snopes.com

snopes.com (http://message.snopes.com/index.php)
-   Amusement Bark (http://message.snopes.com/forumdisplay.php?f=31)
-   -   ABC cancels "Roseanne" after Barr's racist tweet (http://message.snopes.com/showthread.php?t=96682)

Psihala 29 May 2018 06:12 PM

ABC cancels "Roseanne" after Barr's racist tweet
 
Stellar ratings and an apology weren't enough to mitigate Roseanne Barr's racist comments, and now ABC is pulling the plug on "Roseanne." ABC Entertainment president Channing Dungey says the network has decided to cancel the "Roseanne" reboot.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/abc-cancels-roseanne/

iskinner 29 May 2018 06:27 PM

WOW. I was just about to check the validity of this, as the first posts I was seeing where from less then reliable type of sources.

So True then?

E. Q. Taft 29 May 2018 06:38 PM

Well, that didn't take long.

I'm sure the President and others will attack the network for suppressing Roseann's free speech. While they're at it, they'll applaud the NFL's new policy of finding teams whose players kneel during the national anthem....

Psihala 29 May 2018 06:47 PM

ABCNews' story on this includes two references to Snopes--one a fact-check of the claim Jarrett is Muslim and a member of the Muslim Brotherhood (she's neither):

Quote:

Jarrett, who is from the president’s hometown of Chicago, is not Muslim and is not a member of the Muslim Brotherhood, Egypt’s oldest and largest Islamic organization, according to research by the fact-checking website Snopes.
And one, oddly, Barr used herself to make a 'correction' on her claim that Chelsea Clinton was married to a nephew of George Soros (she isn't)--and then launches into another petty attack anyway. :rolleyes:

~Psihala

crocoduck_hunter 29 May 2018 07:28 PM

"But I said I was sorry I tweeted that, that's supposed to absolve me of any responsibility or consequences."

Sue 29 May 2018 07:49 PM

Roseanne thought she was bullet proof like Trump. She isn't. With any luck this is putting a few others on notice - only the President gets to tweet lying, racist crap without repercussions. So far...

E. Q. Taft 29 May 2018 08:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Psihala (Post 1979575)
And one, oddly, Barr used herself to make a 'correction' on her claim that Chelsea Clinton was married to a nephew of George Soros (she isn't)--and then launches into another petty attack anyway. :rolleyes:

Part of which was at least close to being true. She said that Chelsea's husband is the "SON OF A CORRUPT SENATOR" (caps hers). Per the Washington Post article, "Clinton’s father-in-law was convicted of financial fraud, but he was a member of the House, not the Senate." (She then went on to claim that Soros is “a nazi who turned in his fellow Jews 2 be murdered in German concentration camps.” Some obscure website addresses those claims here.)

ganzfeld 29 May 2018 08:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sue (Post 1979582)
Roseanne thought she was bullet proof like Trump.

Probably did.
Quote:

She isn't.
Not so sure about that. We've seen people come back stronger after something like this.
Quote:

With any luck this is putting a few others on notice - only the President gets to tweet lying, racist crap without repercussions. So far...
After all that's happened, I have to applaud your optimism. I don't see any light or hope of the end of the tunnel just yet. (Putting my hope in the next generation, though. They may not be the Greatest Generation of All Time but they seem like the best yet.)

ganzfeld 29 May 2018 08:59 PM

And what is it with you, Wanda Sykes? We love you and your comedy. I can't think of anyone who makes me laugh harder. But, seriously, Wanda, after all she's said in the past? I'm sorry but you should not have been involved in the first place. Not saying I blame you but I think you should be a bit more contrite than just "I'm not involved any more."

Little Pink Pill 29 May 2018 09:24 PM

I’m going to defend Wanda here, because I see both sides of the argument. She had an opportunity to be a voice, to add her opinion to a slanted mix, and possibly influence viewers she wouldn’t have reached otherwise. I wouldn’t tell anyone with that opportunity they shouldn’t get involved.

Sue 29 May 2018 10:14 PM

I can see both sides to this. I can't believe anyone who knows Roseanne personally was unaware that she's a racist conspiracy theorist who doesn't have any boundaries - but I can also see the desire to work on a top rated show, collect a nice paycheque and hopefully exert some influence on what's being said on the show, especially if you had no real prior history with Roseanne. It was Gilbert, Goodman and Metcalfe that I seriously wondered about. The other cast members don't seem to have worked much in the entertainment industry since the original Roseanne - can't really blame them for jumping at the reboot. The others though, I just don't know what they were seeing beside $$ signs.

ganzfeld 29 May 2018 10:31 PM

Like I said, not blaming her. Everyone makes mistakes. I just hope she will say more than just I'm not involved. ABC should too. They should at least admit they should have seen this coming if they can't say We messed up.

Also, I only mentioned her because she had the good sense to call it before the others. I don't know what to say about Goodman and the rest. I like a lot of them too and still do. I just think they should have known better. ETA Of course maybe some needed the work. I can't really criticise them if they needed to take the risk.

crocoduck_hunter 29 May 2018 10:49 PM

I wonder if this is going to have any affect on the attempt to reboot Last Man Standing.

Sue 29 May 2018 10:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crocoduck_hunter (Post 1979592)
I wonder if this is going to have any affect on the attempt to reboot Last Man Standing.

I know Allen is a Trump supporter but is he also a racist conspiracy theorist? Roseanne didn't get her show cancelled because of her politics (and neither did Allen).

Errata 29 May 2018 11:15 PM

I'm not exactly knowledgeable about what Tim Allen has been up to after about 1999, but a quick perusal of his Twitter account doesn't show any senile racist stream of consciousness like Roseanne or Trump. I'm guessing that he has a social media manager writing it with minimal input from him. If he's just a run-of-the-mill Trump supporter who makes a modest effort to be subtle about his racism then his sitcom shouldn't be in danger.

crocoduck_hunter 29 May 2018 11:29 PM

It got canned the first time after he compared being a conservative in Hollywood to being a Jew in 1930s Germany. The success of the Roseanne reboot was, IIRC, the main reason there was any talk of bringing it back. So it just made me wonder if there was going to be a backlash against conservative-themed sitcoms in general.

Sue 29 May 2018 11:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crocoduck_hunter (Post 1979598)
It got canned the first time after he compared being a conservative in Hollywood to being a Jew in 1930s Germany. The success of the Roseanne reboot was, IIRC, the main reason there was any talk of bringing it back. So it just made me wonder if there was going to be a backlash against conservative-themed sitcoms in general.

Sheesh! But I'm still curious - did the show get cancelled because he said that or is this something he and his fans are claiming as the reason for the cancellation?

With regard to conservative-themed sitcoms - are there any? Serious question. I can't think of one offhand but I'm not the best go to person for current TV programming!

crocoduck_hunter 30 May 2018 12:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sue (Post 1979600)
Sheesh! But I'm still curious - did the show get cancelled because he said that or is this something he and his fans are claiming as the reason for the cancellation?

I've never seen it given as the official reason, but he made the statement and within days it was announced that the show wasn't getting another season despite its ratings. Seems like a pretty obvious correlation.

Quote:

With regard to conservative-themed sitcoms - are there any? Serious question. I can't think of one offhand but I'm not the best go to person for current TV programming!
Roseanne and Last Man Standing are the only two modern ones I'm aware of.

St. Alia 30 May 2018 01:21 AM

Blue Bloods is very catering to a conservative, white audience. I don't think I would say it's dog whistle-y necessarily, but the plot lines definitely follow what privileged white people think life is like and makes them feel warm and fuzzy about the world and what is "fair and right."

Here is an article that talks about it and gives examples.

And it's not really a bad show in terms of how it's produced and watchability, but if you watch a bunch of them you start to see a theme and it feels icky. IMO, anyways. And Wahlberg is a ******, imo, so that's always a red flag for me, too. People change, but he did some pretty horrific things as a teenager and I haven't seen him do a hell of a lot of altruistic things since then.

Errata 30 May 2018 01:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by St. Alia (Post 1979608)
Blue Bloods is very catering to a conservative, white audience. I don't think I would say it's dog whistle-y necessarily, but the plot lines definitely follow what privileged white people think life is like and makes them feel warm and fuzzy about the world and what is "fair and right."

It's considered a drama, though. The question was about sitcoms.

There are a few shows that skew conservative, but most of them aren't comedies.


All times are GMT. The time now is 01:43 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.