WTF?

[bladespark]

So I was expressing my dislike of the TV show CSI to somebody in a casual conversation. This dislike is based mostly on the harm CSI has done to my personal reputation, as it means I have, on a few occasions, had to explain to somebody that NO fursuits are not for sex, and NO my career is not about being a nasty pervert.

She responds that she loves the show, because it promotes fighting crime!

I am a bit startled by this, and respond that no, it's about sensationalism and getting viewers to watch, not about fighting crime.

And she says that they're all about accuracy, why they talked to REAL FURRIES before doing that episode, and got the approval of REAL FURRIES for the script!

So... because somewhere there's at least one real furry that thinks that portrayal is accurate, this means CSI is dedicated to accuracy?

NO. CSI is a TV show. It is dedicated to getting viewers to watch it, thus it is dedicated to sensationalism. End of story. It is not trying to raise awareness of crime fighting. It is trying to get people to watch TV and the commercials that come with. If they were interested in accuracy, the show would tank horribly, because most of the exciting bits where they deal directly with criminals would never happen. Because CSI people DO NOT interview suspects, or chase them down or any of that. They examine and analyze crime scene evidence, and that is ALL they do. End of story. Fin. There is no possible argument here.

But I'm making bets that she's going to reply and argue anyhow.

Comments

[beetlecat.livejournal.com]

I quote:

For example, on CSI, a computer automatically matches fingerprints to those in its database. But in real life, scientists must perform such detailed work. And while DNA testing on the show is instant, in real life it takes at least a week.

There have been some obvious errors. In one episode during the first CSI season, scientists put a casting material into a stab wound and let it harden. When they pulled it out, the cast was in the shape of a knife.

"That's totally unrealistic," Gialamas said.

Real-life investigations, of course, take a lot longer than they do on television.

"We don't show any of the immense amount of documentation that has to be done in the field," said Devine, the CSI producer. "Nobody wants to see someone sitting at their desk taking notes."

Real-life forensic scientists are also often too busy to focus on a single case.

(from http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/09/0923_040923_csi_2.html)

CSI being absolutely and totally accurate makes me laugh. Watch 'Forensic Files' if you want accurate. It's actually based upon real cases.

[2dlife.livejournal.com]

My fellow scientists and I treat CSI like a comedy. It works well -- we love the show. We make fun of the perfectly sectioned microscopy slides, the pure GCMS results, the instantaneous PCR etc. (It helps that we've done most of those techniques in lab before.) Accuracy!? That's probably the funniest idea I've heard all day. On the flip side, I think there are more episodes where fraternities come up and some pledge is murdered or something, but it really doesn't ruffle my feathers... I know it's not true (trust me, I hear about pretty much every time a national fraternity makes the news.) So I advise you to not be riled up either... I wouldn't say that CSI is the cause of the furry = sex stereotype.

[beetlecat.livejournal.com]

I do that too :)

I just have to laugh when they find all of the exact bits of edvidence they need for a case.

I mean one ep had them investigate a person that fell off a cliff, and they knew she fell off a cliff because some of the rocks they had collected under her body turned out to be a certain type that is only found on this cliff!

Or how, at the end of each episode, they always make these fuzzy logical leaps and the suspect *always* sees that they have it all figured out and confesses.

But, it's still good entertainment :D

[dexam.livejournal.com]

I saw that episode. While I'm not a furry, basically I viewed it as the shows writers looking for a "new and interesting" twists, rather than re-hashing the same old story (although, it seems that many of the episodes do seem to be the same-old same-old with a different coat of paint. But I digress...)

Anyway, in an effort to find "new and interesting", I've noticed that the writers are exploiting sub-cultures. Or, more accurately, facets of sub-cultures. So rather than just a "guy in furry suit gets shot" investigation, they spice things up by introducing the usual "jealousy" potential motive. Since "jealousy = sex", the writers use the very broad assumption of "furries who have sex = yiffing". In a similar episode, they had a murder investigation into a bunch of vampire LARPers (yet another sub-culture), some of whom were taking things a bit too far. Like C, I spent most of the episode laughing at it. Yes, some very small number of vampire LARPers do actually want to be vampires (they should probably seek help). The majority just want to dress up and act weird with friends for a few hours a week.

Viewers who are unfamiliar with the sub-culture tend to assume that the facet presented in a 45 minute show is the whole of the sub-culture, and when it's something they find even slightly disagreeable (and a murder investigation tends to display the more disagreeable side of any culture, sub or mainstream), they are usually not inclined to look further into it to find the truth of the matter.

Shows like CSI tend to be a bit of win/lose situation for sub-cultures. Win, because they give mainstream exposure that the sub-cultures would necessarily receive. Lose, because they often show the worst side of those sub-cultures.


Just my two bits ;)

[streakthetiger.livejournal.com]

People are funnies. :D

I never liked CSI. It`s boring as all hell.

[sparkindarkness.livejournal.com]

you need to promote fighting crime now? Why?

And if I look close enough I can find someone from ANY community who will agree with anything. People are dumb like that

CSI is not accurate, it is painful for anyone with any law enforcement knowledge to watch to an extent of being laughable

90% of the nice CSI people may look at a crime scene but usually spend it in boring labs

That's the only episode of CSI I ever watched.

[crucifox.livejournal.com]

It reruns on SpikeTV every now and then, usually around October. Last time it was on, a friend of mine, while flipping through the channels, came in right on the big fursuit/plushie orgy scene. He said he thought of me. I knew he was just trying to get my dander up, but on the other hand, I also knew he was more or less telling the truth.

My biggest problem (other than the orgy scenes, obviously) was just how incredibly stupid every conversation the characters had to explain furry was. Honestly, I would have been fine with the episode if they just portrayed us as a bunch of dorks, with a few outlyers with bizarre kinks, instead of making us sound like some weird cult with built in orgies. Also, kind of nitpickey, but I find it hard to believe that the convention would just go on as normal after not one, but two con-goers end up dead.

If I were the furry "specialist" I would have changed the first convention scene so that the con-goers at least show some goshdarn emotion when they learn somebody died. Maybe request they add a line from some furry about "Oh, great, he was one of the wierd ones, too." somewhere along the line.

[jtbeckett.livejournal.com]

i enjoy watching CSI, but I absolutely agree with you that it is completely inaccurate and sensationalized.

I would never have heard of the furry fandom had it not been for CSI... and I did not get into making costume bits because I thought they had an actual portrayal... likely if I believed everything on there, I probably WOULDN'T have gotten into making costume bits for furries.

As long as you're willing to allow some of us our guilty pleasures, I don't mind how you feel about the show... ;-)

[draggo.livejournal.com]

I almsot was an extra on the Furry CSI episode. The only thing that stopped me was the 150 mile drive each way. E-mail me if you want the details behind that episode and what scenes where real furries used as extras. I got to hear about all of the details in advance and what is going on as well. I do have a few friends who did go as well.

[bladespark.livejournal.com]

I have to wonder about you.

I say that I dislike a show, and you say you wanted to be involved in the show. Not only in the show, but in the SPECIFIC episode that is the cause for my dislike.

I now think I dislike you by contamination.

[draggo.livejournal.com]

Actually I don't watch CSI at all. It came up on an e-mail list when I used to live in California. I deccided to participate becuase they were paying everyone who participated $100 for just walking around all day. That was a lot of money for someone in College at the time. There is a LOT more to it than I have mentioned here. The negative stuff came up after they asked the local furry community for extras and aired it. They didn't use anyone from the local furry community for the dirty stuff at all because "it may be too offensive for them."

It's too long to post here. You'll be surprised at what really happened. It's best to know all of the facts before forming any opinions.

A basic summary of what happened is that I am glad I didn't go after it aired and they tried to make us look REALLY bad. That episode could have been MUCH WORSE! The dirty stuff was only 2 pages in the script. It was originally the entire script. We were able to make them completely rewrite the script except for 2 pages. The director absolutely refused to remove them because he wanted to keep some sort of stereotype in it. We didn't find out what was left in the script until after it aired.

Also part of the reason I didn't go is when a good friend backed out of it. He has a lot of experience dealing with the media.

If you want to know the details then e-mail me. There is a lot that happened during that time.

[gungho-squirrel.livejournal.com]

Like dis?

http://www.vgcats.com/comics/?strip_id=61

Don't worry, exactly what you've said has been said by many others.

I still really like the show though. The Las Vegas one (which is the one that featured furries). I find the furry episode funny, but yes, it has caused me to have to argue my hobby with family and friends. But now that they know, most of them are cool with it. *shrug*

I don't claim it's accurate at all, but it's still a really good show- it's put together nicely.

[silveradept]

I wouldn't take that bet, because she will reply and argue that television trumps reality when it comes to accuracy. Because we all know that TV doesn't lie, or fudge things, or write things that aren't true, even for fantastical shows like Charmed.

Not at all.

Sounds like that girl needs to take Turn Off the TV Week out for a spin soon. Hopefully the shock of reality won't be too much for her.