Cartoon Network Not Fundie Enough Anymore

The Parents' Television Council is the self-appointed guardian of "values" for American TV. Whose values? Fundie values, of course.

No, they're not just a bunch of parents trying to fight for kids' best interests, as much as they'd like us all to think they are. They're actively trying to push a right-wing reactionary agenda of sanitizing all TV (which, to me, is bad enough!) until it's all nice, pristine, and Christ-like. As proof, read their criticism of Cartoon Network, by Christopher Gildemeister.

Previously, Culture Watch has focused on the ways in which cable television has increasingly forsaken its once-stated mission of providing an alternative to broadcast programming, and how cable itself has crept towards a greater emphasis on explicit sex and graphic violence. But cable's greatest failure as a "safe haven" for viewers has been on the networks supposedly intended for families and children.

Since when was cable ever a "safe haven" for viewers? You pay for it, ergo, you can choose not to get it, ergo they can put whatever they want on it. Why would anyone in his right mind think that cable was supposed to be a place where you could go to watch clean, fundie TV?

The Cartoon Network premiered on October 1, 1992 as a network in the Turner Broadcasting empire. Holding the rights to both Warner Bros. pre-1948 cartoons and the Hanna-Barbera studios' output, Cartoon Network was a mecca for fans of animation young and old alike.

I find it ironic that these people are calling something a "mecca." But aside from that, you do realize that there are very few "fans" of old Warner Bros. cartoons, right Chris?

Originally devoted solely to reruns of classic cartoons, the viewer could enjoy watching Cartoon Network, sharing with his children cartoons with which several generations had grown up, secure in the knowledge that Bugs Bunny, Road Runner, Tom and Jerry and other figures of fun would delight another generation of children without exposing them to malign influences.

Oh yeah, there was nothing anyone could find objectionable about Bugs Bunny's cross dressing and kissing Elmer Fudd on the lips, or Wile E. Coyote devising all manner of exploding death traps to catch the Road Runner, or Speedy Gonzalez and its personification of Mexicans as a bunch of lazy drunks, or Pepe LePeu's refusal to understand that no means no...

But after its acquisition by Time Warner in 1996, the orientation of the Cartoon Network began to change. No longer content with airing timeless classics whose appeal has endured for decades, Time Warner began emphasizing more "edgy" programming.

Once again, Chris seems unable to comprehend the basics of running a TV station. You don't start a new network with all-original programming; the network doesn't have any money yet! So they run reruns for a couple of years until they can attract some viewers and ad money and get their original programming off the ground. Cartoon Network was never intended to be a repository of crappy old cartoons forever!

Beginning with the reduction of the iconic 1960s superhero character Space Ghost to the butt of talk-show jokes, Cartoon Network increasingly devoted its efforts to attracting viewers outside its core audience of children.

Who said their core audience was children? And is there something wrong with trying to have adults watch your station now? I'm confused.

By the way, Space Ghost was never an "iconic superhero." Back in the 60's, he was a campy, melodramatic joke that took himself way too seriously. That's why CN is making fun of him now. Sorry, Chris, if you need to take some time to cry, I'll wait here.

The network further disaffected young children (and undoubtedly saved money) by choosing to focus overwhelmingly on imported Japanese animation...

Yes, because kids hate Japanese animation. And then, notice: there's that money thing again! It's like fundies think that every time they talk about some company making money, they're exposing some awful, hidden truth that no one else dares uncover. Yes, genius, the network is trying to make money, just like you are by penning your stupid, puritanical commentaries. Are they really "saving money" by importing relatively Japanese TV instead of showing cartoons from my grandmother's day?

...much of which is dark, morally ambiguous and dominated by violence.

Oh yeah? Like what, genius? Inu Yasha, Lupin III and Case Closed? The ones they show at 4 in the morning?

Indeed, for several years it was nearly impossible to find programming on Cartoon Network which was not Japanese anime.

Okay, that's just not true.

Today, while anime retains a large presence on Cartoon Network, the network also emphasized such "ironic" programming as Xiaolin Showdown and Foster's Home for Imaginary Children, both of which have themes which emphasize mean-spirited competition and disrespect for authority figures, and the self-explanatory The Grim Adventures of Billy and Mandy.

Okay, now you're just throwing out names of things and expecting us all to nod in agreement, right? Why is The Grim Adventures "self-explanatory?"

The channel has also aired the sexually explicit and adult-themed The Family Guy...

Really? I've never heard of "The Family Guy." I'm sure it's completely distinct from and has nothing to do with Fox's Family Guy.

...and the recent movie Hellboy: Sword of Storms, which is graphically violent and features a demon as its hero.

See? I told you. These idiots can't go an entire article without letting their fundie show.

The Cartoon Network, obsessed with its pursuit of the 18-34 demographic, has now almost entirely shunted the classic and family-friendly Looney Tunes and Hanna-Barbera cartoons to its offshoot network Boomerang, which is not available on many cable systems.

And thank God for that, or another generation of kids would have to grow up traumatized by that crap.

A further demonstration of Cartoon Network's disdain for children is its rapid abandonment of its Tickle U programming bloc. Launched with much fanfare in August of 2005, Tickle U was promoted as gentle animation entirely appropriate for and aimed at preschool viewers. Less than a year later, however, the entire Tickle U concept was abandoned.

Which I'm sure has nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that there was no market for it, right? Does Chris have this vision of a bunch of angry old suits sitting around a conference table, talking about how they can best show disdain for their audience?

Some of the cartoons which made up the bloc still linger on in the mornings, alongside such darkly violent animated programs as Teen Titans, in which teenage superheroes – among them the demonically-powered Raven – battle opponents like an assassin named Deathstroke.

Again with the demon crap! Most parents realize, Chris, that demons aren't real, and thus aren't really bothered by their kids watching them. You, on the other hand, apparently haven't reached sufficient maturity to distinguish reality from fantasy.

By the way, I've tried watching Teen Titans, because I'm a huge comics/superhero nerd. I found it so bland and childish that I turned it off.

But it is Cartoon Network's creation of its late-night Adult Swim programming bloc which most clearly demonstrates its abandonment of children in favor of sexualizing teens and young adults.

Yeah, cuz without Adult Swim, teens and young adults would be perfect, asexual little angels. Oh, won't someone please think of the young adults? Who will protect them from CartoonNetwork???

Adult Swim features individual episodes generally of the quarter-hour length in a mixture of styles. Some, like Sealab 2021, are old Hanna-Barbera cartoons with new soundtracks composed of crude sexual innuendo and toilet humor; others, like Lucy: Daughter of the Devil, are entirely new.

You know, Chris, when you present all this stuff as if it were revelatory news, you almost fool me into thinking you're NOT ten steps behind the rest of us.

So extreme is some of the Adult Swim programming that in June of this year the network began running a parental advisory warning of intense violence, sexual situations, coarse language, and suggestive dialogue. The bloc is now rated TV-MA, and is considered separate from Cartoon Network for ratings purposes. This programming is aired beginning at 10:30 pm Eastern time – which is 9:30 in the Central time zone, and 8:30 pm in the Mountain.

Chris tries to scream and shout about the TV-MA rating as if it were going to offend us in some way, when instead it means Cartoon Network is doing everything right.

As far as that 8:30 pm business...well, if you can figure out a way for CN to cost-effectively show their programming four times a day, let them in on it. But you can't, obviously, because you're not a cable executive, broadcaster, or anything else that would clue you in to how TV networks run. You're just an angry fundie with an axe to grind who thinks everyone should shut up and do what he says.

Maybe you should try turning on your V-chip instead of trying to legislate everyone else's viewing habits, hm?

Obviously, the sensibilities of middle-American families are no consideration for Cartoon Network's programmers – a fact made even more blatant by the premiere last week of Cartoon Network's new series Class of 3000. Originally conceived for the Adult Swim lineup, the network has instead aimed the show at young teens and children by airing it at 8 pm Eastern (6 Mountain). The program includes racially stereotyped characters such as the pimplike Sunny Bridges (voiced by hip-hop singer ‘Andre 3000' Benjamin) and crude scatological humor.

Uh-huh. Apparently, the show was deemed appropriate for kids, no matter how you try to spin it. But once again, if you still insist on being offended, try your V-chip.

But Cartoon Network is not alone in directing programming filled with age-inappropriate violence and sex at children. The ABC Family network is apparently attempting to completely redefine, not merely family-friendly programming, but the family itself.

Oh noes!!!!111 Are they showing gay and single-parent families???

Beginning as the Christian Broadcasting Network in April 1977, the nation's first satellite-launched cable television network changed its name in 1990 to The Family Channel. Airing a mix of religious and classic dramatic programs, the network was acquired by Fox Broadcasting Company in 1997 and became Fox Family, and was sold again in 2001 to ABC. The network was notable throughout its CBN, Family Channel and Fox incarnations for its emphasis on family-friendly programming.

*YAWN* That's nice. Is there a point here somewhere?

After its acquisition by Disney (which owns the ABC television network), ABC Family foundered. Programmers cancelled several original Fox Family series like State of Grace, and ceased airing most of the made-for-television movies which had become the network's staples.

Probably cuz no one was watching them.

Then, amidst falling ratings, in August of this year the network reinvented itself by glorifying teenage sex and edgy, adult-oriented material. The channel has trumpeted its change in orientation with the slogan "A New Kind of Family."

And we all know that anything other than the traditional family automatically equals bad!

In keeping with its new direction, ABC Family has introduced several original series. Three Moons Over Milford has as its theme human reactions to the shattering of the moon by an asteroid. Thinking the event a harbinger of doom, many people begin acting in selfish and uninhibited ways. One man wanders the streets of Milford naked, while others indulge various vices. Carl Davis leaves his family to fulfill his dream of mountain climbing, leaving his newly destitute wife to care for the family, while daughter Lydia turns to witchcraft, burns down her high school and befriends a gang of hoodlums.

Hm, that's funny. It seems Three Moons over Milford was cancelled last September. All that whining, and for nothing!

In another new show, the teen soap opera Falcon Beach, lead character Paige sees her brother sell drugs to a 14-year-old whose life is endangered by them, as her friend Jason discovers that his girlfriend Tanya was involved in drugs and an escort service while working as a model, and that Tanya's mother had an affair with his own father -- just a typical summer at the beach, according to ABC Family.

Yes, I'm sure that's exactly their tagline. "Just a typical summer at the beach." Because if it's on ABC Family, it should be about a "typical summer" and nothing else.

I noticed there that even Chris admits that the 14-year-old's life was endangered by drugs. Sounds like a show with a message about consequences, huh? Oh, wait, I forgot. Drugs = bad, and we can never, ever depict anyone using them on TV, regardless how sensitively it's handled.

But the chief jewel in ABC Family's crown has been its new drama Kyle XY. Commercials showed teenage amnesiac Kyle seeking clues to his identity while other characters wondered whether he is a human being, an alien or something else. Viewers who tuned in innocently expecting an intriguing mystery with a science-fiction twist were caught unprepared for the deluge of teenage smut with which the program inundated them.

The "deluge of teenage smut?" If there's one thing I will credit fundies for, it's their ability to hyperbolize. "Smut," to me, involves some sort of sex being shown and somehow, I doubt ABC family has become pure porn.

Kyle XY is explicit in its depiction – and approval -- of teenage sex.

Once again...I doubt it, unless ABC is now in the kiddie porn business.

Immediately after awakening in the forest, the nude Kyle comes upon a couple having sex. Meanwhile, his soon-to-be friend Lori sneaks a boy with whom she has had sex out of her bedroom under her mother's nose, while her brother Josh returns from school with a pornographic magazine and eagerly prepares to masturbate – and all this occurs in the first episode. Later episodes show Lori both complaining to a friend that she let a boy fondle her genitals only to discover he had warts on his fingers, and ogling the naked Kyle as he steps out of the shower: "You're apparently not Jewish!" she leers. While Lori has sex with a casual acquaintance in the shrubs at a party, Josh mocks Kyle for having an erection while swimming. Josh shows Kyle his pornography and tells him, "There are ways to handle that little problem," and proceeds to teach Kyle how to masturbate. Apparently believing that such content is ideal for "A New Kind of Family," the network has ordered an additional 13 episodes of the program set to air in 2007.

Hm, mildly objectionable (made moreso by the fundie hyperbole machine-does it really show one kid teaching another how to choke the chicken?). It also sounds like lots of stuff that real teenagers say and do. I know you PTC morons would love it if every show just depicted teens has happy, smiling, perfect little Leave-it-to-Beavers, but in reality, that just isn't so. In fact, even if it was, it would still make for boring TV!

Now frankly, I haven't seen Kyle XY (although I now want to!) but I can't imagine anything in it being so inappropriate that watching it would harm teenagers. If you think it would, may I once again direct you to your V-chip?

Why don't we just cut to the real chase here? Your problem, Chris, is that you can no longer assume ABC Family means you can plop your kids down in front of it and walk away happy and satisfied. Lord, no! I have to actually pay attention to what my kids are doing now??

In addition to its original programming, ABC Family airs reruns of such sexually-charged series as Everwood, with its plots involving a teen boy impregnating a babysitter, and Gilmore Girls, in which both a mother and her daughter indulge in casual sex. ABC Family also offers endless repeats of movies with sexually degrading and child-inappropriate premises, such as Love Don't Cost a Thing (August 14) and Deliver Us From Eva (August 26), both of which involve people being bribed to pose as lovers; Best Man Worst Friend (July 9), in which a man pursues his best friend's fiancée; Chasing Liberty, in which the president's daughter eludes her Secret Service escort to date an older man (the commercials of which show the girl boasting to her father that she is "getting to third base before I'm 14!"); the crude theatrical comedies Big Daddy and National Lampoon's European Vacation; and the perfectly-timed-for-back-to-school The Perfect Score (September 7), in which a group of students plot to steal the answer key to their SAT examinations.

Wow, Chris, you seem to really hate TV! You have a big problem with just about everything on it! Why don't you just turn the damn thing off if it's so offensive?

Nearly all of ABC Family's movies are rated TV-14 for sexual dialogue and foul language, and many are similarly rated for either sex or violence.

Good! That's what they're for! Pay attention to them! If the episodes are properly rated, why are you even writing this?

Even reruns of the generally innocuous comedy Whose Line Is It Anyway? follow the network's new paradigm, in that clean PG-rated episodes air after 10 pm when most children are in bed, while raunchier TV-14 rated ones typically air in the 8 o'clock hour.

First of all, Whose Line is not a "generally innocuous" comedy, and it never was. But I'm going to need a cite here; I seriously doubt ABC is actively trying to make its schedule as offensive as possible.

While ABC Family is not the only network to lure unsuspecting child and teen viewers with louche programming – as the next Culture Watch will demonstrate – the network is particularly reprehensible in its distorted view of "family." Most of its programs involve teen characters in casual sexual situations...

I guess real families don't have that.

...while parents in the shows demonstrate little or no concern with their children's sexual activities.

Which MUST be a "distortion" because real families don't have that either. By the way, I'm gonna need a cite once again. It's pretty rare that there's teen sex shown on TV without consequences. Didn't you yourself just say that a girl got pregnant on Everwood?

This is all the more disturbing in that ABC Family is owned by Disney, whose own Disney Channel programming is filled with positive role models and genuinely family-friendly themes. This apparent corporate schizophrenia is intensified when one considers that Disney also owns the ABC broadcast network, which shows bed-hopping dramas like Grey's Anatomy and the sex-obsessed What About Brian.

I don't see the problem. A media conglomerate can't have one set of programs for one group and a different set of programs for a different group? Tell me, Chris, are you also angry with Hungry Man Dinners because some of them contain meat and some don't?

With its institution of the new ABC Family, Disney is playing both sides of the cable street – providing admirably family-friendly programming on the Disney Channel while simultaneously pushing the envelope with edgy and sexually explicit programming on what it disingenuously labels a "family" network.

It is a family network, you douche. "Family" doesn't mean just for children!

Oh, and nice crack there about "sexually explicit." I would love for you to point out one single "sexually explicit" scene on any TV show, anywhere. Please.

Is Disney truly devoted to providing entertainment living up to the classic Disney image – or is it more interested in seducing young viewers and families with salacious fare?

I think Disney is "truly devoted" to making money. Yes, there is a "Disney image," and Disney is upholding that. That's why ABC gets the more adult entertainment, ABC Family gets teenage stuff, and Disney gets the kiddie shows. I still don't get where the problem is!

There is evidence for the latter, given that during a Family Friendly Programming Forum symposium in September 2005, programmers stated that ABC's sex-filled Desperate Housewives, with its storylines involving a housewife having sex with a teenage boy and a teenage boy seducing his mother's sex-addict boyfriend, should be considered "family viewing," since its viewership included some children ages 6-11.

Well, if that's true, there are some serious problems with parents out there, but we knew that already. I would, of course, like a cite please.

While it is to be hoped that the values which once made the word "Disney" synonymous with "family-friendly entertainment" ultimately win out, the opinions expressed at the forum reveal Hollywood's "progressive" view of what such programming ought to be like.

"A New Kind of Family" indeed.

Uh-huh. All I hear is fundie screeching about how we need to censor stuff because "For the children" wins out over everything. Never mind that some of us would like to watch TV that isn't Disneyfied, bawdlerized muck, or that censorship would just encourage kids to go out and find other ways to mistreat each other.

Don't believe me? What kind of TV do you think Hitler, Mao, and Attila the Hun watched?