I can’t be too hard on “Blue Bloods.”
The CBS series is an amazing phenomenon, surviving for 13 seasons (it’s been renewed for 14th) in the teeth of an anti-police, anti-law and order, anti-traditional family, anti-American political and cultural upheaval. The Tom Selleck-starring vehicle—Selleck himself is a member of the NRA board of directors–follows the adventures and careers of the devout, white, Irish Catholic Reagan family that considers New York law enforcement the “family business.” Frank (Selleck) is the Police Commissioner, Granddad was too, one son is a Manhattan police detective and the other a police sergeant whose wife is a patrolwoman. Erin, the sole daughter, is Manhattan ADA, and this season is running for District Attorney. Every Sunday the whole family gathers for dinner, and prays. There are no LGTBQ members of the Reagan family, and, so far, no bi-racial marriages.*
Back when I compiled detailed year-end awards, “Blue Bloods” was a repeat winner of the coveted “Most Ethical TV Series.” It regularly has examined complex ethics dilemmas in the work place, law and family settings, while dealing with the most extensive interlocking conflicts of interest imaginable, usually competently.
Maybe Selleck, who is reportedly retiring from the show after this season and is an executive producer, is just tired of fighting.
In the current season’s running story about his battles with a progressive major who proudly maintain’s New York City’s status as a “sanctuary city,” the mayor is meeting the illegals being bussed to NYC by malicious Republican governors when they arrive, welcoming them to his realm, handing out gift packages, and insisting that the more, the merrier. Frank has been openly critical of the mayor’s stunt, insisting that the city is being overwhelmed (does any of this sound familiar?) and that he need a larger budget to hire more officers to deal with the new arrivals and protect them while his force also does its regular duties of law enforcement on the streets. The idiot mayor, who already cut the Commissioner’s budget twice, insists that caring for the arrivals from over the border must be the police force’s top priority.
So far, so good. The problem is that the show’s writers, and thus Selleck’s character, are actively sanctifying the law breakers. Selleck reverently calls them immigrants, matching the New York Times’ deceitful terminology. (They are in fact illegal immigrants, with the first part of that description being the most important part. They are law-breakers, and Frank Reagan, above all, believes in enforcing the law….until now.) When the mayor, regurgitating one of the most fatuous and frequently used justifications for not enforcing U.S. immigration laws, references the Statue of Liberty, it’s “beacon” to all hopeful refugees and immigrants, and the famous words engraved on its base, Selleck’s character never points out, “Mr. Mayor, that’s a poem, not a law, and not current U.S. policy. Illegal aliens who think that’s an open invitation to our country are mistaken, and public officials like you are both misleading them and encouraging them to break our laws.” He passively agrees. Worse, when the mayor repeats the offensive “it’s OK that they break the law because they are fleeing terrible conditions and seeking a better life” rationalization, known as “The Jeb Bush Card,” all Frank does is nod in agreement.
Well, Tom, you did good work trying to hold the line against ethics rot in TV popular culture for a long time, and Ethics Alarms thanks you for your service.
But clearly, it’s time for both you and Frank Reagan to retire.
______________
*Addendum: As I was walking Spuds after posting this, I realized that ill-intentioned EA trolls would cite my statement that “there are no LGTBQ members of the Reagan family, and, so far, no bi-racial marriages” as proof of my prejudice against such things. The fact is, my own extended family includes gay, bi- and trans members, and an inter-racial marriage as well. However, the current woke culture has mandated that Hollywood and Madison Avenue engage in relentless propaganda not merely presenting such aspects of the mosaic of society, but extolling them and implying that they are intrinsically virtuous to the point that they must be represented by every movie or TV show as “the norm.” We have reached the absurd point when resisting this cultural mandate is as courageous today as Kirk and Uhura’s kiss on “Star Trek” was 1968.
Ethics Alarms 
Blue Bloods is one of our favorite scripted program on TV, mainly for its moral and religious stance. Have Americans lost the distinction between legal and illegal immigration? I read today that Sweden’s third largest city, Malmo, is now majority foreign-born. There is an effort to provide school instruction in Arabic because it’s the dominant language. That can’t end well.
IMO, Selleck doesn’t appear to be all there in those reverse mortgage commercials.
Never a good look to prey on the elderly as you become elderly.
I agree with you – he is also letting many of his better pieces in his gun collection go to RIA for auction. I think that he is tired.
I am going to give the Commissioner a pass because at the end of the show, he handed the crazy do-gooder mayor a much-deserved bill for private security details staffed by the NYPD in front of the news media, much to Mayor’s contempt and outrage. The show’s dialog was actually pretty good on this issue but, as our intrepid EA Supervisor stated, Frank fell short of real issue: federal policies encouraging foreigners to break US immigration laws and overwhelm ICE officials, often aided and abetted by sanctuary city executives seeking to score political points with their liberal bases. I was kind of surprised that Frank didn’t take him to task for that, especially because Syd was making that very argument, against the protestations of Garrett and Baker, who thought Frank’s position was a political liability.
That said, I thought you were going to write about Erin’s actions where she handed her ADA file and evidence to the family of a murder victim after she lost in court and a murderer went free because she didn’t call a witness to testify (exercising her litigatrix judgment that her two other witnesses were stronger, better witnesses at trial). In despair, she gave her case files, including privileged information/conversations with her staff and witnesses, to her ex-husband lawyer who had filed a wrongful action for damages (I am not sure who the defendant was because that was not clear ).
To allay her supposed guilt, she strategized with him to set up the wrongful death claim, and signed an affidavit declaring that she (essentially) committed professional malpractice by not calling the third witness.
Erin had no duty to the family of the victim, had exercised her professional judgment but was aggrieved that the murder victim’s mother dressed her down after losing. Justice and all, you know? Anthony, her trusted investigator and confidant, advised against it because the affidavit would be used against her by the sitting DA who is running against Erin – Anthony is a great character, who straddles the line of over-zealous investigator and determined former detective. Besides, he is madly in love with Erin but she is oblivious of his affections for her.
That story line irked me because it was framed as “if I lost in court, I must have been an incompetent lawyer and I committed professional malpractice” even though there is never a guaranty that a party will prevail on either a claim or a defense. Additionally, a lawyer may not be subject to liability for exercising proper legal judgment. (For instance, I had a case where one of my clients wanted to testify and in fact demanded to testify. I told him, in no uncertain terms, that if he got anywhere near the witness stand I would take him out in the hall and beat him with a stick. Why? Because he knew nothing about the case, was sued because the plaintiff thought he had deep pockets [he didn’t], had no liability, and, more importantly, would have been a magnificently terrible witness, possibly handing the idiot plaintiff an undeserved win. We won, but even if we had lost, no court on the planet would have held my liable for that judgment call.)
jvb
Re Erin: yeah, that blew my mind, but I figured it was such an obvious ethics breach that I didn’t need to complain about it.
I guess I should start watching Blue Bloods when they go to re-runs. We’ve seen every single Law & Order repeatedly. Surely this one gaffe by the Blue Bloods writers can’t possibly be anywhere near as bad as the totally woke scripts on the new Law & Orders. Ugh.
Sorry, what’s your point about Trek?
Look it up!
Look what up? Your point?
I’m saying I dont understand what your point is.
I know the significance of the kiss.
The point was that it took significant courage to introduce an interracial relationship in the late 60’s and just as much courage to say enough is enough to the wokesters.
Challenging the woke kant will be treated as prima facie evidence of being a racist or bigot by all those preaching tolerance
“The point was that it took significant courage to introduce an interracial relationship in the late 60’s and just as much courage to say enough is enough to the wokesters”
Like Amy, I simply don’t understand what that means in this context.
It was just as brave to feature an interracial kiss in 1968 as it is to…not…have an interracial kiss in 2023?
What?
If your and Jack’s point is that there are just *too many* interracial couples on TV in 2023 I venture that Gene Roddenberry, were he still alive, would not agree with you. And that you’re exactly like the people who would have complained that one was too many in 1968.
Don’t be obtuse.
The 1968 Kiss was courageous. It shattered norms and moved the culture forward. The 2023 Kiss is the counter-narrative that challenges the current state of the culture which is wrapped in leftist, collectivist cant attacking traditional values that are the foundations of society. Is it any wonder that the military is a constant target for LGBTQ… issues? How about biologically male athletes competing against biologically female athletes? Why is it that Riley Gaines is accused of transphobia because she doesn’t want to swim against a six foot, two inch male swimmer? That is the 2023 Kiss.
jvb
I’m not being obtuse, and you’re not clarifying anything.
“The 1968 Kiss was courageous. It shattered norms and moved the culture forward. The 2023 Kiss is the counter-narrative that challenges the current state of the culture which is wrapped in leftist, collectivist cant attacking traditional values that are the foundations of society.”
And that looks like…what, in this context? Jack and Chris seem to be implying it looks like not having LGBT characters or interracial couples. Do you agree? Is the argument that shows and movies should intentionally avoid featuring such minorities to combat “wokeness?” Because that just sounds like good old-fashioned racism with a faux-intellectual sheen.
“Is it any wonder that the military is a constant target for LGBTQ… issues?”
What do you mean?
Why does no one here just say what they mean?
“How about biologically male athletes competing against biologically female athletes? Why is it that Riley Gaines is accused of transphobia because she doesn’t want to swim against a six foot, two inch male swimmer? That is the 2023 Kiss.”
But that doesn’t make any sense!
That might be the 2023 version of…I don’t know…MLK Jr. saying Malcolm X was going too far, or something. It is absolutely nothing like pushing forward rights and acceptance for a minority group. That’s just something you’re telling yourself to feel better about what looks to many people like punching down. It may be wrong or right for cisgender women to oppose competing against transgender women—I think the issue is far more complicated than you make it sound—but it isn’t bravery on par with the trailblazers of the civil rights movement, not in a culture that is still pretty awful to trans people.
What does this mean
“cant attacking traditional values that are the foundations of society.”
Also, I’m pretty sure people thought this during the ToS era regarding having a white person date or marry a black person.
Regarding tv and film…enough is enough of what exactly?
Sealion alert.
I see you still don’t know what that term means.
Amy and I are simply trying to see if you all really mean you’re tired of seeing so many gays and minorities on the teevee.
Because if so—and it really, really sounds like it is so, moreso with every comment and attempt at clarification—you are exactly like the people who complained about the Kirk/Uhura kiss, and trying to appropriate the legacy of that kiss is disgustingly, shamelessly unethical.
Are you being willfully obtuse, or are you just missing the obvious? The famous Star Trek kiss defied norms and established TV tropes and rules. It risked criticism and backlash by not following the industry culture. My point was and is that we are in the absurd situation where not having an inter-racial couple in an ad, movie or TV show, indeed not ticking all the tribal boxes requires just as much courage and willingness not to be bullied as breaking the race barrier in the Sixties. There’s nothing wrong or unethical about an all-white cast, or a show in which none of the couples are inter-racial, or where there isn’t a prominent gay members of every group. It’s as if every show had to have an inter-racial smooch after Star Trek. The mandatory woke signalling is boring. It’s insulting. It’s gratuitous, and obviously manipulative. You’ve been exposed.
As a stage director decades ago I was criticized by critics for casting a black female as a judge and a prosecuting attorney who was obviously British in a courtroom drama where such casting was not the usual. Their complaint was that those characteristics in the courtroom in the play would not be typical—and I wrote one such critic to point out that typical or not, the black female judge and the British-accented lawyer were still possible, and having them gave the show unexpected nuances and vibes. But if every show I directed thereafter cast black actresses in roles written as male, and Brits in roles written for native-born Americans, that would be annoying, pointless and boring. And if a convention developed where all shows had to have a black female playing a white character and a British actor playing an American character, I would refuse to cast the show that way.
Tracking???
More: In the excellent series “The Diplomat,” the staff of one character is ostentatiously “non-binary.” It serves no purpose in the show; it’s just woke signalling. There are more non-binary characters on streamed TV shows than I one is likely to encounter in months of business and personal interactions. There’s even one on the 1890s period show “Slasher/Ripper.” It’s gross subordination to ideological indoctrination without concern for the real objectives of entertainment and integrity in storytelling.
“ More: In the excellent series “The Diplomat,” the staff of one character is ostentatiously “non-binary.” It serves no purpose in the show;”
Ok.
What purpose would be served by having this character be cisgendered?
Has that question ever occurred to you, even once?
The notion that there needs to be some special justification for a minority character to exist is an aspect of unconscious bias. The character is non-binary because the creators wanted them to be. You take it as political, but maybe the writers know non-binary people and wanted a character like that on television. They are still quite rare.
“ There are more non-binary characters on streamed TV shows than I one is likely to encounter in months of business and personal interactions.”
I do not understand why this is a problem. There are more cops, lawyers, superpowered people, adulterers, funny people, attractive people, monarchs, and bounty hunters on streamed TV shows than one is likely to encounter in months of business and personal interactions. It’s fiction. Writers like to write people who are different and interesting. And in 1968, the Kirk/Uhura kiss was probably the only interracial kiss many viewers had ever seen in their lives. Who cares? How is that harmful? You say it’s because it’s pushing a “woke ideology,” but if that ideology is simply saying that minorities are people, why is that something to object to?
Of course, one can complain about the proliferation of superhero and cop shows without sounding like a bigot; it’s much harder to do so while complaining about the proliferation of LGBT people and people of color on TV. So if you’re annoyed at people implying you’re bigots…there is a very simple and easy workaround to this problem! The increasing amount of diversity on television is not a pressing problem needing your urgent attention, I can assure you. No one is making you express an opinion on it, let alone one so clearly motivated by unconscious bias.
1. Call me a bigot or imply it, and you’re gone. Disagreeing with gratuitous virtue-signalling and stunt casting isn’t bigotry. Make your points legitimately, or go someplace else to make them.
2. “What purpose would be served by having this character be cisgendered?” Easy: it would make a character who is at best background to the main action not distract the viewer, add extraneous issues, and interfere with the story-telling, which is what directors are supposed to care about. It would be similarly gratuitous and distracting to have the character be a conjoined twin, a sufferer from Proteus syndrome, be a precocious 11-year-old, dressed as a Samurai, be a dwarf, or have an arrow through her head.
“ is an abuse of power, position and trust to do so.”
So this applies to the Trek kiss as well?
What? Science fiction is the perfect place to introduce new concepts; it’s expected, it’s traditional, and Star Trek was the ideal platform to shatter a taboo.
You said:
“It is not the job of Hollywood or Madison Avenue to dictate American culture or peddle propaganda. It is an abuse of power, position and trust to do so.”
This doesn’t apply to Star Trek because it’s sci fi?
You have this backwards.
People STILL have a problem with diverse couples in tv and film (see this thread and Budweiser)
Just because it’s a popular trend that annoys you doesn’t make it courageous to fight against.
You’re essentially saying you’re fighting against diversity because it’s too common now and stuffed down your throat in tv and film even when it’s not totally accepted in American culture…the exact opposite of why the kiss was important!
And you’re comparing fighting against tv tropes you don’t like with showing the first interracial kiss on tv and saying you’re courageous for doing so. That’s perverse.
1. Again, check Comment policies on not putting words in my mouth.
2. It is not the job of Hollywood or Madison Avenue to dictate American culture or peddle propaganda. It is an abuse of power, position and trust to do so.
3. I resent having to put up with political proseletyzing where it doesn’t belong, and I resent it because its dishonest and presumptuous.
4. “And you’re comparing fighting against tv tropes you don’t like with showing the first interracial kiss on tv and saying you’re courageous for doing so. That’s perverse.” See #1. What I wrote was that it takes as much courage now not to follow political correctness faddery and represent the US population as about 50% black and 30% gay as it did to defy taboos and allow a white man to kiss a black woman. You’re either deliberately choosing to misunderstand or you’re not as smart as I think you are.
I have not seen any statistics showing that the media currently portrays “the US population as about 50% black and 30% gay.” What is your source for this claim?
Because I find it highly unlikely, and more likely that you overestimating the numbers because…it bothers you, for some reason. It is very common for people to overestimate the number of members of a group that they perceive as a threat to them in some way.
But if you’re right about the numbers, show me.
When you say you object to shows “politically proselytizing” with the amount of diversity on television now, you should know the EXACT same arguments were made against the Kirk/Uhura kiss.
That was an absurd thing to get mad about and so is what you’re mad about now.
You’re not addressing the real-world implications of what you’re arguing for.
If the culture has gotten to the place where, as Jack may have (very slightly) exaggerated, 50% of the US is black and 30% is gay, what does that do to white actors? If 5-10% of the population of actors is black but land 30% of the available roles, not by virtue of their skills but due to the color of their skin, how is that any better than the Jim Crow era, except that now the privileged races have flipped?
And this doesn’t apply just to actors, by any means. I work with the leadership of a lot of companies, and I see every day how much our culture has moved backwards on racial equality. It is driven by the culture itself but also by legislature–the CA law that tried to require a “minority” on boards, for example. For most positions, a white man applying for a job against a similarly qualified black woman will lose, period. Especially in certain industries, roles, and geographical areas. A white male will have the deck stacked against him when applying for college, scholarships, or internships unless no minorities apply.
Regardless of whether this phenomenon is organic or not (and it’s definitely a combination of both), it is a BAD phenomenon.
“indeed not ticking all the tribal boxes requires just as much courage and willingness not to be bullied ”
Would this reasoning apply to fighting against all types of tribal boxes?
Does just fighting against something that’s the norm make your cause just?
Don’t treat me like I’m a student and you’re Socrates: make you damn point and support it. Nothing I’ve written suggests that. Fighting against something that is the norm and that involves risk and opposition in doing so makes the act courageous. Courage alone does not sanctify an objective.
It means that there should be no felt pressure by a writer, director or casting director to find reasons to turn white characters into black ones (or other minorities), or heterosexual couples into gay couples, et cetera, unless there are independent dramatic and entertainment benefits from doing so. It means that if Denzel Washington felt no need to find an excuse to manufacture a role for a white or Asian or Hispanic actor in “Fences,” about a black family in an all-black neighborhood, his (superb) screen production of the Broadway play, no director or writer of a movie about a white family in a white neighborhood should fear an “Oscars so White” campaign against his film should it earn an Academy Award nomination.
That’s not what sealioning means.
Stop it.
Ark.
Ark ark.
Ark ark ark.
🦭
This is , perhaps, not the exemplar of civil discourse one should strive for here….
You get the level of discourse you deserve.
They seem to be arguing that they have seen enough minorities on TV.
That, along with equating the law on immigration with ethics…makes me pretty dubious about this being an “ethics” blog.
“They seem to be arguing that they have seen enough minorities on TV.”
What you stated was exactly the point I was making. You are painting others as bigots simply because we have an opinion regarding about what Jack refers to as the “. . . relentless propaganda not merely presenting such aspects of the mosaic of society, but extolling them and implying that they are intrinsically virtuous to the point that they must be represented by every movie or TV show as “the norm.””.
It is not the idea that we have seen enough minorities on TV it is the idea that making casting decisions to include a majority of non-binary/interracial couples who do not represent anywhere close to a majority of society becomes boring, and borders on propaganda.
As an aside, I don’t know who decided to cast the guy selling some fabric scent beads. Does using someone who plays the epitome of the gay man stereotype appeal to a lot of people? Sorry, does not work for me. That’s not bigoted, it nauseates me because all the gay men I know don’t act or sound like that. Therefore, I won’t buy the product.
As for the immigration remark: Anyone who enters the country without complying with that nation’s laws for entry are lawbreakers, not immigrants. Immigrants are those people who enter the nation after complying with the rules for entry. The ethics issue is that conflating the two for the purpose of minimizing the illegal act is unethical. It is no different than saying someone robbing a bank was merely a customer making a withdrawal of funds or a home invader was simply a visitor. The semantics game used by the left to be obtuse, confuse or mislead the public, or otherwise derail legitimate debate is also getting tiresome.
“The semantics game used by the left to be obtuse, confuse or mislead the public, or otherwise derail legitimate debate is also getting tiresome.”
Begs the question of just how stupid Lefty deems their target audience.
“ Immigrants are those people who enter the nation after complying with the rules for entry”
That may be your definition, but it is not the commonly accepted one.
That is the definition under the law. Deliberate confusion and obfuscation may have rendered the term ambiguous by design, but using “immigrant” to describe “illegal immigrant” is still deceit.
That is not the definition of “immigrant” under the law.
I’ve always been put off by the actress who plays the lawyer having had a kid with Tom Brady. La di dah.
Jack, your argument is this:
The kiss was courageous because it fought against political correctness at the time, and it’s courageous to not to follow the white/trans relationships in tv and film now because it goes against what is politically correct.
This is what you’re arguing right?
Nope. Try again.
You said:
“it takes as much courage now not to follow political correctness faddery and represent the US population as about 50% black and 30% gay as it did to defy taboos and allow a white man to kiss a black woman. ”
So let me try this again…
It’s courageous to defy taboos by allowing a white man to kiss a black woman on Trek in the 60s as it is courageous to not follow political correctness fads now
Or is it just this particular version of political correctness showing more blacks and gays on tv?
“It’s courageous to defy taboos by allowing a white man to kiss a black woman on Trek in the 60s as it is courageous to not follow political correctness fads now.”
Not bad!
Cool!
So is it all political correctness then?
I don’t regularly watch Blue Bloods, but based on your summary of the episode, I wonder if this was a setup for a future episode where the consequences of everyone’s actions causes the characters to examine their beliefs. Having characters who rarely make mistakes or foolish choices can be unsatisfactory as drama.
I see some disturbingly Chris-like commentary in here, and I’m talking style even more than substance.