Exactly my point. I mean, "adult themes"--what the hell is that? Term life insurance? Mortgage deductions? Irritable bowel syndrome?
Let's press ahead: One of our favorite correspondents, Doctor Beyond, writes:
I watched two animated shows on Fox last night the Simpsons and Family Guy.
Before the Simpsons, there was a warning that the episode dealt with gay marriage. Parental discrection was advised. Before the Family Guy, there was a warning that there was animated nudity (turns out two of the characters disrobe and those who dared look noticed they were built like a Ken doll). Parental discretion was advised.
There is something fundamentally wrong here. I suppose I'm a tad more upset with the Simpsons since I'm wondering how many other political messages that get thrown around in the Simpsons will need disclaimers. I also wonder why such disclaimers are not used on News Corps' other media outlet Fox News.
[For the record, the Doctor was watching these "Simpsons" and "Family Guy" episodes.]
By way of background to the problem: I've never felt that "parental discretion" warnings were a very good idea, nor do I think they're generally effective.
Maybe a viewer of "Family Guy" could have missed the first three seasons (and its endless recycling on cable) and so approach the series with no expectations about what it might do to their virgin sensibilities. But the Simpsons have been on the air since 1989 (earlier, if you count their debut on the much-missed "The Tracy Ullman Show"). In 2005, anyone who doesn't know what they're getting into when they tune in--or let their kids do so--has much bigger problems than Patty Bouvier's sexuality to be dealing with.
"The Family Guy" has been a source of concern for Fox in the era of the post-Justin-and-Janet FCC crackdown--although not concern so wide or deep as to prevent them from ordering up a fourth season, of course. In one of their moments of highest silliness, a few months ago they actually pixelated a shot of Peter's naked butt (a re-run of an episode run years earlier without incident). They pixelated a drawing. A drawing!!
Good lord--what will happen over at Disney-owned ABC when someone wakes up to the ugly realization that Donald Duck has been strutting around with no pants for over 70 years? (Let me see if I've got this: A sailor costume, naked from the waist down, hanging out with his three similarly attired "nephews"? Don't get the Traditional Values Coalition crowd started.) Heads will certainly roll in the Disney empire--and probably without a viewer warning.
(The pixelated Peter problem is especially strange, given that the show has a regularly re-aired episode devoted to the fact that the adolescent son is apparently much better hung than his dad).
I've always suspected that the whole idea of a content-rating system--one that relied on consumer self-restraint (e.g., TV and CDs) rather than on vendors refusing admission (e.g., movies and peep shows)--worked against its professed purpose by making the forbidden fruit all the more desirable, without making it noticeably harder to get. I mean, I vividly remember the delight I felt the first time I bought a CD with a "parental advisory" sticker on it (although, to be painfully honest, I was in my 40s at the time, so perhaps this example doesn't move the ball very far downfield).
And surely I can't be the only fan of "24" who looks forward to seeing a viewer warning at the beginning of an episode--Hot damn! Is Jack gonna hacksaw someone's head off again tonight?
But let's go back to Doctor Beyond's question: Why parental warnings on Fox sitcoms and dramas, but not on the Fox News Channel or other Murdoch properties?
Part of it, I suppose, is the peculiarly American squeamishness about sex and violence--we want it, boatloads of it, but we also want to feel terribly guilty about it. Ugly ideas, on the other hand--at least ugly ideas of a non-erotic bent--those we're not so worried about. Lenny Bruce had it right: Why censor nudity but let racism and bigotry parade around for all to see?
Part of it is also the disappointing fact that, as a result of the very blurring of lines between "news" and "entertainment" that is at the heart of the Doctor's question, many Americans get more news from satire than from "news."
So, combining my two observations above, I'm actually a little encouraged that advisory warnings on "Simpsons" episodes may increase the odds that its political content, mixed in with the satire and gags, will get noticed.
I think the use of advisory notices is especially interesting in the case of a "Simpsons" episode about gay marriage, since "The Simpsons" is one of the few prime time places where religion actually plays a regular part in characters' lives.
It's impossible to think of Fox's parental warning as anything but a curtsy to the "family values" pack: "We're sorry, we know this will upset you, but the show's simply too popular and profitable to interfere. To make it up to you, we'll go a little harder on racy themes in sports coverage for a while."
On the other hand, perhaps Fox News coverage of Bush's attempt to bolster his flagging poll numbers on Iraq tonight should also come with an advisory notice:
Tonight's address by the Commander in Chief contains naked attempts to duck answers to important questions about the Iraq war. Parents should consider whether it is appropriate for young viewers.
No comments:
Post a Comment