For people involved with television shows, reaching 100 episodes is a pretty big deal. Not because the show’s cast gets to throw a party and not because they all get to eat a huge cake with a “100” on it and take goofy pictures. Instead, 100 episodes is a big deal because it means that the show in question can finally go into syndication.
In this day and age, some of the most popular shows that people watch air on HBO. Shows such as “The Sopranos” and “Sex and the City” are massively popular and get such great ratings that it was only a matter of time before there were talks to syndicate these shows for a national audience. There’s just one problem.
These shows are filled with material that can’t be shown on basic cable, including profanity, violence and sex. For this reason, one would think that networks wouldn’t even bother syndicating these shows. After all, some episodes of these shows would probably only be about 10 minutes long if all the objectionable material was cut out.
Of course, that hasn’t stopped networks from buying the syndication rights to “Sex and the City,” “The Wire,” “The Sopranos” and “Six Feet Under.” Further, the shows have also been excised of any and all objectionable material.
“Sex and the City” has been syndicated for quite some time, and based on what friends of mine who watch the show tell me, whole scenes are missing from the edited episodes. “The Sopranos” is even more hilarious, as A&E has edited out much of the profanity and replaced it with less-offensive dubs of words such as “freakin’.”
Perhaps most depressing is “The Wire,” which airs on BET. Instead of dubbing in less-offensive dialogue, BET has edited profanity out completely, causing dialogue to drop out.
This is going to make an upcoming episode, in which detectives Bunk and McNulty analyze a crime scene and speak only in profanity for two straight minutes, pretty unwatchable.
This of course begs a question: If these shows are so sanitized for syndication, then why the hell do we even have a TV ratings system?
When TV ratings were first introduced about 10 years ago, the whole point was to stop children from seeing inappropriate material on television. This actually allowed for some semblance of broadcasting freedom, and even allowed ABC to show uncensored broadcasts of “Schindler’s List” and “Saving Private Ryan” by simply slapping on a TV-MA rating. Now parents could judge what their children could and couldn’t watch, potentially being aware of inappropriate shows and stopping their children from seeing them.
Ten years later, though, we don’t take any advantage of this. TV ratings are rarely even discussed anymore.
Further, these shows all air at 9 p.m. or later. So it would seem that the only way a child could see one of these shows accidentally, which appears to be the biggest fear of advocacy groups, would be if a child were sitting around, past his or her bedtime, surfing channels unsupervised.
Sounds like excellent parenting to me.
I’ve been saying this for years, but no one seems to figure it out. Borderline-psychotic groups such as the Parents Television Council are angry at the wrong thing.
Sure, there are things on TV that children shouldn’t see.
However, these shows are rated appropriately and many of them are on late at night. How many children are honestly going to watch “Nip/Tuck,” a show the PTC has vigorously protested in the past?
Actually, I should rephrase that. How many children whose parents are actually paying attention to them are going to stumble across “Nip/Tuck” on TV at 10 p.m.?
I guess it doesn’t really matter in the end though. If lazy parents don’t want to take responsibility when their kids talk like Tony Soprano at school, then I guess I should get ready to see a lot more of Tony calling Christopher a “freakin’ sleazebag.”
This still doesn’t change Humphrey’s opinion that TV is the ultimate surrogate parent. E-mail him at mhumphrey@media.ucla.edu.