If the Parents Television Council didn't exist, the networks might have to invent it.The latest outburst of manufactured outrage by the TV watchdog group concerns the Nov. 9 episode of the CW's 'Gossip Girl' and the much-touted threesome (among characters yet to be named) that will supposedly be the episode's steamy highlight. The Parents Television Council has sent a letter to CW affiliates threatening them with FCC indecency fines should they air the offending episode, which no one at the PTC has actually seen.
Not that any CW affiliate is likely to pull the episode, not at the height of November's ratings sweeps period. Still, this predictable pantomime seems like a win-win for everyone. Publicity from the letters may help swell the membership rolls for the PTC and convince the letter-writers that they are doing something that will have an actual effect on objectionable TV content, while the same publicity will also drum up audience interest in 'Gossip Girl' and persuade impressionable viewers that the show is still as edgy and sexy as it purports to be.
It's good for everybody, except maybe the viewers; it's really beside the point whether folks at home are actually harmed by watching nudity-free depictions of boundary-pushing sexual behavior among consenting adults, or whether they're disappointed by an hour of TV that inevitably fails to live up to the hype.
It's not as if that many teens actually watch 'Gossip Girl.' As The Wrap points out, the median viewer age at the CW is 33, and 84 percent of 'GG' viewers are over 18. Plus, the show airs at 9PM., after primetime's traditional 8-to-9 "family hour." Because of the audience's age, some CW affiliates show beer and liquor ads during 'GG.' Think any of those stations will be inclined to pull the show out of concern for young viewers?
And really, has the Parents Television Council ever had a successful boycott? Has it ever persuaded the FCC to levy an obscenity fine or revoke a broadcaster's license? Has it ever gotten TV writers to tone down a program's content? Some of the group's favorite targets -- from 'Today' to 'Family Guy' -- remain among TV's most popular shows among both viewers and advertisers. The PTC has been railing for years about violence, particularly violence against women, in primetime TV; they even put out a new study last week claiming that the problem has gotten worse in recent years. The statistics cited in the report are problematic, but even if they weren't, wouldn't that mean that years' worth of PTC agitation has been ineffective?
Could it be that the ability of the PTC has overstated its ability to drive the public to grassroots action? Is the group any different from the Catholic League, which purports to voice the outrage of lay Catholics nationwide? (Last week, the League generated headlines, but no actual curbs or apologies, over its dismay at the weeping-Jesus episode of HBO's 'Curb Your Enthusiasm.'), In terms of its public presence and real-world impact, the League seems to be little more than one man with a busy fax machine (24 angry press releases in the last 35 days).
The Parents Television Council, like the Catholic League, has every right to voice its displeasure, to petition broadcasters, to boycott sponsors, and to complain to the FCC. But don't imagine that these watchdogs accomplish much besides generating publicity for themselves and buzz for the networks they're supposedly attacking. It's all ritual theater that benefits both sides without actually doing any favors for you, the viewer.
Reader Comments (181)
rael216 at 8:52AM on Nov 5th 2009
Wow, who new these right wing dips--t morality police controled OUR Federal Government. They are a sad joke that have delusions of anyone giving a damn about what they think and since when were they put in charge of the FCC and able to dish out fine's like they were some Government agency? It's real simple, if you don't like it , don't watch it, go to bed early with your sisters that night, hold a prayer vigil at the trailer park, get a life.
Andrew at 9:59AM on Nov 5th 2009
Exactly. People are getting too damn pissy these days. If there's one little thing that is "offensive" people want the show banned immediately. It is called changing the channel. If you don't want to watch it change it.
carole at 9:14AM on Nov 5th 2009
Believe me I am no "right winger"..but it seems the older I get..the more I object to..funny in a way...but the other day was watching an ad for Mazda, I believe..and the announcer is saying..WONDERFUL...BEAUTIFUL AND PRICE..FREAKING UNBELIEVABLE...NOW LAST I LOOKED FREAKING IS SYNONYMOUS WITH FRIGGING AND FRIGGING IS SYNONYMOUS WITH F... WELL YOU CATCH MY DRIFT AND THAT IS WRONG..IT TELLS THE CHILDREN OF THIS WORLD THAT SWEARING IS OK EVEN SOME OF THE RAUNCHIEST CONOTATIONS..INCLUDING "RAGGING"...I MEAN COME ON..WHY NOT JUST SAY..STOP KOTEXING ON ME!!! DOES ANYONE AGREE
SW at 9:45AM on Nov 5th 2009
As television enterprises continue to extend their thematic content towards a more accountability and consequence free, on-screen sexual experiences, one must not simply take this at face value. With a large percentage of the demographic viewership being under 18 years of age, from a parent's perspective this ongoing sexual openness may seem to be a less than an appropriate leap for our youth's developing minds. If sexual experiences such as threesome's need, or even have a place in prime time TV, we, then, as a culture have come to a nexus: are sweeps and ratings the justification for an experience that resembles a scene from an adult entertainment flix, than prime time-family entertainment? I am a father of three girls, as they have grown and matured through the years, questions about Television based themes seem to be more and more pervasive in recent years. How far will a network go to make the number one spot? I think pretty far these days...however, whether, this 'threesome' is a WB Network stunt for higher ratings, or simply a sign of convergence with more of the European style television experience in which sexual content is openly included, this is a new 'crack' at an old shell...the question still remains however...Does the public have a say in all this? I believe so. Does the public need this? Not just because this type of content is readily accessible, should it be made part of our daily experiences while glamorizing sexual freedom as enlightened social behavior...it is not!
ken at 2:58PM on Nov 8th 2009
Hmm, they don't control the television. If you had been reading carefully, they were only voicing their opinion. Anyone can file a complaint.
Carin Declute at 4:25PM on Nov 8th 2009
Hey,
While you certainly have a right to voice your opinion, you should respect the fact that other people have a differing opinion. And yes, we will change the channel, pray, and thank God for showing us that true happiness does not come from sexual promiscuity, foul language, drugs, booze, etc. Oh, and voice our opinions with our purchasing dollars. Oh--and next time, you may want to proofread your posting prior to sending to separate yourself from the "trailer park trash"--your words, not mine. God loves you, honey!
Whitney at 5:29PM on Nov 8th 2009
I'm super liberal, but the only thing about these new teen shows that bother me is how explicit the sex is amongst HIGH SCHOOL students. College kids, whatever. But when you glamorize teen sex, I have an issue. There's never any negative repercussions for the skinny, beautiful, glamorous, rich characters in these shows. That's my one beef.
gobluespartyon at 5:54PM on Nov 8th 2009
Whitney Gossip Girl does handle repercussion of there actions in Season 1 Blair had a scare that she was peggers but that turned out to be negative and on 90210 when Ade was peggers she gave it up she had to deal with if she was going to keep the baby or give it up it was hard for her but she gave up her baby. Chuck talked about STD's so the teen shows do deal with the repercussions of there action.
People that only hear it from PTC don't get it because they don't watch the shows so they don't know repercussions.
Wendell at 6:15PM on Nov 8th 2009
Hey libtard braniac, did you mean "who new, or WHO KNEW? Your parents should have tried home schooling.
gobluespartyon at 3:00PM on Nov 9th 2009
Wendell your a prude don't know what your talking about. I went to private school from preschool through 8TH grade and went to public school when I went to high school. I wouldn't ever do home school kids need to interact that the problem with home schooling. If parents want to have there kids home school I have no problem with it if I ever have kids I wouldn't do the home school.