Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Friday, April 27, 2007
Brent Bozell :: Townhall.com Columnist
TV in the Toilet, Literally
by Brent Bozell
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


Bathroom humor is an unfortunate staple of the entertainment industry, but it's not always intentional. Tongues wagged all over America when rock singer Sheryl Crow announced her latest planet-saving ideas on the Internet.

As she cruised the country in a biodiesel-fueled bus to fight against global warming, the singer said some of her ideas "are in the earliest stages of development" -- and then proclaimed one of them without having thought it through. "I propose a limitation be put on how many squares of toilet paper can be used in any one sitting ... one square per restroom visit."

Her critics are still enjoying the field day. And entertainers wonder why no one wants them setting government policy.

But most of the time, bathroom humor is intentional, and designed to go beyond the comfort zone. It's not enough to be snarky, or even crass. Now it must be downright revolting to be considered "funny."

The latest offender is ABC's "According to Jim" with Jim Belushi, a show that was originally marketed to viewers as a family sitcom with the lovable ogre dad, the beautiful mom and three cute little smart-alecks. Now, ABC calls it an "earthy family comedy." Translation: Get ready for a lot of references to toilet contents.

The premise of the April 18 episode, titled "What Lies Beneath," is that Jim lost his wedding ring, and unbeknownst to him, it was found in the front yard (with a metal detector) and brought to his wife, Cheryl. He's been wearing a counterfeit ring to cover up his mistake. Cheryl wants him to admit that he lost it. So far, that's a classic sitcom plot that wouldn't be out of place in the 1930s, or the 1950s, or the 1990s.

But this is 2007. Cheryl bakes cupcakes and tells her family that the only way each person in the house gets to have a cupcake is by publicly admitting to a lie. Jim won't confess about the lost ring. Cheryl then puts the lost ring on top of his "special cupcake." He glares at it, but instead of confessing his deception, Jim eats the entire cupcake, ring and all.

That's when the sitcom plot rockets into the sleazy 21st century, setting the bathroom plot into motion, since Cheryl wants to get the "evidence" of Jim's lost ring back ... in the bathroom. But not before her sister unloads an "earthy" story about how "last week, I was up on the roof throwing water balloons I filled with my own urine." What's with this fictional family? How gross can it get?

The low point of the plot arrives when ABC shows Jim hurrying to the bathroom because he has to pass the wedding ring he swallowed. He is shown taking off his pants and sitting down on the toilet, and then the viewer hears a "clank" sound. It is implied that Jim has just excreted his ring in his waste. Family members are hiding in the bathtub. We see them open the curtain, and Jim's wife yells, "Don't you dare flush that toilet." His brother-in-law adds the joke, "And feel free to light a match."

Why must a viewer be subjected to a plot like this? The ratings system has no "S" for scatological content." The "S" is for sexual situations. The Federal Communications Commission defined broadcast indecency in 1987 as "language or material that, in context, depicts or describes, in terms patently offensive as measured by contemporary community standards for the broadcast medium, sexual or excretory organs or activities."

This is certainly a plot based on (implied) excretory activities, but it's certainly not what the regulators had in mind. I suspect that when these rules were written there wasn't a soul at the FCC who believed "humor" would ever come to this.

Is this the comedy your family pines for when you gather around the TV for an evening of entertainment? Do you know of any family that relishes plot lines about bowel movements? This isn't a "family comedy," earthy or otherwise. This is cultural waste for the culturally wasted.

A few years ago, Belushi won a Best Actor honor from the Family-Friendly Programming Forum -- after the delightful episode about his character's low sperm count. That "earthy family comedy" plot featured Jim's brother-in-law switching a "sample" of his own sperm instead of Jim's for testing, and Jim's wife convincing the two that she'd been impregnated with her brother's sperm.

Programming like this demonstrates that networks like ABC don't seem to have any standards-and-practices cops -- never mind standards -- and this over-the-top (or under-the-seat) episode wasn't even a stunt for the May sweeps period. Parents beware: There are no boundaries or guardrails of taste in the world of "family comedies" any more.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Founder and President of the Media Research Center, Brent Bozell runs the largest media watchdog organization in America.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Be the first to read Brent Bozell's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
 
©Creators Syndicate
kids tv
Have you seen what passes for cute girls on kids stations like Nick or Boomerang? These girls could be playing temptresses on Boston Legal or ER, and they're supposed to be high school girls, and even younger.

Here's the problem. Say you have a gallon of chocolate ice cream. Every day you get it out of the fridge and enjoy some. But eventually, you will have to scrape the bottom of the container.

TV has been around for over 60 years, movies even longer. Eventually you have to run out of ideas, or keep doing the same stories over and over. The only way to overcome that is to scrape the bottom of the barrel, which is what we're seeing today.

Not Funny!
These so called sitcoms aren't funny or entertaining and the writing is awful.

How is it one can sit there and watch these programs and not laugh once during the course of the show?

I never watch these shows at home but recently saw an episode of Everbody Loves Raymond at a relative's house.

The show is terrible and I did not find any aspect of the show to be amusing.

My 10 year old daughter watches reruns of I love Lucy, Andy Griffith, etc. and really enjoys these shows.

I noticed that she laughs while watching I Love Lucy, but sits there in a stupor while watching the Disney Channel tween sitcoms.

There is definately something wring with the shows that are produced today.

Just ask yourself this question:

Why is is that Abbott & Costello, I Love Lucy, etc. could produce great comedy without toilet humor or sexual references?








"Kill your TV"
"I Love Lucy" would probably never make it past the drawing board today, as somebody would no doubt complain that it portrays women as hare-brained idiots, in need of a reasonable man to keep them in check.

I suspect that the only reason why it isn't kept off the air altogether is that the high priestesses of feminism can use it as an example of "how far we've come". We've come a long way all right, but unfortunately the direction has been straight down the tube--pun intended.

I saw a bumper sticker the other day that read, "Kill Your TV". Not a bad idea.

Interesting question
Presumable the answer to the question of why such things are on the air is that people like to watch them. That the focus here is on "According to Jim" is interesting because there is probably no show on the air that has been more detested and looked down on by the media critics and liberal elites as "According to Jim." Like "The Bridges of Madison County" in the book world, According to Jim is the epitome of what middle America likes to the horror of the liberal elites.

But that is one of the things about capitalism. Even if the elites oppose something, it can still be wildly popular and make a lot of money.

Pathetic!
Most of the sitcoms and fare on tv is not only vile, but stupid. Old timers like Lucille Ball and other old pros were witty, talented and stood above the need to sink to the lowest common denominator. It's so easy to do the bathroom humor and other assorted garbage and get a laugh. It's been around a long time, only now it's become the legitimate form of entertainment in our country. Michael Medved relates that the movies that gross the most are the least gross, but it doesn't stop these "artists" from dumping their pre-pubescent humor on America, continually dumbing down our culture and turning our young people into sewer mouths w/ the manners of a low life street hustler. I don't advocate a nerdy, prudish mentality, but at least use humor in an intelligent if not moral way. Most of it is so stupid it defies a laugh. It's in a word- pathetic.

Re: tv is indeed horrifying

jamie writes:

> My daughter was watching a show with many minorities
> the other day, and I was appalled.


And well that you should've been. Those...those DARKIES
should be restricted to their own channels. Isn't that
what BET (Black Entertainment Network) is for? You'd
think they'd be more comfortable among their own kind!


-CB-


brent and Lynne
Swing and a miss.

>>Why must a viewer be subjected to a plot like this?

Because they are too lazy to apply the pressure needed to depress a tiny little button on their remote control that would change the channel on their television.

And thank you TH posters for being the second bunch in as many days to stomp your self righteous steel toed boots down the throat of someone you historically disagree with without stopping to consider whether or not she has a valid point.

Lynne, you missed the point of everything animalgirlisback had to say, which I will restate here:

>>TV has always been crap. Read a book.

Fox news is just like every other news outlet; they exist to make a profit. Sex sells. Therefore, they not only report and sensationalize the sexually oriented commentary, but their female anchors are amongst the most beautiful you will find anywhere on television.

Once again, if you can recognize this as primary fact, you aren't even attempting to pay attention.

The second important point, a favorite of theocons to overlook, is the idea that history covers such a wide berth that evidence is often offered through the lense of selective memory. You offer evidence of a more pure time and spew forth other such nonsense to justify how the present culture is so much worse.

It isn't any different, it's simply more visible.

Conservatives miss the boat of intelligent conversation because they refuse to accept valid points when articulated by someone with whom they dissagree. Of course, with a "leader" like Bozel, who can be suprised.

The free market is proven to work.

And I get a gold star for defending animalgirl with capitalistic principals.




correction
Once again, if you can recognize this as primary fact, you aren't even attempting to pay attention.

should read

Once again, if you can't recognize this as primary fact, you aren't even attempting to pay attention.

My apologies for any confusion.

Bozell's mindless propaganda
Brent Bozell is at it again. With his selective use of information, aggrieved tone of voice, and repetition of the same handful of examples, his propaganda -- and that is what it is -- gets tedious as well as nasty. I am of the belief that today's TV happens to be better than the "golden" age. And if that means hearing a few "potty mouth" words on "The Sopranos," tough. Censorship is as bad when it comes from the Right as when it comes from the Left.

Mr. Disney
...must be rolling over in his grave. The "According
to Jim" sitcom and now Rosie O'Donnell on "The View" has been giving the Mouse a lot of headaches. I can not believe what the Disney people allow in this day. When I was much younger much of this would never be allowed by ABC.
Why are we as a society so lax? Disgusting bathroom humor during the "family" hour...what a oxymoron that is! There no longer is a family hour. Now our children see what only was on after the 11
PM hour. Talk about getting educated! Have we gone too far yet? Has that line been crossed and will common decency return? I surely hope so.

Re: Bozell's mindless propaganda

garageman writes:

> Censorship is as bad when it comes from the Right as when
> it comes from the Left.


You had me nodding in agreement right up until that sentence,
garageman. Bozell isn't talking about censorship, which is
something that's imposed externally. He's calling for vol-
untary self-restraint and a sense of standards from the networks.


-CB-


Re: Creighton Beryll
When people are intimidated into censoring themselves, that is censorship. Government does not necessarily have to do the censoring. Creating an intimidating, shame-filled moral climate often does the trick -- a climate that Bozell seeks.

Think about it. If someone tries to terrorize you out of speaking your mind, is this not, on a more personal note, what the State at its worst seeks to achieve? To induce filmmakers, novelists and other creative people into becoming reflexively self-censorious may well be the ultimate form of censorship, all the more pernicious for going unrecognized.

Spanish language TV and ABC Family
Brent,

Speaking of "family friendly" TV, I plead you to do some research on Spanish language channels -- some of the images are very sexually graphic for "family friendly" audiences. I urge you to take them to task.

Also, on the ABC Family channel, some of the dialogues, images and situations are not family friendly at all. I urge you to go through some of their sexually and violence laced programming content. At times, I am left with my mouth open, when I see the programs on that channel. I beg your analysts and researchers to conduct studies on this channel. It is frankly, shocking.

Addicted to idle entertainments
Television (cable or broadcast) lost me long ago - for those who don't know, you really CAN survive, and even thrive, without ANY TV. I also have come to the view that, even if, TV was better in "the old days", it also really wasn't all that good either. A great majority of the US culutre is addicted to idle, trivial entertainments and consumptions, in many various forms. It is like a morbidly obese person who consumes great quantities of sugar/fats and is also indignant when anyone suggests or observes a connection. Much important and valuable work and even more priceless relationships have been sacrificed on the altar of this monstrous, narcissistic temple called Entertain-ME.

garageman

garageman writes:

> When people are intimidated into censoring themselves,
> that is censorship.

The gentleman doth protest too much.

The idea of "an intimidating, shame-filled moral climate"
is patently nonsensical. Shame, or the threat of it, is
not intimidation. (It might have what liberals call a
"chilling effect," but that's not the same thing at all.
The essence of a chilling effect is self-restraint, not
external sanction.

Why not? Because the final arbiter of whether a person
feels shame is the individual himself. Shame is not
imposed externally, not in the final analysis. An external
authority could try to CONVINCE me to feel ashamed, but
that's the most he can do, shame-wise. Whether or not I buy
into that is my decision and my responsibility, and mine
alone.

Contrast the situation wherein an external authority will
threaten actual punishment such as fines or incarceration,
as in the USSR in the bad old days. The individual has no
say or control over that.


> Think about it. If someone tries to terrorize you out
> of speaking your mind, is this not, on a more personal
> note, what the State at its worst seeks to achieve?

Nobody could "terrorize" me by trying to make me feel
ashamed. To insist otherwise is to define the word
downward to the point of rendering it meaningless.


-CB-



Intimidation is the name of the game
Not convincing, Creighton Beryll.

Intimidation -- against TV executives rather than viewers -- is precisely what Bozell seeks. I know this up close, having been in the same room with this guy, listening to him rhapsodize about the importance of intimidation. Of course, the Media Resource Center isn't going into individual homes and bullying people into switching channels. Going directly to the networks and dictating content, at the threat of a boycott or worse, is far more cost-effective.

Call it what you will. I call it censorship.

garageman
I'm with you. Not once does Bozell firmly espouse the simple idea that would solve everything. Even animalgirl gets it.

>>TV has always been crap. Read a book.

In other words, turn it off.

In other words, let the market do it's thing. Anything else is censorship.

Re: Spanish language TV and ABC Family

Sri writes:

> Speaking of "family friendly" TV, I plead you to do some
> research on Spanish language channels -- some of the
> images are very sexually graphic for "family friendly"
> audiences. I urge you to take them to task.

Why do you assume right off the bat that the culture with
the more permissive TV is the one that's broken?

If Hispanic culture has a more grown-up, matter-of-fact
attitude toward such fare (despite their heavy Catholicism)
than Anglo culture does, maybe our tight-@ssed Anglo culture
could stand to learn a thing or two from them in that regard
rather than vice versa.


> Also, on the ABC Family channel, some of the dialogues,
> images and situations are not family friendly at all. I
> urge you to go through some of their sexually and violence
> laced programming content.

Just change the effin' channel if you don't what you see,
fercrissakes.

Yumping yenitals, people; there's an enormous variety of TV
programming out there, something for everybody. Just make
your choice and let the rest of us make ours.


-CB-

I no longer watch
Jay Leno because he can't get through a monologue without some toilet "humor". I don't watch sitcoms.

Lynne, my TV is also on Fox around the clock. I'm an addict!

Re: Intimidation is the name of the game

garageman writes:

> Not convincing, Creighton Beryll.

Then again, I'd hardly expect you to roll over and show me
your figurative throat after one go-round.


> Intimidation -- against TV executives rather than viewers
> -- is precisely what Bozell seeks.

So where exactly is the line drawn between pressure and
intimidation?


-CB-

Re: I no longer watch

CC writes:

> Jay Leno because he can't get through a monologue without
> some toilet "humor". I don't watch sitcoms.


Why are so many conservatives so tense and hangup-ridden
when it comes to anything to do with sex or excretion?

Why, one could be forgiven for thinking that you folks
use the toilet in the dark and reproduce by binary fission,
like planaria.


-CB-

2 Cheryls in the toilet
Brent, Ms. Crow must be 'retentive' or something to believe in this one square malarky. She and the hollywood elite like Jim Belushi are jokes to most of us..Think about how bad his brother John would have been if he'd survived his drug overdose. Jim is just trying to live up to his brother's legacy of crud. I'm tired of Bush bashing passing for Democratic party platform...I quit the party and returned to the Republican Party last week. The Harry and Nancy dog and one trick pony show was the final straw. Harry is a real moral force (Nev has legal hookers) from the "Swallow me State" and a place rife with mob influence.The Kennedys are probably keeping Nev financially soluble. Keep on reminding them we're not swallowing their BS....Grandmaster Ro

Non-connection
I love Bozell, and I think he does great work.

And I agree that Sheryl Crow must be a total bimbo to even consider that as a population we should ration ourselves with one sheet per "visit".

But there is no useful connection between Crow's inane, naive, political activism and toilet humor on TV sitcoms.

There is no connection precisely because Crow was apparently serious (although now, after experiencing well-deserved ridicule, she is claiming it was a joke).

Both lib and con posters make better points than Bozell on this one.

Bozell asks, "Why must a viewer be subjected to a plot like this?" And more than one poster has responded that the viewer doesn't have to be. He can change the channel. Or do some housework. Or jog.

Other posters point out that this is lousy humor, as in bad art. And still others observe that the market will decide. That bad humor equals a bad sitcom and a bad sitcom will be cancelled, hopefully sooner rather than later.

If Bozell's purpose is to discourage Hollywood from producing more toilet humor he might consider just ignoring episodes (and shows) like this one. In today's anything-goes culture bad publicity is far better than no publicity.

For CB
Creighton Beryll asks:

"Why are so many conservatives so tense and hangup-ridden
when it comes to anything to do with sex or excretion?"

CB,

We conservatives are not "hung-up" about either sex or excretion. We merely understand that our personal sex lives aren't really all that interesting to other people and we have enough consideration not to bore them with the details. We know that our sex lives are boring to others because we find the sex lives of others boring to us.

We also like a little privacy in our sex lives. You know, the same kind of privacy liberals declare as an absolute right for sodomites.

Also, what part of this article has anything to do with sex? Why can't you libs discuss a topic that has nothing to do with sex or politics without dragging sex and politics into it?

Regarding excretion, we are not "hung up" by that either. We are disgusted by it. We are disgusted by it because it is dirty, unhealthy, and it stinks (of course, being a liberal, you may not understand that yours stinks too, so you'll just have to trust me on that one).

We also understand that excretion is a necessary bodily function, just like exhaling CO2 into the atmosphere is. The main difference in this regard is we don't suggest that people are destroying the earth by excreting the way liberals say people are destroying the earth by breathing.

TV or not TV [I know, it's not original]
I was there at the beginning of TV as we know it. It was immature, loud, filled with mistakes, annoying, usually funny, and more respectful to people than not. It included quiz show scandals, the early life of rock and roll, the original Disneyland, the birth of Bob Barker, and truly family oriented shows, such as Lucy, Donna Reed, Beaver, Ozzie and Harriet, Lassie, Rin-Tin-Tin, the Lone Ranger, You Are There, Zoo Parade, Kate Smith, Ed Sullivan, Liberace, Nat King Cole, and others. News shows were ten or fifteen minutes long. No weather channel was evident. We [I] had Tex Antoine and Unc Wethbee. And the weather forecasts were just as inaccurate as they are today. And there was nary a curse word among them---we had no cable. He!!, we could hardly see what was broadcast, let alone make a lot of choices.

And yet we criticized. The Great Wasteland. Inane scripts. Too much on the laugh track. Live is no good. I Dream of Jeannie is too racy. Bewitched is against religion. Green Acres was too stupid. Bishop Sheen was actually on commercial television! Horrors! He treated an angel as an angel and not an a-religious movie/tv plot device.

Complain as they might, the critics couldn't say TV was in the toilet. Now they do, and they have valid complaints. For the language and content of much on TV is lower than that great Wasteland of yore.

Free speech as guaranteed to us is political speech. A free society needs that. But it doesn't mean that everything we say is or should be protected. You know, the old 'fire' in the theater routine. Now we have the wedding ring in the toilet passing for prime time, 21st century, quality humor---for which the actors are paid millions. We also have Rosie---sheesh! That thought by itself is so depressing.

What television needs is to have its face washed in the snow, old fashioned style. It needs to be reminded strongly that the people of the United States don't need the sexual, toilet, and Liberal content of most broadcasts. That's not being wimpy. Isn't it reasonable to expect a considerate television and movie industry?

Maybe I'll just have to dream some more.

Re: CB's comments on my post
CB,

The emphasis is on family friendly fare -- I don't care if it is Spanish, French, Arabic or Swahili. As long as it is on my TV screen and claims to be for the "family", I will always object to borderline pornography and/or violent images/plots/stories. Take a look at some of the images shown on Univision or Telemundo, early in the evenings. It is definitely meant for a more mature audience. Although the cultural backdrop is Hispanic, for your kind information, the images are being shown on American TV -- does not mean that they be given a pass because they are not "Anglo". Some of the images are as crass as Jim Belushi's poop jokes.

On the other hand, I will not object to adult oriented fare, like the programs that are there on Comedy Central or Adult Swim -- to their credit, they are not hypocrites in claiming they are for *families*.

I really hope the Media Research Center dissects the ABC Family channel, esp.

Wise One
Thank you for responding much better than I could.

tmmcoy
What a lovely and nostalgic posting! Brings back sweet memories.

I'll keep dreaming too. For my grandchildren and their future.

Good posts Wiseone
Liberals think that conservatives are prudes since they advocate keeping sex etc private. Keeping something private does not mean prudishness or "hang-ups."
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.