Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: SUNDAY, July 25, 1993 TAG: 9307220051
SECTION: EXTRA PAGE: 2 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: RAY RICHMOND LOS ANGELES DAILY NEWS
DATELINE: LOS ANGELES LENGTH: Medium
The suddenly emboldened lobby opposing TV violence appears to be just the tip of the iceberg, if potential problems with new Fox Broadcasting comedies "Daddy Dearest" and "My Girls" are any indication of what lingers just over the horizon.
Arab-American groups may be up in arms over the perceived bigotry of Don Rickles' character in "Daddy Dearest." Among other misdeeds, he refers to one character as "Aladdin." Before you know it, he'll be calling the guy's girlfriend "Jasmine," too. Just wait and see.
The gripe against "My Girls" is male-bashing. Pro-guy groups - who should first check out the rampant feminism of "Designing Women," "Evening Shade" and "Sisters" - could scream for changes that smash the bash.
This is not meant to trivialize the arguments of any offended group. It's just that there surely is something on television to offend practically every group, gender, religion and subclass, and there always has been.
The difference now is that the environment is ripe for such intimidation. The almighty Disney just last week excised some purportedly offensive lyrics from the opening "Arabian Nights" song in "Aladdin" after being pressured.
Beyond that, the networks already have made concessions on the red-hot violence issue, offering to place warning labels on particularly violent shows to alert parents with children in the house.
But there are early signs that the networks will go only so far to satisfy the watchdogs and are, in fact, determined to hold their ground.
Fox more or less has told offended parties to go fly a kite. That stance appears to be the only one the network can take without encouraging massive defamation charges from every bone-picking organization. To cave in likely would open an even larger can of worms.
What Fox has to concern itself with here is a sweeping trend of ultra-sensitivity. Folks are quicker to be offended now and less likely to let it go.
In many ways, we have lost our sense of humor about ourselves and the tendency not to sweat the small stuff. Chilling out is a rare commodity.
Sorting out the difference between a vocal minority objection and a universal belief can be a dicey business. Yet, as those who have opposed the Rev. Donald Wildmon and his fundamentalist dogma have found, one man with an agenda and the mailing addresses of sponsors can have a huge impact beyond his sphere of influence.
Such is life in the 1990s. We only can imagine the outcry if an "All in the Family" were to hit the air today. One episode could well inspire venom from defenders of women, Polish-Americans, blacks, Hispanics and people with the surname Bunker.
Rickles certainly is discovering that things aren't like they used to be. Who ever would have imagined that he would live long enough to get censored, or at least protested?
If Rickles indeed singles out a specific group week after week without spreading his insults around, a legitimate gripe would appear to exist.
On the other hand, are Fox and the other networks obliged to clear every episode of every show with any ethnic group or gender that might be offended and then make changes in the script accordingly?
The irony is that the networks don't appear to be pushing the decency envelope nearly as much today as they did in the 1980s, with the possible current exception of Steven Bochco's much-ballyhooed "dirty" cop drama "NYPD Blue" that debuts this fall.
Simply put, the networks should be able to go as far as the viewing masses allow them to in line-skirting content. That would include language, violence and allegedly derogatory and/or stereotypical depictions of race, class and gender groups.
But I fear that the tidal wave is about to crash at the front door of every network headquarters. And the fallout may not be pretty.
Lawyers, already starting to crab about the lawyer-bashing in "Jurassic Park" and "The Firm," could be absolutely ballistic next season over "L.A. Law."
Female doctors might rail against the country-physician sexism displayed in "Dr. Quinn, Medicine Woman."
High school students could unite against the upscale, hot-blooded stereotypes that color "Beverly Hills, 90210."
Cops could watch "NYPD Blue" and insist that they don't really talk like that.
And then Alaskans will check in to complain that "Northern Exposure" bathes the state's residents in a buffoonish light.
Where will it all end? Nobody knows. The only thing that's certain is that "Don't Tread on Me" is destined to become the rallying cry of a 1990s generation for whom TV fast is becoming a blasphemous scourge.
by CNB