The Shat is back!” — that’s the ABC television promotional slogan for The Shat!William Shatner’s unwatchable new gameshow, Show Me the Money!

Am I the only one offended by that slogan?

I guess the FCC and the ABC censors don’t get the tawdry joke — that is no joke at all — because the show’s on-air promotional material also uses “Shat-Tastic!” and “The Shat Hits the Fans!” and other dreary “Shat-isms” to dirty up the eye and ear of the wanton network viewer.

I wonder if the ridiculous dancers on the show are referred to as “The Shatted” and if the contestants are called “The Shatted Upon?

Shat” — in case you are not aware — is the past and past participle of: “Sh*t.”

The Shatted!

Funny as shat, huh?

I won’t even spell out the present tense version of the word here because it is too crass and ugly.

I’m forced to use “shat” because you can’t criticize a term without using the term — please pass the toilet tissue.

It seems, however, that “shat” is not crass enough or ugly enough to prevent its use for promoting “The Shat” and ABC television to families and their children in prime viewing time.

Celebrating “The Shat” in this manner is yet another sign of the downfall of American popular culture where Prime Time promotional television coverage is once again just played for shats and giggles.

Posted by David Boles

David Boles was born in Nebraska and his MFA is from Columbia University in the City of New York. He is an Author, Lyricist, Playwright, Publisher, Editor, Actor, Designer, Director, Poet, Producer, and Boodle Boy for print, radio, television, film, the web and the live stage. With more than 50 books in print, David continues to write 2MM words a year. He has authored over 25K articles and published more. Read the Prairie Voice Archive at Boles.com | Buy his books at David Boles Books Writing & Publishing | Earn the world with David Boles University | Get a script doctored at Script Professor | Touch American Sign Language mastery at Hardcore ASL.

32 Comments

  1. I think I saw the same promo. What are they thinking?

    Like

    Reply

  2. I have no idea what they are thinking, Anne! I know they’re trying to be funny and cutting-edge — but the level of crassness is just so disappointing. There isn’t much outrage, though.

    Like

    Reply

  3. I don’t think there’s much outrage because most people think it’s short for Shatner.

    Like

    Reply

  4. I think you’re right about that, Anne. I mentioned the whole “Shat-tastic” thing to a friend of mine and he said “you’re probably the only one who knows what it really means.” I guess I hope that’s true because using “sh*t” in a prime time promo would never normally stand — so I guess this is all one big joke on us from ABC television, eh?

    Like

    Reply

  5. I think you’re right about that, Anne. I mentioned the whole “Shat-tastic” thing to a friend of mine and he said “you’re probably the only one who knows what it really means.” I guess I hope that’s true because using “sh*t” in a prime time promo would never normally stand — so I guess this is all one big joke on us from ABC television, eh?

    Like

    Reply

  6. That’s probably so. Keep up the shatty work!

    Like

    Reply

  7. That’s probably so. Keep up the shatty work!

    Like

    Reply

  8. Very punny, Anne. VEEEEEERY punny!😀

    Like

    Reply

  9. Very punny, Anne. VEEEEEERY punny!😀

    Like

    Reply

  10. TV has sunk to a new low – its all gone down the pan.

    Like

    Reply

  11. TV has sunk to a new low – its all gone down the pan.

    Like

    Reply

  12. Nicola!
    What is “the pan” and I agree with you!
    Have you noticed the same decline in cultural taste in the UK?
    Would a “Shat!” type of promo be allowed on your air?
    Is “shat” a commonly known word in your culture?

    Like

    Reply

  13. Nicola!
    What is “the pan” and I agree with you!
    Have you noticed the same decline in cultural taste in the UK?
    Would a “Shat!” type of promo be allowed on your air?
    Is “shat” a commonly known word in your culture?

    Like

    Reply

  14. The pan is the lavatory pan.
    “Down the pan… A Cockney equivalent of down the drain, ruined with no chances left.”
    The US has an equivalent expression – ‘down the tubes’.
    We have similar lowering of taste.
    It might get through on some of the late night channels – it wouldget through before 9.00pm watershed. I suspect it would also attract a lot of complaints the the advertising standards watchdog.
    It inst that common in every day use – most of us know it is the past participle of **i*.

    Like

    Reply

  15. The pan is the lavatory pan.
    “Down the pan… A Cockney equivalent of down the drain, ruined with no chances left.”
    The US has an equivalent expression – ‘down the tubes’.
    We have similar lowering of taste.
    It might get through on some of the late night channels – it wouldget through before 9.00pm watershed. I suspect it would also attract a lot of complaints the the advertising standards watchdog.
    It inst that common in every day use – most of us know it is the past participle of **i*.

    Like

    Reply

  16. Hi Nicola!
    “Down the pan!” Love it! It’s fascinating how “tubes” and “pan” can mean the same thing.
    Is nudity allowed on UK public air television? If so, how much can be shown?

    Like

    Reply

  17. Hi Nicola!
    “Down the pan!” Love it! It’s fascinating how “tubes” and “pan” can mean the same thing.
    Is nudity allowed on UK public air television? If so, how much can be shown?

    Like

    Reply

  18. Any nudity shown before the 9.00pm watershed must be “in context”.

    Meaning of “context”:
    Context includes (but is not limited to):
    * the editorial content of the programme, programmes or series;
    * the service on which the material is broadcast;
    * the time of broadcast;
    * what other programmes are scheduled before and after the programme or programmes concerned;
    * the degree of harm or offence likely to be caused by the inclusion of any particular sort of material in programmes generally or programmes of a particular description;
    * the likely size and composition of the potential audience and likely expectation of the audience;
    * the extent to which the nature of the content can be brought to the attention of the potential audience for example by giving information; and
    * the effect of the material on viewers or listeners who may come across it unawares.”
    Don’t ask about partial nudity – it gets even more confusing there!

    Like

    Reply

  19. Wild, Nicola!
    Are men’s and women’s bare breasts equally banned or is only the woman’s nipple perverted there in public as it is here?
    http://urbansemiotic.com/2006/02/09/perverting-the-nipple/

    Like

    Reply

  20. Mens nipples are fine ….. womens are a no no.
    The tabloids – The Sun, The Mirror , Daily Sport, and the News of the World festure page three girls ( topless and in thongs).
    The rather strange pornogrpahy laws mean that you can show every oriface of a woman but you are not allowed to show a man at more than half mast in publications on sale to the public (top shelf magazines).
    Films are certificated with a special R-18 for sexually explicit material.

    Like

    Reply

  21. Nicola, I love it how strange and wacky the governance of the naked human body is from country to country and even city to city!
    The page three girls have always amazed me. Is Samantha Fox still the most famous one to move beyond the page? What is she doing now?
    Do the pages three girls appear on the web version of the tabloids?
    How, exactly, does one determine if a man is at half mast not? Isn’t every man’s full mast state different in time and temperature?
    Why do you think men’s parts are so firmly protected from the public?

    Like

    Reply

  22. Samantha Fox is probably still up there, with Jordan and Lucinda Lusardi – havent a clue what she is up to now.
    I think they are tacked on the back- posibly with an age disclaimer.
    45 degree angle is the benchmark – so I am told.
    I have never understood why – especially when you can sometimes see a womans tonisils from the bottom. I *suspect* it is to protect us from licentious thoughts or some such drivel !

    Like

    Reply

  23. Hi Nicola!
    I’ll have to remember 45 degrees. I wonder who’s in charge of measuring for violations?!!:mrgreen:
    I think men are protected more than women because “men decide these things” and men lose perceived power and prestige when they disrobe. Women “are tokens to be admired;” I’m sure those men in power believe their brothers deserve the distinction and protection of the legal system from exploitation of the body image.

    Like

    Reply

  24. Good old double standards again !

    Like

    Reply

  25. Yes, and it’s so unfortunate. What will happen when the gender power changes — and it will one day — and the male ego has to handle the downfall?

    Like

    Reply

  26. Too late, Dave. If you check the Chicago Sun Times for Nov. 15, under the QT column, you’ll find it’s been done. Shat has hit the fan.

    Like

    Reply

  27. Welcome to Urban Semiotic, Cindy, and I hope you’re telling us the show is canceled!

    Like

    Reply

  28. I’m hoping SOMEONE out there has a recording of this particular promo. I have had difficulty convincing people that this ever happened. As anyone who finds this page might already know, the show was shat out of the airwaves faster than they could fire a loose cannon. According to the captains log only 5 episodes were aired out of 7 that were shot. At least one fellow was caught up on their reading though, he managed to evacuate the kitty thoroughly, pinching off almost $900,000 before vacating the premises. While surely he enjoyed his morning smile after paying the plumber, the producers never showed that episode. Whether it was out of shame or good taste we will never know…

    So, if anyone ever finds a clip of this promo, post a link! I’ll be sitting on my stool till then.

    Like

    Reply

    1. Thanks for your funny comment, Lou.

      The Shat was a great show that didn’t quite have a long enough life.

      If the guy who “won” $900,000.00 didn’t have his show aired — then he didn’t win the money and wasn’t paid. These shows are carefully crafted that contestants only get paid if their show actually airs and advertising dollars are collected. The fact that the show was so quickly cancelled might reflect a producers’ wish not to have to pay out almost a million dollars to a contestant on a dying show.

      Like

      Reply

  29. Thanks, I was hoping someone might get a grin (or maybe a grimace) out of that string of euphemisms.

    Indeed, one would expect that if the show did not air he would not be paid. Nonetheless, the Wikipedia page at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Show_Me_the_Money_(U.S._game_show) lists Bob Glouberman of Phoenix AZ to be the winner of $882,000. No idea if this is factual or not, it is of course Wikipedia, but I don’t know anything to the contrary either. A few minutes of searching did not turn up much.

    Like

    Reply

    1. Hi Lou —

      Yes, I don’t trust Wikipedia much. The whole paragraph about the $900,000.00USD winner is a parenthetical with no attribution. One of the “External Links” is dead. My sense of what happened is that the reason he was ultimately paid was because part of his show aired on ABC and the conclusion was shown on GSN. So all the episodes eventually aired, but just not on the same network.

      Like

      Reply

  30. […] world swirled into one, massively bungled, Public Relations and Customer Service nightmare and then shat on […]

    Like

    Reply

Share Your Thoughts:

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s