The Simpsons: Fraudcast News (5/23/04) (1 Viewer)

[Adam Lenhardt]

Better than last week's but not great for the reasons already mentioned.

I did get a laugh out of two lines:

"No longer a place for teenagers to have sex or commit suicide..."

and after Burns's goon tries to force Homer off the road, and Homer goes: "Stupid Women drivers."

Of course instead of letting it go, they had to drag the latter one out until it was stale.

 

[NickSo]

another great line by ralph... I WANNA BE A FIRETRUCK!!!

 

[Sam Favate]

Lets not forget the episode in which they showed "Springfield Republican Headquarters" as a forbidding castle on a hill while playing "The Imperial March" from Star Wars.

Matt Groening is staunchy progressive; he's a child of the 60s and believes in those values (read some of the things he's written in the Simpsons comic collections in the intros). Why on earth shouldn't his program reflect his own values? Would you expect Bill O'Reilly's program to reflect anything other than his own conservative values?

Moreover, I have to say I respect any show, or anyone, that's willing to bite the hand that feeds it, as the Simpsons has done with Fox and Murdoch so often.

 

[Marc Fedderman]

I can't remember a show displaying this much animus toward "the hand that feeds it" since the old Late Night With David Letterman on NBC. Remember all those great GE barbs?

 

[MatthewA]

I have read the Life in Hell strips, and I would shit myself if MG could ever admit that "Republican" and "decent human being" are not mutually exclusive.

Of course, let's imagine the shoe was on the other foot, and the Simpsons was a conservative show attacking left-liberal institutions. Would you still defend it so religiously?

Quite frankly, I'm starting to admire Murdoch for taking it so well these past 15 years.

I'm starting to find it funny how a show that takes a dim view of blind faith can inspire such blind faith from people (not pointing fingers at anyone here, though).

On a personal note, I don't give a damn who owns the media (as long as it isn't Michael Eisner), just what the content is.

 

[WillG]

But the question is why should they insult Fox? I can definately understand the jokes about Fox many years ago when they were the fledging fourth network or the mocking of the "When Animals Attack"-esque programming. But when they insult Fox for being a right leaning network in the sea of liberal media and Hollywood, I find it nasty. You know it does make me wonder if the criticism of Fox and Rupert may have been motivation for Fox to suffocate Futurama.

 

[Garrett Adams]

Not just the line but the look on their faces was priceless. Excellent rendering.

 

[Sam Favate]

It's not speculation. The antagonism between Groening and Fox is why Futurama always had a lousy time slot and subsequently got cancelled (a show that's never on can't get good ratings!). But in the case of the Simpsons, well... Fox needs that show. Just like NBC paid up millions to keep Friends going to achor its Thursday nights, Fox is putting up money for the Simpsons and it's Sundays -- and the show knows it can get away with lots of jabs at the network as a result.

It's a rare situation where David has the upper hand on Goliath. I say more power to the show.

 

[Anthony Hom]

Max Headroom was in the opposite situation. Making TV networks depends solely on ratings to sell shows, electing politicians based on show ratings, making out sponsors to be greedy corporations that want to determine what's on TV, etc. A great show, but mis-understood and to an early grave. Definitely biting the hand that feeds.

It could be the Simpsons are at a level where they know the network needs them and they don't care at this point if they stay on the air or not.

 

[Keith Mickunas]

Most likely they've been attacking republicans because they're the ones in control right now, and this administration has been particularly friendly to Rupert Murdoch. Also, Fox puts on the show, and it's funny to see them make fun of Fox. In the early days it was because it was such a small, unimportant network, but that's not the case anymore, so they had to move on.

Also, keep in mind that the mayor is inspired by the Kennedys. So they constantly are mocking the most (in)famous democrats of all.

 

[Sam Favate]

Very true. Plus, some of the best jokes on the show have been at the expense of Democrats and/or liberals. Grandpa Simpson lamenting "There's a Demmy-crat in the White House!," Homer using his snow plot to move away hippies from protesting outside the White House so George Bush can steal precious art, the crazy, white-haired prisoner who says he's "the last registered Democrat," and on and on and on over the years.

 

[Kwang Suh]

Here's my take on the episode:

If "big business" (whatever that is) is in fact politically "conservative" (whatever that is - I've seen so much first hand corruption in publically traded corporations, right wingers should be ashamed to be associated with such companies), then this episode of The Simpsons shouldn't have even existed. The mocking diatribe towards Rupert Murdoch (remember boys, he _runs_ Fox) is proof positive that, in fact, opposing viewpoints are tolerated, are allowed, and even encouraged. Geez, the whole point of the episode - that media consolidation chokes off "not correct" viewpoints - is in itself rendered incorrect by the episode even existing!

 

[MatthewA]

Problem is, Sam, with their rags on Democrats you don't get the feeling that they really mean it. With rags on Republicans you get that feeling.

 

[Jeff Jacobson]

Didn't Murdoch make a guest appearance on the show once?

"I'm Rupert Murdoch, the billionaire tyrant!"

 

[Brent Hutto]

OK, last weeks episode (which I thought was funnier than most episodes have been recently) was pretty overtly political. That's didn't make it unfunny but it was a little out of the ordinary for The Simpsons. If anything, the fact that it was a bit of a stretch from the usual week's episode made it more interesting.

But to say that "Fraudcast News" was any more any more political than dozens of other Simpsons over the years is just nuts. Mr. Burns and his evil capitalist schemes have been a joke from the very beginning. Lisa taking on some political cause or another has been another staple. Heck, they've had Lisa going up against Mr. Burns multiple times before.

 

[Mike Broadman]

Maybe you get that feeling, but not everybody. Don't speak for others.

Everybody's missing one obvious thing about the episode: Lisa did, in a sense get her way and encouraged people to start independant media. But look at how vain and ridiculous all that "media" was (ie, "Are you a Patty or a Selma?") I don't see how one can call this ep a political diatribe if the "hero's" message was ultimately fruitless.

 

[Brent Hutto]

"I don't see how one can call this ep a political diatribe if the "hero's" message was ultimately fruitless."

Exactly.

Mr. Burns's plan to make everyone love him by buying up all the media outlets was stupid. The content he put on his media outlets was stupid. Lisa's newspaper was mostly stupid. All the independent newsletters at the end were stupid. It was like a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

The Simpsons specializes in piling one stupidity on another until everything becomes a silly reductio ad absurdum. It's what they do.

 

[MatthewA]

Reductio ad absurdum is not good satire and is an invalid form of argument. Saying "it's what they do" is a cop-out.

This show they teach in college? I should go back if all they do all day is watch cartoons.

BTW, "Evil capitalist" is to me what the n-word is to blacks.

The point is, I am sick of being preached to by a piece of furniture. Soon the remaining conservative and libertarian viewers will probably stop watching, leaving only the leftist viewers, and they'll be preaching to the choir.

 

[Chuck Mayer]

Except you have it backwards. The Simpsons is the hand that feeds Fox.

The only thing the show has to do is be funny. Anything else is gravy. I haven't found it funny in a long while, and it has nothing to do with politics.

Take care,
Chuck

 

[Brent Hutto]

"Reductio ad absurdum is not good satire and is an invalid form of argument."

To you it's not good satire. To me, it's one of the funnier forms of humor. Funny is a very subjective thing.

As for whether it is valid in a debate, that's a moot question. The Simpsons is not a debate, it's a cartoon.

"The point is, I am sick of being preached to by a piece of furniture."

OK, then turn it off. Or just change the channel. If you have cable or satellite there are over 100 other things on in the same time slot as The Simpsons. You may be out of luck, though. If your threshold for feeling that you're being "preached to" encompasses The Simpsons then you'll probably find an awful lot of shows offensive.