June Bugged: Cartoon Network's Controversy

Who was right and who was wrong in the "June Bugs" Cartoon Network fiasco? Martin "Dr. Toon" Goodman reveals that that is not the question...it is, of course, a much deeper issue.

By Martin Goodman | Wednesday, July 11, 2001 at 12:00 am

Posted In | Columns: Dr. Toon

The wascally wabbit himself. © AOL Time Warner.

April showers bring May flowers, but June traditionally brings a special treat to all lovers of classic Warner Bros. cartoons: it's the month when Cartoon Network clears the decks for their annual "June Bugs" -- as in Bugs Bunny -- marathon. Whether one is a scholar of the Runyonesque rabbit or a casual fan enjoying the antics of animations most adorable antagonist, this is the opportunity to immerse one's self in a cavalcade of carrot-chomping hilarity. This year's Rabbitfest was the most ambitious ever attempted; a full retrospective of every cartoon ever to star the mercurial bunny. What's up, Doc? We were, from the opening shots of Porky's Hare Hunt to the fade out on From Hare to Eternity. When at last our reddened eyeballs and overheated VCRs found repose we had witnessed legend, as interpreted by some of the most talented directors and skilled artisans ever to ply the craft. A marathon indeed! Forty-nine hours -- June 1 through June 3 -- were needed in order to see them all. For the record, Bugs' career spans sixty-two years, and the Bugs Bunny manifest includes nearly one hundred and eighty shorts. Fifty-five of those cartoons made their debut during this amazing tribute...but the cartoons we didn't see were the ones that snared the headlines.

Bugs Trivia

Click above for the answer!

The Twelve and Their Legacy
There weren't many -- only twelve -- and the reason they made news was the upshot of a clash between Cartoon Network executives and their owners, AOL Time Warner. It was the intention of Cartoon Network (and former president Betty Cohen) to present a retrospective that was not only entertaining but historical. As Ms. Cohen told the Wall Street Journal (5/4/01): "We wanted to please the animation community." Unfortunately, the manifest included a dozen cartoons with potentially offensive racist content. The shorts featured questionable gibes aimed at blacks, Native Americans, Eskimos, and our erstwhile foes of WWII, the Japanese. Even though the annual "June Bugs" fest was planned as early as February, it appears that Cartoon Network did not inform their parent company of their full plans until April 26. AOL Time Warner, owner of the licensing and merchandising rights to the beloved Warner Bros. characters, were leery of these cartoons. Their argument held a modicum of merit: offended parties tend to protest -- and worse -- to boycott. Further complicating matters was Warner's recent launching of a new Website (LooneyTunes.com) designed to drum up even more interest in their classic stable of stars. While no one knows how much Bugs and his buds are actually worth, tending fifty contracts to Alex Rodriguez, baseball's highest paid star at over US$20 million a year, would likely render the lesser figure. Big Daddy Warner reportedly stopped short of an actual veto, but sometimes whispers speak louder than words; as April came to a close Betty Cohen pulled the Twelve from the lineup, conceding that, "I don't like sweeping things under the rug. I wanted to honor the intense interest that animation fans have for us, but I can't deny that we're a mass medium."

Printer-friendly version

Comments

In comparisson to cartoons that are aired today, Bugs Bunny is minor. I agree that now I am an adult I do recognize why there is a discussion taking place but as a child watching Bugs Bunny I did not pick up on those ideals and only saw the entertainment value. Bugs was at lease subtle where as todays newer cartoons are very much in your face with snott bubbles and farting and some of the craziest story lines I have ever seen. Everyone wants to critisize Bugs but I dont remember any negative impacts to my school mates nor myself from watching it. Why aren't people protesting these as well? Why is it ok for the children today to watch these mis porportioned female cartoon characters and nasty bodily functions and dis regard for athority that is so dominant today?

Reply to this Comment

Rhonda H. (not verified) | Tue, 04/18/2006 - 00:00 | Permalink

In response to pulled "Bugs" It is clear to me that the exclusion of the "Bugs" episodes was an appropriate decision. It wasn't all that long ago that folks claimed television, or movies, did not stir viewers to unacceptable views and behaviors, eventhough, Malcolm McClaren had writen and spoken about it throughout the sixties. It is now generally accepted to be so. It is an apparently complex subject, but the argument that suggests we should view these animated works now, in the context of "their times" could quite easily be used to endorse the continued use of the Confederate flag (an interesting design), or even multiple wives for men (a biologically driven behavior). "See you later Mister Arab" is a bit much don't you think?

Reply to this Comment

Peter MacWhirter (not verified) | Mon, 11/05/2001 - 01:00 | Permalink

I agree that The Twelve should have been shown. Yes, discrimination and racism exist. One of the ways that we can help to eliminate them is to learn from our mistakes. Our children are not going to learn to respect all people reguardless of skin color or ethinic status unless we help to make them aware. They need to know what happened in the past so that they are able to determine that it was wrong and take the steps to prevent it from happening. Blocking what happened in the past will not benefit anyone. You cannot erase discrimination and racism like they never existed, but you can help to prevent it in the future, through awarness and knowledge.

Reply to this Comment

Sam Tallman (not verified) | Thu, 07/26/2001 - 00:00 | Permalink

Dr. Toon wonders whether the showing of one cartoon exceeds the stereotypical racism of a sproting event. My question is: why does it have to? Judge it on its own merit. While I think there is value in highlighting these 12 as documentary of offense (as well as staining the intelectual properties of the venerable AOL/WB/WeOwnYouCorp) I must say I applaud their decision to hold them back from broadcast. Levi Strauss used to advertise that their blue jeans were made with "100% White Labor" as a sign of quality (and perhaps sterility?). Sure, it should be documented, by do we thumb our noses at Levi's for not including that tag line in their ads today? And just like Levi's jeans, Bugs is not art: Bugs is business.

Reply to this Comment

leMel 42 (not verified) | Thu, 07/19/2001 - 00:00 | Permalink

This kind of political correctness is bound to happen more often, as larger and larger conglomerates start producing our entertainment, news and other media. If Warner Brothers Animation were still a fairly small entity, a few people in charge could decide to take a chance with the Bugs cartoons running unedited. But this is now AOL Time Warner, who can't afford to upset anyone in even a slight matter. Also, decisions like this have to go through many layers of hierarchy, any part of which can protest the decision. We can always hope for the best, that something wonderful will come about despite the committees, the lawyers and the executives without courage. And sometimes the best occurs. But it's still the minor players, the small companies, and the individuals with powerful computers and lots of time to produce shows that are the real hope of creative entertainment. It's worth hunting such creators in the small film festivals and science fiction/fantasy conventions. Unlike the folks at official film festivals, people showing at small shows aren't hoping to snag that marvelous high-paying job with King Kong Konglomerate Films - they just want to make movies.

Reply to this Comment

Thomas E. Reed (not verified) | Tue, 07/17/2001 - 00:00 | Permalink

The disclaimer of the Cartoon Network says it all:"Cartoon Network does not endorse the use of racial slurs. These vintage cartoons are presented as representative of the time in which they were created and are presented for their historical value." Considering the ban, all live action films showing bad red commis, and any other racist/political/sexual stereotypes should be banned from TV... same with violence.

Reply to this Comment

Norm Rompre (not verified) | Fri, 07/13/2001 - 00:00 | Permalink

I think we need to be left to make up our own minds, but presenting the so-called Dirty Dozen in some sort of historical context might be necessary. They did this on the "ToonHeads" show by presenting clips of cartoons from World War II; the narrator mentioned the use of stereotype may not seem funny by today's standards, but that's how it was Way Back Then. Show the Dirty Dozen with similar narration at the beginning. To deny the viewing public these important cartoons is denying history and insulting their intelligence by not letting them decide for themselves what is/isn't funny. (And I'll go on record that "Coal Black and de Sebben Dwarves"is my favorite Bob Clampett Warner Bros. toon!)

Reply to this Comment

Andy Dunn (not verified) | Thu, 07/12/2001 - 00:00 | Permalink

Dr. Toon wrote: "Let the Twelve be shown again, but with the sensitivity, consideration, and intelligence needed to portray a regrettable part of our past history. I believe we can handle it." It's this mentality of calling this humor regrettable that further makes it impossible to see these shorts. Ethnic humor is a staple of comedy, as time-honored as the pie-in-the-face, and it will remain in the comedian's arsenal for as long as comedy exists. Some of the humor may be crass by our modern day standards, but is it any more crass than the caricatures of Indian people (from India) on THE SIMPSONS. Fifty years from now, we may find it very unacceptable to make light of Indian immigrants working for low wages at 24-hour mini-marts, but I hardly think it would be fair to then call THE SIMPSONS a regrettable part of our past history. Sensitivity to all cultures is an impossibility in whatever age you're living in. There's always going to be some groups of people that'll be caricatured excessively. People need to lighten up and accept it for what it was meant to be - the comedy of a certain period. But it's hypocritical to criticize the past so vehemently when we create equally harsh ethnic humor in modern times (only we've replaced the blacks and Jap with more "acceptable" cultures for parody).