Talking Simpsons - Michael Jackson and the "Stark Raving Dad" Controversy
Added 2019-03-11 01:30:11 +0000 UTC[Content warning: This podcast episode deals with the topic of sexual abuse.] Because of new information and perspectives provided by the recent HBO documentary Leaving Neverland, current Simpsons head honchos Matt Groening, James L. Brooks, and Al Jean have decided to pull the season three episode "Stark Raving Dad" (in which Jackson himself guest stars) from the air. But will the episode ever be seen again? And does this mean other episodes with problematic guest stars could disappear as well? We discuss these and other related topics in this special Talking Simpsons update.
Comments
Censorship is joining "free speech" in the category of concepts that distract more than they help when brought up in public discourse around issues like these. I'm not saying everyone has to agree with their decision, but to object on the grounds of censorship seems insufficient.
Scott Scallion
2019-03-12 17:03:50 +0000 UTCBut you can still legally buy a digital version Stark Raving Dad on Google Play and Amazon. I assume other places too, though it does seem to be removed from iTunes. Pulling it from certain outlets seems less like a case of censorship than just a decision not to stock something. If that's censorship, then, hoo boy, that definition suddenly encompasses tons and tons of stuff. Even if you are to call this censorship, I'd call it self-censorship, since the decision appears to be coming from Groening, Brooks, and Jean. I know censorship has a very "dirty word" quality to it, but I'm pretty okay with genuine self-censorship. Until this is scrubbed from all legal outlets, it feels premature to declare censorship.
Eric Nagurney
2019-03-12 15:21:14 +0000 UTCthat doesn't matter though does it? samizdat books were also easy to find in the Soviet Union, that doesn't make it less censorship. I think it's a fair point to criticise this condescending idea that people can't contextualise what they see
Hampus Bystrom
2019-03-12 07:40:10 +0000 UTCGreat episode, guys. You laid your arguments out well and I agree 100%. Even if you believe Michael Jackson is innocent or that his music shouldn't be banned, it's entirely understandable that companies wouldn't want to celebrate or promote him, especially at a time like this. In the case of British TV presenter Jimmy Saville, the public discovered what a monster he'd been during his life and realised his work was built on manipulation and lies, using his fame and celebrity to prey on the vulnerable. Jackson is a much higher profile star but I believe the issues are very similar. Once the public learned the truth, they couldn't see Saville the same way and the work itself became deeply un-appealing. For some reason (most-likely financial), Jackson's image was continuously defended and people seemed to grow accustomed to the "allegations" as long as that's all they were. I hope that this time has passed and people's eyes are now open. I certainly wouldn't want our world to become a place where talent and cultural relevance is somehow used as an excuse to overlook actions we'd normally condemn in other people. The context of what Michael Jackson represents has now changed. Sorry to get so heavy but it feels like a blind eye was being turned to this particular performer for far too long, like he was too famous to fail, even years after his death. In the end, I find this joke from Bart) in a future episode) very telling: "It's just something they made up to scare kids like the bogeyman or Michael Jackson."
To Boldy Joe... Moore
2019-03-12 02:49:13 +0000 UTCIt's not censorship. It's very easy to find the episode.
shea dewar
2019-03-12 01:52:56 +0000 UTCWhat's up with the censorship, let people decide if they want to watch it or not. Don't just decide for them by removing it.
Edward D Williams
2019-03-11 20:50:22 +0000 UTC
