Why did CBS censor The Smothers Brothers? How did The Smothers Brothers respond to CBS’s attempts at censorship? How did questions of what constitutes appropriate content for network TV play out in the late 1960s and early 1970s and how do they play out today?
CBS censored the Smothers Brothers because the show started to not only adopt the style of the hippie counterculture, but also the content and messages expressed by this subculture. Although many programs had taken on the style of the counterculture, the Smothers Brothers went one step further and incorporated opinions such as their sentiments against the war and against the actions of President, causing CBS to censor them. Rather than passively allow themselves to be censored, the Smothers Brothers chose to not only publically joke about the circumstances CBS was putting them under, but more importantly, chose to not follow the guidelines of the censor. Instead of submitting to the censorship, the Smothers Brothers allowed their show to be canceled.
ReplyDeleteQuestions of what constitutes appropriate content on TV was a prominent battle in the late 1960s and early 1970s, especially as movements such as the feminist movement, the Civil Rights movement, the anti-war movement and the gay liberation movement gained agency. Furthermore, television programs in the late 1960s had extensive coverage of the war, helping to add ammunition to the growing resistance Americans had to the Vietnam War. However, in the early 1970s, there seemed to be a number of shows that discussed such “taboo” topics, such as All in the Family and Maude, in an attempt to appeal to a younger audience. In more modern times, what constitutes, as appropriate content on television is a lot broader than the guidelines in the 60s and 70s. I feel that the only boundaries set on shows in terms of what they can and cannot say is based around whether the program is on cable TV or not.
The Smothers Brothers was made because producers needed to fill the slot that kept getting destroyed by Bonanza, but it became much more than just a filler. The Smothers Brothers had full control over their program from the beginning. They didn't have to worry about the higher ups telling them what they could or couldn't do because that time slot had been failing no matter what they did. To producer's surprise, the Smothers Brother's show became a success, but the reason it was so successful was because of this lack of corporate censorship. The Smothers Brothers could say whatever they wanted about anything, and once they gained a following, that frightened censors. The show became so popular that it started a social uproar and possibly even incited a few riots. CBS tried to censor the show in order to cease such things from happening, but the Smothers Brothers just didn't care. They didn't like seeing the corporations trying to take over and control what they do. This is one of the many reasons why young people and those of the hippie subculture enjoyed the Smothers Brothers so much. In rebellion the Smother Brothers refused to abide by censor's policies and allowed themselves to be cancelled. They would rather have their show cancelled than have their freedom of speech imposed upon.
ReplyDeleteThe question of what is appropriate for television differs greatly from what was allowed in the 1960s and 70s to today. Back then, anything that went against the government and its policies or that was socially stirring was frowned upon. Whether it was about the war, women's rights, or civil rights, the fact that it was on the air for people all over the country to see caused controversy. The Smothers Brothers recognized the censor's needs for keeping the controversy to a minimum, but they knew it wasn't the right thing. They knew that in order for the country to change on its policies, they had to talk about it regardless of what the censors said. Today with shows like The Colbert Report and Saturday Night Live, programs can say whatever they want regarding social issues and no one bats an eye. The censors as well as the nation have become much more open to having all of the political issues talked about on a public forum like television.
The Smothers Brothers faced censorship from CBS for acting as a voice for the counter-culture (hippies) through unfiltered airings of ‘extreme’ social and political commentary. For instance, in their second season, the Brothers introduced Goldie O’Keefe, a regular sketch character who played the role of the ‘hippie chick’. Through Goldie, the brothers were able to reel in the ‘youth’ audience while simultaneously embracing Goldie’s controversial drug use, which constituted an issue for CBS “because illegal drug use could not be condoned, much less advocated on network television” (Bodroghkozy 205). The Smothers managed to evade censors through “slang and punning use of language” which only the hippie audience would recognize (Bodroghkozy 205). As the seasons progressed, the Smothers bluntly promoted anti-war messages and critiqued American democracy through sketches like the mustache sketch referenced in Bogdroghkozy’s article or the Kate Smith skit. This ‘extreme’ commentary resulted in “a certain amount of protest from advertisers about the show’s materials” (Bodroghkozy 210). However, the brothers countered by partnering with corporations in the youth market, such as Volkswagen, that preferred being attached to this counter-culture commentary as it made them appeal to the hippie consumers, increasing profits and enabling branding.
ReplyDeleteThe question of appropriate programming greatly expanded in the late 1960s and early 1970s to include previous taboo subjects as well as frequent social and political commentary. After the cancellation of the Smothers Brothers’ program in the late 1960s, an expansion of appropriateness occurred. For instance, in the 1970s, Norman Lear’s programs arrived covering topics such as racism (All in the Family), sex (Maude), and abortion (Maude). While these taboo subjects were covered, they were blanketed in a comedic, family sitcom form, lightening their message. Thus, previously taboo subjects slowly became intertwined in 1970s television; however, this commentary needed to be intertwined into the light ‘family sitcom’ programs.
Today, nearly anything is considered appropriate for television in general; however, the networks enforce different levels of appropriateness. For instance, cable television (specifically channels like HBO, Showtime, FX, etc.) casually features programs that display racism, incest, bestiality, sympathetic serial killers, cursing, and drug culture among other things. On the other hand, mainstream television still features some censorship and tends to feature more ‘family oriented shows’ in the genres of comedies, talent shows, news, or crime serials; however, mainstream programs still include sex, extreme violence, and other behaviors that would be considered offensive in the 70s.
The Smothers Brothers was a comedy hour that the producers did not think would go far, when it started out on the air. The main reason it was picked up in the first place, was that it apparently had nothing to lose; it was up against Bonanza, and so if it suceeded or failed, it would be pardoned or praised as extraordinary. Due to this lack of investment, there was less pressure on controlling the content. As it became more and more open about counter culture and questioned authorities more often and directly, network fears of repercussions became greater. One element that is not mentioned above, is the pressure from its sponors. The money men did not want to encourage the show's counter culture shift for fear that they would lose economic benefit from viewers who were upset or disagreed with the show's statements.
ReplyDeleteToday, money still plays a large role in what gets said in a show; if people do not like the show, they do not watch it and do not see the sponsors' commercials, and they lose business. However, similarly with the film industry's shift from the Hays Production Code to the MPAA rating system, the direct censorship in TV has largely been replaced by introductory warnings of sorts, concerning the level of violence or other questionable content, such as "Viewer Discresion is Advised" or a message that otherwise proclaims that a show contains violent material that may not be suitable for all viewers.
Though CBS cleared a surprisingly large amount of drug related material, the show’s regular segment with “hippy chick” character Goldie O’Keefe did undergo some censoring early on for references to illicit drug use. The Smothers Brothers responded by using slang and punning to slip drug references past CBS’s censors. The show also criticized the network’s censorship in clever songs and skits.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, during the Chicago riots, CBS had been receiving complaints from viewers regarding a supposed bias toward the demonstrators. So, the network cut from the show a piece that featured criticism of the police brutality occurring in Chicago. In response, The Smothers Brothers refused to fill the five empty minutes left by the piece. In retaliation, the network sold the time to a Nixon/Agnew presidential campaign spot.
CBS also received some early pressure to censor The Smother Brothers from advertisers who disliked the show’s counterculture material. However, sponsors tailored to the show’s target audience, the youth market, soon solved that problem.
The pressure on CBS to cancel The Smothers Brothers grew when station managers began protesting the show’s content and the ratings took a small dive. The Smothers Brothers responded by almost exclusively targeting the youth culture, abandoning their conventional variety show setup and featuring bands such as The Beatles, The Doors, and Jefferson Airplane. These bands appealed to the counterculture The Smothers Brothers wished to reach.
In March, 1969, CBS cut an entire episode in which folk singer Joan Baez briefly explained that the US government was sending her husband to jail for draft dodging. The network eventually allowed the episode to run, minus Baez’s explanation of her husband’s draft dodging. Finally, on April 3, 1969, the president of CBS told The Smothers Brothers that the network would be terminating their contract due to their failure to deliver an acceptable program. Support for the show came from both the mainstream press and the underground press, but the show was done for.
CBS censored and finally cancelled The Smother Brothers because the networks did not wish to be seen as supporting a “dangerous” counterculture. The Smother Brothers continuous battle against network censors made them a martyr-like representative of the repressions suffered by the youth culture.
In the late 1960’s and early 1970’s, these questions of content played out as a discourse among varying social, ethnic, and gender groups. For The Smothers Brothers, the main discourse was a negotiation between the youth counterculture and the dominant culture. I believe that much of the discourse surrounding modern television content still revolves around these groups.
When the Smothers Brothers first appeared on TV, no one would have suspected the uproar that those two boys were going to be able to create. At first glance, the image of two clean-cut all-American boys did not scream 'counterculture,' 'political commentary,' or 'anarchy.' Compile their image with the fact that they were competing in a very rough time spot (against Bonanza), and very few people even expected the show to survive a season, let alone become a symbol for the voice of the people.
ReplyDeleteEventually, however, the show was revealed to be a huge success and a powerful underhanded voice for the left wing party. They attracted the youthful crowd, gained respect from the leftist crowd, and weren't immediately suspected by the right wing. But as the show began to reveal its true colors and comment more heavily on political issues, CBS censored the show for economic issues. Despite the sponsors they were gaining who wanted to tap into the youth network, many others began expressing their distaste with the show's content and refusing to work with them. Couple that with declining ratings and the controversial Joan Baez appearance, and CBS was lead to censor the show and eventually cancel it.
Throughout this process, The Smothers Brother's continually worked their way around the censorship through creative programming. A prominent example is when they brought an example 'script' onstage, had each actor read a portion of it, laugh, then remove a page, until eventually the last reader claimed that there was nothing funny about it, so it was censored enough to air on TV. This type of clever workaround was commonly used to maintain the show's identity and message without deliberately disobeying the censorship rules of the network. Additionally, this led to issues of 'appropriate content' being ever-changing depending on who had the ball in a constant game of network vs. writer. A similar instance of back-and-forth gameplay can be found in today's television shows, where writers of shows like Family Guy consistently work around rules with clever wordplays, symbolism, and/or situational commentary that doesn't directly disobey the rules, but gets the same point across.
CBS made the decision to censor and eventually cancel The Smothers Brothers because of the brothers’ choice of content and the way in which they went about and addressed their opinions on said content. The Smothers brothers chose to voice their opinions on social and political issues in a way that critics and the network deemed as “tasteless” according to Aniko Bodroghkozy’s article “The Smothers Brothers Comedy Hour and the youth rebellion”. Bodroghkozy claims that while the Smothers brothers obviously not the cause of civil unrest amongst the younger generations, their show (thought this technically cannot be proven) may have had an effect further awareness and may have inspired action.
ReplyDeleteCBS attempted to censor the program, however, the comedians took CBS’ “authority” and mocked it in their sketches and invited CBS with an attempt to fire back in their third season. The brothers made the point that they would rather sacrifice their show so they wouldn’t have to sacrifice their content, as Professor Moore said in class.
I believe appropriateness translated to taste in the eyes of many critics, networks, and potentially older viewers. Due to the fact that the sketches may or may not have inspired civil unrest and the challenging of authority, this group of more “elite” viewers deemed it of poor taste. Today, what constitutes as poor taste or inappropriate reflects a very small amount of programming as shows have become more explicit in not only what is being said but also in what is being seen. Sketch comedy shows, reality television, and premium cable programming such as Saturday Night Live, The Real World, and Masters of Sex in the recent years have redefined our standards of what is considered appropriate. It would seem odd today if something previously defined as inappropriate wasn’t included on an episode of broadcast or cable programming.
The Smother’s Brother’s were censored and then later fired according to CBS as being due to a contractual complication leading to a break in the expected delivery of comedic routines by the duo.
ReplyDeleteThe show held skits of mainstream entertainment, along with counterculture representation. One of the most controversial of performers allowed onto the show was Pete Seeger. Seeger was a former member of the communist party and was allowed to perform “Waist Deep in the Big Muddy.” On the show. Viewers of the episode were not happy with the episode, thus leading into the generation of tens of thousands of angry letters in response to the event.
Along with counterculture and representations of people from the counter main-stream parties are the political commentaries that were embedded throughout staged segments within the show. For example, an editorial about gun control said, “Let’s preserve our freedom to kill.”
The censorship first happened in the ninth episode of the first season. Tommy and Elaine are watching a TV show and they laugh and censor it. CBS didn’t think this was funny and censored it. Instead of just letting this go, Tommy went to the press and vented about this censorship they had themselves faced, then, even after the censorship they faced he showed the actual script of the show.
The questions being presented between the 1960’s and 1970’s on this topic are in regards to what counts as censorship. As speculated upon in the video provided, there is no clear line on which for censors to actually use as a guiding step to read upon what they can and cannot do. These questions are presented in the form of an argument which asks, at what point the questions presented, are beginning to trample upon the rights of the viewer.
The Smothers Brothers was a show made for inbetweeners. It was meant for people who were in their teens and twenties who were out to question the world around them-just like the Smothers Brothers. The show was there to call out the issues that these young people were facing every day; issues involving politics, the Vietnam War, drugs, and any other social problem, the Smothers Brothers were there to address it in their own engaging, silly way. When the show began, CBS was not worried about the show being controversial. As Bodroghkozy said, “[the Smothers Brothers] it seemed, were two performers who identified with a growing generation of disaffected young people but who would offend nobody.” In the second season, the brothers felt a bit more freedom, and started leaning towards more controversial topics, “almost inviting network censorship” (Bodroghkozy, 206). They would give performances essentially trying to give a big screw you to authority figures, something that CBS was obviously not a fan of. They were even forced to send in their shows to the network over a week in advance, in order for them to be censored. In today’s television world, when I think of our censorship (or lack there of), what mostly stands out is the extremely sexual nature of TV. I can easily think of 10 different shows in which I’ve seen scenes alluding to sexual acts, or outright showing them (albeit slightly blurred at times). When it comes to politics, however, I feel like certain channels/shows may say controversial things, such as Fox News or The Daily Show, but when displayed on these shows, it’s not a problem, because that’s what’s expected of these programs: controversy. Shows like SNL, which would be more along the lines of the ‘60s’ Smothers Brothers, will at times have controversial topics, but never blatantly calling out the government or the higher-ups in society. A skit or two making fun of the government shutdown or the presidential election, but nothing major. I think that shows from back in the day essentially set a precedent for modern day shows of what is okay and what’s not okay to display on TV. Shows like Smothers Brothers were outstanding in their creative ways of addressing the problems in society, but a the same time, they taught future TV shows how to not get cancelled and just how far they’re allowed to go (as far as being controversial) before a network will step in and make the show their own.
ReplyDelete