Showing posts with label FOX. Show all posts
Showing posts with label FOX. Show all posts

Wednesday, July 29, 2015

Acknowledgement to the works of Billy Wilder

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie is reportedly purchasing $250,000 of advertising time on Fox News in an attempt to help secure a place at the network's August 6 debate. Christie's ad buy is more evidence that Fox News' debate -- the first of the presidential cycle -- is proving lucrative for the network.

In a controversial move, Fox News is using polling to cap the number of debate participants at 10. Super PACs supporting Republican presidential candidates Rick Perry and Marco Rubio have already purchased millions of dollars of ad time on Fox. An adviser to a group of super PACs backing Perry explained to the New York Times that their ad buy on Fox News and other cable channels was intended to raise Perry's national profile in hopes of getting the former Texas governor "on that debate stage."

The Times' Jeremy Peters notes of Christie's ad buy, "Because Fox will use the candidates' standing in national polls to whittle down a field of 16 Republican candidates, the exposure that comes from a national cable television buy is extremely valuable. And while Mr. Christie's standing in the top 10 is fairly sturdy -- but not guaranteed -- this ad buy is aimed to help buttress his standing."


Citizen: You're Chris Christie. You used to be a presidential candidate. You used to be big.

Gov. Christie: I am big. It's the debates that got small.

Monday, March 10, 2014

Seven years ago this week in p3: Remember The Half-Hour News Hour?

Of course you don't. And there's a reason.

That week I was writing the second in a series of pieces about why conservative satire – like that sad and short-lived entry by the Fox News Channel – isn't terribly humorous. Part of it was that they learned the wrong lessons from the success of The Daily Show and The Colbert Report.

But part of it is that American conservatism, as it's constituted these days, simply lacks a crucial ability without which satire becomes, as Saint Molly memorably put it, crude and vulgar.

What's missing is the capacity to retain at least a tiny smidgen of charity; first, that is, to attack the strong, not the weak; and second, to understand that once you're incapable of seeing your opponent – your victim, if you will – as anything but a monster, you still have a wide range of tools with which to go after them, but satire is no longer one of them.

There are people out there on the political scene that I consider monsters. I tend to avoid jokes about them directly, and if I fail to avoid that the result is probably not that funny, anyway.  Conservatives have a tough time seeing anyone who disagrees with them  – or might do so at some point – as anything but a monster. Great for message discipline; death for satire.

And the funny part, so to speak, is that seven years later, conservatives still don't understand, to say nothing of appreciate, Colbert's satire.

Read more of my posts on satire from the link on the p3 List.

Thursday, April 18, 2013

Four years ago at p3: Testing the limits of conservatives' convictions

Why, I wondered, were conservatives so enamored of the authoritarian torture porn of "24," but so unwilling to follow Jack Bauer's moral example all the way?

Update: And it turns out that this topic is something of an evergreen.

Saturday, August 25, 2012

A quantum of umbrage: The company they keep

At least this Navy SEAL can claim membership in an even more elite group -- people doing highly secret work for the U.S. government who were outed by a shameless media hack simply as an exercise in conservative payback.

The only other member is Valerie Plame.

Refresh my memory -- Is this sort of thing even a crime anymore?

Monday, November 28, 2011

And, once again, does anyone seriously wonder why American news consumers are so woefully uninformed?


In 2005, PIPA survey research indicated that people who “get their news” from The Daily Show (The Colbert Report didn't exist yet) were better informed than Fox News viewers. This was at the time when, as Jon Stewart memorably pointed out, TDS was scheduled after a show about puppets making prank phone calls.

And recently, of course, has come survey evidence that Fox News viewers were less informed than people who watched no news at all.

(Fox News Channel, as of this week, is the top-rated cable news channel.)

But it's not just Fox News that's the problem. It's also the dumbing down pretty much across the board of the top middle-brow news sources for their American audiences. (Why? Possibly ideology, but certainly in large part because these for-profit institutions have determined that that's where the money is.) For example:

Compare the European English-language edition of CNN to what we get here in the states. And of course the way that Time and Newsweek dumb down their domestic-edition cover stories so that American readers won't fwy their widdle bwains.

Monday, October 11, 2010

Quote of the day: a loose definition of the Tea Party

Matt Taibbi:

A loose definition of the Tea Party might be millions of pissed-off white people sent chasing after Mexicans on Medicaid by the handful of banks and investment firms who advertise on Fox and CNBC.

(H/t Randy Stapilus via FB)

Tuesday, April 6, 2010

True friends stab you in the front

Several years ago, we looked with amusement at a minor rhetorical genre, the Fox News well-wishing press release of death.

Media Matters updates the literary canon.

It's snarkilicious!

Wednesday, November 25, 2009

Oceania has never been at war with Eurasia. Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia.

Ladies and gentlemen, former Bush press secretary--and, as of this week, Obama appointee to the Broadcasting Board of Governors, which is responsible for all non-military US government's international broadcasting, such as Voice of America, TV Marti, Radio Free Europe and Radio Free Asia--Dana Perino, explaining to the world that "we did not have a terrorist attack on our country during President Bush's term:"



I'm proud.

Saturday, October 17, 2009

The unforgiving minute (2008 retro edition)

From the p3 archives one year ago tonight:

Right-wing talking head Glenn Beck had several dinners recently with Roger Ailes, the president of Fox News.

At these dinners, says Beck, he and Ailes discussed how "there's got to be a better way to do what we do and not divide people."


Minute's up.

Monday, September 7, 2009

Olbermann goes Peckinpah

(Updated below.)

Yesterday morning at a little before 10am, Pacific time, Keith Olbermann left a post at Daily Kos. The title really says it all: Send Me Everything You Can Find About Glenn Beck.

As of a quarter after nine this morning--twenty-three hours later--it had 1499 comments. (Actually, in the time it took to write that sentence, it jumped to 1501 comments.)

It's an amusing image, and it'll make entertaining television for MSNBC, but I have to say I don't really see the practical point.

First, what could Olbermann's oppo-research irregulars possibly dig up about Beck that is more fringy and incendiary than what he's already proudly on record saying and doing? You can't leverage someone with exposure when he's already cheerfully outed himself for worse.

Second, suppose that--against all odds--some land mine buried among those 1500-and-counting comments actually manages to be worse than what the weeping madman's already done for all to see anyway. So what? Glenn Beck reports to Roger Ailes and Rupert Murdoch, not Barack Obama. He knows he'd never be hung out to dry. His job would be no more at risk than Bill O'Reilly's was after the murder of Dr. George Tiller.

Update: David Neiwert at C&L provides a thorough itemization of Beck's extremist resume. Toxic as it was before he moved to Fox News last winter, it's become many times worse since then. That's not because Beck has misread the expectations on him at his new job--just the opposite. Neiwwert asks, "When will he finally face the music?" If the point of the rhetorical question is When will he have his "Van Jones moment?", the answer is, he won't.

Saturday, May 2, 2009

FOX News: In Russia, old joke remembers you!

From childhood, I remember a joke about a foot race between a Russian and an American. The punchline: The American won, but the Russians announced that the Russian came in second while the American came in next-to-last.

I was reminded of that joke by this joke from FOX News:

Study: Obama's Early Popularity Only Average Among Predecessors

President Obama is just average.

At least by the standard of approval ratings.

Though Obama's job approval score is strong and has been since he took office, historical polling data shows Obama's popularity during his first 100 days is right in the middle of the scores other new presidents received from the public over the past 60 years.

Obama's 63 percent average, according to a study released by Gallup last month, is the highest for a new president since Jimmy Carter (he clocked in at 69 percent during his first 100 days).

But John F. Kennedy bested Obama by more than 10 points, with 74 percent. Dwight Eisenhower enjoyed a 71 percent rating early on.

Even Richard Nixon averaged a 62 percent approval rating, just 1 point shy of Obama's.

Overall, Obama's average for the first three months matched the historical average of 63 percent for presidents since Eisenhower.

When you include presidents who took the oath mid-term -- after the death or resignation of a president -- Obama's 63 percent looks paltry.

Harry Truman enjoyed 87 percent approval, while Lyndon Johnson enjoyed 76 percent.

Obama might have benefited, too, from the unpopularity of his predecessor.

Even after the contested 2000 election, though, George W. Bush averaged 58 percent in his first 100 days, according to the study.

Ronald Reagan averaged 60 percent, George H.W. Bush averaged 57 percent and Bill Clinton averaged 55 percent.


So let's see: The post-WWII presidents whose approval numbers after their first 100 days in office (still a a silly yardstick) exceeded Obama's 63% were Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, and Carter.

Notice anything about that list?

Me too.

Let's try rephrasing those same Gallup results like this:

If the post-World War II presidents were ranked by their approval ratings after their first 100 days in office, every Republican president (with one exception) would be ranked lower than even the lowest-ranked Democratic president.

Nixon, Ford (presumably, although FOX News doesn't even deign to mention him), Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and George W. Bush were all rated lower than Obama at this early point in their presidencies.

That one exception was Dwight Eisenhower, a popular war hero and two-term Republican president from a now-extinct branch of the GOP, who left office almost 50 years ago. Eisenhower's approvals after his first 100 days were higher than Obama's--and he wouldn't have even a snowball's chance in hell with his own party if he returned from the grave to enter the 2012 GOP primaries.

Or, to put it still another way:

Barack Obama has the lowest approval ratings in his first 100 days of any post-war president (as long as we don't count all those Republican presidents who were less popular than him).

Kind of sad, really.

Thursday, January 31, 2008

The unforgiving minute

We already knew it was a bad season for the Republican "brand."

Now Eric Boehlert counts the ways in which the GOP's main communication organ for its brand--FOX News, not long ago the standard toward which all cable news was slouching--is struggling as well.

The point is that Fox News years ago made an obvious decision to appeal almost exclusively to Republican viewers. The good news then for Fox News was that it succeeded. The bad news now for Fox News is that it succeeded. […]

The most obvious signs of Fox News' downturn have been the cable ratings for the big primary and caucus votes this year, as well as the high-profile debates. With this election season generating unprecedented voter and viewer interest, Fox News' rating bumps to date have remained underwhelming, to say the least.


Minute's up.

Thursday, January 24, 2008

Heh. Heh. Heh.

When I was in high school, I got in a minor scrape for writing obscenity on the men's room wall in the lobby. Not an obscenity, mind you--simply the word "obscenity." It took about 5 minutes for one of the faculty to notice it, realize I was most likely the culprit, and track me down. He figured--not unreasonably, as it turned out--that I was probably the only kid in our small high school whose idea of humor would extend to basing a joke for a toilet stall door on the self-reflexive use/reference distinction from speech act theory.

I didn't get in much trouble for it really; the janitor gave me cleaner and a rag and it took me about thirty seconds to remove it, and that was that. The teacher just shook his head with a bemused little smile and sent me back to class. I could be wrong, but I like to think he was secretly gratified just to see somebody around there trying to raise the bar a little. With one stroke of the Flair pen I let off a little adolescent steam but also implicitly critiqued the run-of-the-mill graffiti in the building--you know, the threadbare stuff along the "he who writes on shithouse walls" line. As I said, though, I could be wrong about that part of it.

That tiny blip on the radar trace of my writing career comes to mind because of this story, via Digby and TPM:

Undead Nixon Administration dirty tricks specialist and swinging/leather enthusiast Roger Stone has formed a 527 group whose purpose is "To Educate the American Public About What Hillary Clinton Really Is," as their singular logo promises. The organization's name: Citizens United Not Timid.

Get it? If you're stuck (really?), take a look at their logo. It'll help if you think like a fourteen-year-old boy.

The marketing plan for this juvenilia is Junior Achievement at its finest:

Stone is counting on T-shirt sales to further serve as "billboard education." He figures the whole thing will end up taking on a viral nature, thanks to the yuks factor....

"The more people go to the site, the more people buy the T-shirts," Stone explains.... "The more people buy the T-shirts, the more people wear the T-shirts. The more people wear the T-shirts, the more people are educated. Consequently, our mission has been achieved." Though neither the word itself nor even the acronym is ever mentioned, "it's one-word education. That's our mission. No issues. No policy groups. No position papers. This is a simple committee with an unfortunate acronym...."

Stone is obviously reaching out to the Beavis and Butthead niche within the conservative base--the ones who snicker when the teacher says "duty." ("Check it out--he said 'doody!' Heh, heh, heh.") Personally, I think this is not a smart move: Even if a significant chunk of the GOP base did draw penises on the photo of James Buchanan in their history books back in the day, could anyone possibly think it's to their advantage to attract attention to that now? But I have to admit it's not the first time they've gone in this direction.

Conservatives struggle with little success to lift their humor out of the primordial sea of Beavis and Butthead jokes to walk erect on the dry land of adult wit. ("Dude--he totally said 'erect!' Heh, heh, heh.") The ability to switch perspectives between Me and Thee, ingrained in the liberal outlook and essential to irony and satire, comes very hard to conservatives, if at all. ("Check it out--he said 'comes!' And 'hard!' Heh, heh, heh.") That's why it never gets far beyond aggressive, hostile imagery ("Liberals should be shot! Heh, heh, heh.") and name-calling ("Chelsea Clinton is the only dog in the White House! Heh, heh, heh."). Conservative humor, all too often, runs to birdshot in the face, or a denied appeal for death-row clemency.

A case in point was last year's embarrassing FOX entry into satire and news parody, "The 1/2 Hour News Hour." Their idea of "sticking it to the man" was typified by a recurring skit featuring Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter in cameos as president and vice president. Intellectually, that runs on a par with an argument about if Mighty Mouse could beat up Superman. Fantasy fulfillment, maybe. But edgy satire, it ain't.

So it's possible that Stone, et al., know how to reach their ideological littermates better than I do and should continue to ignore my advice. (Of course "1/2 Hour News Hour" folded after thirteen episodes, but that could have been for an unrelated reason. Not.)

Certainly, though, there's no subject that brings out the peurile and sexually immature in conservatives more than the continued existence of Hillary Clinton on this planet. The thought of her running for President only multiplies this a hundredfold. Don't take my word for it; check out this piece from the incomparable ongoing takedown of Chris Matthews, a sexually hamstrung man-child who only lacks a tree house with "NO GUЯLS ALLOWED" painted over the door.

A few weeks ago, I sorted through the back copies of Vogue and People while waiting for a haircut, and discovered an article titled "The Hillary Haters" in, of all places, GQ. (Don't laugh; apparently it's not all about where trouser seams will be breaking this season. Who knew?)

On a screen in a back room of an upscale Dallas restaurant, a cartoon version of Hillary Clinton veers between bored and apoplectic. In the cartoon, in which she hosts a late-night program called The Hillary Show, her teeth are pointed, resembling fangs. She mocks everyone she comes across (including her “sidekick,” Howard Dean) and exhibits her violent streak by leaping out of a chair to bash Al Gore over the head with a wooden mallet, the “Hillary Hammer.”

“Another loser,” she says.

A knowing chuckle spreads through the audience of about fifteen local Republican activists and donors, including an associate of Karl Rove. Many of the attendees, mostly middle-aged and mild-mannered, wear nametags and anti-Hillary buttons on their suit lapels and silk blouses. The lights come on, and a tall, youthful 60-year-old man steps in front of the screen. Across his gray suit and broad yellow tie the projector beams Hillary’s scowling face and a White House seeped in bloody red.

“Wanted to reach out and involve you in our effort—in our Web site,” Dick Collins, a veteran Republican fund-raiser, says in his languid Texas drawl. He favorably compares his Stop Her Now Web site—a clearinghouse of anti-Hillary news, blogs, and cartoons, all with the mission of “Rescuing America from the radical ideas of Hillary Clinton”—to “the Swifties,” the nonprofit advocacy group the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, which mortally wounded the campaign of John Kerry in 2004. He then proudly refers to the Stop Her Now banner, which his group has flown over a number of Clinton’s campaign appearances, as a way to attract potential supporters and irritate Hillary. “I’m sure she said to her aide, ‘We need to get a bazooka and take that thing down.’ That’s the real Hillary that nobody gets to see.”

This wouldn’t be recognizable as a punch line in any other room, but supporters laugh approvingly and put down their white wine and orange cheese cubes to clap.

Collins thinks his use of “humor” will allow his anti-Hillary venture to succeed where others have failed, and that his cartoons and sight gags will ultimately play a major role in preventing Hillary Clinton from becoming president. “You do it with satire,” he explains to his guests. “Because it is a much more effective way to define somebody.”

A fanged Hillary (don't have to be Freud to figure that one out) beating Al Gore with a hammer is satire?

Well, yes, and then again no. Mostly no. Actually, it's completely no. It's interesting that conservative operatives have such facility with the strategic reversal required to turn their opponents' greatest advantage against them (e.g., Swiftboating Kerry in 2004 on his Vietnam war service), but when it comes to the judo-flip of satire, they just can't quite manage it.

The GQ article continues, reeling off a list of attributes that Hillary haters project onto the woman:

A few feet away, Bill Solemene, an advertising executive active in Republican politics, expresses a similar fear. “I think everybody is frightened to death of her,” he says. “She has a mean streak in her.”

Scary? Frightened to death? By now, Clinton’s flaws as a candidate are well-known—the problems giving a straight answer, the warmth and authenticity issues—but they’re also fairly typical for a politician. Here in Dallas, though, and in the rest of anti-Hillary land, the hostility toward Clinton tends to be expressed in bafflingly vague and emotional terms. Discussions with self-declared enemies of Hillary Clinton, prominent and not, across the country yield a head-spinning barrage of motivations for their ill will, but one thing is immediately clear: Few if any have anything to do with the mandated insurance coverage of Clinton’s health care plan (or HillaryCare, in hater parlance), her carefully triangulated position on Iran, or her incremental shift against the war in Iraq.

Instead, they say she is an extremist left-wing flower child masquerading as a moderate, or a warmongering hawk disguised as a liberal. She’s a liar and a lesbian (short hair! pantsuits!), a cold fish and an adulteress. She has no maternal instincts and is hobbled by a debilitating case of insecurity, for which she compensates by acting like a thug. She is the spineless wife of a habitual cheat, and the willful enabler of her husband’s affairs. She’s in politics to keep Bill around, and she ran for the Senate, and then the presidency, to exact revenge for his philandering. She has no God, or her devoutness is frighteningly fundamentalist. She’s a condescending elitist who sees people—even her friends—as steps on a stairway to the presidency. She is a partisan, a panderer, the personification of everything that is wrong with America.

She is, to them, an empty vessel into which they can pour everything they detest about politicians, ambitious women, and an American culture they fear is being wrested from their control.

The story goes on, with more frightened and angry people--who cannot agree on why they're frightened and angry. But they obviously are. (The article also drops some interesting names along the way, including Fabio and Stan Lee, although neither, as far as I am aware, is a Hillary Hater.)

In the end, it's all so juvenile. You want to take them aside and say, You know, it's okay--you don't have to be afraid of vaginas, not even Hillary's. But then you realize it's not about the fear, really. They're having too much fun with their crude graffiti.

("Hey, did you see that? He said 'vagina!' Heh, heh, heh.")

Saturday, February 24, 2007

The conservative satire gap (continued)

It's been the sort of week that militates against posting--apologies--but the up side is that I can follow up directly on my previous post about the Fox News Channel's oxymoronic right-wing satire show.

My original plan, early in the week, was to talk about its dreadfully over-the-top laugh track, comparing it to the punchline of an old joke about a kid who was so ugly his parents had to tie a pork chop around his neck so the family dog would play with him.

The passage of time has allowed me to go at it in a somewhat higher-toned manner.

In fact, I'm simply going to turn it straight over to Keith Olbermann, who takes the principle to its logical extreme: If bad satire can benefit from a heavy-handed laugh track, why wouldn't the same be true for ridiculously ideologically slanted "news?"

(h/t to Crooks and Liars)

Sunday, February 18, 2007

The conservative satire gap

Quick! What do the members of this list have in common?
  • the left
  • the far left
  • anyone standing to the left
  • gay penguins
  • lawyers
  • the ACLU
  • anyone with ACLU in their name
  • Democrats
  • people who voted for Democrats
  • people who know Democrats
  • gay penguins

Answer: They're groups warned by this Fox News Channel promo that it "may offend" them with the new program, "The 1/2 Hour News Hour."



Oh dear. The bright lights at Fox apparently have been watching Jon Stewart zestfully skewering both Democrats and Republicans, but noticed only that the overall political slant of the show is leftward. They watched Stephen Colbert's conservative pundit manqué setting his sights on out-O'Reilly-ing O'Reilly, and failed to observe that he drags every conservative figure who appears on the show down into the mud by encouraging them to think of him as a fellow right-wing shill. They watched Olbermann's ratings climb (and Himself get a lucrative contract renewal), and concluded only that heavy-handedness sells, regardless of content.

Yes, friends, I'm afraid it's time for another essay by the right into the tricky business of satire. Obviously they learned nothing from the experience of P.J. O'Rourke; Dennis Miller's descent into unfunny hell didn't catch their notice. But surely they've noticed that Mallard Fillmore can't buy a laugh, even from humor-starved readers of the Indianapolis Star-News. Nevertheless, they're casting their some small part of their fates to the winds of humor again. As Samuel Johnson said, it's not done well, but you're surprised to see it done at all.

Here's where they go wrong:

The elements of satire are a tone of irony and a taste of anger. It's true that, to the extent that irony could be described in its elemental form as "professing A while meaning not-A," I suppose we'd have to agree that the right has the discursive fundamentals of this well within their grasp. (One could call that a Burkean reading of the job of White House Press Secretary, in fact.) And as for anger--well, who better the Fox-powered right?

And I suppose that, as regards the basic tool kit of the of satirist--personification, reversal, parallelism, verisimilitude, the rule of three, and so on-- any yutz can at least pick up a hammer and whack something with it, although driving a nail straight and clean is another matter altogether. (Notice, for example, in the promo above, the ascending groups of three, and the repetition of the "anyone" and "gay penguins" lines. Like the Jack Russell terrier struggling on its haunches, you can see they're genuinely trying. But honestly--"gay penguins?" Does anyone still remember what that's a reference to? I suppose it's meant to be a bank-shot, carrying the idea of the fundamental rightness of offending anyone/thing gay, even flightless waterfowl, and lacing it with a little poke at Gorean save-the-ice-shelf-ism. So perhaps it gets some points for cleverness, in a Republican dog whistle kind of way, but does that make it noticeably funny?)

The fatal problem arises, though, when we consider the satiric stance. I'll defer to a Jedi master of the art:
There are two kinds of humor. One kind that makes us chuckle about our foibles and our shared humanity -- like what Garrison Keillor does. The other kind holds people up to public contempt and ridicule -- that's what I do. Satire is traditionally the weapon of the powerless against the powerful. I only aim at the powerful. When satire is aimed at the powerless, it is not only cruel -- it's vulgar.

Satire adores an unfair fight--but only in the sense that the more powerful its target, the better.

Here is where "The 1/2 Hour News Hour" is apt to run into trouble: Given that its idea of "equal opportunity offense" is offending the left, Democrats--and again, somewhat inexplicably, gay penguins--its sense of "equal opportunity" is a tad stunted. Until they start running harder with jokes about Ann Coulter's Adam's apple or Rush Limbaugh's chemical problems than even TBogg or Digby do (and they won't--conservative humor, like conservative blogging, is a driven-from-the-top business), when they go after their political opponents they won't get anywhere near the level Stewart and Colbert hit on their worst days.

The results, likely enough, will be vulgar.

Tuesday, June 28, 2005

This post contains adult themes and may not be suitable for all viewers. Parental discretion is advised.

Well no, not really, but be honest--didn't that pique your curiosity? Give you a little shiver of transgressive hope?

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.