OK, smoking is bad for you, but so is being too PC......>>>>>

[Johnny SixPack]

This is way over the top IMO:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14452732/

LONDON - Turner Broadcasting is scouring more than 1,500 classic Hanna-Barbera cartoons, including old favorites Tom and Jerry, The Flintstones and Scooby-Doo, to edit out scenes that glamorize smoking.

The review was triggered by a complaint to British media regulator Ofcom by one viewer who took offence to two episodes of Tom and Jerry shown on the Boomerang channel, part of Turner Broadcasting which itself belongs to Time Warner Inc.

"We are going through the entire catalogue," Yinka Akindele, spokeswoman for Turner in Europe, said on Monday.

"This is a voluntary step we've taken in light of the changing times," she said, adding the painstaking review had been prompted by the Ofcom complaint.

The regulator's latest news bulletin stated that a viewer, who was not identified, had complained about two smoking scenes on Tom and Jerry, saying they "were not appropriate in a cartoon aimed at children."

In the first, "Texas Tom", the hapless cat Tom tries to impress a feline female by rolling a cigarette, lighting it and smoking it with one hand. In the second, "Tennis Chumps", Tom's opponent in a match smokes a large cigar.

"The licensee has ... proposed editing any scenes or references in the series where smoking appeared to be condoned, acceptable, glamorized or where it might encourage imitation," Ofcom said, adding that "Texas Tom" was one such example.

Akindele said cartoons would only be modified "where smoking could be deemed to be cool or glamorized", and that scenes where a villain was featured with a cigarette or cigar would not necessarily be cut.

"These are historic cartoons, they were made well over 50 years ago in a different time and different place," she added. "Our audience is children and we don't want to be irresponsible."

Turner Broadcasting could not immediately be reached for comment.

Ofcom said it recognized smoking was more generally accepted when cartoons were produced in the 1940s, '50s and '60s, but argued that the threshold for including such scenes when the audience was predominately young should be high.

About 56 percent of Boomerang's audience is aged four to 14 years old.

Early reaction to the review on Web logs broadly attacked Turner's decision.

"Have to dig out all those photos and films of (Winston) Churchill and airbrush out the cigars," said a message posted on the "Organ Grinder" forum on the Guardian newspaper's Web site.

The review was not the first time a famous cartoon character was forced to give up smoking.

Belgian cartoonist Maurice de Bevere replaced his most popular creation Lucky Luke's ubiquitous cigarette with a blade of grass, winning him an award from the World Health Organization in 1988.


Oy vay. 


Johnny

[Old Moparz]

I hate the Atlanta Braves, so I may as well hate Ted Turner too.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Turner

[PocketThunder]

Well its about time they cut out the smoking scenes.  Remember when they cut out Speedy Gonzalas because he labeled all mexicans as being thiefs?  And they cut out the Bugs Bunny and Japanese guys because it showed the Japanese guys with huge coke bottle glasses stereotyping their looks....

what a shame.

I watch Jay-Jay the Jet Plane with my little guy now. 

[Johnny SixPack]

I can see the argument for deleting scenes where a race is being intrinsically targeted (even then these 'cartoons' were products of their time and should be recognized as such), but smoking is wholly different.

Are they next going to censor scenes where Bugs/Daffy/Porky/etc. dress up as women?

You know they're totally mocking, nay... disrespecting transvestites.

Holy crap, man, you take away Bugs either mocking people, wearing women's clothing, or kissing other guys and you've got a cartoon about a rabbit who took a wrong turn back at Albuquerque. 

[Kirkvkid]

I won't comment on the smoking issue, someone else can fight that war. 

I think what is most troubling about this article is one viewer complained and they are going to change the cartoon.  Didn't we start a war in 1775 so that everyone could decide what was good for one person, not one person decide what was good for everyone else.   

[bull]

They should replace all the cigarettes and cigars in cartoons with pepperoni meat sticks to promote the Atkins diet. Kids are too fat.

[Shakey]

And the Tom & Jerry cartoons plot outline is the cat trying to murder the mouse and it usually ends up with the cat dying a violent death.

    Hmmmmm

I wonder how Mommy feels about that?   

[Johnny SixPack]

And the Tom & Jerry cartoons plot outline is the cat trying to murder the mouse and it usually ends up with the cat dying a violent death.

    Hmmmmm

I wonder how Mommy feels about that?   

Give the man a cigar, er... pepperoni stick! 

Smoking is bad but garroting your enemies (well, local predatory entity) is all cool. 

[John_Kunkel]

It seems like one extreme or the other, I've watched a couple of movies lately where a main character lights up one after another; makes my lungs ache just watching.

[Mike DC]

 
All symptomatic of the media issues at large. 


Better to ban something from TV than talk to our kids and set better examples.

 

[inhrmswy]

All I want to know is where can I get copies of the classic cartoons before they get butchered?  In my opinion the old cartoons are the best.  I cant stand watching any of the new crap.  I'm 31.  I remember getting up saturday morning and watching all the classics from about 6 till 10, when american bandstand came on.  I had no interest in that show at all.

[PocketThunder]

All I want to know is where can I get copies of the classic cartoons before they get butchered?  In my opinion the old cartoons are the best.  I cant stand watching any of the new crap.  I'm 31.  I remember getting up saturday morning and watching all the classics from about 6 till 10, when american bandstand came on.  I had no interest in that show at all.

i'm 31.  and then WWF came on at 11:30 or noon and the living room turned into a wrestling ring!  Poor mom and all her yelling at us to stop wrestling on the furniture...

[Todd Wilson]

I think what is most troubling about this article is one viewer complained and they are going to change the cartoon.  Didn't we start a war in 1775 so that everyone could decide what was good for one person, not one person decide what was good for everyone else.   

YUP!   We seem to have forgot about that though!   

Editing Loony Tunes   what will they go after next!



Todd

[6pkrunner]

PC gone way too far again. If kids are really that impressionable then they should never be allowed to read a newspaper or turn on the evening news. Now that stuff is scary! You want kids emulating that?

[71bee]

HA! whatta (yet another) freakin' joke!

just wait until they start editing the Simpsons episopdes in the future!

history is BAD! BAD! BAD!

......and the Hollocaust never happened......right?

[Johnny SixPack]

just wait until they start editing the Simpsons episopdes in the future! history is BAD! BAD! BAD!

Yeah, and the PC police will have a freakin' field day with Family Guy.

I wonder what these people think about the caterpillar in, "Alice In Wonderland"?

Hell, he's not only smoking, but he's smoking out of a hookah.

Or other Disney/Warner Bros/Hannah-Barbera cartoons that possibly depict drinking, or other vices.

At this rate Donald Duck will soon be portrayed as a psychotic soul with a severe social disorder.

[69chargerboy]

 

[CaptMarvel]

Remember on Gilligans Island the Japanese submarine commander had those coke bottle glasses & big buck teeth?, or on F-Troop, the Heckawi Indians were money grubbing tourist trinket salesmen or on Popeye he beat bad guys up & actually had a pipe in his mouth that he "shudder" occasionally smoked? Or how about on Our Gang, Buckwheat actually liked chicken & watermelon, (I guess no-one told him he was a racist for liking those) and remember those Duke boys and their race baiting machine on wheels (Oh! that horrible, evil flag!) I am so grateful that I grew up before all of this PC crap! I ticks me off when I see them butchering old shows/movies just to bring them up to these phony PC modern standards. I grew up learning to laugh at everyone, not just the "checkered" past of only the evil, conspiring white man which is what Turner and many other media liberals want you to believe. Lets just ignore the fact that often, in the "good" ol' days, an Indian (scratch that, "Native" American) tribe would routinely run entire herds of those sacred buffalos over cliffs in order to salvage three or four hides and meat...Whats that? todays media wont tell us this? I'm sure they just overlooked it, after all, they are unbiased. Man, who started this one? Thanks alot for getting me started.  Bottom line is, all races have embarrising or unsavory parts in their past or in their character make up. I for one, prefered the days when we could poke fun at everyone equally, unlike today...Yes, there was a time when everyone didnt wear such a huge chip on their shoulder and take themselves so seriously. Man, I cant stand the PC police!

[hemihead]

just wait until they start editing the Simpsons episopdes in the future! history is BAD! BAD! BAD!

Yeah, and the PC police will have a freakin' field day with Family Guy.

I wonder what these people think about the caterpillar in, "Alice In Wonderland"?

Hell, he's not only smoking, but he's smoking out of a hookah.

Or other Disney/Warner Bros/Hannah-Barbera cartoons that possibly depict drinking, or other vices.

At this rate Donald Duck will soon be portrayed as a psychotic soul with a severe social disorder.

These are the same people that believe it's ok to show alcohol commercials on tv or smoking weed doesn't hurt you.
  Chalk up another point for the dictators of the world!

[Charger Aficionado]

Protect the Children. 

[Johnny SixPack]

Protect the Children. 

That used to be the parent's job.

Not the state's/PC police's/television company's.

But as we all know many parents today would rather someone else raise/take responsibility for the actions of their children.

And I think we can all agree that T.V. makes a poor substitute for informed/caring parents.

Simply blaming the T.V. and then attempting to change it isn't gonna solve anything.

[chrisII]

yeah it seems if you edit tom and jerry for violence , smoking, and whatever other evils are in there you wont have a show with a story you can follow..and what about the violence in loony tunes , r runner, ect..this PC BS drives me NUTS!

[Charger Aficionado]

I know there are alot of smokers here, but we need to take these steps (and others you've seen) to eradicate smoking all together.  It is a SCOURGE on our society.

[Shakey]

I know there are alot of smokers here, but we need to take these steps (and others you've seen) to eradicate smoking all together.  It is a SCOURGE on our society.

So are guns but any yahoo can still buy one!   

[Lowprofile]

I know there are alot of smokers here, but we need to take these steps (and others you've seen) to eradicate smoking all together.  It is a SCOURGE on our society.

So are guns but any yahoo can still buy one!

The "yahoos" are the problem, not the guns.  Besides, smoking kills far more people than guns do.

[71bee]

I know there are allot of smokers here, but we need to take these steps (and others you've seen) to eradicate smoking all together.  It is a SCOURGE on our society.

Yeah, and maybe we should abolish alcohol, wear swastikas, paint our hair blond.....

keep this country the way it was intended to be. FREE, with the right to choose our lifestyles!      - a non smoker.

[hemihead]

You anti smokers kill me.Under the ideas this country was founded upon YOU have NO right to tell me how to live my life.I don't blow smoke in your face.I don't force you to smoke.I don't smoke indoors( except in my own house and car).So suck it up,stop whining about it already and get on with your life.There are more important things in this world to worry about.Besides,the next rights to be taken away may be your own!

[CaptMarvel]

I know there are alot of smokers here, but we need to take these steps (and others you've seen) to eradicate smoking all together.  It is a SCOURGE on our society.

OK, maybe, I'm not entirely convinced, but what isn't? how about porn, laziness, gambling, overeating, alcohol, aren't these all scourages of equal or worse value? I would like to see porn & maybe gambling go away because I object to them on a basic, moral level, Those others are not good for society either (think about the whys), but do we really want to remove all our freedoms to act stupid? I know the age old non smoking argument about "yea but smoking drifts through the air and thereby affects everyone". Those other vices also adversely affect everyone just not as visually or smellfully (is that a word?). Freedom is what makes us unique and also what makes us strong. The alternative doesn't sound like the US I love.....Again, I'm not a smoker, and never have been...

[Orange_Crush]

I don't have a problem with smoking if you're not one of my employees.  As far as restaurants go, If the restaurant has a smoking section, I don't eat there.  There is a town not too far from where I live where one of the restaurants instituted a "no smoking" rule.  The owner thought his business would drop, but the exact opposite happened.  When people learned that his restaurant was stench-free, his business picked up...by almost 10%.   Eventually, every restaurant in the picked up on the fact that the relatively small number of smokers were keeping the bulk of potential customners away, they banned smoking.  Smoking bans don't really NEED to be legislated.

Its nice to be able to walk through an airport concourse or eat at a restaurant, or go to a bar and not have to smell the stink of someone else's nasty habit/addiction.

[bull]

I don't have a problem with smoking if you're not one of my employees.  As far as restaurants go, If the restaurant has a smoking section, I don't eat there.  There is a town not too far from where I live where one of the restaurants instituted a "no smoking" rule.  The owner thought his business would drop, but the exact opposite happened.  When people learned that his restaurant was stench-free, his business picked up...by almost 10%.   Eventually, every restaurant in the picked up on the fact that the relatively small number of smokers were keeping the bulk of potential customners away, they banned smoking.  Smoking bans don't really NEED to be legislated.

Its nice to be able to walk through an airport concourse or eat at a restaurant, or go to a bar and not have to smell the stink of someone else's nasty habit/addiction.

I usually don't even bother with restaurants that have smoking sections. Even if no one is smoking they still stink. If you're so addicted that you can't make it 45 minutes to an hour without a cigarette why not just walk out to your car and puff on your cancer stick? The ones that annoy me are my coworkers who think they're following the rules and/or doing the non-smokers a favor by going outside to smoke but standing 10 feet away from five wide-open garage doors. The damn smoke just blows inside and I think I inhale more than they do. I can't think of too many addictions that have such a blatantly aggressive and obviously negative effect on the innocent bystander than smoking. Alcoholics don't force you to take a sip of booze every time theyknock one back. Flying pieces of cake don't accidentally land in your mouth when food addicts are stuffing their faces, meanwhile smokers are pissed because we are supposedly infringing on their right to smoke. What about my right to breathe smoke-free air?

[CaptMarvel]

I usually don't even bother with restaurants that have smoking sections. Even if no one is smoking they still stink. If you're so addicted that you can't make it 45 minutes to an hour without a cigarette why not just walk out to your car and puff on your cancer stick? The ones that annoy me are my coworkers who think they're following the rules and/or doing the non-smokers a favor by going outside to smoke but standing 10 feet away from five wide-open garage doors. The damn smoke just blows inside and I think I inhale more than they do. I can't think of too many addictions that have such a blatantly aggressive and obviously negative effect on the innocent bystander than smoking. Alcoholics don't force you to take a sip of booze every time theyknock one back. Flying pieces of cake don't accidentally land in your mouth when food addicts are stuffing their faces, meanwhile smokers are pissed because we are supposedly infringing on their right to smoke. What about my right to breathe smoke-free air?

I agree, if bars or resaurants can do better business without catering to smokers, by all means do it, I just have a problem with anti smoking legislation.  On the surface your argument about the alcohal & cake flying through the air seems to make sense, that is until you factor in the massive drain on the health & insurance system bore by everyone for their "unintrusive" personal eating and drinking habits. What about the unfair burden put upon law enforcement, the judicial system and the moral standards of America because of drinking, drugs, pornography and homosexuality? No, I'm not a radical 19th century right wing nut, & I am also far from perfect (I have an overeating problem, but it falls upon me and me alone to fix that) I just believe fair is fair & you cant legislate laws against one vice without addressing all of them...Bull, I know you have probably experianced personal pain because of tobacco, my father too died one month ago from cancer, although I'm not sure if his smoking years ago really played a part (he stopped in the early 80's) Yea, I'd rather not smell smoke if I dont have to, but I'm just not going to go into a tizzy fit everytime someone lights up in my presence, I can walk away most of the time. Point is, we have to be just in dealing with them all in my opinion 

[pettyfan43]

I lived in a house full of smokers for a BIG part of my life, it made ME not want to smoke just because I didn't like the smell of it.

BUT and this is a BIG BUT, there is no need to legislate smoking at all, either people are going to do it or they are not. Each person has a fundamental right to decide whether they are going to smoke. As long as they keep it to themselves that is their right. They have designates smoking areas in most places, and that is fine.

As far as I am concerned, it doesn't bother me too much. I don't lose my mind over it. I just stay away from the smoking areas.

When simple things like this start getting legislated, it's a slippery slope, what's next? 

You're harming yourself eating that donut, NO DONUTS FOR YOU!!!!
You are harming others because everybody doesn't like that music, you can't listen to it!
How about, You are harming the environment and using too much gas driving that Hemi, We will take it now!

I know it sounds ridiculous but people like Al Gore, and organizations like the EPA WILL do that if they get a chance.  They EPA wants everybody driving BioDiesels or prius hybrids.

If you start taking people's rights away, that slipery slope gets steeper! And it gets that way FAST!!!!

I don't know about you guys, but I had a Grandfather that was wounded at Normandy and fought to stop the Nazis. He was literally thrown in a pile of DEAD soldiers because they thought he wouldn't make it, he had to repack HIS OWN wounds with sulfur from these dead soldiers.

I would really hate to think he went through that kind of hell and lost his left eye, just to have thatkind of tyranny start in his own back yard.

Just my two cents worth but that is how I see it.
 

[bull]

I usually don't even bother with restaurants that have smoking sections. Even if no one is smoking they still stink. If you're so addicted that you can't make it 45 minutes to an hour without a cigarette why not just walk out to your car and puff on your cancer stick? The ones that annoy me are my coworkers who think they're following the rules and/or doing the non-smokers a favor by going outside to smoke but standing 10 feet away from five wide-open garage doors. The damn smoke just blows inside and I think I inhale more than they do. I can't think of too many addictions that have such a blatantly aggressive and obviously negative effect on the innocent bystander than smoking. Alcoholics don't force you to take a sip of booze every time theyknock one back. Flying pieces of cake don't accidentally land in your mouth when food addicts are stuffing their faces, meanwhile smokers are pissed because we are supposedly infringing on their right to smoke. What about my right to breathe smoke-free air?

I agree, if bars or resaurants can do better business without catering to smokers, by all means do it, I just have a problem with anti smoking legislation.  On the surface your argument about the alcohal & cake flying through the air seems to make sense, that is until you factor in the massive drain on the health & insurance system bore by everyone for their "unintrusive" personal eating and drinking habits. What about the unfair burden put upon law enforcement, the judicial system and the moral standards of America because of drinking, drugs, pornography and homosexuality? No, I'm not a radical 19th century right wing nut, & I am also far from perfect (I have an overeating problem, but it falls upon me and me alone to fix that) I just believe fair is fair & you cant legislate laws against one vice without addressing all of them...Bull, I know you have probably experianced personal pain because of tobacco, my father too died one month ago from cancer, although I'm not sure if his smoking years ago really played a part (he stopped in the early 80's) Yea, I'd rather not smell smoke if I dont have to, but I'm just not going to go into a tizzy fit everytime someone lights up in my presence, I can walk away most of the time. Point is, we have to be just in dealing with them all in my opinion 

Pointing out the evils of two or three other addictions does not minimize the evils of smoking, especially when it has such an obviously negative effect on bystanders. An obese person eating cake at the next table or a drunk taking shots at the bar does not cause immediate and/or long lasting health problems to those nearby. I might be disgusting and it might smell bad but it will not kill you and make your clothing reek. I was using the other addictions as an example of smoking's overt harm to those in the vicinity to those who smoke. There are many societal problems associated with the effects of drinking and overeating but none of them are so negative and long-lasting to those who are nearby them at work or in a restaurant. You can legislate against smoking because it does have an obvious and immediate effect to those who breathe air on a regular basis.

[Shakey]

If smoking is that bad for people and society why doesn't the Government make it illegal?

Is the answer because they generate so much revenue from the taxes?

I don't think they really want everyone to quit smoking.

[hemihead]

I usually don't even bother with restaurants that have smoking sections. Even if no one is smoking they still stink. If you're so addicted that you can't make it 45 minutes to an hour without a cigarette why not just walk out to your car and puff on your cancer stick? The ones that annoy me are my coworkers who think they're following the rules and/or doing the non-smokers a favor by going outside to smoke but standing 10 feet away from five wide-open garage doors. The damn smoke just blows inside and I think I inhale more than they do. I can't think of too many addictions that have such a blatantly aggressive and obviously negative effect on the innocent bystander than smoking. Alcoholics don't force you to take a sip of booze every time theyknock one back. Flying pieces of cake don't accidentally land in your mouth when food addicts are stuffing their faces, meanwhile smokers are pissed because we are supposedly infringing on their right to smoke. What about my right to breathe smoke-free air?

I agree, if bars or resaurants can do better business without catering to smokers, by all means do it, I just have a problem with anti smoking legislation.  On the surface your argument about the alcohal & cake flying through the air seems to make sense, that is until you factor in the massive drain on the health & insurance system bore by everyone for their "unintrusive" personal eating and drinking habits. What about the unfair burden put upon law enforcement, the judicial system and the moral standards of America because of drinking, drugs, pornography and homosexuality? No, I'm not a radical 19th century right wing nut, & I am also far from perfect (I have an overeating problem, but it falls upon me and me alone to fix that) I just believe fair is fair & you cant legislate laws against one vice without addressing all of them...Bull, I know you have probably experianced personal pain because of tobacco, my father too died one month ago from cancer, although I'm not sure if his smoking years ago really played a part (he stopped in the early 80's) Yea, I'd rather not smell smoke if I dont have to, but I'm just not going to go into a tizzy fit everytime someone lights up in my presence, I can walk away most of the time. Point is, we have to be just in dealing with them all in my opinion 

Pointing out the evils of two or three other addictions does not minimize the evils of smoking, especially when it has such an obviously negative effect on bystanders. An obese person eating cake at the next table or a drunk taking shots at the bar does not cause immediate and/or long lasting health problems to those nearby. I might be disgusting and it might smell bad but it will not kill you and make your clothing reek. I was using the other addictions as an example of smoking's overt harm to those in the vicinity to those who smoke. There are many societal problems associated with the effects of drinking and overeating but none of them are so negative and long-lasting to those who are nearby them at work or in a restaurant. You can legislate against smoking because it does have an obvious and immediate effect to those who breathe air on a regular basis.

Ok , you say that people were smoking outside your work? Try to factor in the parts per million of air and the parts per million of cigarette smoke in the air? Hmmm, kind of gets drasically reduced.I am more worried about some of the other things in the air that everyone's breathing.
And you say someone taking a few shots at the bar has no immediate and/ or long lasting health problems?Tell that to the thousands of people and there loved ones that are killed or injured on our highways every year.I never heard of anyone smoking too much and killing someone on the road.And I never heard of someone smoking too much and beating their wife and kids or shooting the neighbor.
The only one a smoker is really hurting is themself.The second hand smoke theory was just hype that was thought up by non smoking advocates and all the non smokers spout that theory like verses from the bible.
I'm sorry but I don't tell anyone how to live their life even when it does affect me.This is suppose to be America.

[psykicpup]

unless I'm wrong..... these cartoon were not aim at kids when they were writen in the 50's or there abouts - they were aimed at the adult cinema going public as light enertainment.... feel free to correct me here.....

[Johnny SixPack]

unless I'm wrong..... these cartoon were not aim at kids when they were writen in the 50's or there abouts - they were aimed at the adult cinema going public as light enertainment.... feel free to correct me here.....

Bingo!

The WB cartoons of the "40s and "50s were geared towards an adult audience. 

[CaptMarvel]

Pointing out the evils of two or three other addictions does not minimize the evils of smoking, especially when it has such an obviously negative effect on bystanders. An obese person eating cake at the next table or a drunk taking shots at the bar does not cause immediate and/or long lasting health problems to those nearby. I might be disgusting and it might smell bad but it will not kill you and make your clothing reek. I was using the other addictions as an example of smoking's overt harm to those in the vicinity to those who smoke. There are many societal problems associated with the effects of drinking and overeating but none of them are so negative and long-lasting to those who are nearby them at work or in a restaurant. You can legislate against smoking because it does have an obvious and immediate effect to those who breathe air on a regular basis.

Sorry Bull, I often agree with you but not this time. I think all of the cited vices have a big affect on everyone on this world. Still, I dont think we need to legislate them (even the ones I have a real big problem with!) because I also believe that we come to this world with inherant freedoms that I dont believe should be taken from us by tyrants(another reason I dont like the way the terrorists and liberals do business) I'd love to see many of these "scourages on society" dissapear, but only through the changing of peoples way of thinking and their moral focusing. I belive that we have existing laws for many of these already if only we'd use them more effectivley. I do think that skyrocketing insurance costs thanks to the fatties, smokers, & lushes, idiot drunk drivers headed towards us in the night & the sexual perverts hanging around kids gathering places proves that these are all big problems for everyone, not just the non smoker. The trouble is, where do you stop with anti vice legislation?  If I like to collect old comic books, will that be on the hit list someday because of some left leaning, paper hating, enviro nut job says its bad for society? I think most of us are  wise enough to understand what the real threats are, but then again people amaze me everday....

[Lowprofile]