Not Enough Profanity?

by Bob Hostetler

You've probably been thinking lately, "You know, there's just not enough profanity on T.V."

Or "I wish there were more disrespectful comments toward people's religious views on network television."

Or maybe you find yourself longing for more story lines about vulgar practices and bodily functions?

No? You're not thinking that?

That's odd, because television executives certainly are. They're not just thinking it; they're talking about it.

Steven Bochco is reportedly pushing ABC to allow him to include the s word and the f-word in his new hour-long drama, Philly. Aaron Sorkin, executive producer of NBC's The West Wing, told the New York Times that he has lobbied the network for permission to use the name of Jesus in profanities uttered by characters on the show.

And Fox's Boston Public famously aired an episode in which high school kids performed oral sex on each other in the school's hallway. Apparently, television writers and producers feel a deep, driving need to portray themes and language that were once confined to cable....and before that, to certain poorly-lit locales that catered to the basest impulses of human nature.

Of course, some of those writers and producers claim that they're only vying for the privilege of letting their art imitate real life. It's accuracy they're going for, they say.

If that were the case, then why would cable channel Comedy Central flood a single half-hour episode of South Park with 162 incidences of the s-word? If that were real life in my neighborhood, I'd move.

If television's power brokers were concerned about realism, they wouldn't hire such a high percentage of actors and actresses who look like supermodels and Bowflex commercials. If they were concerned about realism, there would be a smaller proportion of homosexual characters and religious wackos. If they were concerned about realism, there would probably be more Hispanic and Asian characters on television, and more positive portrayals of black males, particularly in leading roles. If they were concerned about realism, there would be far more ordinary people on television whose religion plays a big part in their lives.

Of course, I don't think it's about realism; it's about something else. It might be about grabbing headlines by offending as many people as possible. It might be about obscuring the fact that they have nothing to say by saying it profanely and hoping that will make their inanities into "urbanities." Or it might be more ideological; it might be about putting prudish parents and overly sensitive religious quacks in their place. Who knows, it might even be spiritual, an effort to shake an artistic fist in the face of whatever God they think might be miffed by their so-called "realism."

I don't know. But I do know this. Mr. Bochco's and Mr. Sorkin's comments have prompted me to decide that in the future, if I'm watching a television show that offends me with vulgarity, profanity, or hateful attitudes toward religious figures or beliefs, I will stop watching that show. But only after the next commercial break, because I will politely write that show's sponsors to inform them of my decision....and my reasons for making it.

Hey, I know, it's not gonna change the world--or even NBC, which recently announced a lack of interest in creating family-oriented programming. I'm just looking for more reality--and profanity, vulgarity, and blasphemy don't reflect the kind of reality I want in my mind, my family, or my home.

Posted February 8, 2002, this commentary appeared on WMUB on February 25, 2002

More articles by Bob Hostetler...