“Roseanne” and the Divided States

    I was not among the 18M who tuned in to the reboot of the “Roseanne” television show. The lead characters on the series are Trump supporters. Roseanne Barr is a Trump supporter in real life. For me, there is nothing to see. Barr received a congratulatory call from Donald Trump, further sealing the idea that this is not my type of show. Black Twitter had a mostly negative response to the show, but some loved the nostalgia and attempt to show both sides of the argument. At some point we will get a racial breakdown of the audience. Roseanne’s sister is the white Liberal on the show, and if the article is accurate, seems to be a caricature. In a NYT op-ed, Roxane Gay points out that “Roseanne” attempts to normalize Trump. Trump is a bigot, racist, and homophobe. The show tries to sugarcoat the obvious fact by have a black granddaughter (with few lines), and a gender option dressing grandson. The Liberal sister does not challenge Roseanne about Trump’s racism or LGBT comments. In fact, Roseanne forgives her sister for not voting for Trump.

    Roxane Gay importantly points to a trap that I among others have fallen into. Trump is said to be the choice of the struggling white middle class. We accept that as truth. In fact the average income of the white Hillary Clinton voter was  about $60K while the average income of the white Trump voter was about $70K. This economic about Trump voters was detailed further in an article in the WaPo. Hillary won the struggling white working class. 

    The geography of the viewership was interesting. Tulsa led the viewing numbers. The viewers were concentrated in the Middle of the country. From the Hollywood Reporter:

    Roseanne's 10 highest-rated markets
    1. Tulsa, Oklahoma
    2. Cincinnati, Ohio
    3. Kansas City, Missouri
    4. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
    5. Chicago, Illinois
    6. Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
    7. Detroit, Michigan
    8. Buffalo, New York
    9. St. Louis, Missouri
    10. Indianapolis, Indiana

    Roseanne's 10 lowest-rated markets
    1. Greensboro, North Carolina
    2. San Francisco, California
    3. Jacksonville, Florida
    4. Miami, Florida
    5. New Orleans, Louisiana
    6. Providence, Rhode Island
    7. Salt Lake City, Utah
    8. Memphis, Tennessee
    9. San Diego, California
    10. Baltimore, Maryland

    Roseanne will do well. It plays to the targeted audience. 



    Roseanne's original partner who stayed home to raise her kids thinks she's much more complex than this reboot shows. But I.m a bit tired of 13D chess - once upon a time Trump was a Trojan Dem who'd unveil his true colors once in office. Yeah, there may be better ways to talk to Trump fans, but "dickhead" is growing on me as a 1-size-fits-all greeting.

    I saw maybe bits of 4 episodes of the old Roseanne. Just can't abide family sitcoms with mostly single sets and just didn't see anything special about hers. Not much different than like Cheers or Cosby or Mork and MIndy or Three's Company or Happy Days, all of which I loathed. I know those characters, grew up with them, I don't need to see them act out poorly written scripts on the same middle class set. If we are going to have simple repeated sets,it damn well better be Tony Award winning level dialogue.

    But I could always definitely find an attention span for her standup or an appearance on a talk show over the decades, same exact thing with Bill Cosby or Robin Williams.

    From that, I don't think she tries to play 13D chess. I think her shtick has always been pretty simple: deriding the status quo, political correctness, snobs who think they are better than someone else and people who take themselves seriously..

    I saw someone write the other say that the more Trump destroys the status quo, the more Trump fans like it. Struck me as having some truth. That they don't care about policy so much, they just want him to upset all those pretending to be deadly serious asshole politicians and bureaucrats.They don't expect results from government, a lot of them are cynical pessimists like Roseanne.

    P.S. Comes to mind, I've seen that she's said she wouldn't at all like Pence as president. I suspect a lot of Trump fans feel the same way. It's the country music culture thing, moat was spot on with his John Goodman video.

    Say it, Jesus overturning the tables at the market. God's irreverant muckraker.

    They don't even want Caesar's things left to Caesar. They want to pretend to be beyond him, but still fuck with him. Same with those Pharisees. It's all just standard high school clique acting up in back of class - the kool kidz, the Heathers and what not. God Save the Queen the Fascist Regime without the stage diving and sweat, just the slow-motion contempt.

    I sure am not going to torture myself by watching it.
    But I might cue up a little John Goodman to help ward off evil:



    There was a Dixie Chicks song from the Bush days “Not ready to Make Nice Yet”.That is where I am. Recent elections suggest that a lot of white voters are disgusted with the silence of the GOP just like I am fed up. The Parkland movement suggests that many young people are fed up as well. Being a Trump supporter is not normal. Being silent in the Trump ears is not normal. The bulk of the country does not support racism, bigotry, homophobia, and misogyny. By default, Roseanne Barr does not represent the white working class.

    Hah, totally splains country music. I'm a fan,too. He can do all classes and kinds! For example did a super job playing Rex Tillerson through a great opening skit on SNL on March 17. Normally I would very much dislike a goofy boy movie like The Big Lebowski, but he made it totally bearable.

    Edit to add: My understanding of Roseanne (from reading about it, haven't watched much as I admit in my other comment) is that those lyrics are sort of the theme of the whole show. It's the same old sitcom shtick: families fight and bicker and have crises but in the end they got each other and love each other. Snore! Back in the days when there weren't many options, if I were desperate, I'd rather be tortured by a soap opera, the characters are relatively more complex even though the writing can be worse, at least they don't have laugh tracks.

    I would watch a realistic episode of the show.

    A "mini-series" on gun violence.

    Roseanne gets an AK-47, because she says until The Wall is built, terrorists are free to terrorize her family. She and John feel an assault weapon is the best gun for self defense.

    One day Roseanne picks up and waves around the AK-47 during an argument. She is startled when Goodman chokes on some nachos he is eating, and she accidentally rakes the couch and Goodman with rounds from a 30 round clip. Before he collapses, John said he had just loaded the gun with the new clip they got after a recent school massacre.

    The rest of the season's episodes revolve around his medical care and visits to the hospital which he never leaves, except one day where he goes home vomits blood and passes out and they have to call 911.

    Roseanne blames the tragic incident on Trump haters not letting Trump be Trump and giving money to build the Wall. ..greatest plot ever or what?......would it work for viewers in Trump Country..?

    Roseanne Barr is tweeting support of conspiracy theories that label Trump opponents satanists and sex-traffickers. Barr is a wingnut.


    Wound up watching the last half or so of the rebroadcast and to me it seemed like a nostalgia ride to the look and feel or an early 90s sitcom.  I know that's the point.  The set hasn't changed.  The costumes haven't changed. The rhythms of the script and the jokes and the laugh track are all unchanged. To me, it felt anachronistic.

    Now, it may be that in our purpose.  Is it selling nostalgic to the "Great Again" people who are always looking backwards to better times?  Or has the kind of lower income, white suburban life stagnated to this extent since the 90s so that what looks like an anachronism to an urbanite is really how things are?  Or is it both?

    "Costumes"? you mean sweat pants, overalls, grunge shirts and oversized smocks? Back in the day, the show worked on a kind of lethargic only-slightly repressed-antagonism that generated a tsunami of one-liners.

    I think everyone's missing the point because they're focusing on Roseanne, and her outspoken backing of Trump. The real power of the set is Darlene/aka Sara Gilbert, who's become someone quite different over the years, and is still probably the one we'd most identify with if we wouldn't always get distracted by the one with the biggest mouth. And back in the day, Carroll O'Connor was super liberal while playing a super-conservative blue collar racist loudmouth - along with the steady stream of epiphanies and insights. But in the end, it's just TV, entertainment, a performance.

    Your comment makes me refine my own perspective. While no Chekhov, should keep in mind she fancies herself one with this show. And while I have no doubt the Roseanne Barr has a lot of pro-Trump and "white working class" sympathies, I also have no doubt she is not the same as the character Roseanne Connor. And "not exactly Chekhov" would include not carefully honing scripts but just brainstorming them with things to get a rise out of people. Her brand as I read it from her standup and promotional appearances is: sarcastic iconoclast, don't stereotype me, I wasn't a housewife, I was a domestic goddess, and now I'm a rich bitch who can say what she feels like saying.

    You read the Sara Gilbert bio? I can see her scripting the whole thing, liberal in conservative clothing, using Roseanne as a foil.

    Going on your tip,I googled. Tabloid stuff so take with grain of salt, but still:

    'Roseanne' will never mention President Trump by name, says star ...

    New York Daily News-Apr 1, 2018

    Despite wild reviews from inside the White House, the “Roseanne” reboot won't use President Trump's name, star Sara Gilbert revealed. “The Conners aren't Trump supporters. Roseanne's character is a Trump supporter — she's the only one — and we never say his name, actually, in the show,” Gilbert ...

    Edit to add:  there's also a bunch of new stories today in entertainment media of the kind that are fed by p.r. people saying that Roseanne and Sara are feuding on the set. Sounds like purposeful faux stories for buzz. Trump fans vs. Trump haters is the biggest story around, after all. As the main guy sez: yuge ratings. Yes, I'm cynical now too, I will not be surprised if the whole idea is to hook Trump fans on a story line and then slowly, slowly, after quite a  few episodes, acclimate them to re-thimking on their fandom. Yes, could really be a liberal plot....

    I wasn't trying to be too tabloidy. Real life Darlene is a lesbian married to 4 Non-Blondes singer Linda Parry, co-starred as the shy girl next to the scheming homicidal Drew Barrymore in Poison Ivy, has acted and produced in a number of other TV pieces with very different types of roles, and ifficially seems to be Executive Producer for the Riseanne reboot. I somehow don't think she's gettung dragged along in some Trumpian dystopia against her wishes - I imagine she's deep into trying to make some lemonade out of lemons and find some context to communicate across the divide. I suspect the Archie Bunker show was a learning experience overall for flyover America, not just a joke at their expense, and also suspect that this show might be a bit if a Trojan Horse as well. Just surmising - you heard it here on the q.t. from p.p.

    I was just saying there's already increasing evidence that you may be right. Even to the point where Roseanne tweets may be part of the game.

    Hadn't gotten my first gulp of coffee down. I can see clearly now... (cue marimbas)

    Your comparison to Archie Bunker is quite apt - and has been noted when critics have tried to analyze Roseanne's popularity, both then and now.  O'Connor's portrayal of not only something he wasn't but the exaggerated version of what many were was the butt of the joke: us.  The saving grace for "All In The Family" was the family's (hello, Edith) love of Archie and his gut-level love for them, the obvious admission that  .......... screw it.  All In The Family and Carroll O'Connor's Archie Bunker was so far above and beyond anything Roseanne could even dream of that I can't believe I even tried to equate the two.  Sorry.

    There's an oped by one Kareem Abdul Jabbar, claiming that the Roseanne reboot is actually an anti-Trump wolf in MAGA's clothing.


    I'm not sure I'd agree that it is so much anti-Trump, as continuing to skewer the shibboleths of the American dream as espoused on both sides of the aisle. Having watched the original run, and the new series, I'd say Roseanne did her best to be controversial and get attention, but continues to show that life nearer the bottom of the food chain is as complicated than ever. I like it, but I have to admit that is sad to watch the older version of Becky, again played by Lecy Goranson, having gotten exactly nowhere, especially compared to the well-to-do woman played by Sarah Chalke (who has been a more successful actress as well). Darlene (Sara Gilbert) and DJ (Michael Fishman) at least have their children.

    Working class is defined as the white working class. Minority families are suffering as well. It is a construct used to device us. The truth is that the poor white working class favored Hillary. Jackie represents the poor white working class, not Roseanne.


    Most Trump voters were not working class.


    ​Roseanne was willing to vote for a bigot. Cultural anxiety, not economics influenced her so-called working class vote.




    Jackie voted for Jill Stein. :-)

    I know a lot of Trump voters that are struggling working class.

    FWIW I am seeing a lot of students of demographics switching to "white, no college degree" because sticking with "working class" is not working out so well for understanding a damn thing as to what the 2016 election wrought. Something makes me think like that's not wise either, especially as time goes on more and more people won't fit into a single color of skin on the census and all....

    Which makes me think: what ever happened to the soccer moms? And then: why don't they just go with Facebook analytics and end their self-torture?laugh

    The Census view of race harkens back to the “one drop” rule. Any black heritage made you black by definition. The Census views any mixed race child as a non-white minority. Many mixed race people identify as white. Many dark skinned multiracial people experience discrimination. We are still tribal.


    Watching Black Boys/White Boys from Miloš Forman's Hair - amazing that we seemed on a more relaxed, better path 40 years ago than today, where we could actually laugh at ourselcves, that an immigrant with iffy English could translate this iconic play to the screen (though he did the same with Cuckoo's Nest). RIP, Miloš. Maybe next generation.

    The mistake was that we thought that the evil would just go away and we could all live together  The evil remained and we slept through it. Blacks had to have a Constitutional Amendment to vote. Blacks were lynched if they voted. Blacks had to pay a poll tax. Blacks got special quizzes before they could vote. Then we got gerrymandering Then we got the Voting Rights Act. We went to sleep. The Republican majority on the Supreme Court gutted the VRA. The next day, states put gerrymandering on steroids. We won some voting cases in some states. Then Trump wanted a Voter Fraud Commission without documenting cases of fraud. Hair was a happy time, but we did not stay woke.

    We just disagree with what the tribes are. For example, I suspect many of the people in my Bronx hood would not be happy to be thrown into your big "Afro-American community" label, they consider themselves Dominican-Americans even if very dark skinned. In the South Bronx, yeah, but not in the West Bronx and Inwood neighborhoodsThey don't see themselves as part of the culture you often seem to claim for everyone with dark skin. And Puerto Ricans here, who have been a large force in NYC since the 1950's, they don't really mix well with the culture of the newer Mexican immigrants. As in: not at all, as in: almost like Trump. While they get along with the newer Jamaican immigrant influx, even though they traditionally looked down on them back in the Caribbean. And then there's the attitude of Dominicans toward Haitians: maybe still just as bad, just as prejudiced, as momi and poppi back on the island they shared. Etc

    The larger point I want to make here: the future of politics is micro-targeting.You will no longer be able to convincingly argue to anyone that all black Americans think alike politically or culturally as you often seem to here.  I disagree with you on that front already, it won't be long before nearly everyone else does, do. There will be candidates and issues targeted to yuppie urban blacks and working class blacks, working class mixed, Afro-American Baptist church ladies (who happen to be much more socially conservative than the "Roseanne" character) etc.

    Then there's all the recent immigrants from Africa in NYC and in particular the ones in the South Bronx, traditionally poor and classic Afro-American.  Despite Trump dissing their heritage as "shitholes", I think a lot of them end up leaning Republican. They are into going into business, that's why a lot of them wanted to come here. I.E., taxes, what's that? They'll pay em later when they make a lot of money....

    You make the straw man argument that I claim all black people. I simply point to the fact that the overwhelming majority of black people vote a certain way. I point to a reference that says dark skinned immigrants face discrimination. You respond with an opinion.

    The African American community is diverse, but we do find a common enemy in the GOP when it is time to vote.


    ​I’m looking for data on black immigrant voting patterns. 

    Sheesh, guys - thought we'd riff on Miloš Forman a while. Guess wrong... so much for induced levity.

    Man plans

    God laughs

    If god laughs there's only one reason. It's an old gamer slogan. "You can't have slaughter without laughter."

    I know a lot of financially well off whites who voted for Hillary Clinton. We have to look for data that tells us about larger samples of people.

    Obviously, I’m not watching the show so I goofed on how Jackie voted. Sorry.

    The data I've seen from Nate Silver indicates that if the median income is $48K, the median Clinton voter was at $61K and the median Trump voter was at $70K. Which means a lot of poor folk didn't vote. So, voting stats won't tell us who supported whom.

    Here's a recent talk (1h:32) by Thomas Frank, What to make of the Age ot Trump: https://youtu.be/UPYlE72OzZA

    Jackie was a Clinton supporter, but they had her vote for Stein to set up a joke.


    Clinton decisively won voters making less than $50K per year

    Clinton defeated Trump handily among Americans making less than $50,000 a year. Among voters making more than that, the two candidates ran roughly even. The electorate, however, skews wealthier than the general population. Voters making less than $50,000, whom Clinton won by a proportion of 53 to 41, accounted for only 36 percent of the votes cast, while those making more than $50,000—whom Trump won by a single point—made up 64 percent. The most economically vulnerable Americans voted for Clinton overwhelmingly; the usual presumption is exactly the opposite.

    If you look at white voters alone, a different picture emerges. Trump defeated Clinton among white voters in every income category, winning by a margin of 57 to 34 among whites making less than $30,000; 56 to 37 among those making between $30,000 and $50,000; 61 to 33 for those making $50,000 to $100,000; 56 to 39 among those making $100,000 to $200,000; 50 to 45 among those making $200,000 to $250,000; and 48 to 43 among those making more than $250,000. In other words, Trump won white voters at every level of class and income. He won workers, he won managers, he won owners, he won robber barons. This is not a working-class coalition; it is a nationalist one.


    White Trump voters are anxious about minorities and immigrants



    Looks more like the most economically vulnerable Americans overwhelmingly did not vote.

    I read that Trump lost among white women with a college degree.

    Yes, but I'm still waiting for the update in polling to take into account disenfranchisement, nefative social media, and yes, potentially voters dropped from voting rolls and possibly voted or switched to other candidates thru hacks and other means. We keep getting dribs and drabs over collusion, money and negative fake ads, but I'm still not convinced Putin was relying on those as his game putaway shot - he knew he had it in the bag even if Trump didn't. How?

    And no, per 537, Hillary shouldn't have campaigned more in Wisconsin, to dismiss 1 irrelevant factoid


    Reminder that Kareem came out of a different age, when sportsters could be intelligentsia as well (including his cultivating jazz and his ability to write a really tight impressive op-ed)

    I think the show does something to humanize Trump supporters.

    Roseanne’s most recent episode dealt with Muslim neighbors she thought were building a bomb. When the Muslim family did her a favor they became acceptable.


    There is no reason that the family has to bow to white desires to be acceptable. The show normalizes racism. 


      I thought the show was making fun of Roseanne's racism. I don't think an act of kindness by dark skinned people is "bowing to white desires"; it is just an act of kindness. Would it be better if Muslims were depicted as unkind?

    Why should the Muslims have to prove themselves? Fuck Roseanne. It is a white supremacist view of how Muslims have make an effort to please whites.

    In the name of sticking up for Arabs, you and Ruffin object to Arabs being depicted as kind and decent. That is a strange, reverse morality.  Perhaps you would rather see them depicted as hard, militant, and devoid of generosity, to prove that they aren't uncle toms. But that isn't going to build sympathy for Arabs among television viewers. I think people of all colors and creeds should make an effort to care about others as fellow human beings. Perhaps that makes me an unconscious white supremacist--but I doubt it.

    In order for the Muslims to be seen as worthy, they had to do something that benefited Roseanne. The Muslim family was kind. The problem with ignored their kindness was Roseanne’s issue. Many television viewers have empathy for the fictional Muslim family and are astonished that Roseanne gets a pass. The situation is a white supremacy construct. The Muslim family was “good”, Roseanne couldn’t see that until her selfish needs were satisfied. 

    We almost always learn whether people are "good" or "bad" through their actions. Roseanne had racist preconceptions about Arabs, and the actions of the Arab family showed that they didn't fit the stereotype. She wasn't going to learn better if the Arab couple had been mean, hostile, and belligerent. If depicting Arabs as kind, decent people is "white supremacist", then should we want more negative depictions of Arabs in the media?  The Atlantic and Vox links didn't say that Hilary won the white working class, they said that the white working class went for Trump because of their xenophobia, not because of financial problems.

    Roseanne had a negative image of Muslims. It is her obligation to correct her thought process. She has to educate herself. On a daily basis, we see white people calling police when black people are doing nothing but existing. Blacks have enough on their plate not to have to waste time educating whites. Roseanne is the one with the defect. She is the one who has to change her heart.

    Martin Luther King Jr. favored legislation over changing hearts. 

    Martin Luther King Jr.:

    Now the other myth that gets around is the idea that legislation cannot really solve the problem and that it has no great role to play in this period of social change because you’ve got to change the heart and you can’t change the heart through legislation. You can’t legislate morals. The job must be done through education and religion. Well, there’s half-truth involved here. Certainly, if the problem is to be solved then in the final sense, hearts must be changed. Religion and education must play a great role in changing the heart. But we must go on to say that while it may be true that morality cannot be legislated, behavior can be regulated. It may be true that the law cannot change the heart but it can restrain the heartless. It may be true that the law cannot make a man love me but it can keep him from lynching me and I think that is pretty important, also. So there is a need for executive orders. There is a need for judicial decrees. There is a need for civil rights legislation on the local scale within states and on the national scale from the federal government. [emphasis added]

    Taken from Martin Luther King, Jr.’s address at Western Michigan University, December 18, 1963.

    Roseanne has to fix herself. It is not the job of ethnic minorities to change the hearts of bigots. 

    Why should white supremacists carry no societal burden to improve themselves?

    It is the bigots responsibility to change. Requiring minority groups to educate bigots is insane. What responsibility do LGBTQ people have to educate homophobes? What good deeds must be done? The idea that bigots have to be given something in order to change defies logic.

     The citation from King doesn't really support your position, because King was saying it is good to educate people out of their prejudices, and you are saying it isn't. The fact is, if we decide we won't do anything to educate people, there will be more ignorance and prejudice. The point of the episode was "racists are wrong, many Arabs are decent people". I don't think that is the same as "Arabs must spend their lives proving that they aren't terrorists" I don't think the Arab couple showed kindness to Roseanne's granddaughter because they felt they had to prove something; they felt sincere compassion for the little girl. I think the logic of your and Ruffin's position might require us to oppose any positive depictions of Arabs in the media.  I don't think that would serve any good purpose. Anyway, that is what I think; agree who will.

    You make the assumption that King feels that minorities have the responsibility to educate whites rather than whites educating themselves. That again is based in white supremacy. King felt that many whites felt too superior to put in any effort.

    “Whites, it must frankly be said, are not putting in a similar mass effort to reeducate themselves out of their racial ignorance. It is an aspect of their sense of superiority that the white people of America believe they have so little to learn. The reality of substantial investment to assist Negroes into the twentieth century, adjusting to Negro neighbors and genuine school integration, is still a nightmare for all too many white Americans…These are the deepest causes for contemporary abrasions between the races. Loose and easy language about equality, resonant resolutions about brotherhood fall pleasantly on the ear, but for the Negro there is a credibility gap he cannot overlook. He remembers that with each modest advance the white population promptly raises the argument that the Negro has come far enough. Each step forward accents an ever-present tendency to backlash.”

    — Where Do We Go From Here1967

    Whites need to educate themselves. 

    Here is the message of the episode. Roseanne suspects her neighbors of building a bomb:

    Shortly thereafter it’s revealed that the Conner family is broke and can’t pay their internet bill. This is painted as a tragedy mostly because Roseanne’s Black granddaughter needs to Skype her mother who is stationed in Afghanistan. In a effort to help out this noble cause, they attempt to steal wifi from their neighbors using all sorts of ignorant (and Islamophobic) guesses at their password.

    When their plan fails, Roseanne is forced to pay her neighbors a visit, in the middle of the night, so she can insult them to their faces while asking to borrow their WiFi password.

    For her protection she carries a baseball bat, and the jokes during this scene are particularly cringeworthy. This premise is basically used to allow Barr to make all the crass comments many people in red states and alt-right forums WISH they could make to every Muslim they see. Her face is almost gleeful as she looks the actors in the eyes and delivers her lines.

    And during this dehumanizing exchange the Muslims know their place, they over explain intimate details about their lives to their menacing, bat wielding neighbors with a level of grace and poise that would make even Mother Theresa roll her eyes.

    The message is clear: Even when white people approach you aggressively and talk to you crazy, it’s your job to explain oppression to them, be charming at all times, and never call them out in a way that will make them feel ashamed or chastised for their blatant disrespect



    It is a pile of steaming feces.

    Edit to add:

    It sets the same low bar as an episode of Amos N’ Andy when it comes to educating whites about race relations.

     I think the Arab couple DID call her out in a way that was meant to make her feel ashamed, and I think the complaint that they "knew their place" is rather bizarre.  They were not being at all deferential or submissive.

    I saw nothing educational on a serious level.

    Edit to add:

    The fictional Muslim couple was not the problem. Roseanne was the problem.

    Oh come on, Roseanne is a character just like Archie Bunker, the writers have liberal educational motives in presenting what they do, no different really than Moliere back in his day in France. She's a character meant to make people think about the type of people she serves as a stereotype for and also meant to make those people think about themselves. It can be argued whether it's realist technique here or satiric hyperbole technique, one thing is very clear: Roseanne is not presented as a heroine or role model to emulate.

    It’s a television show. All in the family and the Jeffersons did it better. It is a rehash. 

    Edit to add:

    Roseanne Barr is a Trump supporter playing a fictional Trump supporter in her television series. The real and the fictional are tied together.

    Roseanne’s Muslim family episode is supposed to be “educational”. The fictional Roseanne Conner was allowed to make a joke about two ethnic minority comedies on ABC, “Black-ish” and “Fresh off the Boat”, but an episode of “Black-ish” that was “too controversial” was not allowed to air on the network. Appears a double standard exists for Roseanne.



    Vanity Fair


    Sara Gilbert: The spark that ignited the return of 'Roseanne'

    Boosted by interest in the reunion of the original cast, the premiere totaled more than 25 million viewers, prompting ABC to quickly renew the revival for a second season. The revival gears up for its May 22 season finale after pulling in a weekly average of around 19 million viewers, placing it neck-to-neck with CBS stalwart "The Big Bang Theory."

    Critics are trying to manufacture some evidence of a mean-spirited pro-Trump slant, but Roseanne is basically the same show as it was 20 years ago. If it *was* pro-Trump, I wouldn't waste my time.

    Fox News has millions of viewers. Different shows for different folks.

    Edit to add:

    I find Roseanne offensive.

    I watch Black-ish

    ​I’m not calling for boycotts of Barr’s show. Enjoy.

    Latest Comments