We live in a society of dweebs and wusses. That’s really just a sad fact. Look no further than the “culture wars”, which inevitably play out like this: one side, let’s call them the Silverhawks, gets insulted over something. The other side, let’s call them M.A.S.K., gets offended because somebody else found it offensive. Then they scream at each other on Fox News and MSNBC for about a week. Rinse, wash, repeat. And nobody’s been more prominent in this cycle of butthurt and whining that the Parent’s Television Council. And, surprise, they’re actually kind of slimy! More below, courtesy of Uproxx News.
First, some history. The Parent’s Television Council was founded in 1995 by one L. Brent Bozell III, who also runs the Media Research Center, which happens to be the outfit that throws a hissy fit over “liberal bias” (read: news they don’t like). The entire objective was to write to advertisers whenever anything more interesting than the cultural plague that is “Two and A Half Men” came on the air, because it offended them. Their basic gist is that nothing should ever refer to, say, sex, especially gay sex, because a child, somewhere, somehow, might see it, and then think that gay people are OK and should be treated with equal rights. Or they might learn something about sex, or something. Honestly, their reasoning is kind of vague and breaks down somewhere around “WWWWWAAAAAHHHHHH THERE ARE BOOBIES NO LIKE NO LIKE NO LIKE!”
They also issue reports, which tend to have hyperbolic titles and scientific methods of “testing” children’s access to media they don’t like which, inevitably, the rest of America fails, because nobody is up to their incredibly high standards. How high are those standards? They said a sexy photoshoot in GQ bordered on pedophilia. Why? Because the actors (adults) played teenage characters. And these people are trying to control the airwaves.
This is actually an issue because these guys collect and then spam the FCC with lots of whining, which resulted in some huge fines being levied for obscenity charges. The idea that if the parent doesn’t want the kid to watch, they could just change the channel, is, of course, not considered. After all, you can still watch it, and that’s bad. They should decide what you watch, because they’re better than you.
Which made the charges levied by their ex-vice president, Patrick Salazar, all the more tasty and hilarious. Among the accusations Salazar levels:
- The PTC is so cash-strapped, it opened petitions, looked for money, and when they wasn’t any included, they dumped the petitions.
- The PTC has grossly inflated its numbers; apparently if you talked to them once, they count you as a “member”, which is a tad inaccurate. As in, most of these “members” have never contributed a nickel or even interact with the PTC on a regular basis. The real number? 12,000.
- The PTC leadership is incompetent to the point of letting 195,000 “time-sensitive documents” rot in a warehouse.
By the way, there’s video of one of the PTC’s leaders claiming they’re not a conservative action group, despite being associated with one, and run entirely by conservatives.
On the flipside, apparently Salazar was trying to extort severance out of the PTC. The PTC would rather have us try and care about “S#(* My Dad Says” and how a censored term shouldn’t be on TV schedules. No, PTC, instead we’d like to take a look at your member rolls, make sure you’re on the up-and-up. Somehow, we think that’s the more interesting s#(*.
- The Gray Lady drops the hammer. (New York Times)
- For the sake the PTC members, all five of them Googling themselves, let’s talk about obscenity and blasphemy. First up, an investor in Bible.com is suing the board because they aren’t selling the URL to the highest bidder. Well, we can’t blame him; just look at televangelists, there’s a lot of money in exploiting religion. (Yahoo!)
- And for some reason, the Feds don’t want a bunch of snakes that somebody in Florida forced a teenager to pose naked with. And amazingly? This wasn’t in Florida. That must make Fark sad. (MSNBC)
KNOW YOUR STATS
- How many editions of the Vatican’s banned books index were there? Twenty. Over about 400 years. Geez, not even the Vatican in the Renaissance got as worked up as the PTC. (University of Cambridge)
- How many photos of scantily clad women are on this page? None! In tribute to the target of our informed mocking, those are mannequins they’ve been getting outraged over. (Ha-ha!)