Excellent post, as always!  I was just watching Ellen and it is rated G, but I think the host might be a lesbian!  Can you believe it, Craig?!  A LESBIAN ON TV AND THE SHOW IS RATED G.  Our poor children might see a lesbian on television acting like a normal human being and think that being gay is cool!!!

Hollywood is killing our freedom.

Do you think that scene should be in  a "G" rated episode?

This is how we as democrats can not only do good for the nation, but get back to the majorities we had in the 1980's.

Ratings aren't mandated by the government.

Also: don't be such a prude.

we have 2 wars going on and our economy is in the crapper but Obama should stand up to Hollywood??????

freaking King of queens !??!?!?! please tell me this is a snark

...the culture wars are over.

Your side - the homophobic, prudish side - lost.

Now I'll admit that most of what passes for contemporary television is pure crap, but it's more because it sucks than because it dares to suggest that married people might, on occasion, get it on.

I have a suggestion, if you think a show is in appropriate don't watch it. If you think a show is in appropriate for your kids learn how to use your V-chip or the blocking capabilities your cable or satellite provider offer you.

I'm sorry the fifties are over, but believe it or not most  couples sleep in the same bed.

And finally, what wellinformed said!

And BTW you have this diary up twice pick one please. And would also please learn how to use the below the fold function.

What a coincidence.  I was just going to diary about this outrage myself.  I can't believe it--everybody in the world is talking about this stupid financial crisis, banks going under, stock markets crashing, skyrocketing foreclosure rates--while ignoring this recent outrageous "g"-rated episode of King of Queens!!!!

In fact, even the title of that show--King of QUEENS--what do they we are, stupid?  We can recognize homoerotic references when they are as obvious as that (not that we are looking for them).  They might as well just call it "King of QUEERS."

Thanks for being on top of this one, yellowD (or on the bottom of it, or whatever.)

Simply some of the most brilliant satire I have
ever read on MyDD.

A classic by which all other snark diaries will be judged.

Kudos.

slow down horsey

I'll be talking to you on November 5th

claim to know what it is that defines "our culture" could you please elaborate and define "our culture" for me?

Also, isn't sex and couples sleeping in the same bed part of our culture?

Or is your narrow minded opinion the prevailing and only definition of our culture?

Could you tell me why you think the government should shape culture rather than be a reflection of societies culture and our values?

1Either TV corrupts the youth or it doesn't

2If TV doesn't, then we should leave it alone.

3If TV does corrupt the youth it does so intentionally or unintentionally

4If TV corrupts the youth unintentionally, then we should leave it alone.

Now let me bring you to a side argument:
1TV would not intentionally harm itself.
2Corrupting the youth would be harming itself
3Therefore TV does not intentionally harm itself

5If TV corrupts the youth intentionally, then TV would be harming itself.

6TV would not harm itself therefore it does not intentionally corrupt the youth

7If TV does not intentionally corrupt the youth,
then we should leave it alone

Ergo: We should leave TV alone

If you find the television that scary, just get rid of it.

Christ, can we quit pandering to people who are just appalled at and terrified of what they see ON THE TELEVISIONS THEY WILLINGLY PURCHASE AND SET UP IN THEIR OWN HOUSES?

i think the larger problem is that parents are letting their children watch too much TV (period), but also much too much TV when there's no adult around to switch the channel if things get inappropriate.  and i really don't think any kind of government regulation is possible on that point.  

with that said, as my best friend's mother said to a horrified next door neighbor when we were kids after she found out that she took my friend to see "pretty woman" but wouldn't let her watch violent TV shows:

"I fully expect my daughter to grow up and have sex one day.  I don't expect her to grow up and murder people or blow things up."

My first point is: the 'G' in the TV ratings system does not mean that the 'G' in the movie ratings system means. G means: "Programs issued this rating are deemed appropriate for all ages and similar to the movie rating of the same, however content in these programs are not always specifically intended towards children under the age of 10."

With that definition, and your description of your episode, it's arguably a 'G'. That content wouldn't be specifically intended towards children under the age of 10, but would be appropriate for all ages.

One could argue that it might be better rated 'TV-PG' (subcode S, suggestive language). I wouldn't have a problem with that.

I'm actually a bit on the restrictive side -- as is my wife -- on what our kids see. Our kids are both 7, so that you know where I'm coming from (daughter almost 8, son just turned 7). However, I would have no problem with that specific episode as described. At least for my kids, that reference would go right over their heads. On the other hand, some kids would pick up on it but not be able to understand it (or, perhaps, understand it all too well).

I also agree with bluedavid just above -- I have less trouble with sex than violence. That said, I wouldn't take anyone below a fairly mature tween, maybe minimum teen, to see Pretty Woman. Trying to explain prostitution to anyone younger... no.

The big problem that I have with this relates to the snarky comments made about about 'Ellen'. Now, a lot of talk shows should be TV-PG or even TV-14, in my opinion; a lot of the topics are inappropriate for younger children. However, it has nothing to do with the orientation of the host, and I'd hate to see the TV ratings system move towards the idiocies of the movie ratings system, in which the same behavior from gay couples gets an NC-17 that would get R or even PG from straight couples.

So, overall... qualified maybe. Maybe that episode should be TV-PG. Maybe it should be TV-G. Maybe it's right on the line and the ratings board flipped a coin.

And as was also pointed out: this is not, and should not be, a government program. The ratings boards for both TV and movies are outside the government for very good reason. The MPAA board happens to be horrible (see: This Film Is Not Yet Rated, a terrific documentary about the MPAA board). The TV board has far more shows to rate in the same amount of time.

I do find a lot of what's on TV inappropriate, frankly. The content of a lot of 7pm (Central Time -- 8 Eastern/Pacific -- start of prime time) shows are not what I would put in that time slot. Like I said, I'm somewhat conservative about what our kids watch. However, in our modern media-rich society there are dozens of ways around this. Get a TiVo/DVR and record a bunch of kids' shows. Or get kids' DVDs. Or play a game. Or read to them. Or take a walk. Or whatever. Watch shows you find inappropriate after the kids are in bed (and if they're little kids, they should be in bed well before you are).

Not a government role. Not something I want the President, or either candidate, spending much time on, when we have so many Presidential-level challenges looming.

Why didn't you warn us about the content in the header??

It's 7:00 PM - The Family Hour!  And here I find myself reading about "something nasty."  I would surely have waited for a more appropriate hour if only decent warning was given.

Free speech is all well and good, but I think you have an obligation to warn us when your free speech veers into such delicate and controversial territory.