Stop scrutinizing classic sitcoms

BY WILL KRINER

Recently, the popular channel Comedy Central canceled an episode from the well-known mockumentary e O ce, which aired from 2005 to 2013.

e episode in question, titled Diversity Day, was a memorable episode of the series but contained language and phrases that many viewed as racially o ensive. e star of the series, Steve Carell, acknowledged in an interview with Esquire Magazine that the show wouldn’t survive today’s culture and that the character he portrayed was predicated on inappropriate behavior.

e recent wave of “cancel culture” has had a positive impact on the media in that extremely o ensive content is now scrutinized more seriously. But viewers are split on whether changes to the underlying comedic culture have changed the genre.

Cancel culture has taken the entertainment world by storm in recent years through popular apps such as Instagram and TikTok, where the threshold for acceptable content is far higher. Similarly, popular apps such as

YouTube have made their rules for monetization much more strict. For example, words that relate to certain kinds of trauma, even if the point of the video isn’t inherently o ensive, are now being censored. On the other hand, some feel that cancel culture is a product of being too sensitive, or being a “snowake,” a derogatory term aimed at people who criticize questionable jokes and content. Others simply enjoy TV shows for what they are and don’t take the jokes made in sitcoms to heart.

It’s easy to see people who defend these old shows as stubborn and unwilling to accept modern values. However, I believe those who choose to defend shows like this are simply reluctant to let go of nostalgia and childhood memories. Because the content on these shows was once acceptable, they shouldn’t be subjected to the same scrutiny as today’s content.

Some ongoing shows still contain sensitive content, such as “Family Guy,” “Rick & Morty” and “South Park.” ese contain large amounts of inappropriate, politically incorrect jokes and statements. Despite receiving mixed responses for years, shows like this haven’t been canceled, and haven’t seemed to receive much negative attention. However, the target audience of these shows is mostly teenag ers — arguably the age group that is least concerned about content moderation. I believe that shows such as “ e O and “Friends” — targeted to wards all age groups — are sub jected to much more backlash. is diminishes the legacy and meaning of shows that should rightfully be considered timeless classics.

“Friends” is a case in point. Aired in 1994, the show has garnered lots of recent media attention for “not aging well.” Most attribute this to the per petuation of stereotypes about race, sexuality and gender, and for its lack of ethnic diversity, which plays into the bigger issue of systemic racism. Although the show may have not aged quite well, backlash it receives for its content is uncalled for. It was aired in a time where the content was accepted, and its portrayal through the lens of comedy assures viewers that the jokes made on the show aren’t deep-rooted beliefs and not intended to o end viewers.

Cancel culture has undoubtedly ensured that content meant