Comeuppance for The Conners

Trying to slop the public with weak television fare after firing its star, Roseanne Barr, over a bad tweet, ABC's post-Roseanne 'The Conners' is not doing well in the ratings. According to Roger Friedman's Showbiz 411:

“The Conners” dropped in everything last night–total viewers, key demo. In the nightly ratings battle. the “Roseanne” spin off continues to trend downward.

Last night, “The Conners” was beaten by everything- “NCIS,” “The Voice,” etc. This was their first really objective run, no World Series, nothing to distract potential viewers.

But the key demo sank, which isn’t a good sign. And the total viewers were down by 180K, which is a lot, frankly. People are leaving and they’re not coming back.

This, despite the gushing reviews from the leftwing press about how good the Roseanne-free show was.

‘The Conners’ Is Almost Sweet Enough to Make Up for the ‘Roseanne’ Fiasco -Daily Beast

Without Roseanne, ‘The Conners’ move on with a new family dynamic that’s sharp, funny and cuts deep -Los Angeles Times

‘Roseanne’ Re-do Fills a TV Void -Rolling Stone

The latter's subhed gushed this:

The ghost of Roseanne Barr hung over its premiere, but strong writing and performances make this potentially awkward revamp one of fall’s most promising new series

Oh. And now we learn the audience is avoiding this show like a bad smell. Showbiz411 reports that the producers have ordered just one more show from the ten-series program, which it notes, sounds like a finale. What's more, the producer of the show, with a highly paid cast, which was highly paid primarily because of the starpower of Roseanne herself, has proven a drain on the show's money-making capacity in the original. Worse still, with just 11 in the series, Werner TV cannot syndicate it, which is where the real money in television comes from. It can only tack on the audience-rejected shows to the existing syndication packages.

Which raises questions as to why it was so loathed. Based on what I've found, it's in the heaping helpings of political correctness.

One, there was its 'eat your peas' origins in the very firing of the show's star, Roseanne Barr. As I wrote at the time:

Because firing Roseanne was an astoundingly dumb call, amounting to shutting off the TV set of the public for the sake of virtue-signalling to PBS-watching whites, and obviously it was noticible to the public, given that large numbers of them enjoyed that show. What a coincidence: Polls from a new book shows that more than 80% of the entire public (across racial lines) can't stand political correctness. I wouldn't be surprised if this show shutdown had something to do with it.

Two, another gushing reviewer, George Hatza of the Reading Eagle, outlined what the newer show was about, naively imagining that he was describing a good thing:

This is a family that talks a lot but rarely (at least in larger gatherings or for any length of time) discusses disturbing issues. Those feelings fester. Becky, divorced and broke, is dealing with alcoholism. She is pathologically lonely. But then so is everyone in this crowded little abode.

What “The Conners” does better than any other show currently on television is to explore the lives of the lower middle class. These are folks in desperate need of health care and jobs that pay a decent wage. These are the folks who actually need tax cuts. However, these also happen to be the folks who, for the most part, tend to support the White House's current resident who, along with a puppet Congress, saw to it that those essentials were eliminated.

The elephant in the room here is that Roseanne, who died because she couldn't afford her prescriptions, voted for Donald Trump. Sister Jackie did not. And those decisions led to an estrangement between them that now leaves Jackie reeling.

So the new show has moved on from the firecracker starpower of Roseanne defying the grim reality to a new show that's just another scold to the deplorables for voting for Trump, along with a typical Democratic Party argument that President Trump has made them downwardly mobile.
That's a channel-flipper right there.
Last I read, wages are rising. Jobs are forming. Investment is returning. Bonuses are there and taxes are lower. And the lot of the working class is most certainly improving, (except on the political correctness front.) Yet the picture painted is straight out of the late Obama administration with its working class whites living in their mom's basements, taking opioids, living off food stamps, and killing themselves. It's so ... 2014.
Then there was the latest episode over Halloween costumes and political correctness, described by USA Today:

Unfortunately, Mark’s Frida didn’t pass muster, either, as the principal rejected the costume “because it falls under cultural appropriation.”

“No, it’s cultural appreciation,” Darlene said. “He loves Frida Kahlo.”

“He has not experienced what a person of that ethnicity has experienced,” the principal said. “Therefore, he does not have a legitimate entitlement to use or wear any element of their ethnic identity.”

When Darlene and Mark returned home, she explained the situation to her less sensitive father. “You were still mostly wrong, but this guy was mostly wrong, too. So, what have we learned? Men are wrong.”

“Uh, Mom, I’m a man,” Mark said.

“Yes, you are, son. Welcome to Wrong Island,” Dan responded, clearly knowing his place.

Is that supposed to be funny? It sure doesn't fall under the exaggerations required of satire, given the appalling reality out there.
Bottom line, does it sound like anything you'd like to watch or re-live? Sound like a show you'd like to kick back on the sofa to watch after a hard day's work? Right there you can tell that the show is politically correct even without its saying so. And just as bad, it's behind the times.
Any questions as to why the audience is bailing?
Image credit: Monterey Media, via Flickr // CC BY-SA 3.0