'Glee' school shooting episode upsets some viewers

The newest episode of 'Glee,' which included what was believed to be a school shooting, unsettled many, and one Newtown resident questioned why those in the town weren't warned ahead of time about the content of the episode.

Jordan Strauss/Invision/AP
'Glee' stars Lea Michele (l.) and Chris Colfer (r.). The newest episode included what was believed to be a school shooting.

The Fox musical TV show “Glee” upset some by focusing their newest episode around what was believed to be a school shooting.

The gunshots heard by students and teachers inside the school were an accident, but “Glee” characters hid in classrooms and bathrooms, some crying and recording messages to loved ones. A disclaimer before the episode advised viewer discretion because the episode “addresses the topic of school violence.”

A resident of Newtown, Conn., where 20 children and six faculty members were killed during a shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School, told the Newtown Bee newspaper that he wished the team behind “Glee” had warned those in Newtown about what would be coming on the show. Andrew Paley is friends with Michael Slezak of TVLine.com, who saw a screener of the episode and warned him the storyline might be too much for those in the town. 

“I think it’s terrible that the writers and producers of that show didn’t think to contact someone in Newtown to let us know this was coming,” Paley said. “A lot of people watch that show. They shouldn’t be upset by it.”

The Newtown Action Alliance posted a message on the group’s Facebook page Thursday warning members what would be happening in the episode.

An anonymous Fox source told the New York Daily News that the episode had been planned since before the Newtown tragedy.

“Glee” creator Ryan Murphy tweeted about the episode last week, writing that “it is the most powerful emotional Glee ever. So proud of the cast & crew.”

However, some on Twitter were unsettled by the episode’s content.

One user named Ximena Covarrubia (@ximena_g_c) tweeted, “I was crying like a baby while watching shooting star!!”

Amanda (@mandaaxbaby) retweeted a story by an NBC Connecticut affiliate about the reaction of residents of Newtown to the episode and added, “Exactly why I shut it off… Inconsiderate.”

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.