“They won’t consider aborting their child? That’s ridiculous!”
It’s rare to find an ethically offensive TV review, and doubtlessly difficult to write one, but the Washington Post’s Hank Steuver is obviously equal to the task. Wow. My review of his review of the new NBC sitcom, “Welcome to the Family”:
“Yechhh. How Do people end up thinking like this?”
Here is the relevant section of his review:
“My nominee for quickest and most punitive cancellation goes to this facile dramedy about two 40-something couples who must learn to get along because their teenage children — a boy who is a Stanford-bound valedictorian and a girl who is an unfortunate iteration of the clueless blonde stereotype — are suddenly expecting a baby and have decided to keep it. Or perhaps they’re being forced to keep it, because they live in some parallel America in which Roe v. Wade has been fully reversed, thus reducing at least one obvious solution to the dilemma. (Which would, of course, cut the premise off right there; I understand that the point of the show is the pregnancy.) The truth is, these kids do live in a parallel America, the imaginary land of network television, which hasn’t found a way to talk frankly about abortion in the half-hour comedy format since, I don’t know, “Maude”? I’m not at all opposed to the personal choices made by the characters in “Welcome to the Family,” I just wish they’d had the choice to make. The foregone conclusion in the pilot is galling, especially in the scene where the teenagers’ combative fathers are seen chasing after the girl, believing she’s about to get on a rollercoaster.The metaphor is quite blunt: Save the fetus at all costs! (And forget Stanford!)”
You read that correctly. Steuver believes that “Welcome to the Family” should be punished because it portrays two teens deciding to be parents after they conceive a child, taking responsibility for their actions and creating a family, without also showing them pondering an abortion instead. This makes the show cancellation worthy, because to Steuver such conduct renders the plot and the characters incredible and ridiculous, residing in an archaic “parallel universe” without the neat options provided by Roe v. Wade, because in whatever ethically and morally constricted universe he dwells in, no sane teen couple faced with an unplanned pregnancy would ever, ever automatically reject abortion in favor of the life of the child for the straightforward reason that whatever the law may currently permit, abortion is wrong.
It is not unrealistic nor perverse for a couple not to consider ending the life they created a “choice.” Steuver is both incapable of understanding such a belief structure and contemptuous of it. How ludicrous, he thinks, that anyone would care about the continued existence of a mere fetus, when it interfered with a chance to go to Stanford. Imagine parents sacrificing their own needs for a child.
Such an inability to comprehend the values of millions of intelligent and ethical Americans renders Steuver both unfit to assess the popular entertainment that they watch and a menace to his readers. Supporting the right to abort a child is his right; mocking those who would never consider an abortion for the sake of convenience and opportunity is the mark of a callous mind and corrupted values. There are many, many people, teens and older, who believe that a living thing they created by their own sexual act obligates them to love and care for the resulting human being, and that other considerations such as school and career must be subordinate to the prime mission of preserving and honoring life. These people are selfless, principled, courageous, responsible, accountable, fair, caring and kind, and the word we use to describe them is “good.”
The word I would use to describe a TV critic who finds the very idea that such people exist absurd? I’m working on it.
But it sure isn’t “good.”
_________________
Source: Washington Post
Ethics Alarms 
This jerk jumped the gun. The young couple could consider adoption. To chose a life over college….well the jerk is way off the human path. Many thousands face this in everyday life. They get both, the precious child and college. But what would I expect coming from the Post.
And what about “The Golden Girls”….what a great re-run…..
Indeed, ethical my tail feathers, this review is total abortionist monstrosity and even openly admits that the pre-born child is a baby while still making the case fro these two teens who actually take responsibility for their actions like mature young adults should simply not be parents at all and need to kill their child. And plenty of such parents still go to college and get the quality life they wanted, but now with the additional happiness of being parents as well.
It seems pretty clear that he’s talking about the entire TV landscape, of which this show is one example, not just this one show. For example:
There is no honest way to read that as being about this one show, rather than about TV as a whole.
I see nothing wrong with creating a show that takes place in a social world where no one would consider an abortion – actually, my own books take place in a culture where no one would consider an abortion. (Or, more realistically, some would consider it, but no one would ever talk openly about it).
But virtually ALL network TV takes place in a modern American culture where no one EVER considers getting an abortion. Although there’s nothing wrong with pro-life characters on TV, there’s also no reason that sympathetic pro-choice characters should be effectively banned from network TV.
This is an example of how media bias is more complex than “network TV is pro-liberal and anti-conservative.” If network TV was simply a matter of being pro-liberal, then although not all characters dealing with an unwanted pregnancy would get an abortion, many of them would consider an abortion, and some would get an abortion.
Instead, most network TV depicts a world where abortion is so far beyond the pale that it can’t even be considered or spoken of aloud by any sympathetic character. That’s not at all a realistic portrait of modern America; it’s a conservative bias.
On the other hand, you will also never see a sympathetic character on network TV who is openly homophobic, or who is realistically homophobic. Instead, homophobes on network TV are never main characters, and are always simplistic two-dimensional monsters. So, again, not a realistic portrait of modern America; that’s a liberal bias.
My point is, simplistic claims of a unidirectional bias, towards either the left or the right, are inaccurate. The reality is more complex and mixed.
But there’s not really a reason for most shows to have a character get an abortion, unless they are 1) a medical drama, or 2) want to begin an emotional abortion storyline. The only reason to have a character get pregnant in the first place is to either start an abortion storyline or a child storyline. Scripted TV doesn’t have things happen for no reason, there’s tons of things that happen in real life that never happen to TV characters, because they wouldn’t advance a specific plot.
In that regard- how do you expect a sitcom to have a character have an abortion? That’s a really, really freaking depressing storyline to introduce to a comedy. Dramas? Well, crime dramas usually don’t involve the characters’ families much at all, and neither do medical dramas (although there were multiple episodes of House where minor characters either aborted or were reluctant to in the face of medical advice, as their characterizations called for).
There’s just not a lot of types of show out there where abortion and its aftermath aren’t either too depressing or too irrelevant to the show’s storyline. Even pregnancy storylines aren’t all that common- plenty of characters have children, but they usually already had them at the start of the show. Did anybody enjoy How I Met Your Mother as much when two of the main characters had to stop being as goofy and freewheeling to look after a baby?
My point is, Barry, that there is nothing “parallel universe”…or weird, or unrealistic, as this fool seem to think…about real people who do not consider abortion an option. The fact that abortion is seldom discussed on situation comedies—oddly, incest, cannibalism, serial murders, the Holocaust, brain-eating amoebas and flesh- eating virus aren’t discussed either, because like abortion, they aren’t funny. Yes, in the course of making the groundless case that they writers presume the kids and families don’t know of the existence of Roe v. Wade, there was nothing in the show to even hint at that, nor were the writers obligated to give abortion artificial legitimacy by having a scene in which the family says–“Well, you could take responsibility, raise the child, start a family, and change your life plans based on your own actions, or you can just rip the damn thing out of yourself, go to college, have sex like bunny, get rid of any other accidental potential humans that happen to result, and problem solved!” Not only wouldn’t such a scene enhance the show, it’s neither necessary not a guaranteed feature of such discussions in real life. If Virginia legalizes heroin tomorrow, I can tell you that we will not have a discussion in my house about whether to start using. If may be a legal option for some, but it will never be any kind of option for me, because I object to teh conduct, legal or not.
Interesting point.
Imagine a sitcom set in the later fifties top early sixties about a Jewish family where the parents met in Auschwitz.
Howe would one try to introduce that background detail into the show?
I think it’s fair to say that it would come up in any discussion, if for no other reason than to agree it wasn’t an option on the table- but it’s not a funny topic, nor would it advance the show. Just because something would come up in the real world doesn’t mean it is germane to TV. When the characters take a trip to New York, you don’t watch them research hotels online and discuss travel packages, because it’s boring and irrelevant…
I agree. But there is something “parallel universe,” weird, and unrealistic, about the way most network TV pretends that no one would ever consider abortion as an option. (And not just on sit-coms – network dramas do the same thing.)
In real life, if you survey 10 random people who have had unwanted pregnancies, it’s a very safe bet that some of them will have considered getting an abortion, and some will have had an abortion, and some will have given birth. And all of these situations, by the way, are fertile ground for either comedy or drama. (With all due respect, Jack, I find it hard to believe that you can’t imagine a comedy tackling this subject. Many great comedies are made out of situations that make people uncomfortable.)
And I’m fine with that. And I’m fine with characters who share your views appearing on TV and in movies (and, as I said before, in my own work). But I don’t see why 99% of TV and movies should have to pretend that no one who disagrees with your pro-life views exists.
And I don’t disagree with that last sentence at all. But how does that mean that THIS sitcom should be punsihed for an appropriate position, given its characters? That was how he began: THIS SHOW should be punitively cancelled because the couple didn’t consider abortion on camera.
By teh way, I fix your little typos—you could reciprocate.
Jack, this may come as a surprise to you, but I did not think “teh” was a typo (and I doubt Amp did either). Of course it IS a typo, but there is a meme out there where “the” is intentionally misspelled “teh.” But, if you are a lawyers who didn’t know what IANAL meant, you probably did not know about the “teh” controversy.
But, I agree, good form requires correcting typos in a quote, as opposed to the arrogant (sic).
-Jut
But Jack, you have an edit function! :-p I didn’t spot the “teh” until after I hit “post comment,” and then it was too late!
That said, thanks for fixing my many typos, I appreciate it.
In the “parallel America” sentence, it’s clear he was talking about more than this one sitcom: “The truth is, these kids do live in a parallel America, the imaginary land of network television.”
JutGory, thanks for the defense, but honestly I just didn’t spot the “teh.” I’m generally opposed to the arrogant (sic), but I’ll use it when someone is criticizing other people’s education or spelling and nonetheless spells a word wrong. :-p
I was just yanking your chain, Barry.
That last part’s not 100% true, Law and Order’s Sgt. Max McGreevey and EADAs Ben Stone and Michael Cutter were all pro-life (though they didn’t let it get in the way of their duties), and NYPD Blue’s very complicated and fairly sympathetic Andy Sipowicz was both bigoted and homophobic, all in fairly realistic ways.
Steve-O, good catch. I should have said “almost all,” not “all.”
Generally speaking, the highbrow “quality” dramas are able to break the implicit rules that other network shows adhere to. NYPD Blue had the Sipowicz character, who broke the TV mold in dozens of ways. “Friday Night Lights” had a plotline in which a character had an abortion.
I don’t think I ever said that there are no pro-life characters on TV. Quite the opposite. There are also some pro-choice characters, I’m sure. But mainly it’s a topic that TV shows tiptoe around, presumably because they don’t want to alienate either pro-choice or pro-life viewers.
Thanks, and of course ratings is king, the stations are businesses first, TV stations second, and TV stations that show any particular kind of programming third. I dunno about tiptoeing around abortion, I can think of at least 3-4 “Law and Order” episodes that confronted it, including one involving an abortion clinic bombing and another in which the otherwise pro-life DA Arthur Branch orders the arrest of a doctor who deliberately misleads a young woman about the age of a fetus to miss the statutory time limit for abortion. There was also an episode of “Third Watch” in which a female police officer has an abortion behind her husband’s back because she didn’t want to go though with the pregnancy and then lies about it being a miscarriage, and oh yes, the episode of “ER” in which Dr. Weaver has to complete a halfway done abortion on a young woman who’s already had at least one, then has her attempts to counsel against further irresponsible behavior waved away as jealousy by someone who isn’t getting “any.”
If you’re looking for a comedy series that dealt with abortion, though, how about the now-notorious episode of “Maude” in which Maude finds herself unexpectedly pregnant midway in life and decides to not have the child because she already has a grown-up daughter and doesn’t want to do the baby thing again in her 40s? That one rocked the television world, and not in the way we say something rocks now. Norman Lear took a very big gamble on pushing the envelope there, but it seemed to pay off, and, though comedy series don’t use it often now (except in “very special episodes”), partly because it’s not by nature funny and isn’t going to draw viewers, dramatic series use it all the time and it’s not considered shocking. I think the non-use of it here took the author, who’s clearly liberal, by surprise.
The networks aren’t dumb and they know what people are watching each particular series for. You watch a sitcom for laughs, you don’t expect it to be realistic, and you don’t even expect to have to pay too much attention to it to get the laughs. It’s not something you watch to have impassioned social discourse on. This reviewer failed to “get” that.
I agree with Jack. I’ve read the relevant selection of Hank’s review a few times now. There were a few items he mentioned that would have made for good criticism of the show. However he focused on the couple. It seems he can’t accept the couple keeping the baby. But it goes beyond being criticism of the show because he speaks on a personal level. By putting his own beliefs in the review I can’t see any reason to speculate that he meant anything bigger than what he said.
I’m surprised he didn’t sarcastically ask when they are going to focus on God and guns, as many of our leaders contemptuously do. Abortion is the progressive, modern view. To automatically decide to keep a baby is arcane and barbaric. You also see this argument as part of the indoctrination in public schools. That is the rationale behind why teachers (or anyone else) can take underage girls to have abortions without their parents’ knowledge, much less consent. I remember this as the premise of more than one after-school special when I was in high school.
Give an acetaminophen tablet to a minor, be accused of child abuse and maybe go to jail. Take a minor to get an abortion without her parents knowledge (or better yet, against their wishes), get a medal from the Democratic party and the media.
I don’t think this critic even understands the concept of pro-CHOICE. One of the choices is keeping a child. And there is no reason for that discussion to happen in front of the camera. I’m not even sure how you can write a funny pilot for a sitcom where kids discuss abortion. This guy is an idiot.
Maybe the word you’re looking for is bigoted. Not commonly used to describe liberal thought, but very appropriate here. Liberal thought has become the most bigoted and intolerant thought possible. Hard to believe isn’t it? Soon we’ll have liberal chaperones to make sure we never act on a forbidden conservative impulse.
Jack,
You nailed it on the unfunny, it was apparent this guy did not realize he was watching a comedy, one that I enjoyed by the way. Abortion was not something that either of the families as they were depicted would have considered. It would have totally invalidated the characters as to who they were. I often wish people could see multiple critics at once. To understand the true intent of a show. But it probably spells doom for this sweet little show, as this guy does not recognize these characters as people like he knows. Which really is said for him as those of us with. Values make good friends!
I would like to hear an explanation for why so many people are incapable of using birth control in the first place.
In 2013 we have more methods, safe and reliable methods, than ever before in history.
If cost is an issue, groups like Planned Parenthood are giving it away for free.
Now we have this stupid TV program, where a teen couple, one half of which is allegedly smart enough to get into Stanford (but evidently, not smart enough to use birth control), showing how cute and funny it is when teens get accidentally pregnant…
By next summer, schools and parents will be trying to figure out what to do with the tsunami wave of knocked-up tenth graders. @@
Teach college freshmen for a year. You will have your explanation.