The American consumer is being victimized in multiple ways. From all angles of media outlets (whether its radio, television, film, or beyond) the messages we receive are being skewed depending on the views of the parent corporation. In lying about their motives to censor media messages, these companies are committing a series of fallacies.
Appeal to Popularity
- It's obvious that America has an overwhelmingly large Christian population (76% of Americans are Christians); by claiming that censored messages are to protect the moral well-being of America's youth, they are succeeding in getting America's majority population to ignore possible ulterior motives. Corporations, by definition, exist solely to gain as much money as possible. Why America's masses would believe that this group would put it's stock in morality over wealth is beyond me. Additionally, by presenting scenarios of false danger being presented to our nation's youth, corporations are committing forms of both either/or and glittering generality fallacies.
What can we do about this? To start, we can help ensure the internet's freedom by holding companies accountable. The entire purpose of companies going on the internet is to expand their social network; the last thing they would want is to gain a negative reputation for censoring their messages.
When AT&T was caught censoring anti-war sentiments from Pearl Jam lead singer Eddie Vedder, they received an overwhelmingly negative response; to the extent that a representative had to come forward with a public apology: "It's not our intent to edit political comments in webcasts on the AttBlueRoom.com," AT&T spokeswoman Tiffany Nels said in a released statement. "Unfortunately, it has happened in the past in a handful of cases. We have taken steps to ensure that it won't happen again."
Events like these provide hope for the future. No matter how large they grow, corporations need average Americans to sustain their operations. As long as we let them know that we won't tolerate anything less than free access from our media outlets, we can maintain an important voice in society.
Monday, November 14, 2011
Media Censorship Is Completely Arbitrary
Possibly a reason it strikes such a resounding chord when a moment on television is censored is that it leads into a very inside-the-box mentality. While many would simply give foul language, nudity, or violence the vague label of "offensive," few stop to think why. Who are the groups offended by these actions? Why do network executives feel the need to edit a previously existing piece of work into a mold found suitable for their viewers?
Television censorship can occur due to a variety of reasons. As previously stated, all major television and entertainment outlets are formed from one of five major corporations. When stations might claim that their censorship is due to morality, and defending the public, in reality these decisions are based from a public relations standpoint. Whichever programming can present the parent company in the most favorable light is the program that will wind up receiving airtime.
In 2006, an episode of the wildly successful comedy show South Park aired including a notable censored image. In the end of the episode, show creators Trey Parker and Matt Stone had written and illustrated a role for the Muslim prophet Muhammad. As a result of this, an uproar ensued, with many claiming that the show had simply gone too far this time. The episode's conclusion displayed the below caption instead of the planned Muhammad illustration. Forgoing an opportunity to simply let the show's creative talent show their scheduled program, Comedy Central insisted on censoring the image to maintain Viacom's reputation.
Television censorship can occur due to a variety of reasons. As previously stated, all major television and entertainment outlets are formed from one of five major corporations. When stations might claim that their censorship is due to morality, and defending the public, in reality these decisions are based from a public relations standpoint. Whichever programming can present the parent company in the most favorable light is the program that will wind up receiving airtime.
In 2006, an episode of the wildly successful comedy show South Park aired including a notable censored image. In the end of the episode, show creators Trey Parker and Matt Stone had written and illustrated a role for the Muslim prophet Muhammad. As a result of this, an uproar ensued, with many claiming that the show had simply gone too far this time. The episode's conclusion displayed the below caption instead of the planned Muhammad illustration. Forgoing an opportunity to simply let the show's creative talent show their scheduled program, Comedy Central insisted on censoring the image to maintain Viacom's reputation.
MTV Woes, Part Deux
MTV's censorship issues extend beyond just lyrical content. A large number of music videos throughout the years have been deemed inappropriate by their programming directors. Below I'll exhibit just a few of these videos, and explain why prohibiting them from receiving airtime is completely idiotic.
Mistah F.A.B., a major player in the West Coast's hip-hop scene, found himself on the receiving end of an MTV music video ban for his song "Ghost Ride It" in 2007. Ghost-riding, the act of dancing outside of a moving vehicle with no driver, has led to a significant amount of injuries. Arguably unjustly, Mistah F.A.B. was blamed for this movement. This is a prime example of MTV being selective with their judgment in censorship. Most music videos from today's top rap and hip hop artists depict at least some degree of drinking of drug usage. Wiz Khalifa, a rapper nominated for MTV's "Best New Artist" award, openly admits to abusing drugs and discusses it in his music. If MTV is to be the true moral compass for our children, they need to stick to one ideology. If this music video was banned due to setting a bad example for America's youth, then they need to take the same stance with other recording artists.
In 1991, Seattle grunge band Soundgarden found success with their hit single "Jesus Christ Pose." By all accounts from the band, this song's content couldn't be further from bashing those with faith in their lives. The song is directed towards public figures who abuse their religious authority (such as television evangelists like Pat Robertson) for immoral gain. The music video features the band members in a desert surrounded by crosses and other holy images. Much to the ire of their fan base, MTV banned this Soundgarden song from receiving airtime.
This decision, albeit one that was made nearly twenty years ago, raises a series of questions. Who was MTV looking to defend by banning this video? What exactly about the video or song was found to be offensive? The line separating church and state seems to have been blurred in this decision. Are we really so fragile a society that we wouldn't be able to handle listening to a song with "Jesus Christ" in the title?
Mistah F.A.B., a major player in the West Coast's hip-hop scene, found himself on the receiving end of an MTV music video ban for his song "Ghost Ride It" in 2007. Ghost-riding, the act of dancing outside of a moving vehicle with no driver, has led to a significant amount of injuries. Arguably unjustly, Mistah F.A.B. was blamed for this movement. This is a prime example of MTV being selective with their judgment in censorship. Most music videos from today's top rap and hip hop artists depict at least some degree of drinking of drug usage. Wiz Khalifa, a rapper nominated for MTV's "Best New Artist" award, openly admits to abusing drugs and discusses it in his music. If MTV is to be the true moral compass for our children, they need to stick to one ideology. If this music video was banned due to setting a bad example for America's youth, then they need to take the same stance with other recording artists.
In 1991, Seattle grunge band Soundgarden found success with their hit single "Jesus Christ Pose." By all accounts from the band, this song's content couldn't be further from bashing those with faith in their lives. The song is directed towards public figures who abuse their religious authority (such as television evangelists like Pat Robertson) for immoral gain. The music video features the band members in a desert surrounded by crosses and other holy images. Much to the ire of their fan base, MTV banned this Soundgarden song from receiving airtime.
This decision, albeit one that was made nearly twenty years ago, raises a series of questions. Who was MTV looking to defend by banning this video? What exactly about the video or song was found to be offensive? The line separating church and state seems to have been blurred in this decision. Are we really so fragile a society that we wouldn't be able to handle listening to a song with "Jesus Christ" in the title?
Thankfully, MTV Gets to Decide What Is Appropriate For You To Listen To
It seems as though it's a foregone conclusion that major swear words will never again find their way onto the airwaves of the general public. America's premier music network (MTV), however, has a long strange history of editing the lyrics of the songs they play for no apparent reason.
Above is the music video for the song "Beautiful Girl," by recording artist Sean Kingston. While this song's nauseating amount of airplay may be a subject best left for another time, MTV made the decision to censor the lyric "suicidal," in favor of the edited lyric "in denial." This is puzzling for a variety of reasons. For one, if this song is about a guy who feels suicidal over the rejection of a girl, that's quite a far cry from merely feeling "in denial." Censorship doesn't always just remove foul language and vulgar thoughts from daytime television; it can drastically change the meaning of the art being presented. If anything, this can be used as stark evidence that censorship has the potential to have a vastly negative impact on the creative abilities of the artist.
Above is the music video for the song "Beautiful Girl," by recording artist Sean Kingston. While this song's nauseating amount of airplay may be a subject best left for another time, MTV made the decision to censor the lyric "suicidal," in favor of the edited lyric "in denial." This is puzzling for a variety of reasons. For one, if this song is about a guy who feels suicidal over the rejection of a girl, that's quite a far cry from merely feeling "in denial." Censorship doesn't always just remove foul language and vulgar thoughts from daytime television; it can drastically change the meaning of the art being presented. If anything, this can be used as stark evidence that censorship has the potential to have a vastly negative impact on the creative abilities of the artist.
Freedom to be Expressive
Expression is the motor of arts. Visual, print, performance; art is centered around expression. At times art is beautiful, sad, profound; it can also be edgy. In fact, most popular art posses an edge, from the rebellious Katy Perry, to the poetry of T.S. Eliot, without the capacity to be risky, their expressions would be as popular as they are. In art there is no such thing as a limit to the potential of a piece, unless it is illegal.
Late this past summer, August 20th to be exact, Cleveland rapper Machine Gun Kelly wanted to gather a flash mob at a local mall. He claimed it was just for fun, and was being honest. The authorities, however, did not believe him. He was arrested upon arrival at the mall, while his fans watched him cuffed and chanted.
A flash mob may not be the most aesthetic performance art, but it is nonetheless a peaceful gathering, as was the case in Cleveland. The authorities saw the gathering as potentially dangerous, that a large amount of teenagers gathering to meet a famous artist, and participate in a flash mob, could turn into a riot. Before it was started MGK was arrested.
Flash mobs can be dangerous, or inconvenient, as was most likely the case when hundreds of teens populated the food courts. Flash mobs are a form of social action. The fact that so many were exposed to censorship, however minor the cause, should create some awareness. Especially when what is censored is so trivial.
Follow the link below to read what Clevelanders have to say about MGK's failed flash mob, also view the youtube videos.
Internet Invasion
Something is happening. On 11/16 congress, the American one, will hold hearings discussing the implementing of the first Internet censorship system. I find it interesting that there currently is no censorship system regulating the government, but it appears that now politicians are taking the first steps into the not so sovereign world wide web. World wide and not so sovereign indicate that, theoretically, the internet is open to free use.
In this hearing, delegates will be putting forth the notion of blacklisting certain sites. This includes illegal downloading sites, because stealing is illegal, sites that may have viruses, and harmful, foreign websites, to keep out the terrorists. The intentions are pure from a moral viewpoint, those websites are dangerous, malignant, but there is also the possibility that small websites will be listed to. Thousands of legal websites could possibly be faced with more strict regulations. This censorship could ruin the integrity of the internet. Blocking foreign information from getting into a nation by censoring the internet, is that not occurs in China and North Korea?
I am not saying America is becoming communistic, that is not even a form of government. I also will not say America's government is becoming oppressive. I do assume, however, that taking liberties away from the internet is censorship, and can be for all of the wrong reasons.
In regards to the hearing, go to this link for more information.
I am Censored, and You are Too!
The goal of this blog is to inform Americans that censorship is real. It affects all of us. It affects us and we do not even know about it. It is a violation on our liberties to free speech. Furthermore the government initiates censorship, takes away our rights. Granted, these statements are admittedly radical, but it seems that a majority of my fellow Americans are deaf to the censored voice that does not reach them. Of course they are. Finding details about censorship is difficult when the only information some Americans receive is from the censors themselves.
The problem presented is that Americans do not acknowledge censorship, do not realize that it affects them, even in mundane ways. This issue affects society. If there are countries with freer speech than America, are we free? If there are countries with freer democracies than America's, are we free?
For Americans who want to change this, inaction needs to turn to action. We need to make known this fact, make known infringements on our access to free speech, make known we are not as free we believe. This is the goal of our blog, the information may be “pointless,” but that is what makes censorship all the more real. If pointless and trivial media is censored, what else is?
The Washington Wives, or the Inescapable Helicopter Parents
Before I begin the main point of my essay, an example from recent American History will serve as an ample introduction, and will reveal my intentions. In 1984 a group of wives in Washington D.C banded together to advise parents about dangerous music their children could be listening to. Lyrics to racy, videos to sexy, in the eyes of these women, the Washington Wives, this music was improper, even sinful. It could even turn children into killers. They Washington Wives got their name because of whom they were married to, high ranking politicians such as Al Gore and John Nevius. These women knew America. So, of course they knew its children. Wrong. What on Earth would a group of middle aged, white, affluent, and Christian women know about the youth of the nation? That is who they were speaking on behalf of when they went after hair metal and put a sticker on records. The Washington Wives: rich, white women, real Mother Teresas, hovering over the nation's youth, filtering out harmful messages.
The Washington Wives are similar to any good helicopter parent, watching out for their children, not wanting them to get mixed up with bad stuff. But as a recent child, I hated my mother when she choppered over me, not letting me play Halo 2, go to a Rush concert with my dad, protecting me from things I didn't need protection from – disabling my autonomy. This is not censorship on a wider level, however. But the lessons learned from the Washington Wives is still acting on the youth of the nation. There is an all encompassing helicopter parent still on the lose out there.
Here I will list what I view the worst type of Helicopter Parenting in America. Book banning. Ignited with fury when my Alma Mater banned The Adventures of Huckleberry Fin, last winter, this hits home for me. The protocol used to ban a classic is arbitrary, especially given the fact those that banned it most likely read it while in high school. Intellectual censorship at its worst. The notion that young adults are too immature to read a novel with bad language, albeit gross repetition of an extremely offensive term, is absurd. Have these helicopter parents noticed how progressive intellectually this generation is?
Feel free to comment, share a story, reveal other Helicopter atrocities.
Censorship on Television
When a movie is shown on television it is never in the original theater version. The movie is cut in certain parts in the interest of time, certain scenes such as sex scenes or excessively violent scenes, and of course all the words that cant be said on basic cable are changed or cut out which can lead to some very hysterical edits. While i understand the importance of keeping children from hearing some of the language that is changed around, a lot of these edits are terribly done and are unnecessary too. I don't understand either why these edits are the same at all times of the day. I highly doubt that at 2am if I'm watching Samuel L Jackson's greatest masterpiece, Snakes on a Plane there's going to be any young children watching it too thus making the very comical edits in the video below unnecessary. These edits are good for a quick laugh but they also ruin a lot of dialogue in these movies and sometimes even begin to ruin the entire movie if they start happening too frequently and become too outrageous. The FCC which regulates what can and cannot be said or shown on all major media outlets is ruining the directors creativity by ruining the lines in the movie. They are also given full power over what does and doesn't get broadcast which seems almost unconstitutional. If censorship on television continues the way it does ratings could easily drop and movies could turn into somewhat of a joke depending on their original content. It could ruin the viewing pleasure for the audience and lead to less views which would in turn affect the television station as well as everyone who put in work on the movie as well. The video below is just one example of the countless terrible edits.
The original Scarface
Censorship has been around for years now and a great example of early censorship that was pointless was in the 1932 film named Scarface, one of my personal favorites. It is an American gangster film depicting gang warfare and police intervention when two gangs fight over control of the city they're located in. While this seems like a pretty straightforward movie that has great potential for popularity it was banned in multiple states and cities across the United States for "glorification of crime." In reality however it did not glorify crime, but told a story of everyday life for some and also told a story of what happened on the streets on a daily basis back when this film came out.
Instances of censorship like this are absurd. This movie was not overly violent, nor was it gory or obscene. There was no reason this movie should have been banned anywhere at all. Just because people out there are going to watch the story of two street gangs battling for turf doesn't mean that those people who just watched the movie are going to go out, join the gangs and join the fight. The message in this movie is not to get involved with this type of violence, so there is in no way at all any glorification of crime. Instead this censorship was just an attempt by the government to limit exposure for these gangs as well as to avoid the topic of street violence. While it may seem like a good idea to stop films from "glorifying violence" and "promoting gangs", it is also a good idea to make sure that's what the film is actually doing before banning it.
Instances of censorship like this are absurd. This movie was not overly violent, nor was it gory or obscene. There was no reason this movie should have been banned anywhere at all. Just because people out there are going to watch the story of two street gangs battling for turf doesn't mean that those people who just watched the movie are going to go out, join the gangs and join the fight. The message in this movie is not to get involved with this type of violence, so there is in no way at all any glorification of crime. Instead this censorship was just an attempt by the government to limit exposure for these gangs as well as to avoid the topic of street violence. While it may seem like a good idea to stop films from "glorifying violence" and "promoting gangs", it is also a good idea to make sure that's what the film is actually doing before banning it.
There is pointless censorship all over the place, ranging from large mainstream movies to smaller less well known films. One of the most pointless instances of censorship I have ever come across is in the film Victim, which is a 1961 classic by Basil Dearden. This film was very controversial leading up to it's release, even being banned in the United States for a short period of time. The reason the film was banned and so controversial was because it was the first English language film to use the word homosexual. Yes that's right, the whole source of controversy that caused an entire country to ban this film was the word homosexual, and the use of this word even led to the main characters house being vandalized.
This is one of the most blatant and hysterical overreactions to some sort of touchy subject in the media. It wasn't even a homosexual theme or a scene depicted a homosexual act that caused the mass controversy, it was just a simple mention of the word homosexual. While this was back in the 1960's and the view on homosexuality was very different back then it is still mind boggling that Americans were so ignorant and afraid of the thought of homosexuality that they banned an entire movie due to one mention of it. They would probably have a heart attack now if they heard how prevalent the term "that's so gay" is in society today. The funniest part of this whole thing is that the extra attention the movie received with the initial ban caused a lot more publicity and success one the ban on the movie was lifted, so by attempting to ban this movie the US government instead ended up increasing its popularity.
This is one of the most blatant and hysterical overreactions to some sort of touchy subject in the media. It wasn't even a homosexual theme or a scene depicted a homosexual act that caused the mass controversy, it was just a simple mention of the word homosexual. While this was back in the 1960's and the view on homosexuality was very different back then it is still mind boggling that Americans were so ignorant and afraid of the thought of homosexuality that they banned an entire movie due to one mention of it. They would probably have a heart attack now if they heard how prevalent the term "that's so gay" is in society today. The funniest part of this whole thing is that the extra attention the movie received with the initial ban caused a lot more publicity and success one the ban on the movie was lifted, so by attempting to ban this movie the US government instead ended up increasing its popularity.
Monty Python's Life of Brian: Funny, Clever, and Banned in Theaters?
Monty Python is one of the most well known names in comedy, with one of its most famous works being Monty Python and the Holy Grail. They are a well known group of guys who are innovators and legends when it comes to comedy. One of their lesser known works however is very funny, and very controversial as well. Monty Python's Life of Brian was produced in 1979 and is a film about a Jewish man born on the same day and right next door to Jesus and is then mistaken for the messiah. While this seems as if it would be a funny idea and would make a very comical movie, in reality it outraged many religious people and drew bans in different states and countries.
The film contained certain themes of religious satire which caused much controversy when it was released and drew accusations of blasphemy. It was the first Monty Python movie to be rated R in the United States, and was even rated X in some countries. This film was however a huge success at the box office and was reviewed as very funny. It is almost sad how large of an overreaction there was when this film was originally released, seeing as how the "blasphemy" was very mild. This film was intended to be lighthearted and was only a joke and was instead turned into a very controversial, blasphemous movie. Certain tv channels wouldn't even broadcast it in fear of offending Christians. In my opinion this censorship goes way too far. If you censor a comedy like this and attempt to keep it from being played just for fear that some Christians will be offended by some lighthearted jokes then that opens the door for any film that has any religious theme or jokes at all to be censored. This could almost give religious groups and religions immunity from any negativity or jokes from any source of media which is very dangerous as well as very ridiculous.
The film contained certain themes of religious satire which caused much controversy when it was released and drew accusations of blasphemy. It was the first Monty Python movie to be rated R in the United States, and was even rated X in some countries. This film was however a huge success at the box office and was reviewed as very funny. It is almost sad how large of an overreaction there was when this film was originally released, seeing as how the "blasphemy" was very mild. This film was intended to be lighthearted and was only a joke and was instead turned into a very controversial, blasphemous movie. Certain tv channels wouldn't even broadcast it in fear of offending Christians. In my opinion this censorship goes way too far. If you censor a comedy like this and attempt to keep it from being played just for fear that some Christians will be offended by some lighthearted jokes then that opens the door for any film that has any religious theme or jokes at all to be censored. This could almost give religious groups and religions immunity from any negativity or jokes from any source of media which is very dangerous as well as very ridiculous.
Why censor God?
God and damn, two simple words that are not very offensive or crude when used by themselves but when combined into one word and said on the air it becomes "offensive" and is censored. If that wasn't strange enough, when they censor the word it is not damn that is cut out, it is god. Therefore when the word comes on the air it is ***damn. The first time I ever noticed this happening was when I was much younger, only 8 or 9. I remember thinking how dumb it seemed that they would censor the word god but leave damn in. Now that I'm 10 years older I still feel the same way about it. While there has never been any official report on why this word is censored this way it is usually attributed to religion and not wanting to offend anyone because the word God is involved.
This is not the only instance of censorship that has to do with religion and seems overly strict, another example being when TBS censors the line "you're my savior, man, my own personal Jesus Christ" from The Matrix. There are also more extreme examples too, one being how in middle eastern countries you cannot produce any imitations or pictures of the prophet Muhammad and you risk severe punishment if you do so. I find it absurd that laws and regulations go to such great lengths to almost prevent the mention of religious figures unless it is in the utmost respect and proper situations. There are channels that cut out whole parts of movies if it makes fun of a religious figure in a bad light, or sometimes if it makes any mention of a religious figure at all. This is dangerous that religion is becoming more and more sheltered in media which could lead to more power and manipulation by religious figures and religious organizations. While it may not seem like a big idea now and could even be considered pretty "***damn" funny, the censorship of small things like that could lead down a dangerous and slippery slope.
This is not the only instance of censorship that has to do with religion and seems overly strict, another example being when TBS censors the line "you're my savior, man, my own personal Jesus Christ" from The Matrix. There are also more extreme examples too, one being how in middle eastern countries you cannot produce any imitations or pictures of the prophet Muhammad and you risk severe punishment if you do so. I find it absurd that laws and regulations go to such great lengths to almost prevent the mention of religious figures unless it is in the utmost respect and proper situations. There are channels that cut out whole parts of movies if it makes fun of a religious figure in a bad light, or sometimes if it makes any mention of a religious figure at all. This is dangerous that religion is becoming more and more sheltered in media which could lead to more power and manipulation by religious figures and religious organizations. While it may not seem like a big idea now and could even be considered pretty "***damn" funny, the censorship of small things like that could lead down a dangerous and slippery slope.
Dr. Wiernik: How I Learned To Stop Worrying And Fight Censorship With Snarky, Under-Handed Tactics
There are certain situations (I'm convinced) that every level-headed, sane, consuming American individual can relate to. Watching a favorite movie on cable television only to see that the network has removed a vital line of dialogue due to foul language is universally annoying. Here I am, merely sitting in my apartment trying to watch a timeless classic such as How Stella Got Her Groove Back, when suddenly I note that an entire scene has been removed due to the decision of a network executive.
As many have noted with precise observations all throughout the Internet and beyond, censorship has taken a strong hold of the American media. It would be foolish to ignore the USA's 17 rating on the most recent "Freedom of the Press" release (on a 1-100 scale, 1 is considered the most free). Media censorship won't end at their untimely (tragic, even) removal of How Stella got Her Groove Back's witty conversation points. Eventually, if no action is taken, the fate of creative productions in America could remain entirely in the hands of the 5 corporations (comprised of Time Warner Company, News Corporation, VIACOM, The Walt Disney Company, and Comcast Corporation) rather than America's majority audience.
With such a large task to combat, there were a number of ways to attack this issue in both a professional and insightful way. Keeping this in mind, my group and I decided that it would be a good idea to create this blog poking fun at some of the laughable censorship in the American media. Our country has a rich, extensive legacy of censoring entertainment that would have posed a minimal (if any) threat to the general public; exploiting this to gain page views and/or overwhelming amounts of publicity/money would be both morally ethical and sensible. Without further ado, here are various instances of falsely censored entertainment in the American media.
As many have noted with precise observations all throughout the Internet and beyond, censorship has taken a strong hold of the American media. It would be foolish to ignore the USA's 17 rating on the most recent "Freedom of the Press" release (on a 1-100 scale, 1 is considered the most free). Media censorship won't end at their untimely (tragic, even) removal of How Stella got Her Groove Back's witty conversation points. Eventually, if no action is taken, the fate of creative productions in America could remain entirely in the hands of the 5 corporations (comprised of Time Warner Company, News Corporation, VIACOM, The Walt Disney Company, and Comcast Corporation) rather than America's majority audience.
With such a large task to combat, there were a number of ways to attack this issue in both a professional and insightful way. Keeping this in mind, my group and I decided that it would be a good idea to create this blog poking fun at some of the laughable censorship in the American media. Our country has a rich, extensive legacy of censoring entertainment that would have posed a minimal (if any) threat to the general public; exploiting this to gain page views and/or overwhelming amounts of publicity/money would be both morally ethical and sensible. Without further ado, here are various instances of falsely censored entertainment in the American media.
Lessons Learned from the "Censored Eleven."
Tom and Jerry, Bugs Bunny and Daffy Duck; humorous, lighthearted caricatures growing children love. I remember lazy summer days sitting on my couch in my air conditioned house, ten years old and careless, eating frozen pizza, and watching the cat chase the mouse, laughing in youthful mirth. Those 60 year old cartoons are timeless classics, surely every child should enjoy them. And so lighthearted, who could be opposed?
There is a collection of eleven Loony Tunes and Merrie Melodies cartoons that were withheld from syndication in 1968. Eleven mirthful cartoons were censored. Why? It turns out that these cartoons are, supposedly, racist. Because of that they were taken off the air, only to resurface on Youtube 40 years later, than be removed... again. Clearly there is a problem with these cartoons. Why else would they be censored? What vile message were those cartoonists spreading to children?
The United Artists, even as far back as the Baby Boomers, wanted the cartoons children were watching to be politically correct. They still do. Eleven evil cartoon that can damage the lives of children sixty years after their creation.
As an American citizen, still in my youth, I ponder at the problem presented here. Its not that these cartoons are racist, its that they are not politically correct. Beyond depictions of ethnic stereotypes, there is little evil in them. They are even going to be re released sometime this year. If they can be shown now, what has the problem been for the last 40 years?
To me this means that the preoccupation with being politically correct can have ridiculous affects, such as banning children's cartoons, denying them access to a mirthful and fun experience. And it still happens today.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)