SNL hit a new low last night

Last night was the season premire of SNL (in HD now, BTW) but they stooped to a new low.

They made a mock commercial for "Girls Gone Wild - Katrina" and showed young women raising their shirts while standing outside in waist-deep water, presumably in a city street. This while there's still standing water in many places in New Orleans and many bodies yet to be discovered.

Lorne Michaels should make a public apology for this. It was in unbelievably bad taste.
:scowl:


BTW, Tina Fey, their head writer, was still away on maternity leave and it showed.

I think you're getting too worked up over this. It's comedy, plain and simple. Good taste, bad taste, what's the difference? Let it go.

I respectfully disagree. They did a nice tribute to the 9/11 victims years ago and never made fun of the situation (although they've made fun of terrorists). But this was out of character, even for them, and I was embarrassed for the families of the Katrina victims who might have been watching this episode.

Ultimately I home the FCC comes knocking on their door. They are accountable for their actions.

Kind of like "I from the government and I am here to help."...

SNL has, for me, been unwatchable for decades... Just turn it off.

I would rather allow non-PC junk like this than have the government try to continue and enforce political correctness and thought crimes.

-Bill

The good ole FCC, the arbiters of good taste. They really did a good job on the Janet Jackson nipplegate incident. I felt the fate of the western world hinged on Jackson's nipple. The Horror!

I guess as a consenting adult, I want some government appointed stooge tell me what I should and should not watch. Reminds me of the War on Porn being waged by our FBI right now, why waste precious resources on trivial shite like terrorists and their ilk? Unreal.

I guess you are typing about:

Recruits Sought for Porn Squad:

Early last month, the bureau's Washington Field Office began recruiting for a new anti-obscenity squad. Attached to the job posting was a July 29 Electronic Communication from FBI headquarters to all 56 field offices, describing the initiative as "one of the top priorities" of Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales and, by extension, of "the Director." That would be FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III.
...
The new squad will divert eight agents, a supervisor and assorted support staff to gather evidence against "manufacturers and purveyors" of pornography -- not the kind exploiting children, but the kind that depicts, and is marketed to, consenting adults.

"I guess this means we've won the war on terror," said one exasperated FBI agent, speaking on the condition of anonymity because poking fun at headquarters is not regarded as career-enhancing. "We must not need any more resources for espionage."


Among friends and trusted colleagues, an experienced national security analyst said, "it's a running joke for us."

A few of the printable samples:

"Things I Don't Want On My Resume, Volume Four."

"I already gave at home."

"Honestly, most of the guys would have to recuse themselves."

Click to expand...

At first, I thought maybe it was about child-porn... Nope... Government "Stuck on Stupid" again?

-Bill

While I don't enjoy SNL as much as I used to, I can't get too upset about attempts at humor. Humor is hard to do right, and it will sometimes offend.

I also am with the others who believe that, as an intelligent adult, I can decide for myself what is offensive and simply look away . It does not bother me that some actor somewhere is having a gay old time with another actor in order to entertain a third party.

Yes, I realize that for some people, the simple thought that someone is doing something they don't do is offensive. There's nothing that can be done to help those folks, since laws don't actually stop sex related behaviours. Laws just drive them underground.

The ultimate irony, of course, is the assumtion the FCC makes that broadcast TV and radio should be limited more than any other speech. They even have different standards for night time and daytime, as if TiVo and VCRs were never invented. Have they no idea that kids can program a VCR?

If these fools were smart, they would reverse the V chip design. Forget about the PG and PG-13 and R ratings. Give it two modes. PG and Not PG. Then let the individual channels commit to one or the other. Then there's no ambiguity. Then you would never be surprised by a wardrobe malfunction.

But having a good taste/bad taste censor? No way. 3/4 of the shows on TV would fail that test (in my opinion) including some televangelists and "newscasts".



IMHO - - - Daniel

"Consenting Adults"??????

I really do get tired of that tired old phrase being used everytime someone thinks censorship goes too far. I don't really care that much about what "consenting adults" do. What I do care about is that those "consenting adults" seem to think that everyone that listens to radio, TV, reads newspapers, magazines, novels, or what have you are "consenting adults". They apply the term as if all adults consent to their garbage. There's no way that non-consenting adults should have to take a back seat to "consenting adults", yet it seems that all media is produced for "consenting adults".

It may be too late, but if we can find a way to rid the media of the garbage mouths, and return us to the standards practiced years ago, I'd support it.

1. BB has this issue nailed. Can't make the point much better than that and be concise.

2. Empath, the standards you long to see the return of cannot be forced back into existence by way of some gov't beauracracy like the FCC, and simultaneously retain any semblance of the freedom that this country once had. What PhotonWrangler and too many others are advocating, unwittingly or otherwise, is Federal control over life itself, where all is nice, clean, and pleasant... and totalitarian.

BTW, it's been proven time and time again that where's there's dictatorship, life will most certainly not be nice, clean, and pleasant.

Higher (or lower) standards of art and entertainment are a consequence of the dominant ideology of a nation. Trying to control media by government force, will only serve to destroy what's left of the ideology that once did dominate this country.

Edit: For the record, I'm not accusing Empath of advocating FCC control of everything. Just looking out for a fellow CPF'er that he doesn't start going down that path.

The best censorship is the remote control. If I don't like something I either turn the TV off or switch to another channel. As far as some government goon squad dictating what is and isn't acceptable, forget it. That has shades of 1984. An adult can decide what they want to watch. If you have children then maybe it's a good idea to see what they're watching from time to time. The problem is that too many people want the government to act as a surrogate parent. The end result of that is policies which restrict everyone's choices.

I'm personally not that interested in pornography, and frequently change channels when movies have gratuitous sex scenes because I find them pointless and boring. However, if stuff like that floats someone's boat so be it. On the other hand, if it offends enough people then sound business practices dictate that you'll see less of it. Apparently, sex scenes in movies and pornography exist in huge quantities because the majority of people want it to. Maybe we should find out why and see if anything can be done to reduce things on the demand side. The "problem" will then largely solve itself.

One thing I do favor is having easier ways to segregate adult-oriented entertainment from mainstream entertainment. This includes web sites with domain names which can be blocked (maybe use .xxx instad of .com), and moving things like strip clubs far away from residential areas. Banning it outright will just move it underground. Also, deciding what exactly is "obscene" is so fraught with interpretation as to be a legal quagmire. With the exception of clear-cut things like child pornography which harm children in their making, just about everything else is a gray area. And I'm quite sure one can still skirt the child pornography laws by either using CGI characters or actors/actresses over the age of consent who look much younger than their years (I personally knew some 18-year olds who could easily pass for 11 or 12). The hard fact is that adult entertainment has been around in one form or another ever since civilization has existed. Abortive attempts have been made before to get rid of it. As much as I'd personally like to get rid of most of it, especially strip clubs, practically spekaing the best we can do is segregate it.

On the SNL skit, I don't watch SNL or anything on network TV any more but I think this falls in the category of bad taste. The implications of censoring something because some people find it offensive is chilling in my mind. That's why TVs have an off button.

Bimmerboy said:

What PhotonWrangler and too many others are advocating, unwittingly or otherwise, is Federal control over life itself, where all is nice, clean, and pleasant... and totalitarian.

Click to expand...

No, I am not advocating that. However I am advocating that the rbroadcasters take some social responsibility and obey the laws that are currently in place.

I am nto for censorship, but I'm also against a broadcaster abusing their authority and making a damn fool out of themselves. It is not cool to make fun of a tragedy such as Katrina. Any of thhose here who have publicly professed sympathy for the victims and/or have donated to various relief efforts should understand this.

Also, regarding the FCC - I don't agree with many of their decisions but I do agree that they need to exist. It is because of them that we have order on the airwaves rather than chaos. It is because of them that TV and radio stations have assigned channels, instead of wandering all over the dial like they did in the early days. And it is because of the FCC that first responders and LEOs have two-way radio communication systems that work. Think about that the next time you need the police or an ambulance.

It is not cool to make fun of a tragedy such as Katrina.

Click to expand...

Go buy some South Park DVDs, eat a pizza, and be happy.

Bimmerboy said:

1. BB has this issue nailed...

Higher (or lower) standards of art and entertainment are a consequence of the dominant ideology of a nation. Trying to control media by government force, will only serve to destroy what's left of the ideology that once did dominate this country.

Click to expand...

Thank you for the complement...

However, I will argue that the standards of art and entertainment are not the result of "dominant ideology" of a majority in this nation. It is the result of a small minority of people in this nation using, primarily, lawyers and judges to lower the standards of art and entertainment.

For public airwaves--I agree with Empath. I can't leave a TV on for my kids anymore... It has to be pre-approved DVDs (and books, homework, etc.) or I watch it with them. It is not just the shows anymore, it is the ads too. Their radio is "stuck" on classical music, books on CD, or old radio show.s

For Internet, plain brown envelops, I say leave it alone--if the person(s) requested the "thing". (Excluding child porn, snuff films, and other areas where government does have a role to enforce standards).

If, however, it is unsolicited (email, www.whitehouse.com, etc.) then there should be a filter that the owner of a computer should be able to install that blocks those items (and sites should have ratings that integrate with the filter)... And, no parent should allow a child (or anyone) to use their computer/home/mail for any unauthorized activities. That includes, public libraries should either restrict access (student ID card with parent access level authorized if not "G" rated). Leaving kids to their own means is just asking for trouble.

Strong sanctions should be enforced (money, jail, etc.) for violations.

The problem is not simple... My standards are not your standards. It is that seemingly hard to get into law that fuzzy line between 8pm family hour on TV and snuff films... The government/judges/lawyers have yet to get that right.

-Bill

PhotonWrangler said:

Ultimately I home the FCC comes knocking on their door. They are accountable for their actions.

Click to expand...

If that's not advocating Federal control over life itself, I'm not quite sure what is.

We're talking about some humor you thought was in bad taste.

I thought the concept of rights was to recognize that in order to live as a free human being, you neccessarily have the right to choose what you see, think, consume, etc.

Having just seen a GGW video, I thought that was funny. I like the part where they offered a bottle of water to the FEMA guy if he showed his chest to them, which he did. Kind of pointed out the seriousness and problems of the situation there. Of course they poked fun at the CNN reporter as well as Fox news and the Kanya West thing.

Since Will Ferrel left it hasnt been as funny, nor had it been as funny as wehn Chris Farley was on it.

MADTV, BTW, just made fun of the Kanya West thing.

SNL hasn't been entertaining for years.

They're free to be as offensive and tasteless as they want to be. Civilization will survive one way or another ... although I have no doubt that there are a number of folks out there plotting lawsuits for "emotional distress."

jtr1962 said:

One thing I do favor is having easier ways to segregate adult-oriented entertainment from mainstream entertainment. This includes web sites with domain names which can be blocked (maybe use .xxx instad of .com)

Click to expand...

After years of wrangling, .xxx was about to go into effect when a bunch of conservative groups like the Family Research Council started lobbying ICANN in opposition to the .xxx domain, who aborted the procedings.

I do have to wonder why there was a surge of lobbying to prevent a technical mesaure such as a new iTLD, which would make filtering "obscene" material much easier. The FRC even has a policy section titled Internet Filters. Anyone else see the disconnect?

<cynicism>
Social conservatives aren't going to settle for mitigating the "problem" to the point that they can scren themselved from it with ease - it's all or nothing, and if .xxx worked the way it's intended to, the "struggle" might subside and they'd have to find something else to fixate on. Zealots never compromise.
</cyncism>

Perhaps this is more of an Underground topic - another skirmish in the long, tiresome culture war...

You're welcome, BB.

Since I'm feeling particularly gabby today, here's my reactions to your last post.

The government/judges/lawyers will never get it right, because gov't has no business getting into area. When you logic it out, even with the strictest oversight, all you get is a slippery slope when gov't sticks it's nose where it doesn't belong.

If you're the one approving of your kids' DVD, TV watching, and radio listening, it sounds like you're a concerned parent, and chances are they have a good set of values. I just see this as parents doing their job. A tough job to be sure, especially in today's atmosphere, but who else's responsibility is this supposed to be?

This sure could be a whole thread by itself, but quickly said, a culture's art and entertainment is precisely indicative of ideology and philosophy. Without an entire step by step explanation, I'll just ask anyone to try to dismiss the connection between the mass explosion of beautiful art around the world that suddenly came about as the Renaissance period took hold. The Renaissance was philisophical movement that upheld man as a rational, capable, and powerful being. The art followed.

Contrast that with the quality of art usually displayed as a civilized culture falls apart, or during the Dark Ages, etc.

I agree with you about the unsolicited stuff.

Anyway, just some food for thought. I'm glad for the intelligent bunch of peeps we have here to talk about this stuff. Still the best forum I've found to intelligently discuss these things, and of course, flashlights. :candle:

The SNL skit was tasteless, but not nearly as tasteless as all the foul language and sexual references on prime time TV these days. Who's watching out for the kids? It's one thing to argue against censorship, but if we don't maintain a set of standards the kids could one day be watching hard core pornographic cartoons on Saturday morning. Far-fetched? Not so much as you might think.

SNL used to be funny till they turned 100 percent liberal filth spewing mouthpiece..

Unwatchable anymore...

Its like Michael Moore is the producer..

Empath said:

"Consenting Adults"??????

I really do get tired of that tired old phrase being used everytime someone thinks censorship goes too far. I don't really care that much about what "consenting adults" do. What I do care about is that those "consenting adults" seem to think that everyone that listens to radio, TV, reads newspapers, magazines, novels, or what have you are "consenting adults". They apply the term as if all adults consent to their garbage. There's no way that non-consenting adults should have to take a back seat to "consenting adults", yet it seems that all media is produced for "consenting adults".

It may be too late, but if we can find a way to rid the media of the garbage mouths, and return us to the standards practiced years ago, I'd support it.

Click to expand...

I understand and respect your standards. They don't happen to agree with mine, but that's OK.

The "consenting adults" clause is sort of like the disclaimer seen at the end of a Lassie movie. You know the one? "No animals have been harmed in the production of this movie."

If a person wants to make an offensive film, and everyone working on it enjoys and profits from the making, and there's an audience that wants to watch it, then it's between consenting people. If the people are mature enough to know if they are being manipulated into doin the film, they are adults.

So, it's between consenting adults and only someone who is forced to watch it is "harmed".


Now instead of trying to tell me what I can do, you should be crusading for a "good mindkeeping" seal of approval for books, TV, movies, radio shows and web sites. That would allow you to find those that you DO like without infringing on MY likes and dislikes.

It makes so much more sense to make a .G domain instead of a .XXX domain. It's easy to agree on what falls in the G domain but much more difficult, especially world wide, to say what falls in the XXX domain.

In the mean time, some helpful suggestions.

If the web offends you, install net-nanny and your troubles are over.

If SNL's humor offends you, change the channel to the 700 club or Disney before turning it off and don't channel surf.

Tune the radio to the station of your choice. Many of them don't have rap lyrics or suggestive themes.

There are newspapers that are produced by religious groups. You may find them more palatable.


I am a lucky guy, almost nothing offends me. I learned long ago that pictures and words are simply symbols, not the real thing. They don't hurt me or anyone else. They don't make me do anything nor do they stop me from soing anything.

Violence, however, does offend me. News at eleven.

Daniel