CHCH takes aim at 'objectionable content' with Gilligan and the Bradys

[BigManMike]

Metv aired a crazy disclaimer like this the first week that they aired The Jeffersons but after complaints about it they stopped.

[Kasey]

I haven't watched broadcast TV in years but this is a huge reason why I, a former Liberal, have switched my views to Conservative in the past few years. Mainstream media is one-sided. Hulu removed a Golden Girls episode in the Spring because a scene where Rose and Blanche were wearing mud pack face masks was deemed offensive to the BLM Movement. Before that, all of their airings of Designing Women had Bernice's signature song "Black Man, Black Man" edited out. And don't get me started on the cancelling of The Dukes of Hazzard...

[GentlemanJim]

Originally Posted by dee2364

Like all comedians, David Chappelle is an arrogant fool who thinks being a comic makes someone some kind of wise sage and guru.

.

The Chappelle quote was on topic.
The disclaimers the network are using are an effort to convey that they don't necessarily endorse the ideas in the shows, just because they are broadcasting them.(fighting that second big lie)

And conversely, just because I do not embrace every idea espoused by others, don't mean that I hate them. I just preserve my independence to make my own decisions.

[LUNCH]

This is probably related to all this. I have noticed recently that on some older movies that were originally rated PG, now carry a TV Mature rating or something similair when they are shown on TV. An example is the movie Foul Play.

[BigManMike]

Originally Posted by LUNCH

This is probably related to all this. I have noticed recently that on some older movies that were originally rated PG, now carry a TV Mature rating or something similair when they are shown on TV. An example is the movie Foul Play.

Similar to this, prior to 2012 the Sound of Music was rated TV-G on ABC, but since 2012 it has been rated TV-PG.

[stevea]

That "product of its time" announcement is exactly the "warning" that came on the Looney Tunes Golden Collection DVDs.

I'd bet any "objectionable" Looney Tunes simply won't be aired on MeTV, just like they weren't on CN. Personally I'd rather see the warning than not have the episode or cartoon short.

[Sal]

Here's another "Green Acres" episode which got the disclaimer displayed before the episode started. See if you can figure out if there is anything controversial about it. I can't find anything myself. Like I said before, it's all a massive overreaction about nothing.

Green Acres - Never Trust A Little Old Lady

[GentlemanJim]

Originally Posted by Sal

These shows were a product of an earlier era and while there may be stuff on there that you would not see today (like the way Indians are portrayed, for example) they still hold up today as timeless classics that can be enjoyed by anyone of all ages and there is nothing there that should be frightening or harmful for anybody. This is simply an overreaction to the current state of gloom and doom that has invaded today's society. It's a good thing for me that we have shows like "Gilligan's Island" and "The Brady Bunch" that are on every afternoon to allow us to forget all of this.


CHCH broadcasts trigger warning before episode of "Gilligan's Island"

I suspect there might be a deeper aspect to all of this? Hoping not to offend anyone, but there might be an aspect of self loathing, or self contempt involved here as well.

Suppose the groups claiming to be offended, actually had low self esteem (acquired through decades of societal abuse). So seeing these depictions of their own stereotypical shortcomings.....is like rubbing salt in a wound.

So, just in illustration, if you were to see vitto scotti's depiction of a Japanese sailor on Gilligans Island.....it might be more hurtful than anger inspiring.

Maybe it would hurt your feelings to the extent that you would resolve to never again buy the product that was advertised on the show that made you feel inferior?

So, it boils down to money. That's believable enough isn't it? The sponsors are worried they might lose business after somebody gets a thorn in the paw.

And the disclaimers are just a veiled way to say "don't take this too seriously"

[LUNCH]

Do people still even watch or if they do, do they even pay attention to commercials anymore ? I don't think this has anything to do with the sponsors. All this is just a way for the channels to cover their backsides just in case a few people might take offense at harmless older shows. If anything modern commercials and modern programming are the ones that really should have disclaimers.

[GentlemanJim]

I doubt seriously that the networks would go to all the trouble to exist if they couldn't get advertising revenue. I believe that most aspects of American society revolve around the green god of money, so why should TV be any different?

[GentlemanJim]

Personally, I don't think that many of my shopping habits are changed by the commercials that I see.

I mean, yeah...if they put on a really good food commercial, I might get up and hit the fridge. But I sure am not gonna call Applebees or Taco Bell and have food delivered .

[GentlemanJim]

Originally Posted by LUNCH

I don't think this has anything to do with the sponsors. All this is just a way for the channels to cover their backsides just in case a few people might take offense a.

Plus, don't forget that gal in Michigan who wrote in to the sponsors to protest Married with Children's content. There are those I suppose who never watch commercials unless they have a bone to pick?

[LUNCH]

Originally Posted by GentlemanJim

Plus, don't forget that gal in Michigan who wrote in to the sponsors to protest Married with Children's content. There are those I suppose who never watch commercials unless they have a bone to pick?

Things were different back then. Many people back then watched commercials including myself. But I get what you
are saying. However what I meant is channels who show these innocent older shows do not want to be accused of being somehow "incorrect" on the basis of the show's alone. I do not think they are even thinking about their advertisers in this case. If that makes any sense. I have even seen a few of these strange types of disclaimers on Turner Classics which is commercial free.

[GentlemanJim]

'

Originally Posted by LUNCH

channels who show these innocent older shows do not want to be accused of being somehow "incorrect" on the basis of the show's alone..

There may not be any "one size fits all" answer. I'm fairly resilient, not much offends me, including skin. So I would probably be the last person on earth to try and raise a stink over any program that just ran. I see it as I can always change the channel if I disapprove of what is on.
I finally stopped watching Blue Bloods, for example, because it appeared to me that they were endorsing Danny's gestapo tactics. I just couldn't make the jump to believing "oh, he's roughing up those hoodlums for me", which I guess is the satisfaction that some viewers are getting.

Now, all of that being said, and I consider the Andy Griffith show about as harmless as they come...I do understand how total pacifists might prefer their children not watch some of the threats of violence or other intimidation that from time to time is a plot device. (the Darlings, Ernest T Bass, etc).

Some one earlier mentioned Warner bros cartoons. I love those old Looney Tunes and Merry Melody shorts. And in fact I have full copies of the "Censored 11" which are the most notorious of that bunch.....you'll never see most of those on TV again...and I understand why.

But I've also seen debate both ways over the Roadrunner Coyote cartoons because of the violence.

The defenders try to reason that no one harms the Coyote but the Coyote himself, the Roadrunner is just a spectator to the carnage, and consequently the cartoons do not "teach" violence.

The detractors argue that beyond all the 'who is at fault' debate, is the more underlying factor that the cartoons teach that the Coyote can fall from great heights, get run over by trucks, get crushed under heavy objects.....and survive.

And they simply do not want impressionable children being indoctrinated that "hey, this can happen to you, and you;'ll still be alright, just like the Coyote."

Bear in mind, they are not trying to prohibit the show, they just want the warning programmed in so that their parental controls will block them from being viewed unattended. I can kinda see that

[Mario500]

Originally Posted by GentlemanJim

The Chappelle quote was on topic.
The disclaimers the network are using are an effort to convey that they don't necessarily endorse the ideas in the shows, just because they are broadcasting them.(fighting that second big lie)

And conversely, just because I do not embrace every idea espoused by others, don't mean that I hate them. I just preserve my independence to make my own decisions.

What "lie"?