while they're proposing legislation that is detrimental to family life, but it's mostly empty pieties. We now marry and divorce at absolutely record-breaking rates. We have children often without getting married at record-breaking rates. We are afflicted by sexually transmitted diseases at record-breaking rates. Diseases that are all traceable to decisions very personal decisions that people have made about their own lives very often in full with full understanding of what they're doing. It was actually quite an interesting item in USA Today about a new study that shows that young couples who live together for a protracted period before marriage tend after marriage to have the highest divorce rates. And that from just anecdotal evidence among many people I know has tended to be the case for some time. Say since the 60s when this be became sort of a la mode in fact it often seems as if people live together have to get married in order to get divorced because there's no way they other way they can leave each other. I think there's no going back to the past of course, but I think we if we're going to talk about the family the almost. The first thing that has to be recognized is that the sexual revolution has shattered the American Family isn't as a social institution. Whether it can be put back together again is another question but one of the things that has to be faced and the media plays a role in this one of the things that has to be faced is that is that it is one of the essential basic Central characteristics of successful family life that it places a limit. It places some very distinct and specific restrictions on the personal freedom on the options as we say of every member of that family. And that's this true of the parents as it is of the children, but it's true of the children. In families that as we say work that is our successful as families. Everyone has to give up something. It costs something to be a member of the family. It costs in Freedom. It costs and money. It costs in time. It costs in the kind of attention. You have to pay to the the people you live most closely to it costs a great deal in terms of patients. And I'm not even going to talk about happy families because it's one of the paradoxes of family life. That successful families aren't necessarily always. Do not always necessarily appear to be the happiest families. There are certain kinds of discipline that is imposed on family life when particularly when one is Young that make one very unhappy after all you don't have your own way. But at a certain later point in life, you suddenly become aware that those restrictions gave you an anchor a moral anchor in your personal outlook on the world that cannot be acquired any other way can't be acquired from the media certainly, which is its enemy. Because it's the function of the media to make you decide this fide with what you have and who you are. It's the function of the media to whet your appetite and I mean every appetite whether it's for sneakers offer sex. And to encourage the fullest possible realization of your dreams fantasies and appetites and that necessarily comes into conflict with the kind of moral order that a successful a functioning Family Life requires. It seems to me unmistakable that the media. And I'm not even talking about the most violent part of it. That is so unspeakable that it it seems to me that the debate should be limited to how to deal with it whether or not it should be dealt with but I but but even the non violent aspects of say television. and many films Place themselves in direct opposition to what? I'm afraid we can no longer call family values because the term has been so politicized. It's been emptied of all meaning except to those people who felt that they were lucky enough to come into possession of them at an early age. The media really plays the devil's role in family life. by encouraging this existential did dissatisfaction this kind of undefined the satisfaction this totally commercialized sense of Glamour. That is your induced feel is somehow out there in the world and you want to attach yourself to it. Whether it's by selecting a certain kind of running shoe a certain kind of lipstick a certain kind of t-shirt or certain kind of condom. It's the function of the media to commercialize and sensationalize the exercise of those appetites that we all have and not only the programming on television but even the commercials are especially the commercials which are very detrimental to family life. We now have a whole television advertising culture whether it's commercials for breakfast cereal or for life insurance in which the husband is depicted as good-looking sexy, but stupid and the wife is depicted as beautiful wise Dependable about all the basic decisions of life. Well, you don't have to go to business school to understand that the reason for that is that in the American Family the women tend to make more of the decisions about breakfast food and insurance than their husbands do if they have husbands. And so from the point of view of the advertisers, the decision is perfectly cynical. They want to get the most for their buck. But the depiction of family life where virtually the entire male sex if married is depicted as stupid helpless and anything perhaps except in bed. I think has a very deleterious effect on on family and indeed on society. Generally, of course, it's open season on the male sex in in certain parts of the advertising World. Advertising is very PC. Women have to be shown as being not only as capable of men but more so that we call that equality. And the effects are really stupendous. And not helpful about family life, which let's face. It has become a catastrophe. It is one of the basic functions of the media. To make us dumb and to keep us down. When I was in Maine where I go in the summer the this past summer there was a report published about a study made of children in the state of Maine and they found that those who achieve the best reading scores were children who looked at television only 3 hours per day. Those who failed reading scores were in the habit of looking at television between 7 and 8 hours a day. I mean it's rather horrifying and particularly when you think of what scores those children the the good I mean the achieving children might have accomplished if they hadn't spent three hours a day looking at television. I mean it is possible takes a great effort takes great. Will Savvy sympathy and firmness to bring up children without allowing them talk to television now Anthony's right. They're going to pick up all those messages in the street. But that's the point they belong in the street. They don't belong in the home. they are Street messages and in a really functioning family a great distinction is made between the folklore of the street and the and the and the moral imperatives that govern family life. It's that breakdown between the morals of the street and the morals of the family that has now is now the source of so many of our problems. I don't think we're going to solve the problem of the deleterious influence of the media on the family as an institution by means of censorship. It's against the whole grain of American social and political life, and I don't have the solution to how to exorcise Eyes this monster in our midst who holds us totally enthrall but sooner or later if the family not to mention other things in American life, but if the family is going to survive and prosper as the foundation of our Democratic Society the moral problem the social problem represented by the media in general, but television in particular will have to be addressed. Thank you very much. Rather than addressing the problems of a sexually racially and economically violent Culture by means of regulation of content guidelines for viewers listeners and readers even within the family wouldn't it make more sense to Simply rectify the production end of culture that is to offer equal access to means of cultural production to those who have been violated and excluded on account of their sex their race or their economic disadvantage so that a true diversity of competing and conversing ideas and Visions is offered. In other words shouldn't the media become a public sidewalk and not a closed boardroom and why not have non-commercial media Well, it seems to me that's what we already have. I mean television is full of the celebration of victimhood. It's on Commercial programs. It's all on PBS. I mean PBS is absolutely swarming with it. So, I mean you're what you're what you're advocating is the status quo. I don't think I mean it's at least from my viewing of Television some of the sexually exploitive images of women on MTV and nurses and so forth and so on and the absence of people who are poor from most television programming is well, you see it. Are you suggesting that instead of the network tell a network television should bring on poor people to complain about how they're depicted or to tell the stories of their lives or well to have more access. I guess starting at the level of education and bringing it up with people producing and directing more women directors lot like Sylvia Sylvia television used to be and I'm wondering if Then we can have no television then if it's commercial because seem to be posed to commercial television and you seem to I'm even more opposed to PBS. I mean because PBS is so PC that you mean by PC. You haven't heard of political correct? Oh, I know. I went through definition. Well, there are certain ways that so-called minority groups. I don't consider women of minority but and statistically they're not of course, but women and racial and ethnic groups and so on. I mean, they totally dominate that PBS in my area. You you get and there's no there's no. Program that espouses any other position? No, there's still there's still I mean, I'm PBS, you know, whenever there's an expert called, you know, it's always the person that you expect to see, you know, the standard kind of, you know, official government person, you know, in fact, I mean there are certain aspects me why PBS I think comes gets targeted so often is because they have introduced some of this stuff they'll actually show a show about gay people or something. We're as you know in point of fact though the 24-hour programming there's tremendous amounts of business news on you know on PBS. Yes. Oh, no, it isn't it isn't at all. I mean it, you know, I mean, even if you listen to, you know national public radio or something you listen to all Marketplace, it's all antique business. It's all telling you how these big businesses are really making too much money at our expense. I mean, I hear that program all the time. Yeah, but I mean I think because that's an element of the programming and it's not something that is Divided out, you know so that you know, if you're reading the newspaper and you read the business Pages, you know, it's essentially lauding business, but then you know, you read about the environmental disaster caused on business on page one newspapers anymore either. I mean New York Times business section is always, you know on on the alert for men malfeasance in the corporation's Wall Street and so on I don't think you read those pages as carefully as I do you have times that have enough times business that has to be absolutely shocked out of his boots. If anybody told him that he you know, his section paper is devoted to celebrating American Business. I mean my God, it was his job. Well, you know, but you've been documenting this in a newspaper that is to say the New York Post mean Hilton is begin writing has begun writing a column called times watch and the post repeating which articulates a lot of the criticisms. He's just been making of the times, you know in a newspaper that makes its money, you know if there were no Amy Fisher Is there Joey buttafuoco's no one would buy the New York Post? You know, it's like yeah, but that did that Amy Fisher was on the front page of the second section of the New York Times. There was like a 500-word news story about the decision in that trial. I mean, yeah, but they were pictures of her and of him and the whole thing. No, the New York Times is heading in that direction. That's the point and by the way my criticism of the times in the New York Post was virtually identical in one respect talking about the way the post was covering mayor Dinkins and the mayoralty election year. It was virtually identical with an article in The Daily News by Jim sleeper who's leftist? I just criticize the New York Times 20 minutes ago. So I mean I'm not you know, I'm not you know, but nonetheless, I think it's true that there is a political culture on PBS. There is a political culture on a national public radio. For example, you can't really you're not really allowed to talk very much about high art on National Public Radio the Arts coverage of national public radio, you know, there's a lot about basket Weaver's in Appalachia and about, you know, some new folk singers or some new rap group the latest movies, but you know, if there's an important art exhibition you can just about forget it. That's a culture that's cultural decision with the importance of making such a distinction dichotomous kind of arrangement between High culture and popular culture. Well because High culture is being left out because it's considered elitist. It sounds like you're saying you're taking the position that's happening at the New York Times out to me that there should be certain messages on the media that simply are not there you're taking the position that the media are reflecting the current themes that are relevant throughout our culture right now. Is there any I mean, I would say I mean, I have a very different reading I mean it certainly, you know, since the New York Times audience, you know consists almost exclusively of people who have a tremendous interest in the business community in New York. I mean, I think that they would be shocked to know that all of those people were being portrayed in that way. You should talk to business people about it. as far as and it's firstly like I mean, I think that that what you're responding to is the fact that you know on National Public Radio, which does you know, just tremendous amounts of programming of classical music and other things. I mean if that would fit anybody's definition of high art some of which are done right here in st. Paul, you know that that because they actually have finally expanded slightly to include, you know, you know an occasional piece on you know, pop music or something like this. I mean that's you know, I mean, that's what you're responding to but in point of fact, you know, the amount of stuff that typically they covers the stuff that they've always covered which is very traditional quote-unquote High art. Well, it's a fact that most of the major symphony orchestras in this country who for decades had regular radio thoughts re broadcasting their concerts in New York Philharmonic the Boston Symphony, so And so on 90% of those and now off the air. But also 90% of you know shows that had you know, Tin Pan Alley Style songs are off the air, you know, I mean, this is yeah, you know, what's coming down? Well, no, this is you know, you live in a culture that makes it impossible. I mean the only way to get that stuff on there if there's an audience for it is for the exactly the kind of support for the Arts that you're probably opposed to. Yeah well, but there's a way there's a way of creating There's a way of creating audiences to know there is a general dumbing down and television and radio and even in the New York Times this vastly more space now given the New York Times to rock music and to pop culture. Then there is the classical music or say the art shown in museums and galleries certainly not anything that reflects the size of the audience for those things. I mean, I think it's a very stupid policy of the times because people want to hear where you know, people are really into a rock music and rap music. I'm going to buy the New York Times to read about it. I'm deed even assuming for the moment that they read that The there is a general dumbing down of the media and that's a reflection of the of the bismal failure of our educational system. I mean wasn't kids graduate from high school now, they're barely they'll be able to utter it. So, how are they going to be able to read a newspaper Hilton? I mean, this is so much just a reflection. I mean of your taste, I mean like Jon pareles of the New York Times is no dumber than Edward Rothstein, you know, John is very bright guy, you know, I hate the things that he promises a very bright guy, but he dumbs down to I mean, I mean you you may hate the things that he likes but you know, generally speaking. All right. What criteria would you apply to make the distinction between what is dumb versus what is high culture? What are you using to make that distinction? well the amount of Intellectual application that is required to understand something. The educational background that one has in order don't plans like that don't translate that. I'm talking about judging cultural expression by the intellectual effort that has to be applied to experiencing it. How do you measure that as a teacher you're asking me that question is a very good question. Youkai. You don't know the difference. I would think that it takes a great amount of intellectual effort to critique one's culture. That one is swimming in about critiquing it. I'm talking about understanding it. From listening to to your discussion of iced tea and rap. I would assume that there would take a certain amount of intellectual Endeavor to really understand what's going on in those songs. Would that not fulfill the criteria in the air? Well, I mean if we're I mean I first of all I mean I don't necessarily accept the Criterion of complexity but those songs are I mean, I think that's one Criterion that can be applied to what you know, some some things you like because they're complex and some things that you like because you know, they're immediately apprehensible for you know in ways that excite you or bring you pleasure or you know make you think and and and I think even within you know, the quote unquote High our tradition, you know a little lyric poem by Wordsworth can bring you as much pleasure. As you know, Finnegan's wake, you know, Finnegan's wake is enormously complicated much more pleasure than pain. It's way right but I mean but you know it, you know, those those are very different experiences. I think for readers and and similarly. I mean what what sounds like I mean the standard critique the message Iced Teas message was really instantly communicable. I mean, you don't tell me that you know that you know that they required some protracted intellectual analysis to get Iced Teas message. I mean, come on that mean that's but if taking I mean the lyrics are not the only the lyrics are not the only message, I mean, you know what I think about the music is even more instantly communicable, but it's not maybe instantly easy to create. You know, I'm not talking about I'm not talking about the creation and I'm talking about the response and I think that as Henry Louis Gates pointed out at the trial that in fact white middle-class America didn't understand. and the music they were listening to well that but that's what I know. He said that but I don't believe it. I think it was understood and I think its success was really a dependent upon that its ability to instantly communicate a certain kind of poisonous social message. Well moving it back to social messages. I'm wondering for both of you rather quickly can commercial media transmit what Cornel West refers to as non Market values. We live in a certain culture. You know, I mean, this is the economic system that we have. I mean, I think it's and you know, I think anybody who visited, you know, the Soviet Union or Eastern Europe, you know, I mean in the days of you know, sort of Iron Curtain style communism, I mean has to be pleased in certain ways about about the culture that we live in but yeah, how do you you know, how do you regulate? How do you control? How do you communicate the messages? I mean the one thing that I mean or one of the things I think that our society gives us is the opportunity to have a variety of forms in which we can speak out and I think that you know, if you have the values that I do or you have the values that that Hilton does, you know, that that's part of what that process is about, you know, and you just get your message on the table get that as part of the discussion, you know, not every there's a lot of a variety of ways. Live your life in this culture not everybody has to watch TV seven hours a day or like classical music or you know that those are issues that we sort out in public forums, you know, so that's you know, that it seems to me is how those messages get conveyed you put out the idea that that that you want to and then that affects the way people encounter the commercial culture that they that they're confronted with. Well, I don't have myself any Illusions about the failures of free market system about I fact I spent a lot of my professional life criticizing exactly that But I feel and I think it's probably after you probably agree with it that I feel about capitalism the way, you know, Winston Churchill felt about democracy. I mean, he said democracy was the worst possible system for governing Society except for all the others and I feel that way about capitalism sure. It has many downsides and the commercialization of absolutely everything on television is one of them and I was careful to say I did not have the solution to that problem, but it is certainly You know there really a now on no other choices. Unfortunately, we're out of time. I think it's very clear. We have a set of discussions here where there is not a consensus opinion many many thanks to our guests and many thanks to our moderators. Thank you very much.