Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site caip.RUTGERS.EDU Path: utzoo!lsuc!pesnta!pyramid!ut-sally!topaz!caip!allison From: allison@mitre.ARPA Newsgroups: net.sf-lovers Subject: Re: Re: Harlan Ellison quits TWILIGHT ZONE Message-ID: <853@caip.RUTGERS.EDU> Date: Fri, 27-Dec-85 14:01:47 EST Article-I.D.: caip.853 Posted: Fri Dec 27 14:01:47 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 28-Dec-85 20:19:14 EST Sender: daemon@caip.RUTGERS.EDU Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J. Lines: 99 From: Burgess Allison >>... terrifying thought that Santa did not like black and hispanic >>children would have been put in some children's minds. Even if the >>resolution of the episode had proved otherwise, the mere asking of >>the question may have been inappropriate to ask in prime time. > >I don't buy this one bit. I'm sure Ellison's episode would have >ended with a clear and emphatic point that Santa Claus comes to all >children. That's the whole point! It doesn't matter how the episode ends. The problem with the story line is that it suggests that Santa *might* be a racist. The accusation alone is enough to do the damage. It's the same thing as if 60 Minutes does an hour-long special on whether you're an embezzler or not. Even if they conclude that you're not, or announce that you've not been convicted, let's see how long it is before you work on the payroll project again. If you're put on trial for raping a woman in an elevator, and then found innocent, let's see how many women start taking the stairs when you're around. Note that we have to wait to the end of the show to find out whether Santa is or isn't a piece of disgusting slime. Let's assume (incorrectly) that the kids watch the entire show and see the saving-grace ending. Are they convinced? I don't know whether they would be, do you? Do you think they remember King Kong making lunch out of the city so nice they named it twice, or that he got killed in the end? It's astounding how many monsters from movies and TV -- who were killed at the end of their respective shows -- are able somehow to come back to life and find their way into children's closets (usually about bedtime). >I'm getting very tired of the idea that even the suggestion of a bigotted >or predjudiced idea, no matter how quickly refuted, will damage children >irrevocably. I agree with what you actually said here, but the problem with the story line is *not* that the concept of prejudice is merely presented. (Indeed, prejudice is a fact of life and something that we, as parents, need to deal with in raising our children.) The problem is that it presents an entirely new concept that Santa might hold to these racial biases. One, this needlessly attacks a pleasant and entertaining character that's an integral part of many children's Christmas. And two, for many of those children who have bought into the Santa myth completely, this might actually serve as a lesson that racism is OK! ("See Mom, Santa doesn't like those people either" ... an unattractive scenario, made even more unattractive if "Mom" knowingly chuckles, or openly agrees.) >Do you believe that kids believe every single thing that someone says on TV? >I don't think so ... You're right, they don't. But ... >... they watch the story, see what happens to (and with) the characters, and >make judgements from there. You obviously know nothing about the attention span of a four-year old. >Perhaps the question is whether TZ deserves a later time period; ... and another ARPAnetter writes: >Since when has TZ been a kiddy show? If you are upset about kids >viewing it, two solutions: move it later in the evening, present a >notice about parental guidance is suggested. Agreed. And as much as some parents might opt for the later time slot (so as not to have to explain to the kid why they can't watch a certain show), I'm a parent that would rather see the parental guidance warning. That way, all the other TZ episodes are early enough for my children to watch, and I can skip just this one. (BTW, not a kiddy show? I encourage my kids to watch TZ & Amazing. I think they're much better than the usual TV palaver. But this? This would have been in incredible bad taste. And rest assured that *anything* about Santa at Christmastime is a kiddy show.) >It's the same thing, in any media, if the viewers cannot discern between >truth and fiction, should we ban that story? ... If you are afraid some >viewers cannot understand the difference then stick a disclaimer in the >front. The disclaimer is *not* needed because fiction is being presented, or because bad things are happening. It's needed because we as parents need some indication when TV is about to do something that's both out of line and out of character. Dallas? The A-Team? All in the Family? Those are fine because we already have a general idea of what's on the show. JR is a sleaze; Archie's a bigot; the A-Team is into blowing up (notice that no-one ever dies, though). If I don't want my kids to watch Jeeps being blown up, but then I let them watch the A-Team, that's *my* mistake. But if I see Santa Claus come up, then Santa starts in on an Archie Bunker imitation, whoa! That's TV's mistake. >We don't need screeds like RJS's which assume guilt. RJS will have >a wonderful time in Hollywood, I think they are looking for spineless >irrationals. Nah. Really they're looking for courageous rational people who close their arguments by calling people names. Yours in user-surliness, Burgess Allison