PTC vs. "$#*! My Dad Says": Round 2

[quadraphonic]

Nobody I've seen is objecting to the content, because they haven't seen it yet.
But how good can you expect a show to be if they have to resort to censored swear words in the title? The death pool is already taking picks.

My shorts aren't in a bunch, I'm not silly, I'm not having a hissy fit, I don't want to restrict freedom of speech, I'm aware that this language occurs all over the world at any given moment, I don't hate anyone, I know it was already in a website, blog or whatever, and a best-selling book title, and I don't want CBS to burn in hell completely and irrevocably for poisoning the minds of children and adults alike, but I just don't understand the necessity of having to use a censored swear word in a show title (and in all the promo mentions on CBS NFL games, between other programming, and other times when (my) kids might be watching.

 

[Mark Giardina]

Considering most of the shows on TV today are S#*! I don't see what's the big deal with the title of this show.

 

[LKellerIII]

Nobody I've seen is objecting to the content, because they haven't seen it yet.
But how good can you expect a show to be if they have to resort to censored swear words in the title? The death pool is already taking picks.

My shorts aren't in a bunch, I'm not silly, I'm not having a hissy fit, I don't want to restrict freedom of speech, I'm aware that this language occurs all over the world at any given moment, I don't hate anyone, I know it was already in a website, blog or whatever, and a best-selling book title, and I don't want CBS to burn in hell completely and irrevocably for poisoning the minds of children and adults alike, but I just don't understand the necessity of having to use a censored swear word in a show title (and in all the promo mentions on CBS NFL games, between other programming, and other times when (my) kids might be watching.

It's pure opportunism - CBS is just trying something different. It's a gimmick. In my opinion, PTC is just playing into their hands. Quad, I respect your sincerity, but putting together an organized boycott against a swear word that isn't uttered is laughable - especially in a broadcast medium in which actual swear words are often spoken by performers, and then censored all the time.

Chances are, the gimmick won't work, and the networks won't repeat it again.

 

[DToTheJ]

Chances are they have not seen the series -- or read the book it's based on (though I won't be surprised if they try to get THAT banned as well).

Actually, the series is based on a Twitter account. As a result of the popularity of that Twitter feed, there is this TV series, as well as a book, that will be based on it.

 

[gregg75]

WOW what will they think of next? My next book and TV series: HOW MAMA CUTS HER TOENAILS.
Only $19.95 get yours today. Watch for it on the CW.

 

[benwolf]

The reason for the title is that its based on the book, which has been a best seller on the NY Times list for weeks, and it is a hilarious read. As for the show, we don't know yet.

 

[quadraphonic]

Nobody I've seen is objecting to the content, because they haven't seen it yet.
But how good can you expect a show to be if they have to resort to censored swear words in the title? The death pool is already taking picks.

My shorts aren't in a bunch, I'm not silly, I'm not having a hissy fit, I don't want to restrict freedom of speech, I'm aware that this language occurs all over the world at any given moment, I don't hate anyone, I know it was already in a website, blog or whatever, and a best-selling book title, and I don't want CBS to burn in hell completely and irrevocably for poisoning the minds of children and adults alike, but I just don't understand the necessity of having to use a censored swear word in a show title (and in all the promo mentions on CBS NFL games, between other programming, and other times when (my) kids might be watching.

It's pure opportunism - CBS is just trying something different. It's a gimmick. In my opinion, PTC is just playing into their hands. Quad, I respect your sincerity, but putting together an organized boycott against a swear word that isn't uttered is laughable - especially in a broadcast medium in which actual swear words are often spoken by performers, and then censored all the time.

Chances are, the gimmick won't work, and the networks won't repeat it again.

Do you think it's among the best choices of wording for a national show? Even in "a broadcast medium in which actual swear words are often spoken?" Why do things have to be made relative in order to worse things to give them credence? Shouldn't things stand or fail n their own, and not depend on comparisons to other things around them for their worth and value?

Surely it's a gimmick. I guess substance doesn't work that well to draw a crowd any more.
If that's all the show is built on, you're right, it won't last. Odds are, it won't last anyway. The vast majority of viewers will boycott the show on their own, not because the PTC said to, and maybe even not for the same reasons.

You could look at a boycott as "playing into their hands" and giving the show more publicity [probably more than it deserves, we shall see on that]. But then again, if the show's goal is to get viewers, instead of just creating publicity, it plays out of their hands [or whatever the opposite of that metaphor would be] so that's probably a net loss for the network. The publicity about the show's content will probably never outweigh the initial publicity about the show's name.

But it's all just discussions. If the PTC doesn't have a boycott and create some publicity [and secondarily publicize the unfortunate choice of show titling], then where does that leave the discussion? There would be none. And what about next time a network wants to do the next gimmick [and, say, actually utter a cuss word in a show title]? The network will think nobody minds if they put a cuss word in the show title, and there will be people lining up to say "You didn't say anything last time with the symbolized-unuttered cuss word in the title PTC" as their best defense for the downgrade to continue. People talking about a boycott are only discussing them doing one, and discussing a problem, they're not requiring anyone else to join. It's just discussions. Discussion is good. That's not "laughable."

For many people, it doesn't matter if the cuss word in the show title is "uttered" or not. The intended word is clear. Just like with most other cuss words they might bleep out on shows, everyone knows what they're doing. You can't deny the intent.

So no, they're not "uttering" the word, but they are implanting the word in the minds of everyone who sees a promo for the show. Not all people want that word implanted in their mind for "comedy." It's not the fault of the viewer for inserting "that word" into the show title, because it was obviously intended to be "that word" by the producers. It's likely that fewer want the idea of the word implanted in their kids' minds during an NFL game or during The Price is Right or during whatever other shows CBS does now. So there goes that channel in parents' options, at least for a while.

Maybe in some contexts, it's a happy, harmless word. Not everyone enjoys those contexts. In theory, we all have ultimate freedom to do and say whatever we feel like saying. But when theory comes into practice, then we have to discuss things. For some of us, like the PTC, that even includes talking about boycotting one thing among a sea of other bad things. That's part of what "freedom" is all about.

 

[azumanga]

For many people, it doesn't matter if the cuss word in the show title is "uttered" or not. The intended word is clear. Just like with most other cuss words they might bleep out on shows, everyone knows what they're doing. You can't deny the intent.

In other words, you would like the FCC tighten rules even further by banning even censored cusswords. You want to make sure that the misuse of punctuation is actually a crime. It's just a clever gimmick for a TV show title, which has a 99.5% chance of having absolutely nothing obscene.

Besides, the comics have always used symbolic representations of cussing, similar to the above, ever since the 19th Century -- and no one was crabbing. Let it be.

For some of us, like the PTC, that even includes talking about boycotting one thing among a sea of other bad things. That's part of what "freedom" is all about.

No doubt one of the PTC's freedoms is the freedom to complain to the FCC, in order to get them to stifle the same freedoms that others enjoy -- freedom of speech and freedom of expression. Yes, it is the PTC's right to complain, but the FCC should know better than to just listen to one group of people, especially if many of the letters are virtually the same. The FCC preactically learned the hard way a few years back with the "Saving Private Ryan" case.

 

[quadraphonic]

For many people, it doesn't matter if the cuss word in the show title is "uttered" or not. The intended word is clear. Just like with most other cuss words they might bleep out on shows, everyone knows what they're doing. You can't deny the intent.

In other words, you would like the FCC tighten rules even further by banning even censored cusswords. You want to make sure that the misuse of punctuation is actually a crime.

That's not near what I said. Before you jump to conclusions ask for directions man. I didn't mention the FCC. We were talking "PTC boycott" not "FCC regulation."

I'm all for discussions, lots of people don't even think it's a topic worth discussing. I maybe even could be for a boycott. I don't see the harm in any of the response to the unuttered-but-clearly-intended word. I surely wouldn't call it "laughable" for people to express their opinions about what they believe in and even put their beliefs into action, insomuch as they are able. I might not agree with their conclusions, or the way they reached them, but I can't dismiss their having an opinion on a matter.

I'm really not for the FCC to restrict much, but if that's their job, that's their job. Realistically, someone has to restrict things. Networks should really handle that on their own, so this should've never been an issue. It should've been "My Dad Is Crazy Talking" or something. The marketplace would restrict things better anyway [he said, knowing full well that letting the marketplace speak would result in more pandering to the LCD at least initially, and thus more limited viewing choices for people who don't feel like the LCD, but he's cool with that too].

But to your point about it being a crime, if there's a rule against cussing on tv, why can't there be rules against "attempted cussing?"
We have rules against "attempted murder" and "conspiracy" for various crimes, even if "nobody really got hurt."

It's just a clever gimmick for a TV show title, which has a 99.5% chance of having absolutely nothing obscene.

Except for the title. The title is kind of important. And prominent. It will be stated pretty much every time the show is mentioned.
It's a stand-in cuss word. If you're a stand-in for a groom at a wedding, is he any less married to the bride?

Besides, the comics have always used symbolic representations of cussing, similar to the above, ever since the 19th Century -- and no one was crabbing. Let it be.

So how "clever" is it if it's been used by other people for 150 years?
People have "crabbed" about it. But there's something different between seeing symbols on a page and seeing AND hearing them in "a clever gimmick"-named tv show. Hearing them, even in abridged forms, is harder to ignore than just seeing them, and does more damage.

For some of us, like the PTC, that even includes talking about boycotting one thing among a sea of other bad things. That's part of what "freedom" is all about.

No doubt one of the PTC's freedoms is the freedom to complain to the FCC, in order to get them to stifle the same freedoms that others enjoy -- freedom of speech and freedom of expression.[/quote]
This isn't political expression or political discourse. It's not someone expressing an idea and being arrested.
It's a title for a tv show, broadcast on tv. Restricted or not by the FCC. "Freedom of speech and expression" on broadcast tv is already restricted by the FCC, and by local authorities to prevent stampedes and riots, and other problems.

Yes, it is the PTC's right to complain, but the FCC should know better than to just listen to one group of people, especially if many of the letters are virtually the same. The FCC preactically learned the hard way a few years back with the "Saving Private Ryan" case.

If the one group of people makes a better case than the [silent] "let it be" majority, why wouldn't the FCC listen to that one group of people? Regional Court Judges do that all the time.

 

[LKellerIII]

I agree with Quad on one important point - boycotts are not the same as censorship. It is anybody's right to organize a group to urge sponsors or viewers to boycott a program. That's how freedom of speech works. The sponsors can either ignore the PTC, or pull their sponsorship of the show. Then CBS can either get new sponsors, or cancel the show.

I felt the same about Dr. Laura's ridiculous claim that people were trying to restrict her first amendment rights after her N word utterances. No - the anti-Laura crowd was just trying to get listeners to boycott her show, and affiliates to pull the show from their stations. No governmental entity was tyring to censor her.

But - again - I doubt these boycotts work. Dr. Laura probably gained listeners.

Remember last year when left-leaning groups were trying to get sponsors to boycott Glenn Beck's TV show? That worked great. Glenn has disappeared, and we haven't heard anything from him since then. :

 

[imhomerjay]

Boycotts tend not to work so well when people don't know about them--they're overblown in forums like this, but how many people do you think out in the "real world" have heard about a boycott? And among the small percentage that have, how many have the time to bother in thier busy lives to figure out who they're really going to boycott, etc.? It just isn't that high a priority in the lives of most people with, um, real lives (and that's whether we're talking about this new show, Beck, or whichever show is ticking off someone at a given moment).

The days of Fater Knows Best and such are over--pining for them isn't going to bring them back.

 

[DToTheJ]

Remember last year when left-leaning groups were trying to get sponsors to boycott Glenn Beck's TV show? That worked great. Glenn has disappeared, and we haven't heard anything from him since then. :

Yes, silence is golden... :

 

[MarcB]

We all saw how successful the boycott of Married With Children went which was led by that whack job from Michigan. Sponsors yanked their ads and two weeks later they were begging to sponsor the show again.

 

[quadraphonic]

Boycotts are like most advertising and any talk show, and most other forms of communication in that they only make most people think about a topic. They don't convince everyone right off the bat [even the American Revolution and the original The Party and the Montgomery AL bus boycotts didn't do that]. To actually do anything, most people require more than discussion. They have to "have a dog in that hunt," some personal reason to join in [some kids they want to protect, some cause outside themselves, fear of being left out when the boycott gets popular in their sphere of influence] to make it worth the risk of being called a "whack job." Most people don't have a dog in every hunt, just in the ones that apply to their life and experience.

There's few causes that great numbers even pay attention to, much less share actual interest in, much less agree on the particulars about, these days. So yeah, boycotts probably won't "work" if you're looking at them to change the world by gaining a majority of its people, or even to make a company change their mind [most companies don't want to admit their original idea was bad, that kind of thing]. But boycotts are a way for people to express their opinions, join up in a group, and make a group statement about a topic. And most people who would join a boycott do it as part of their "real life" in consideration of things beyond their own person, locale, and time. For most boycotters, it's not about doing what "is successful" or "works" it's about "doing what's right."

The skewed view of people who do boycotts as "whack jobs" and of their results as "not successful" because they don't have the result we think they are shooting for [when they're really shooting for another result than we think] are like the twisted view of "judging people." We all boycott things: there are things we don't do, for different reasons. We do that even though we aren't involved in a group doing it, we do it "because it's right," for whatever reason. We all judge people and things [especially those we avoid/boycott] based on whether or not they are worth doing, or "because they are right or wrong," or whatever other criteria, otherwise we wouldn't know ourselves what we should do.

 

[LKellerIII]

Apropos of boycotts and censorhip in America - I can't resist mentioning some history. I've been reading John Adams' biography. In 1798, the Federalists in Congress passed one of the most reprehensible laws in US history - the Sedition Act. It was blatantly unconstitutional, but it was early in the nation's history, and it was allowed to stand for a couple of years. Put simply, it made it illegal to criticize the government or the President.

A few people were prosecuted, and even imprisoned under the act. Most absurdly, one drunken bar-fly was reportedly convicted for making fun of the President's large rear end. There were even a couple of opposition (Republican) Congressman who served months of jail time for sedition. When they were released, they wore their convictions as badges of honor, used it against the Federalists, and were re-elected by large margins.

 

[Skynet74]

I refuse to watch any William Shatner show.......especially if he trys to be the Archie Bunker of 2010.

It's OK. I'll have three of my friends watch now instead of just two. All fixed.

 

[LKellerIII]

Excerpts of the review from the San Francisco Chronicle

"...look at you (CBS), making a sitcom from the Twitter sensation that was "S- My Dad Says." Only you're calling it "$#*! My Dad Says," which is just dumb and annoying. And your on-air announcers will literally say "Bleep My Dad Says." That's like going to a house party in 2010 and saying "groovy." Who are you and what have you done with those rote procedurals you're so good at?

...Shatner is today what Betty White will be less than two years from now. Over. And both of you - network and audience - should know that turning 140-character rants from a cranky old man into a fully formed sitcom is nearly impossible, no matter how much the laugh track gets sweetened. Face it, "$#*! My Dad Says" was a bad idea from inception to pilot.

For the record, the original pilot was reshot. The new version, airing tonight, is much improved. Meaning it went from unspeakable to unwatchable."


http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/09/22/DDV11FH439.DTL#ixzz10JT72KG7

 

[PTBoardOp94]

That's kind of morbid on the Chronicle's part. In all likelihood, Betty White will be dead in two years. (Making it to 90 in good health is no guarantee of making it to 92.)

 

[azumanga]

In all likelihood, Betty White will be dead in two years. (Making it to 90 in good health is no guarantee of making it to 92.)

But still, look at George Burns and Bob Hope -- both made it to 100 before dying, and both were performing shortly before their deaths.

 

[LKellerIII]

That's kind of morbid on the Chronicle's part. In all likelihood, Betty White will be dead in two years. (Making it to 90 in good health is no guarantee of making it to 92.)

You only thought that because Betty's old. I'm sure the reviewer meant it in the context of her sudden mega-fame, Betty White is everywhere - movies, TV, commercials...always playing the sharp, but snarky oldster spouting sarcastic one-liners. That kind of over-exposure usually doesn't last, because it gets old...no pun intended. But I'm sure the reviewer didn't mean it as criticism against her, or because he figured she'd be dying soon

And my point for posting the review was that it was relevant to the topic of this thread - S#*! My Dad Says. Shatner is
not much younger than Betty White (except for his hair), but it's a safe bet that he'll outlive his new show.