• Fox ADHD: Cartoon Rape for Kids!

    by  • July 25, 2013 • Broadcast Decency, Profanity, Sex, Violence • 28 Comments

    Rape. Cannibalism. Necrophilia. Decapitation. Vomit. Excrement. This is the content Fox is proudly promoting in its new ADHD programming block – using characters and theme songs beloved by children.  ADHD begins airing in its regular timeslot this Saturday, July 27th at 11:00 p.m. ET/PT (10:00 p.m. Central/Mountain).

    The PTC has already documented some of the horrific content Fox has in store for viewers of its new programming block ADHD. Recently, the ADHD website featured another of its depraved cartoons – this one an alleged “parody” of the beloved Disney cartoon DuckTales.

    The entire video is accompanied by a song (lyrics in italics) set to the theme music from Disney’s DuckTales cartoon. In “Scientifically Accurate DuckTales,” viewers see and hear the following content:

     

    Did you know ducks are necrophiles?

    That’s duck science.

    An anthropomorphized cartoon duck dressed as a girl (sweater, bow on head) is run over by a car. Another cartoon duck reminiscent of Uncle Scrooge (wearing a top hat and coat) runs into the road and begins copulating with the dead female duck. A pair of teens hold a checklist reading “necrophile” and “rapist.”

     

    They don’t have sphincters, dump in piles

    That’s why ducks don’t buy pants.

    A huge river of excrement gushes out of a duck’s rear and splatters everywhere. (This duck is dressed as one of Donald Duck’s nephews – sweatshirts and baseball caps.) Another duck dressed as Donald Duck (sailor suit and hat) grins and waves its wings as excrement sprays from its rear.

     

    And we have to face this

    Male ducks are rapists!

    The Daisy-like duck lies on her bed. The Scrooge-like  duck comes in and copulates with her. The song blares: “Male ducks are RAPISTS!”

     

    DuckTales! Whoo-hoo!

    Scientifically Accurate DuckTales. Whoo-hoo!

    Crazy pooping birds should go to duck jails.

    The Disney DuckTales logo is shown. Scrooge is imprisoned and menaced by a cigarette-smoking prisoner duck.

     

    Then there’s the whole pool of gold.

    Scrooge won’t write a check.

    And whether he was young or old

    If he dived in he’d break his neck.

    A gold pile looks neat,

    But it’s hard as concrete.

    The Scrooge-like duck leaps into his money bin and dies, it’s tongue hanging out.

     

    DuckTales! Whoo-hoo!

    Scientifically Accurate DuckTales. Whoo-hoo!

    Another male duck is shown copulating with a female as excrement shoots from its rear.

     

    Danger! Duck’s behind you

    If you’re a girl ducks will grind you.

    A human girl shrieks as a duck lands in her hair and humps her head.

     

    Also ducks are cannibals. DuckTales. Whoo-hoo!

    Have salmonella, H5 and bird flu!

    The Scrooge-like duck is shown eating a cooked duck. A man is shown eating duck, then sitting on a toilet. Green vomit sprays out of his mouth and covers the screen.

     

    Scientifically Accurate DuckTales. Whoo-hoo!

    A duck dressed as one of Donald’s nephews floats through space. His space helmet comes off, decapitating him. Blood gushes from his neck hole into the void.

     

    Last verse is on genitalia

    So stay in your places.

    A human girl runs from the axe-wielding Scrooge duck.

     

    Because ducks hump so much,

    Girl ducks have vagina mazes.

    To screw around this

    Ducks grew a corkscrew phallus!

    A cutaway diagram is shown of a female duck’s vagina, which resembles a maze. The Scrooge duck grows a long, corkscrew-shaped penis, which he plunges into the female. The three nephew ducks are shown waddling with corkscrew-shaped erections.

     

    DuckTales! Whoo-hoo!

    Disgusting crapping cannibalistic DuckTales.

    Penis in the shape of a corkscrew DuckTales!

    Excrement is shown spraying from another duck’s rear. The three nephews are shown eating the dead Scrooge’s innards, their beaks covered in blood, then sliding down a corkscrew-shaped slide – which ends up being Scrooge’s penis.

    The cartoon ends with a huge ad filling the screen: “Tune In 11 pm/10 c on FOX.”

     

    One has to wonder what kind of mind takes delight in trashing symbols of childhood innocence; but such content is par for the course on Fox – as witness Seth MacFarlane’s Family Guy and other cartoons.

    It is no coincidence that Fox is introducing this programming in the summer, when children are off school and permitted to stay up later. Fox Entertainment Chairman Kevin Reilly has already declared his intention to push this programming at children: “I see this as a seeding ground for prime time. I would like to grow the next Family Guy out of that period…I’m hoping a few rise to the surface that can graduate to Sundays.”

    Just a few weeks ago, Fox publicly urged the FCC “to conclude it is legally required and logically bound to cease attempting broadcast indecency limits once and for all.” A year earlier, arguing before the Supreme Court, a Fox attorney assured the justices that the decency standard was not necessary, in essence, telling the justices, “Trust us. Even if we could broadcast graphic and offensive material, we will not, because we could never sell it to sponsors.” It is now abundantly clear that such trust would be misplaced.

    The PTC will be keeping a careful eye on the content Fox airs, and will be in touch with the companies that sponsor ADHD, asking them if they want their hard-earned brand names and reputations associated with such content – and want to be responsible for helping push it at children.

    Share

    About

    Christopher Gildemeister is the PTC’s Head of Research Operations. He began as an Entertainment Analyst at the PTC in 2005. From 2007-2016, he was Senior Writer/Editor, responsible for communicating the PTC’s message to the public through newsletters, columns, and the PTC Watchdog blog. Dr. Gildemeister holds a Ph.D. from The Catholic University of America.

    28 Responses to Fox ADHD: Cartoon Rape for Kids!

    1. July 26, 2013 at 5:44 am

      Please keep us posted about any sponsors of this show. I personally will NOT use ANY of the products of any companies or sponsors of this disgusting excuse for entertainment. I can also guarantee none of my family or any of my friends will support this show in anyway. As soon as I spread the word no one in my circle of friends will use any of the products of these sponsors. I’m hoping none of these companies are fully aware of the filthy content of ADHD. Fox should be so ashamed of themselves!

    2. Laurie Koerner
      July 26, 2013 at 7:56 am

      How do we get this off the air? Who do we contact? Let’s get the information out there so each of us can do something about this filth.

    3. Holly
      July 26, 2013 at 10:51 am

      I agree with Laurie Koerner, How do we get this cartoon XXX and garbage off the air!!!

    4. Greg Brown
      July 26, 2013 at 3:01 pm

      mattwsilverstein@gmail is a producer for ADHD. Let’s email him and tell him he should quit his job, be unemployed and tell his family that daddy doesn’t have a job anymore.

    5. July 26, 2013 at 4:40 pm

      I am still waiting for my comments to be posted. Would you please look into this and let me know why the delay, or if for some reason the decision was not to post my comments, I would like to know why. I feel very strongly about every word I wrote..

      • Christopher Gildemeister
        July 29, 2013 at 8:57 am

        Gladys:

        Your comments on “Fox to Assault Viewers with ADHD Programming Block” (July 23) and “FX Series Coming to Fox” (June 7) have been posted. If you have sent us other comments, we have no record of it. Apologies.

        Thank you for your support!

    6. Mya Nameo
      July 26, 2013 at 7:50 pm

      You are aware this is specifically *adult* programming right? It doesn’t make it right, but be extra careful.

    7. katie evans
      July 27, 2013 at 8:06 am

      I Totally Agree With The 3 Comments Before Me.WhO Are The Sponsors, And How Do We Get This OfF The Air? Maybe Bill O’Reilly Could Help! :)

    8. brandon johantges
      July 31, 2013 at 7:20 pm

      I thought the duck tales sketch was kinda funny. Also I don’t see the harm since it airs so late anyway and only airs once a week. Plus the television is for everybody not just kids. so if a group of people like something do we have the right to force it off the air because we don’t. Shouldn’t we be fair to the people that do like ADHD, Good Christian B******, Playboy Club, and Skins don’t they have the right to watch what they like.

      • Christopher Gildemeister
        August 1, 2013 at 8:12 am

        Brandon,

        Certainly, the PTC recognizes the right of adults to view adult-themed material if they wish. However, we believe the place for such material is on premium, pay-per-view cable or satellite TV – in much the same way that, 30 years ago, adults could purchase pornography in specialty shops or by asking for it specifically, but unlike today, didn’t have it clogging everyone’s mail on a daily basis.

        Yes, legally, the networks are permitted to show this kind of content during the “safe harbor,” between 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. But Fox Chairman Kevin Reilly has stated openly, “I see [ADHD] as a seeding ground for prime time. I would like to grow the next Family Guy out of that period.” So, ADHD may be airing My Little Cowboys or Scientifically Accurate DuckTales at midnight NOW; but if Reilly gets his way and advertisers support it, in five years or less, such shows could be on at 7 o’clock in the evening, where they will be far more accessible to children. That is why we are encouraging people to take action against the show’s sponsors now.

        Moreover, ADHD is airing on broadcast TV. The networks don’t own the broadcast airwaves – the American people do. American citizens also have the right of free speech, and the freedom to use that right to urge the Federal Communications Commission, advertisers, and the entertainment industry to clean up the media environment, just as public pressure urged the Environmental Protection Agency and industry to clean up pollution emissions decades ago.

        Thank you for your comment.

        Christopher Gildemeister

        • Jonathan
          August 7, 2013 at 4:44 pm

          If it got moved to a prime time block, wouldn’t the episodes allowed to be produced and aired become considerably more restricted?

          • Christopher Gildemeister
            August 9, 2013 at 9:48 am

            Jonathan,

            You’d hope so. But given that Fox has publicly said there should be no limits on what they can show in prime time, that boss Kevin Reilly has said, “I want to grow the next Family Guy” out of ADHD, and the content that’s on Family Guy already…can you really depend on it?

            Thanks for your comment.

    9. Linda Midkiff
      July 31, 2013 at 7:46 pm

      For all the people who are disgusted by this offering (as I am), the tab at the top of this site has a section for e-alerts, which I think will give us the info on the sponsors of this programs. Lets get busy!

    10. August 1, 2013 at 8:14 am

      My child has this medical condition and people do not understand the struggle these kids face everyday. This is up right Discrimination. It is like using all the other prejudicial words against people. These are sensitive children that are stigmatized now. To perpetuate
      this injustice is to amplify the bullying they receive by people who are ignorant about their situation. Your Just Wrong and Insensitive. Think about these kids, No more Bullying!! Educate not perserve bigotry.

    11. Francesco
      August 1, 2013 at 8:17 am

      THANK YOU VERY MUCH for translating this FABOLOUS opening remake!
      I’m italian and some words are too difficult to understand.
      Really. Thanks. :)

    12. Francesco returns
      August 1, 2013 at 8:21 am

      Whoops, lapse. I meant “thanks for WRITING lyrics”. It’s me who is translating in Italian.

      • Christopher Gildemeister
        August 1, 2013 at 10:05 am

        Figurati. :-)

    13. Jonathan
      August 7, 2013 at 5:38 pm

      Fact check:

      “Danger! Duck’s behind you

      If you’re a girl ducks will grind you.

      A human girl shrieks as a duck lands in her hair and humps her head.”

      It’s a human boy wearing a pair of headphones and there’s no shrieking. Also, I can’t be confirm on the lyrics, but it sounded more like “boy or girl a duck will grind you” which would fit the actual imagery in the video.

      Also, it’s “Have Salmonella, H5N1, bird flu.”

      That said, thank you posting lyrics.

    14. The7Sticks
      August 10, 2013 at 3:29 pm

      It sounds to me that the main target of this cartoon is the twenty-to-thirty-year-old demographic that grew up watching “Ducktales” back in the late 1980s. Yeah, it sounds stupendously juvenile, but I’m sure children are not being targeted to watch this based on the fact that the original DuckTales cartoon was made and aired twenty-five years ago, long before today’s kids were born and would not have very wide access to the show other than DVDs. From my experience, the traditional audience for adult cartoons are twenty-year-old college students that get high on cannabis and regularly attend Comic-Con. I don’t believe children under the age of 17 should watch these shows, which is why the shows are being aired in the safe harbor period, and I can only point to bad parenting if they allow their kids to stay up past 9:00 at night. It doesn’t seem impossible, to me at least, to monitor what your kids watch and play. I tend to believe parents who want the job done for them are either lazy or incompetent at their job, and should really have no business raising kids in the first place if they are not up to it. And no, I don’t accept “having too many things to do” or “there’s not enough time” as legitimate excuses because there is all the time in the world for your kids.

      • Christopher Gildemeister
        August 19, 2013 at 1:00 pm

        It doesn’t seem impossible, to me at least, for writers to produce something other than profanity-riddled sex comedies and serial killer dramas. I tend to believe that writers who inundate the airwaves with such fare are either lazy or incompetent at their job, and should really have no business creating entertainment for American television in the first place if they are not up to it. And no, I don’t accept “but that’s my job” or “I’m a creative genius!” as legitimate excuses, because there are all the job opportunities in the world for a truly creative individual, rather than corrupting kids.

    15. Steve Zarebski
      August 17, 2013 at 12:27 pm

      your site is fucking stupid change the fucking channel then you pussys

      • Steve Zarebski
        August 17, 2013 at 12:30 pm

        All you people posting on this site blow to and are a bunch ass hole with sheltered and shitty children

        • Christopher Gildemeister
          August 19, 2013 at 12:49 pm

          Steve,

          Thank you for your comments. They clearly display the depth of intelligence, concern, and careful thought which PTC’s opponents put into their opinions.

          Isn’t it nice to see that the attitudes and profane language promoted in shows like ADHD have absolutely no influence on viewers?

    16. Pri
      August 28, 2013 at 9:59 am

      This is a joke, right? No one is actually taking this for serious, right? We all know this wasn’t intended for kids and that it is actually pretty funny, RIGHT?

      • Christopher Gildemeister
        August 28, 2013 at 10:15 am

        Fox Chairman Kevin Reilly is taking it “for serious,” since he intends it to be the foundation of prime-time programming in a few years. If it wasn’t “intended for kids,” why is the ADHD website marketing itself to kids — and why did teen viewership go up 100% in one week?

        If you think naked headless corpses of women and “jokes” about bullying, prostitution, teen sex, and so forth are funny, then I guess yes, you’d also find ADHD “actually pretty funny.”

    17. Amy ways
      September 8, 2013 at 7:23 am

      I enjoy some of the more vulgar programmes on t.v., but this lacks any intelligence and is just downright ridiculous. At least watching some of the more recent things slipping by you have to use a grain of sense to decipher some innuendos etc… but this is handed on a plate in such a way that it has no appeal to anyone with any intellect. The only demographics this will appeal to are either teenagers or total morons!

    18. Luke
      September 28, 2013 at 3:10 pm

      I find it disturbingly ironic that you seek to use freedom of expression to push for the suppression of that very freedom. The fact is, nothing is sacred. Nothing is below mention or depiction, and nothing is too pure to be ridiculed. If someone wishes to take an old cartoon franchise and add a dose of reality, for all of its grim and unpleasant details, why should they be prohibited?

      The government is not a substitute for actual parenting. The responsibility of controlling what you believe is a bad influence for your children sits solely upon your shoulders, and should not extend past your own family. Other parents may not share your opinions, and it’s not fair to them to have those choices decided for their families.

      Perhaps — instead of lobbying to bowdlerize and water down the mass media — you could cut your television service entirely. You’ll probably be better off for it too. However, if you insist on wasting your time policing people’s boob tubes, you’d probably have much more impact investing your energy in developing a sterilized alternative to Hulu or Netflix. The people that want none of your prissy helicopter parenting would be satisfied, and you’d have you comfortable, sheltered bubble for children that’ll grow up to be depressed, anxious wrecks.

      • Christopher Gildemeister
        September 30, 2013 at 9:01 am

        There’s an old expression by John Dunne: “No man is an island.” What happens in one part of the culture influences everyone. So even if I do “just change the channel,” and prevent my children from seeing noxious content, I and they will still be affected…as will the culture at large, in which we all have to live.

        It has long been understood that there are certain things which are harmful to society as a whole, and which it is acceptable to limit for that reason. That’s why we don’t permit children to buy tobacco, liquor, or firearms, or televise hard-core pornography and live executions in prime time. Or would you be okay with, say, the Ku Klux Klan advocating executions of African-Americans for hours each night on broadcast TV? How about a “Homphobia Channel” on cable? By your argument, that would be “freedom,” too.

        You also demonstrate the inherent illogic and hypocrisy that we’ve heard so many times. “If parents don’t like it, it’s their responsibility to prevent their kids from seeing it.” But when the parents do prevent their kids from seeing it, you claim, without evidence, that such children will be “depressed, anxious wrecks. ” So, you DO acknowledge that what kids see or don’t see influences their future well-being…but you apparently assume that parents who let their kids watch porn and play Grand Theft Auto 5 are producing much healthier children.

        You may cloak your argument in the language of “freedom,” but ultimately, it is an utterly selfish one. You care nothing about the rights of others, or the good of society or future generations. Essentially, what you’re saying boils down to, “*I* like to watch garbage…so I should be able to force it over the airwaves the American people as a whole own, even if the vast majority disagree with it and don’t want to see it. And if it’s on cable, I should be able to force everyone to PAY for it.”

        If you want, say, hard-core pornography, fine. Subscribe to a hard-core pay-per-view channel. But you have no inherent “right” to force YOUR beliefs on millions of people who don’t share them, or require them to pay for it. And people who don’t share your tastes have rights, too…even the right of free speech, and to protest things with which they disagree. Much as you obviously hate it, that’s called “democracy.”

    Leave a Reply

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *