Fact Checking NBC: SNL Palin Incest Skit

RobInKuwait

RobInKuwait

Registered User
Awards
1
  • Established
WTF....I hope no one has the audacity to defend that skit. You can say it was poking fun at the NY Times, but there is a line of good taste and it was utterly ignored.

[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IRXQ2ZueP5c"]YouTube - Saturday Night Live Todd Palin - Incest Smear[/nomedia]

This was the only video of it I could find.
 
RobInKuwait

RobInKuwait

Registered User
Awards
1
  • Established
Nobody wants to talk about this? Not many things leave me speechless, but when I heard about this I was completely speechless.
 
Iron Lungz

Iron Lungz

Banned
Awards
1
  • Established
I can remember when skits like this were taboo... I liked T.V. a lot more then.
Without picking a side, I will say that it was poor taste and I don't think that it was funny.
 
RobInKuwait

RobInKuwait

Registered User
Awards
1
  • Established
I can remember when skits like this were taboo... I liked T.V. a lot more then.
Without picking a side, I will say that it was poor taste and I don't think that it was funny.
I guess what shocked me is that I thought they still were taboo!
 
Iron Lungz

Iron Lungz

Banned
Awards
1
  • Established
I guess what shocked me is that I thought they still were taboo!
Sadly, it's not. Without getting in to the politics of it, the freedom of expression/free thought is being taken to the maximum. It's all about how far the envelope can be pushed now.
 

AE14

Board Sponsor
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
certain things are off limits, and this should be one of them. There are too many times where things go overboard, pathetic
 

futurepilot

Well-known member
Awards
1
  • Established
You guys are really worried about a skit on saturday night live? There is no more pressing issues we could be debating than a satirical news conference from a moving picture box thats existence is only to sell commercials?

How about if you replaced palins husband with Earl Higgins from arkansas, still not funny?
 
RobInKuwait

RobInKuwait

Registered User
Awards
1
  • Established
You guys are really worried about a skit on saturday night live? There is no more pressing issues we could be debating than a satirical news conference from a moving picture box thats existence is only to sell commercials?

How about if you replaced palins husband with Earl Higgins from arkansas, still not funny?
Calling a parent and the spouse of a Vice Presidential candidate a pedophile on national TV without basis is disgusting not satirical.

I can't believe this barely even made the news anywhere other than on conservative talk radio. Just shows who is deciding on what is newsworthy.
 

futurepilot

Well-known member
Awards
1
  • Established
Calling a parent and the spouse of a Vice Presidential candidate a pedophile on national TV without basis is disgusting not satirical.
The news conference was satirical, the comments were irreverant, but like I said: T.V. isnt real, it exists in it of itself, purely for economic revenue, as do radio stations, they have a target market and they play whatever they need to, to get viewers. Which in turns allows them to charge a higher price for advertising time.

If you think this is bad, you would riot in the streets over south park.
 
RobInKuwait

RobInKuwait

Registered User
Awards
1
  • Established
The news conference was satirical, the comments were irreverant, but like I said: T.V. isnt real, it exists in it of itself, purely for economic revenue, as do radio stations, they have a target market and they play whatever they need to, to get viewers. Which in turns allows them to charge a higher price for advertising time.

If you think this is bad, you would riot in the streets over south park.
I disagree that its purely for economic revenue. If that were true don't you think another network would go a little less to the left and try and compete with Fox News. Their ratings utterly destroy every other cable news network in every demographic? You said it was all about the revenue.

Cable News Nielsen TV Ratings for Tuesday, September 16, 2008
 

futurepilot

Well-known member
Awards
1
  • Established
I'm not an investment banker, I cant say why certain financial decisions are made.

But its not up for discussion whether T.V. is a for profit enterprise, its a fact. T.V. isn't the peace corp, its a business.
 
RobInKuwait

RobInKuwait

Registered User
Awards
1
  • Established
I'm not an investment banker, I cant say why certain financial decisions are made.

But its not up for discussion whether T.V. is a for profit enterprise, its a fact. T.V. isn't the peace corp, its a business.
Why is it not up for discussion? You said TV made its decision off what makes them the most money, like it was a fact.

I showed you that cable news networks were not doing what makes them the most money. I'd say they are either incompetent or they are basing their decisions on something other than money.
 
Mulletsoldier

Mulletsoldier

Binging on Pure ****ing Rage
Awards
2
  • Legend!
  • Established
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

- Evelyn Beatrice Hall

That simple.
 
RobInKuwait

RobInKuwait

Registered User
Awards
1
  • Established
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

- Evelyn Beatrice Hall

That simple.
I didn't say or even hint that NBC should not be allowed to say it, I just said I thought it was over the line of good taste and NBC should apologize to the Palins.
 

futurepilot

Well-known member
Awards
1
  • Established
Why is it not up for discussion? You said TV made its decision off what makes them the most money, like it was a fact.

I showed you that cable news networks were not doing what makes them the most money. I'd say they are either incompetent or they are basing their decisions on something other than money.

It is a fact. Each cable network does what it feels will appeal to their target market, that doesn't mean they have to succeed, it just means thats how things are done.
 
RobInKuwait

RobInKuwait

Registered User
Awards
1
  • Established
It is a fact. Each cable network does what it feels will appeal to their target market, that doesn't mean they have to succeed, it just means thats how things are done.
If its a fact, prove it.
 
RobInKuwait

RobInKuwait

Registered User
Awards
1
  • Established
Ok: What TV channel doesnt sell advertising?
HBO, Showtime.....

I understand what you're saying, but that doesn't mean they're not willing to sacrifice profits to promote a candidate or ideal.
 
Mulletsoldier

Mulletsoldier

Binging on Pure ****ing Rage
Awards
2
  • Legend!
  • Established
I didn't say or even hint that NBC should not be allowed to say it, I just said I thought it was over the line of good taste and NBC should apologize to the Palins.
Exactly; I suppose I should have clarified further, Rob. The debate seemed to be leading towards the inevitable, "This should not have been allowed to air". Whether or not this would have been an eventual legal discussion is debatable; however, morally - at the very least - this was the insinuation!
 
RobInKuwait

RobInKuwait

Registered User
Awards
1
  • Established
Exactly; I suppose I should have clarified further, Rob. The debate seemed to be leading towards the inevitable, "This should not have been allowed to air". Whether or not this would have been an eventual legal discussion is debatable; however, morally - at the very least - this was the insinuation!
I don't think it should have been allowed to air, I think NBC should have policed themselves. I can't remember ever hearing about anything on TV being more blantantly offensive to an individual.

That being said, I don't believe its the FCC's role to step in and censor it. It was on late at night which is the appropriate time for more racy material.
 

futurepilot

Well-known member
Awards
1
  • Established
HBO, Showtime.....

I understand what you're saying, but that doesn't mean they're not willing to sacrifice profits to promote a candidate or ideal.
Subscription costs = purely for profit. Thats why they are "premium channels", that extra fee goes to them. And last time I had HBO i thought they ran infrequent commercials? I dont remember its been like 8-9 yrs since I had it.

I dont honestly believe there is a channel out there that isnt carefully scripted by the managers overseeing the writers. Case in point is bill o'reilly vs daily show. 2 very different target markets that they attract with a similar marketing plan. Making viewers happy = more viewers= money.
 
RobInKuwait

RobInKuwait

Registered User
Awards
1
  • Established
Subscription costs = purely for profit. Thats why they are "premium channels", that extra fee goes to them. And last time I had HBO i thought they ran infrequent commercials? I dont remember its been like 8-9 yrs since I had it.
I know, was just sayin...:)

I dont honestly believe there is a channel out there that isnt carefully scripted by the managers overseeing the writers. Case in point is bill o'reilly vs daily show. 2 very different target markets that they attract with a similar marketing plan. Making viewers happy = more viewers= money.
The only way you'd know would be to have someone on the inside. At this point all we can do is speculate.
 
Mulletsoldier

Mulletsoldier

Binging on Pure ****ing Rage
Awards
2
  • Legend!
  • Established
I don't think it should have been allowed to air, I think NBC should have policed themselves.
This sentence is the indexical for my previous proposition! Without morphing this into another epistemological debate, this statement necessarily expresses that NBC "should not have" aired the skit.
 
RobInKuwait

RobInKuwait

Registered User
Awards
1
  • Established
This sentence is the indexical for my previous proposition! Without morphing this into another epistemological debate, this statement necessarily expresses that NBC "should not have" aired the skit.
Agreed, this one is definitely not worth an epistemological debate! I thought you were talking about government censorship when you said "should not have aired".
 
jarhead

jarhead

Well-known member
Awards
1
  • Established
I have to disagree on this one. Freedom of speech is absolute. Somewhere along the way the right to free speech got confused with the right to not be offended. As far as I know, most tv's come with a remote or some form of device for channel manipulation if you find something offensive. If you don't like it, employ them. I saw it as completely satyrical. At no point did I think they were actually accusing them of incest. It was more of a swipe at journalist/media. To me, it was no more offensive than the blatant lies and insults told to us thru the candidates campaign ads.
 
grila jujitsu

grila jujitsu

Well-known member
Awards
1
  • Established
who cares its a tv show! they make jokes, it was funny! i laughed hahahaha! with al the stuff going on right now this should be the least of your worries!

-GJJ
 
grila jujitsu

grila jujitsu

Well-known member
Awards
1
  • Established
I have to disagree on this one. Freedom of speech is absolute. Somewhere along the way the right to free speech got confused with the right to not be offended. As far as I know, most tv's come with a remote or some form of device for channel manipulation if you find something offensive. If you don't like it, employ them. I saw it as completely satyrical. At no point did I think they were actually accusing them of incest. It was more of a swipe at journalist/media. To me, it was no more offensive than the blatant lies and insults told to us thru the candidates campaign ads.
true that ! :goodpost: :clap2:
 
RobInKuwait

RobInKuwait

Registered User
Awards
1
  • Established
I have to disagree on this one. Freedom of speech is absolute. Somewhere along the way the right to free speech got confused with the right to not be offended. As far as I know, most tv's come with a remote or some form of device for channel manipulation if you find something offensive. If you don't like it, employ them. I saw it as completely satyrical. At no point did I think they were actually accusing them of incest. It was more of a swipe at journalist/media. To me, it was no more offensive than the blatant lies and insults told to us thru the candidates campaign ads.
Freedom of speech is not absolute. Its a right that if used in a reasonable manner is not to be infringed upon by congress. If it was absolute, the Simpsons would be saying f.uck and you could legally go cry "fire" in a movie theater.

However, that wasn't even the issue I brought up. I thought the skit was in poor taste and that NBC should acknowledge they went to far and apologize to the Palins. I never said that it should be censored by the government.
 
jarhead

jarhead

Well-known member
Awards
1
  • Established
Freedom of speech is not absolute. Its a right that if used in a reasonable manner is not to be infringed upon by congress. If it was absolute, the Simpsons would be saying f.uck and you could legally go cry "fire" in a movie theater.

However, that wasn't even the issue I brought up. I thought the skit was in poor taste and that NBC should acknowledge they went to far and apologize to the Palins. I never said that it should be censored by the government.
Again I disagree. Freedom of speech as defined is most certainly absolute. It means speaking without limitation or censorship. To say that it has "to be used in a reasonable manner" is the exact opposite of what it is. It has nothing to do with using tact and good taste. To say that their are limits to what you can say is contradictory to the very idea of freedom of speech.The simpsons cant say F uck on tv due to network censors. It has nothing to do with perceived limits of freedom of speech. I don't feel that NBC owes anyone an apology and in fact think THAT idea(that they should apologize) is one of the things troubling this country. You have every right to find it in poor taste or offensive. It's clearly not in your taste and I don't criticize you for that at all. However, there is nothing in the first amendment that protects you from ever being offended. You have a choice, you don't have to watch it.
 
shaddow

shaddow

Well-known member
Awards
1
  • Established
Whooooo cares? It was a stupid skit, but come on. Getting your panties in a bunch over it is kinda lame.
 
Fastone

Fastone

Well-known member
Awards
1
  • Established
You guys don't know from bad taste unless you watch Family Guy. That being said the show is funny as hell, you find yourself doubled over in laughter as your mind is saying "That ain't right"

:bruce3:
 
RobInKuwait

RobInKuwait

Registered User
Awards
1
  • Established
Again I disagree. Freedom of speech as defined is most certainly absolute. It means speaking without limitation or censorship. To say that it has "to be used in a reasonable manner" is the exact opposite of what it is. It has nothing to do with using tact and good taste. To say that their are limits to what you can say is contradictory to the very idea of freedom of speech.The simpsons cant say F uck on tv due to network censors. It has nothing to do with perceived limits of freedom of speech. I don't feel that NBC owes anyone an apology and in fact think THAT idea(that they should apologize) is one of the things troubling this country. You have every right to find it in poor taste or offensive. It's clearly not in your taste and I don't criticize you for that at all. However, there is nothing in the first amendment that protects you from ever being offended. You have a choice, you don't have to watch it.
Again, this isn't what I was talking about, but just to show that you're wrong and freedom of speech is NOT absolute in the United States, here's the wikipedia entry:

Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and by many state constitutions and state and federal laws. Criticism of the government and advocation of unpopular ideas that people may find distasteful or against public policy, such as racism, are generally permitted. There are exceptions to the general protection of speech, however, including the Miller test for obscenity, child pornography laws, and regulation of commercial speech such as advertising. Other limitations on free speech often balance rights to free speech and other rights, such as property rights for authors and inventors (copyright), interests in fair political campaigns (Campaign finance laws), protection from imminent or potential violence against particular persons (restrictions on Hate speech or fighting words), or the use of untruths to harm others (slander). Distinctions are also often made between speech and other acts, such as flag desecration, which may have symbolic significance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_in_the_United_States

Obviously there are limitations based upon this entry, and therefore Freedom of Speech is NOT absolute. You may disagree with the interpretation of the Supreme Court, but they are the final say in the interpretation of the first amendment. They have said in several rulings that there are limits on free speech, just as there are limits in the right to bear arms.

As for the issue over whether or not NBC should apologize, I think this is an agree to disagree issue.
 
jarhead

jarhead

Well-known member
Awards
1
  • Established
Again, this isn't what I was talking about, but just to show that you're wrong and freedom of speech is NOT absolute in the United States, here's the wikipedia entry:

Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and by many state constitutions and state and federal laws. Criticism of the government and advocation of unpopular ideas that people may find distasteful or against public policy, such as racism, are generally permitted. There are exceptions to the general protection of speech, however, including the Miller test for obscenity, child pornography laws, and regulation of commercial speech such as advertising. Other limitations on free speech often balance rights to free speech and other rights, such as property rights for authors and inventors (copyright), interests in fair political campaigns (Campaign finance laws), protection from imminent or potential violence against particular persons (restrictions on Hate speech or fighting words), or the use of untruths to harm others (slander). Distinctions are also often made between speech and other acts, such as flag desecration, which may have symbolic significance.

Freedom of speech in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Obviously there are limitations based upon this entry, and therefore Freedom of Speech is NOT absolute. You may disagree with the interpretation of the Supreme Court, but they are the final say in the interpretation of the first amendment. They have said in several rulings that there are limits on free speech, just as there are limits in the right to bear arms.

As for the issue over whether or not NBC should apologize, I think this is an agree to disagree issue.
Jerry falwell took larry flint to court over almost the same thing you are offended by. Flint accused falwell of screwing his own mother in a cartoon in his magazine. Flints right to free speech was defended because as a public figure falwell is subject to satire, regardless of taste. As for the rest of your wikipedia stuff, you are confusing legal copyright rules as limiting free speech. That is a legal issue not a philosophical one. In the context of the discussion, I challenge you to show me where the supreme court had ruled that something couldn't be said because it was offensive, which was my point-not copyright issues. Child pornogrophy and all those others things you listed invovle a physical attack or incident-that is why they are illegal. It (the IDEA of free speech) was intended to be absolute in that context and damn well should be. From the link you provided:

The First Amendment was ratified on December 15, 1791. The Amendment states:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Sounds pretty damn clear to me.
 
RobInKuwait

RobInKuwait

Registered User
Awards
1
  • Established
Jerry falwell took larry flint to court over almost the same thing you are offended by. Flint accused falwell of screwing his own mother in a cartoon in his magazine. Flints right to free speech was defended because as a public figure falwell is subject to satire, regardless of taste. As for the rest of your wikipedia stuff, you are confusing legal copyright rules as limiting free speech. That is a legal issue not a philosophical one. In the context of the discussion, I challenge you to show me where the supreme court had ruled that something couldn't be said because it was offensive, which was my point-not copyright issues. Child pornogrophy and all those others things you listed invovle a physical attack or incident-that is why they are illegal. It (the IDEA of free speech) was intended to be absolute in that context and damn well should be. From the link you provided:

The First Amendment was ratified on December 15, 1791. The Amendment states:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Sounds pretty damn clear to me.

Take a step back. Read my posts. I never said I thought this should be a legal issue. NEVER. Read my posts. All the stuff I wrote was in response to you saying:

Freedom of speech as defined is most certainly absolute.
Its not an absolute. You can quote the Bill of Rights all day, but its tedious as there are hundreds of legal decisions called case law that interpret the amendment, so you writing that does nothing. Absolute mean no limitations. There are limitations to freedom of speech and I outlined them in my previous post.

I'm well aware of the people vs larry flynt decision and what I said had nothing to do with that decision. I said that since NBC claims to be a reputable and unbiased news and entertainment source they should apologize to the Palin family. You disagree obviously, so as I said in the previous post.....we should agree to disagree.
 
jarhead

jarhead

Well-known member
Awards
1
  • Established
Take a step back. Read my posts. I never said I thought this should be a legal issue. NEVER. Read my posts. All the stuff I wrote was in response to you saying:



Its not an absolute. You can quote the Bill of Rights all day, but its tedious as there are hundreds of legal decisions called case law that interpret the amendment, so you writing that does nothing. Absolute mean no limitations. There are limitations to freedom of speech and I outlined them in my previous post.

I'm well aware of the people vs larry flynt decision and what I said had nothing to do with that decision. I said that since NBC claims to be a reputable and unbiased news and entertainment source they should apologize to the Palin family. You disagree obviously, so as I said in the previous post.....we should agree to disagree.
Yeah actually I have no idea WHAT you're arguing anymore. I completely and always will disagree with you on what the IDEA of free speech was intended to be in this country. You just said that nbc should apologize because you found the skit distasteful. It is -as YOU said, entertainment. Palin is NOT above satire, sorry. How you cannot see the parrallel with the flint case is beyond me. Both falwell and palin were accused of incest in the satirical comedies. The supreme court ruled in flints favor. They did not force you to watch and there is nothing in the bill of rights, which I will quote all day because, silly me, feel that it's important-there is no law from protecting you from being offended no matter how much junk you try to cloud the issue with. You are talking about censorship plain and simple. Asking people to start apologizing for unpopular speech is INSANE. We absolutely disagree, and that's fine.
 
RobInKuwait

RobInKuwait

Registered User
Awards
1
  • Established
Yeah actually I have no idea WHAT you're arguing anymore. I completely and always will disagree with you on what the IDEA of free speech was intended to be in this country. You just said that nbc should apologize because you found the skit distasteful. It is -as YOU said, entertainment. Palin is NOT above satire, sorry. How you cannot see the parrallel with the flint case is beyond me. Both falwell and palin were accused of incest in the satirical comedies. The supreme court ruled in flints favor. They did not force you to watch and there is nothing in the bill of rights, which I will quote all day because, silly me, feel that it's important-there is no law from protecting you from being offended no matter how much junk you try to cloud the issue with. You are talking about censorship plain and simple. Asking people to start apologizing for unpopular speech is INSANE. We absolutely disagree, and that's fine.
I guess NBC is on par with Hustler.
 
RobInKuwait

RobInKuwait

Registered User
Awards
1
  • Established
arizonanewbie

arizonanewbie

Member
Awards
0
As was mentioned earlier in the discussion, the skit was clearly not intended as a slight to the Palin family, but as a critique of journalism, as evinced by the headline about the journalist who excelled at exposing stories that have no proof or negative proof. I don't want to be disrespectful of the people in this discussion, but it seemed readily apparent to me that the skit was not an indictment of Todd Palin at all and to interpret it as such seriously misses the point.

Further, as far as the Free Speech discussion goes, it is important to mention the State Action doctrine - our free speech is protected as against actions by Congress, not by private individuals, as with other "fundamental rights." I, as a private citizen, am free to deprive you of your right to free speech. The Constitution was written as a check on the power of the federal gov't against the states, not private citizens or corporations against eachother.
 
jarhead

jarhead

Well-known member
Awards
1
  • Established
I guess NBC is on par with Hustler.
As it's rights are defended by the law, it damn sure is. But then, you didn't understand the skit, so I guess you probably wouldn't get that either.
 
jarhead

jarhead

Well-known member
Awards
1
  • Established
. I said NBC should apologize for their skit. Apples and oranges.
Or you could have -oh I don't know turned the channel and maybe not posted a link exposing other people to something you say is offensive.
 
HardTrainer

HardTrainer

Member
Awards
0
As was mentioned earlier in the discussion, the skit was clearly not intended as a slight to the Palin family, but as a critique of journalism, as evinced by the headline about the journalist who excelled at exposing stories that have no proof or negative proof. I don't want to be disrespectful of the people in this discussion, but it seemed readily apparent to me that the skit was not an indictment of Todd Palin at all and to interpret it as such seriously misses the point.
Couldn't agree more. It astonishes me that someone could miss that point.

Some people seem to get off on 'being offended'.
 
RobInKuwait

RobInKuwait

Registered User
Awards
1
  • Established
Couldn't agree more. It astonishes me that someone could miss that point.

Some people seem to get off on 'being offended'.
I got the point. It was to talk about how "reckless the New York Times is in their journalistic practices". Bullsh1t. They wanted to see how far they could go with Palin and they succeeded. You can't go further than saying her husband a child molester.

Can you imagine the uproar if they called Barrack Hussein a child molester in a skit? This guy gets apologies for being called by his full name. The double standard is sickening.

As for "getting off on being offended", I don't get offended. This is the first time I can ever recall being offended by anything on TV. I'm offended that they had the audacity to say what they said, knowing how wrong they were. They said it because they knew that nobody in the press would say a negative word about it, because she is a republican VP candidate.
 
Dwight Schrute

Dwight Schrute

I am faster than 80% of all snakes
Awards
2
  • Legend!
  • Established
It was just coincidence :)
 
HardTrainer

HardTrainer

Member
Awards
0
... You can't go further than saying her husband a child molester.

Can you imagine the uproar if they called Barrack Hussein a child molester in a skit? This guy gets apologies for being called by his full name. The double standard is sickening...
But they didn't call her husband a child molester. If you watch the sketch, they actually say the exact opposite: that there is absolutely no evidence to support such an accusation. If I say: "The NY Times is so reckless, they would even go so far as to call Sarah Palin's husband a child molester without any proof." It's not the same as saying: "I think Sarah Palin's husband is a child molester."

I don't see how you could confuse the two.
 
RobInKuwait

RobInKuwait

Registered User
Awards
1
  • Established
But they didn't call her husband a child molester. If you watch the sketch, they actually say the exact opposite: that there is absolutely no evidence to support such an accusation. If I say: "The NY Times is so reckless, they would even go so far as to call Sarah Palin's husband a child molester without any proof." It's not the same as saying: "I think Sarah Palin's husband is a child molester."

I don't see how you could confuse the two.
I watched the sketch....I was the one who posted it.

They could've said, "Sarah Palin's husband has sex with polar bears."

Thats funny because its in no way believable. Nobody has sex with polar bears.

Tell me to put on a tinfoil hat if you want, but they said that just to put that idea in people's head. Pedophiles are the lowest of the low in society. They're the one group of people that is universally hated by the entire country. This wasn't an off the wall satire, this was calculated attack to push the envelope and associate the Palin's with pedophilia.

Really though, can you honestly tell me there wouldn't be a backlash if they made the same skit, but made Obama the pedophile?
 

Similar threads


Top