Bozell: CBS Puts Orgies, Happy Quaalude Use On TV In '70s Series

Photo of Tim Graham.

Brent Bozell's culture column this week discussed a forthcoming CBS series called "Swingtown," set to debut June 5. Cover your eyes, Angela Lansbury. As the title suggests, it's about swingers, wife-swapping suburban sybarites, set in 1976. This disco-soundtrack spectacle has been delayed for months, due to the writer's strike. The best thing that can be said about the shock jocks at CBS is that they are putting it in the last hour of prime time:

Smack dab in the Thursday-night time slot of "Without a Trace," the series which dug deep for the ratings gold with a teen-orgy scene a few years ago, CBS looks to set new records in broadcast debauchery. Jacques Steinberg of The New York Times reported the first episode is stacked with a sexual threesome; a high school junior smoking marijuana and then flirting with her English teacher; the glorified enjoyment of quaaludes and cocaine; and the sight of the "neighborhood scold" stumbling upon a basement orgy, only to hear some mutton-chopped participant say with a smirk "Why don’t you kick off your shoes, Mom, and join the party?"

CBS is so proud of itself. "We wanted to give people something fun and fresh in the summer, declared Nina Tassler, the president of CBS who approved the series. "The summer gives you a kind of different license." Underline that word "license." When Tassler, whose second cousin had written the swinging Seventies best-seller "Open Marriage," heard of the "Swingtown" premise, she recalled "I said, ‘Oh my God, that’s right in my sweet spot, in terms of my nostalgia."

But in that oppressive, nagging place called “reality,” the practice of "open marriage" often becomes a prelude to divorce. Marriage is defined by exclusivity, the pledge to spend one’s life devoted to one spouse, one love. If you consistently consider that some other partner might be groovier, it won’t be surprising if soon, one half of a marriage – or both – decide to opt out. Where is the romance in "I love you – or maybe her? Or him?"

Series creator Mike Kelley says he has based the series in part on his own suburban neighborhood in Winnetka, Illinois, where one summer, the "neighborhood kind of switched partners," and surprise, "Eventually most of those marriages broke up." Ironically, and perhaps pathetically, his own mother is trotted out as a fan of the series, even if she’s hesitant to admit to the behavior depicted. Her son "embellished" the swinging a bit, since he saw it through "young eyes." Kelley professed to the Times that he was thrilled for his parents when they broke up.

Kelley claims the "crazy second adolescence" of his parents "inspired me to be as brave and honest as I can be in my own adult relationships and not worry so much about what other people think or say about them." He told the Times "the jury is still out for me on marriage and monogamy." Asked if he’s presently involved in a relationship, he declared he’s had a handful of "primary" relationships over the years, "none of which society would probably deem conventional."

Hollywood sweetens its own selfishness in a sugar-coated notion of bravery and honesty. "I'm brave enough and honest enough to say I've enjoyed using you and then tossing you aside."

Kelley began with a series obviously aimed at pay cable, but he’s now delighted to be on a broadcast network, even if it means toning down the nudity and graphic depiction of sex acts. "I think we’re able to be more groundbreaking and more culturally subversive by putting this on a network, where more people will be exposed to it and where we’ll have to deal with these adult issues in an oblique way."

Notice that Hollywood producers openly proclaim they’re "culturally subversive" with a smile, that each new frontier of taste they shatter is "groundbreaking." But the ground that’s being broken here is the family -- a foundation of hope and love that proves itself in devoted daily consistency and self-sacrifice. That formula doesn’t make for sassy programming in the plastic world of television, I know, but it works in the real world.

—Tim Graham is Director of Media Analysis at the Media Research Center.


Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

It figures

So, CBS is ripping off That 70's Show now, eh? That figures!

Good Luck

If they did it as a comedy show, it might work. But it sounds like they are doing it as a drama, which won't.

That's what made That 70s Show work-they were funny. And they implied drug use (smoking pot) but never actually showed it as it happened. And the funniest references to the pot was when they baked it into brownies, not when they sat around "the circle".

CBS aka Crap Broadcasting

CBS aka Crap Broadcasting Network

Well, our kids, in kindergarten, are learning how to put a condom on a banana in Sex "Education" class.  So, this is just the logical follow on . . .

<barf>

our kids, in kindergarten,

our kids, in kindergarten, are learning how to put a condom on a banana

And, of course there is  a reliable source of proof providable, right?

»→ Yes, Giles

I just saw Curious George poot a baloon.

  • OBAMA, Oh Wait!!

You didn't see the fine print Giles?

Dems have to back up everything they say, but if a Democrat questions a blanket statement by a conservative member ie"this site is bending over backwards for leftist" or all the liberal members of this site are no civil , they are either trolling or whining or twisting words.

»→ Shawn

I hope you weren't referring to me.

I have no evidence kindergartners are practicing with bananas and condoms.

Do I need to print a retraction on the Curious George comment?

  • OBAMA, Oh Wait!!

lol CA

No CA, I was not referring to you. I just meant in general.Would be funny if a saw Curious George doing that though :-)

I wonder if the original poster can prove his claim.

Actually...

Actually, Guilt Winterborne, upon seeing the evidence presented to him (on any topic) will elect to insult and smear the source, as he is wholly incapable of arguing the topic. 

Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.

Sigh, so sad Unsane.

You remind alot of botg, you are both every intelligent people, however both of you flawed. But in different ways

Botg has a hard time answering questions directly and is very crptic. You have a hard time debating the actually subject, but will bringing up things that are not very relevent.

Lets talk about this post for example. The original poster said something about kindergarders putting condoms on bananas. It is silly argument that has not merit. Much like

: Bush lied people died

: Murderer and chef

: Culture of Coruption.

How can you possibly say Giles is wrong here.

Second the originally poster did not smear Giles, he simply asked a ridiculus question.

At least your post are not as long winded anymore.

PS

Great to have you back in America :-) I mean that.

Spend less time blaming me and more time reading

You have a hard time debating the actually subject, but will bringing up things that are not very relevent. Not very relevant? That's because instead of reading my posts, you whine and cry about how long they are. If you bothered READING them, you MIGHT have a "light bulb" moment and you will see how in fact what I am discussing is VERY relevant.  That you don't wish to do that is scarcely my fault.

And, even if you DO by chance read what I post, you just ignore the points and move on with your dogmatic approach.  Which once again is scarcely my fault.

At least your post are not as long winded anymore.  ONLY because of time restrictions. Now that those are gone, Grasshopper, it will be time for you to stop whining and READ again.  READ my posts, regardless of length. You MIGHT learn something. 

Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.

It would seem that if one

It would seem that if one were trying to promote a particular POV, and an argument as absurd as kindergartner's learning how to put condoms on a banana is an age appropriate sex ed topic, even  someone subscribing to a position any sex ed in inappropriate would point out that an argument such as that is not only untenable, but weakens the position of that POV.

But, if 'poot a balon' is considered an witty and accurate rejoinder......

Giles

I am not a big fan of abortion, but I hate it when people say "liberals love to kill babies" It sounds like the mothers took joy in having an abortion.

Convenience

I agree, Leftists don't want to kill babies.  They just want life to begin and end at times that are CONVENIENT for them (hence your backing of euthanasia). 

Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.

and out of left field comes Unsane.......

with a zinger. Or maybe right field. I don't see how my views on euthanasia have anything to do with what I said but it is still good to see you.

When are you coming back to the states? 

Convenience

 I don't see how my views on euthanasia have anything to do with what I said   Of course not.  That's because you do not acknowledge why Leftists like abortion and euthanasia so much.  Not because they are cold-blooded murderers, not at all.  They just don't want life, or death, to inconvenience them. 

I just got back to the States today, though I am not quite home yet.

Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.

Well unsane

Euthanasia is a personal decision. It is not to do away with yourself out of convenience, It is only if the person is suffering and lives with an unbearable amount of pain everyday.

It also gives a person a chance to die with dignity. I am not going to convince you no matter how hard I try, but lets not hijack the authors thread ok?

Regardless of my feelings on other topics "which is irrelevant here" I believe people should be able to watch what they want, in their own homes within the law.

 

shawn228

Euthanasia is a personal decision. Hey, if you really want to off yourself, try a shot of whiskey with some valium. Or, give yourself a 9mm brain hemmorhage.  Besides, it is funny how you insist that this is a personal decision, but decisions I make impacting life (especialy financial ones) can and must be taken from me at any and all costs for the good of the State. It is not to do away with yourself out of convenience, It is only if the person is suffering and lives with an unbearable amount of pain everyday.  There was a girl's heart I was unable to win recently.  That has put me in unbearable pain.  Can I get a doctor to off me for that reason?  What about those with low pain threshholds?  Face it, you want euthanasia for the sake of convenience.  Besides, if you didn't have to care for said relative, you could then celebrate by running out and buying an even more fantastic Blu-Ray DVD player and HDTV, right? 

It also gives a person a chance to die with dignity.  That is impossible.  Have you ever seen what people look like when they have just died?  It's NOT pretty.  I can't consider urinating and defecating on oneself to be terribly dignified, but that is in fact one of the first things that happens when one dies.   I am not going to convince you no matter how hard I try, but lets not hijack the authors thread ok?  Well, YOU brought up abortion, just as I brought up your deepest wish for life to begin and end on terms that are totally convenient for you.  I'm not guilty of hijacking a thread in this case. 

Regardless of my feelings on other topics "which is irrelevant here" I believe people should be able to watch what they want, in their own homes within the law.  I still retain the right to bitch about crappy entertainment.  Give me books and my music any day.  Want to know why I haven't watched virtually any television on the networks - or most anyplace else - in nearly 20 years?  Refer to this thread.

Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.

A past we won't recognize . . .

I imagine Swingtown will find its target audience: the 14-22 year olds  --- viewers way to young to have experienced the period, but titillated by raging characters and hot sex.

Rarely do any TV series set in the past accurately capture the reality.   They rely on Hollywood stereoptypes for characterization, headlines for plots, and set the whole mess to cheesy mixtures of period pop music.

Have at it CBS.  Swing your hearts out. I won't be watching. 

. . . But now that I think about it, I don't watch anything on CBS, NBC, or ABC anyway. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Gal, let's drop that age range lower...

my 21yo son would not watch that show on a bet. Neither will his parents. I must admit to being shocked at the commercials I have seen for the "program"...using the term loosely. Of course, I find many things on the TV lately disturbing. Glad I only see the posts on NB, that info is more than enough.

This is not where we want our country heading.

Aye...

At this point, my television intake is limited to CSI, old shows on Sleuth, and the occasional Sci-Fi feature. I figure everything available on the tube is fiction, so I might as well watch the kind I like.

www.rhjunior.com Great comics with a hefty dose of Christian and anti-nutjob goodness.

"With your mind as high as Mt. Fuji you can see all things clearly. And you can see all the forces that shape events; not just the things near to you." -Miyamoto Musashi

But the ground that’s

But the ground that’s being broken here is the family -- a foundation of hope and love that proves itself in devoted daily consistency and self-sacrifice.

Yeesh. Over the top much? It's a TV show, at 10 p.m. It's no more capable of eroding the "foundation of hope and love" than Van Halen. 

»→ Runnin' With The Devil

Seems totally innoccuous to me.

  • Lydsexics untie

show sounds like garbage

....but it is not my place to tell someone else they can't watch it.

Hmmmmmmmmm...

I seem to have missed the call for censorship of this show on NB.

I, for one, won't be watching this...but then, I haven't sat down to watch TV shows in years.  That's just a total waste of time.  And as of now, I am about to swear off ANY movies at all for the rest of 2008.   

Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.

Family values at 10pm?

Aren't most good boys are girls suppossed to be in bed at that time?

Perhaps.

In my school I still hear students brag about staying up until 1 A.M. or dodging nighttime curfew.

parents should be responsible

for getting their kids in bed at a decent time as well as using discretion on what they watch.

I admit, I am pretty liberal, on what I let mine watch. I allow Ghost Whisperer which can be scary and made the mistake of watching 24 with my child right for the beginning and now she is addicted to it. Damn you Jack Bauer.!

I would draw the line on this show as well as SouthPark. It is ulitmately the parents decision.

It' s 10 PM, do you know where your children are?

"Parents, it's 10 PM. Do you know where your children are?"

That's what all the TV stations here in Minnesota used to run at 10 PM every day, back the 60's and early 70's before Minnesota Madness happened and the Democrats gained control of the State Legislature. I wonder why the stations here don't run that public service message anymore?