Monday, June 13, 2005
WARNING: The Following May Still Be Offensive to Some Readers
I just finished watching tonight's Simpsons syndicated re-run, episode 4F11 "Homer Phobia" that originally aired on 16 February 1997. I can remember watching that particular episode pretty vividly, as I had moved to Cottage Grove, MN the previous day and it would have been one of the first programs I watched in my new apartment.
Remembering it vividly, I don't recall there being any sort of "content flag" warning viewers that the show dealt with a controversial topic. The Simpson running a content flag before an episode? Episode 4F11 contained frank discussions of homosexuality. I know, I know, it's pretty silly to think that an animated comedy would need to warn people about topics to be discussed.
Flash forward eight years to 20 February 2005 and the original airning of Simpsons episode GABF04 "There's Something About Marrying" (no synopsis available at The Simpsons Archive) when, for the first time in my recolection, a Simpsons episode was preceeded by a content flag.
I guess I didn't realize how much our society has changed in the last eight years. "Homer Phobia" dealt with Homer's discomfort over an acquaintance's homosexuality and his desire that Bart reamin strait. "There's Something About Marrying" dealt with the same sex marriage between one of Homer's sisters-in-law (I can never keep Patty and Selma straight - er - differentiated....) and another woman who, ironically, turned out to be a man. Eight years ago it was apparently OK to talk about homosexuality in a cartoon sitcom, today, we have to be warned about it.
I guess I'm OK with a content flag, I mean I'd rather see a content flag than not see a program that might be "offensive" to someone. And I'm all about respecting people's rights, if that kind of thing bothers you, then you shouldn't watch it, so I guess it's only fair to "warn" people when something offensive might come on their TV.
Still, a content flag is a choice by a broadcaster, and in a way an indictment of the content of the program. But who's to say what someone might be offended by. When I was getting divorced there was a show on ABC about a law firm that dealt in divorce cases. There wasn't an announcement stating that those going through a divorce might be offended by the content of the show. Hell, I'm offended by 90% of the crap that airs nightly on The O'Reilly Factor, but no content flag has ever aired before it.
I don't think the morals of the average person have changed as much in the last eight years as the propensity of "offended" people to file lawsuits or complain to the FCC. Now with the FCC so much more likely to hand out fines we'll undoubtedly be seeing more content flags.
For more of my thoughts on this subject, see my post WARNING: The Following My Be Offensive to Some Readers. It actually deals with my thoughts when "There's Something About Marrying" originally aired and has a great commnt by fellow blogger Ewink who didn't work with me when "Homer Phobia" originally aired, but did soon after.
BOJ
Remembering it vividly, I don't recall there being any sort of "content flag" warning viewers that the show dealt with a controversial topic. The Simpson running a content flag before an episode? Episode 4F11 contained frank discussions of homosexuality. I know, I know, it's pretty silly to think that an animated comedy would need to warn people about topics to be discussed.
Flash forward eight years to 20 February 2005 and the original airning of Simpsons episode GABF04 "There's Something About Marrying" (no synopsis available at The Simpsons Archive) when, for the first time in my recolection, a Simpsons episode was preceeded by a content flag.
I guess I didn't realize how much our society has changed in the last eight years. "Homer Phobia" dealt with Homer's discomfort over an acquaintance's homosexuality and his desire that Bart reamin strait. "There's Something About Marrying" dealt with the same sex marriage between one of Homer's sisters-in-law (I can never keep Patty and Selma straight - er - differentiated....) and another woman who, ironically, turned out to be a man. Eight years ago it was apparently OK to talk about homosexuality in a cartoon sitcom, today, we have to be warned about it.
I guess I'm OK with a content flag, I mean I'd rather see a content flag than not see a program that might be "offensive" to someone. And I'm all about respecting people's rights, if that kind of thing bothers you, then you shouldn't watch it, so I guess it's only fair to "warn" people when something offensive might come on their TV.
Still, a content flag is a choice by a broadcaster, and in a way an indictment of the content of the program. But who's to say what someone might be offended by. When I was getting divorced there was a show on ABC about a law firm that dealt in divorce cases. There wasn't an announcement stating that those going through a divorce might be offended by the content of the show. Hell, I'm offended by 90% of the crap that airs nightly on The O'Reilly Factor, but no content flag has ever aired before it.
I don't think the morals of the average person have changed as much in the last eight years as the propensity of "offended" people to file lawsuits or complain to the FCC. Now with the FCC so much more likely to hand out fines we'll undoubtedly be seeing more content flags.
For more of my thoughts on this subject, see my post WARNING: The Following My Be Offensive to Some Readers. It actually deals with my thoughts when "There's Something About Marrying" originally aired and has a great commnt by fellow blogger Ewink who didn't work with me when "Homer Phobia" originally aired, but did soon after.
BOJ
# posted by Blind Orange Julius @ 7:33 PM 
Comments:
<< Home
I never thought of it like that BOJ. I actually bet that more and more stuff, if it would air today, would have such content disclaimers.
Anyway, on the Simpsons topic...
You can take this as you like, but 4F22 - The City of New York Vs. Homer Simpson was pulled from syndication because it featured the WTC.
Personally I don't think we should be changing tv and other art to try and gloss over what happened. But apparently the fear of offending people outweighed artistic freedoms.
Oddly enough though, the idiocy of certin Programs Directors who shall remain nameless kept that episode running in at least 2 cities I've worked in!
Anyway, on the Simpsons topic...
You can take this as you like, but 4F22 - The City of New York Vs. Homer Simpson was pulled from syndication because it featured the WTC.
Personally I don't think we should be changing tv and other art to try and gloss over what happened. But apparently the fear of offending people outweighed artistic freedoms.
Oddly enough though, the idiocy of certin Programs Directors who shall remain nameless kept that episode running in at least 2 cities I've worked in!
I've seen 4F22 within the last year, but hadn't seen it before then. So I guess we could assume KEVN-TV in Rapid City, SD has an idiot program director. I didn't think they ran it on a cash basis here but I'll look into it.
I'm also not in favor of trying to gloss over anything that happened and funny is funny, whether part of 4F22 occurs at the WTC or not.
The more disturbing image from a Simpsons episode to me is from CABF12 New Kids on the Blecch when missles from the USS Sea Spanker destroy the Mad Magazine building in NYC. That episode is from 25 February 2001, but has aired several times since 9/11/01.
BOJ
I'm also not in favor of trying to gloss over anything that happened and funny is funny, whether part of 4F22 occurs at the WTC or not.
The more disturbing image from a Simpsons episode to me is from CABF12 New Kids on the Blecch when missles from the USS Sea Spanker destroy the Mad Magazine building in NYC. That episode is from 25 February 2001, but has aired several times since 9/11/01.
BOJ
I find it offensive that there may actually be a ship called the USS Sea Spanker!
# posted by 
: 8:54 AM
: 8:54 AM
On Wednesday, 15 June, Jeopardy had a clue that showed a graphic of "Comic Book Guy" requiring contestents to "name" him (though they provided the misinformation that we don't know his name - it was revealed this season).
All I have to say is:
"Worst Clue Ever!"
Post a Comment
All I have to say is:
"Worst Clue Ever!"
<< Home
