ABC vs. the tastemasters
Brent Bozell (back to web version) |
SendPosted on 07/09/2005 5:27:49 AM PDT by Diago
townhall.com
Printer-friendly version
ABC vs. the tastemasters
Brent Bozell (back to web version) | Send
July 8, 2005
Have you ever seen political correctness eat itself? In its latest lame attempt to package a "reality" show, ABC asked a group of neighbors to choose the new owner of a big house available on their block. The hook: In the process, these rich, white, conservative bigots would learn tolerance, acceptance, understanding and the error of their nasty ways. But irony of ironies, political-correctness lobbies stopped the show before it could preach its political correctness.
The show was called "Welcome to the Neighborhood," and its "educational" message oozed out over the last few weeks in promos during the hit ABC show "Extreme Makeover: Home Edition." It promised to follow three white, Christian, Bush-voting families living near Austin, Texas, who were awarded the chance to choose, from a list of pre-selected groupings, who would move into a 3,300-square-foot home in their affluent cul-de-sac.
|
||||||
These stereotypically uptight whites were subjected not only to one black family, one Latino family and one Asian family, but also wilder combinations: the two gay men with an adopted black baby; the Republican couple covered in tattoos; the supposedly normal white family whose mom is secretly a stripper; and a Wiccan couple who met at the woman's initiation as a witch.
Welcome to Mister Rogers' Neighborhood ... on acid.
This list is stacked with enough stick figure types to make a mockery of the very notion of "reality." And the neighbors, predictably for the genre, had appropriately stereotypical reactions on cue, making jokes about the Latinos having too many kids popping out of the car, mocking the tattoo-parlor addicts and expressing disgust at the gay men. It's all a nice setup for everyone to learn a little Hollywood-style tolerance and understanding.
The first lobbying group that lobbied for the show's cancellation was the National Fair Housing Alliance. It claimed the show's premise would lead Americans to conclude neighbors have the ability and the right to exclude neighbors based on race, sex, religion, national origin or disability. The group hated the show so much that it's still lobbying against the show being sold to anyone, anywhere on the cable or satellite dial.
The second lobbying group that expressed its displeasure was the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation. It insists that positively every televised depiction of homosexuals has to make them look lovable; every negative encounter has to end with the "bigot" quickly arriving at the nirvana of acceptance.
Once the plug was pulled, GLAAD said that it hadn't protested to kill the show. But it was clearly uncomfortable with the show's depiction of the neighbors' initial discomfort with the gay couple, even if they later "grow" into acceptance. Spokesman Damon Romine quibbled that "while the spirit of the show was admirable, the episodic nature of the series created serious issues in terms of depicting the neighbors' journey from intolerance to acceptance." GLAAD demands that the whole "journey" has to occur within one hermetically sealed program.
Both groups were allowed to pre-screen episodes before the series aired, and yet the TV writers, so eager to denounce "censors" and their "chilling effect" on "artistic expression" before a TV show even airs, said nothing about these potential critics doing precisely that.
In fact, it sounds like GLAAD received copies of the show from friendly TV writers. In a press statement, the group explained: "GLAAD was alerted to the show on June 16, and after watching the first two hours -- review copies of which were sent to TV writers -- expressed its concerns about those initial episodes to ABC executives." ABC then allowed the group to preview the other four hours, too.
Some Christian conservatives complained as well, based on the promotional spots. The Family Research Council snuck into a few news stories, concerned with the Christian-bigot portrayals. But within a day of its expert Charmaine Yoest speaking to the Associated Press, ABC pulled the plug. (It should be noted that the FRC wasn't welcomed in by ABC to screen the episodes for any evidence of defamation of evangelicals.)
More irony, with a dollop of hypocrisy for good measure: The same newspapers that decry the dangerous tide of parental intolerance that might curb the "creativity" of Hollywood had no problem dumping this show overboard. For example, New York Times TV critic Alessandra Stanley cheered: "ABC was right to pull the show. There already is plenty of bigotry on reality television, let alone in real life."
In the final analysis, the shelving of this show is probably a win-win, just one less lame "reality" show in a summer with shows where some contestants aspire to be just like Paris Hilton (God forbid!) and others have plates of food thrown at them by an abusive, cursing British chef. It's almost welcome to see the P.C. police put the tastemaker smackdown on at least a few tasteless items on the "reality" show menu. But it's also evidence that Hollywood has a much closer and hypersensitive relationship with politically correct lobbyists than it does with traditional-values folks across the fruited plain.
Brent Bozell is President of Media Research Center, a Townhall.com member group.
©2005 Creators Syndicate, Inc.
Print | SendContact Brent Bozell | Read Bozell's biography
townhall.com
I've seen the ads for this show. Mr. abusive, cursing British chef would get one free throw. Then he would find out some other functions of a kitchen knife. Fair fight? What do you think I am, a fool?
This is going to be stolen for a tag-line!
What gets me is that they would place it in Austin, TX---just about the only city in the Lone Star State that voted blue, blue, blue. Austin is one place where all the weirdos would fit right in.
I see bumper stickers around here every day that say "Keep Austin weird!".
I guess where I disagree with the author is that I don't believe GLAAD or the Family Research Council either one should get to force a TV show off the air just because they don't like it...
" It insists that positively every televised depiction of homosexuals has to make them look lovable; "
One thing I learned as a volunteer on a California, S.F. Bay Area police force was that a very well kept secret of gay and lesbian relationships is the fights they have and how violent they are.
I’ve not seen any statistics on this but I think this is another fact about gays/lesbians the left doesn’t want you to know.
(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
Keep Austin weird isn't the bad sticker. The bad ones are the spinoffs. I've seen a Planned Parenthood sticker that says Keep Austin Planned. Makes me sick to the stomach every time I see it.
I do my part, though. My bumper sticker says: SELF DEFENSE IS A BASIC HUMAN RIGHT. I get a few stares--LOL!
QUIZ:
Which of the following groups does not share a common trait?:
(a) Apples
(b) Oranges
(c) Grapes
(d) Bananas
(e) Airplanes
Which of the folloiwng groups does not share a common trait?:
(a) Latinos having too many kids
(b) Tatoo parlor addicts
(c) Wiccans
(d) Blacks
(e) Asians
(f) Whites
(g) Homosexuals
Follow-up question:
Which group is targeted to benefit, using the others to get the juices of 'tolerance and understanding' a'flowing?
A variation on your theme would be put a liberal in a jail cell ... and give him the chance to pick his cellmates -- from amongst the typical prison population, of course.
Not when it has the says something to the effect of "Support Planned Parenthood" right on the sticker.
"I could live with the show, if the next was set in a black neighborhood, then an Asian, follow by one set on Cape Cod or the Hamptons."
The show was obviously designed to make "red staters" look intolerant and hypocritical. You can bet your last dollar that the producers are very sympathetic to the 'oppressed' minorities.
Good riddance to this show.
I began seeing a trend and an agenda when I read these previews
The ingredients all seem to be there, but your explaination doesn't make sense to me.
Which phrase best describes tricks used in the plot to achieve the goal:
(a) Subliminal messages
(b) Emotional Manipulation
(c) Cognitive dissonance
(d) Foisting of guilt
(e) Appealing to compassion
(f) Use of pathos and humor
(g) Appeal to similarity and use of the functional equation
(h) All of the above
"Keep Austin weird!".
Imagine a staunch Republican-gun-rights-cutie moving from moving from Republican North Dallas to Austin. Hee Hee.
That's weird in itself, Smartaleck! I've probably done nothing more than add to the weirdness!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
