By Laura Sanicola
There is no question that channel surfing cable television today looks vastly different from the 1970s. Archie Bunker would not dare grace modern audiences with his bigoted, sexist presence like he did in “All in the Family.” 21st century audiences are far too enlightened to laugh at such repulsive humor! Right.
I would not be too sure. In the early 2000s, Jason Alexander made a guest appearance in an episode of the popular sitcom “Friends” in which he played a suicidal office manager who receives a call from newly-hired telemarketer Phoebe, who inquires about his “toner needs.”
“I don’t need any toner,” Alexander begins, “because I’m going to kill myself.” A notable, pregnant silence swells uneasily before the laugh track is introduced as Phoebe flips through her telemarketer script for an appropriate response. She eventually quips, “Um, is that because you’re out of toner?”
Apparently, 14 years ago this type of humor did not raise any eyebrows among critics or audiences. The episode has an 8.5 rating on Imdb and did not receive any particular attention for its coverage of the topic. Audiences felt the uncomfortable nature of Alexander’s lines, recognized in a moment the heaviness of the topic, but the situation is quickly diffused by the nature of its own discomfort.
The triviality with which it is presented (Alexander’s whiteboard of daily tasks lists two words: “kill self”) and Phoebe’s inability to respond appropriately is shocking today. It is doubtful that a similar episode would air in a sitcom without remark from someone of a breach in political correctness for trivializing a mental health issue by laughing at a victim of illness. The past 10 years have seen a surge of activism aimed at breaking down stigmas and preconceived notions. If it’s sexist, racist or a mockery of some group of people, then it is subject to criticism by the community at large.
A Slate article written in January 2015 by Ruth Graham tears apart “Friends” for idolizing characters that routinely joke about objectifying women, make light of sexual assault and display hostility and resentment towards homosexual characters. I would imagine that the show’s intention was not to offend women, rape victims or the LGBT community. However, in a sense, the need to identify political incorrectness in the media stems from the notion that the writers do not realize that they are causing offense.
Traditionally, the argument over political correctness occurs when an audience feels that a particular brand of humor a) marginalizes a section of the population, particularly one that has been marginalized in the past, b) perpetuates an unhealthy stereotype about a population or c) attacks a population. It is easy to see why people hold the media responsible for committing these offenses.
Media reaches millions of people each day, influencing audiences’ perceptions of social norms. It is arguable that the breadth of the media’s influence means that it should be held accountable for the way it represents society. The 1990s hit “Will & Grace” was progressive for its time in its premise of having a gay protagonist, but later came under scrutiny for perpetuating a stereotypical gay image on its characters. Even the modern hit, “The Big Bang Theory,” which has been lauded by critics for empowering women by representing them as intelligent and career driven, has come under fire for stereotyping scientists.
There is an inherent conflict in attempting to depict a slightly exaggerated version of society that makes light of situations in which there are grains of truth in and trying to depict an idealized version of society devoid of all stereotyping. Audiences prefer political correctness when they come to expect it in a sitcom. For example, when “Family Guy” employs politically incorrect humor, audiences are more forgiving and even more amused because they are aware of what the writers are attempting to make fun of. However, audiences are offended when we are convinced a writer genuinely holds unhealthy beliefs, which can be deduced by the subtlety with which they are ingrained in the sitcom and when the characters are more relatable to us.
Lucille Ball’s failed attempt to switch roles with her husband in “I Love Lucy” is not as inherently funny in 2015 as it was in the 1950s because modern audiences relate less to the notion of gender roles that ascribe women a role solely in the work place. Modern housewives feel that they should identify with the woman depicted on the screen, but can no longer find the obvious link between Betty Freidan’s worst nightmare and themselves.
Is it the media’s role to protect the image that society is attempting to build by creating sitcoms that adhere to certain standards of political correctness? That is debatable. One could argue that comedy’s role is to make light of the imperfect way in which the world operates and the often crooked lens with which we see it. When it comes to political correctness, I would venture to guess that most Americans would like to straddle the line between being able to laugh at irreverent humor and being able to avoid offending anyone. It is a thin line, but one’s gut can usually tell them when it is being crossed.
