For all that critics have hailed ABC's "Modern Family" for its non-stereotypical portrayal of a gay couple, the show itself is stereotypical Hollywood propaganda.
"Modern Family," filmed in a mock-documentary style, examines the lives of three couples from one family. Patriarch Jay (Ed O'Neill) is married to a much-younger, feisty Colombian woman. His daughter Claire is married to Phil who treats parenting like playtime. Jay's son Mitchell, is gay, and when the show began, has just adopted a baby with his partner Cameron.
Producers treated the 12.7 million viewers who tuned in Wednesday night for the premiere to a pro-gay adoption speech within the first two minutes of the program.
Keyed around an incident in which Mitchell mistook a fellow plane passenger's comment about creampuffs as a reference to him and Cameron, Mitchell told the full plane, "Excuse me, but this baby would have grown up in a crowded orphanage if it wasn't for us creampuffs. And you know what? No, to all of you who judge ... hear this. Love knows no race, creed or gender. And shame on you, you small-minded, ignorant few ..."
The scene was played for laughs, as Cameron interrupted Mitchell to point out that the creampuffs in question referred to the pastries in the baby's hands. Mitchell's speech, however, appeared to be more of a Middle America-directed statement from Hollywood about homosexuality than a hyper-sensitive response designed as a joke.
Naturally, Mitchell's dad is less than thrilled with his son's lifestyle. Writers portrayed him as a bigot. In the words of Mitchell, Jay "still isn't uh, comfortable with this. Um, he still does this thing - it's been five years now - and he still does this thing where he announces himself before walking into any room we're in, just to make sure he doesn't have to ever see us kiss."
Later, as Mitchell explained that the trip to Vietnam he and Cameron took wasn't just "for pleasure," Jay stated, "If Cam comes out here with boobs, I'm leaving." As Mitchell explained the "longing" he and Cameron had for a baby in the lead up to the big reveal that did, in fact, adopt a child, Jay offered, "Oooh, that is a bad idea ... kids need a mother. I mean, if you two guys are bored, get a dog."
Again, these scenes were played for laughs, but portraying Jay as a buffoon undermined the truth that kids do need a mother.
And of course, since this is a half-hour "family" sitcom, Jay quickly came around to accept the baby as his grandchild. He told his family, "Okay, I know that I said I thought this was a bad idea but uh what do I know? I mean uh, it's not like I wrote the book on fatherhood. Been trying all my life to get it right. I'm still screwing up."
There was one cultural bright spot in "Family's" premiere: the skewering of parents who try to be friends with their children instead of authority figures. As The New York Times' Ginia Bellafante pointed out, the character of Phil "is every misguided middle-aged father who believes his teenagers would rather hang out with him than down a couple Budweisers in the back of the Sunoco station." Bellafante offered Phil's introduction as evidence: "I'm hip, I surf the Web, I text. LOL: Laugh Out Loud. OMG: Oh my God. WTF: Why the face?" Phil's explanation of how his eyes send a different message to his teen daughter's male friends than his words do rightly came off as pathetic.
Critics love "Family." The Washington Post's Tom Shales wrote the show "is cause not just for cheer but also for outright jubilation. The writers and producers of the domestic sitcom ... have found sharp new angles for tales of the great American family, and they juxtapose them in smart, savory ways."
Bellafante from the Times labeled "Family," "the best new half-hour of funny television in a season rife with half-hours of funny television." USA Today's Robert Bianco bestowed the honor of "best new series in the fall" on "Family" in his review. Mary McNamara at the Los Angeles Times noted that the show's creators "have given us a comedy that is sharp but not cruel, amused but not judgmental."
"Modern Family" may not be judgmental, but it is pushing an agenda.
—Colleen Raezler is a research assistant at the Culture and Media Institute




















Editor at Large
Comments Policy
That's entertainment!
September 24, 2009 - 15:13 ET by mattmThat's entertainment!
Lighten up!
September 24, 2009 - 15:13 ET by JaneyIt was a funny show.
I haven't watched network TV
September 24, 2009 - 15:28 ET by kefkaI haven't watched network TV in years. It looks like I am missing nothing.
Missed nothing!
September 25, 2009 - 00:07 ET by Forest for the TreesOur family watched - er, I should say, tried to watch it, but the whole family gave it a sound "waste of time" and deleted it 2/3rds of the way through.
Save your brain cells folks and avoid this ill-concieved, pathetic excuse for entertainment.
No idea what you're reviewing
September 24, 2009 - 15:35 ET by Ali Ali AliDon't know, don't care. I don't watch TV... 'cept for sports and EWTN.
Sorry, but I think our families are in enough trouble...
September 24, 2009 - 15:39 ET by stage9due to "lightening up" on entirely too many things. We praise dysfunction and belittle normalcy and morality. Then we sit in front of this garbage and pretend like it has no affect on us. Garbage in - garbage out.
But then, like so many say: "If you don't like it, turn off the tv."
Does that mean I can get a refund for wasting my money on one?
Why not curb the perversion and smut and indecency and put something worth watching on tv? I guess that would require more sense than hollywood is capable of exerting.
"If God is dead, somebody is going to have to take his place. It will
be megalomania or erotomania, the drive for power or the drive for
pleasure, the clenched fist or the phallus, Hitler or Hugh Hefner."
— Malcolm Muggeridge
Agree completely
September 24, 2009 - 23:35 ET by mbuelJust one more notch on the bedpost for the hedonistic liberals that are trying to make our society more progressive.
"We praise dysfunction and belittle normalcy and morality."
I find it hard to believe that our country has any sense of normal or moral left. Most don't believe either come from God, and even many of those who do, don't live their lives like they believe it.
This is how I figure the conversation will go:
Conversations with liberals always end the same way.
http://clearthehaze.blogspot.com
...
September 24, 2009 - 15:47 ET by EugeniaFor all the dismissive posts, this is how this crap -- and that's what it is -- begins to pervade our country because we have dupes who watch this show and give it ratings so that more of this propaganda can be produced. Same for all of those who watch that dumb Desperate Housewives.
The "family" hour has mushed everyone's brains to accept perversity as diversity as we mindnumbingly watch our society transformed into such filth and accept it as normal. (Oh, well!) You fall for Hollywood's agenda. AND IN DOING SO, you relinquish your right to complain at another time about all the perversity, coarseness, and inappropriate sex classes for kindergartners, etc.
To dismiss this junk as "funny" and "entertainment" while you watch is what Hollywood wants you to do so you can provide them ratings funds to make more of this junk. Stop watching and supporting this crap. Wake up, people!
"When people stop believing in God, they don't believe in nothing -- they believe in anything."
-- GK Chesterton
Oh wow
September 24, 2009 - 16:53 ET by someloudthunderLinking a sitcom to the destruction of the American family? Really?
I'm just surprised you didn't whip out the word "sheeple"
...
September 24, 2009 - 18:21 ET by EugeniaSounds like you know exactly what I'm talking about.
"When people stop believing in God, they don't believe in nothing -- they believe in anything."
-- GK Chesterton
Two Words
September 24, 2009 - 16:31 ET by justbob223Pervert propaganda
moral decline of
September 24, 2009 - 16:41 ET by American.PatriotAmerica as witnessed in these dispicable programs.
Is it me, or except for a
September 24, 2009 - 16:45 ET by Chris NormanIs it me, or except for a few classics and some others good for nostalgic laughs, has the sitcom just about run it's course?
BTW, of course it had to be the father trying to be friends with the kids.
The "Mainstream" Media: By liberals. For liberals.
How horrible.
September 24, 2009 - 16:49 ET by someloudthunderHow dare they!
Showing it's okay,
To be positively gay!
Gay Adoption,
That's an abomination!
Those kid one day,
Will end up gay.
But no really they can show what they want and if you have a problem with it don't watch the channel. There's real bias happening in the news - not a shoddy sitcom that has elements you disagree with you frogs.
Testing a theory
September 24, 2009 - 23:43 ET by mbuel1) Most christians who believe homosexuality is a sin, do not tell gay people that they "can't be gay", or that it's "Not okay to be Gay". Frankly that's between them and God.
2) Gay adoption is an abomination.
A) Can two gay men or two lesbian women have children without adoption?
B) Is there any ANY sense that having two parents of the same sex is going to teach the kid proper relations? How can a young man with two dads, learn to have proper relationships with the opposite sex? How can a daughter with two dad's develop the necessary bonding relationship with their mother?
You dismiss normal as if it's not important and it's already been proven that it is. Children raised in same sex parent households, are much more likely to experiment with drugs and sexuality, much more likely to not develop lasting relationships WITH ANYONE, and much more likely to end up homosexual or Bisexual.
C) the primary command of God is to be "fruitful and multiply" (and yes I realize many hetero couples are not doing that, that's why so many of them have unhappy relationships.) We were put here to seek the opposite flesh and to cleave to it, and have children with them. To deny your purpose is to invite depression. Is it any wonder depression and suicide are at such high levels?
It's because we are dumping normalcy and morality for hedonism, and abnormality.
3) No one is forcing anyone to watch this propaganda. But it's still important to reveal that propaganda.
http://clearthehaze.blogspot.com
It was a terrific show.
September 24, 2009 - 17:02 ET by goldwaterfanIt was a terrific show.
This is ABC - what
September 24, 2009 - 18:47 ET by SaseboSailorThis is ABC - what would you expect??
Mitchell's speech, however,
September 24, 2009 - 19:14 ET by mamabearMitchell's speech, however, appeared to be more of a Middle
America-directed statement from Hollywood about homosexuality than a
hyper-sensitive response designed as a joke.
Learn to laugh!
This is a great example of a good joke, because it mocks both sides of an issue. It is both a dig at conservatives who object to gay adoption and a mockery of overly sensitive liberals who find insult in everything. Getting upset about it just makes you an overly sensitive conservative who objects to gay adoption and finds insult in everything :) Why be that person?
Then Why Aren't You Straight Couples Adopting Then?
September 24, 2009 - 22:46 ET by The7SticksThe only reason we argue at all about gay adoption is because there are no other couples out there willing to adopt foster children. I haven't seen any vocal agenda where straight couples are trying to adopt. Whether you like it or not, there have been some conclusive studies that homosexual couples should have preference over single people (whether they're gay or straight.) They shouldn't have preference over straight couples adopting, I would agree on that, but if there are no other straight couples, then a homosexual couple should have the privilege, if not the right, to adopt a child.
By the way, I don't think they'll go gay because you are usually born straight or gay. There are chemical and hormonal imbalances that have been found to distinguish the two types of sexual orientation. That's why the false notion of being gay is a choice is so laughable.
So, unless you want a gay couple to adopt a kid, you might want to try adopting yourself. You'll get preference over the gays, I swear.
PS. One man's trash is another man's treasure. I will not have you take away my treasure, otherwise, no soup for you! See, I can be a Soup Nazi as easily as that.
it's not that straight couples don't want to
September 24, 2009 - 22:59 ET by candanceDo you know how hard the government makes it to adopt a child in their care? You have to earn high income, prove that your job is stable, and save up enough to pay thousands in fees. Have to live in a stable place. Have to be married for several years before you qualify. Many agencies will not allow couples over 40 to adopt at all. Also, agencies can turn couples down if they are fat, use tobacco, or have health issues. Are you a recovering alcoholic? Too bad - you prolly won't qualify.
It has nothing to do with anyone "not wanting" the children.
candance... You beat me
September 24, 2009 - 23:12 ET by bigtimercandance...
You beat me to it, I just saw this as well, you pretty well covered the bases, I know some from experience.
Truly is sad what you are encumbered with...sadder for the kids.
'Doubling down on stupid is not a particularly good idea'~Breitbart
Straw man
September 24, 2009 - 23:45 ET by mbuelI'm sorry dude, but this is an absolute straw man.
ON absolutely every level.
http://clearthehaze.blogspot.com