A trend stretching back over the last decade has overseen the distortion through media (mainly audio-visual) of what's a fact, and how you can alter or ommit some of the fundamental aspects of that fact in order to appeal (and appease) to the broadest audience possible. Now, some will understandably argue that such a tactic makes perfect economic sense: more bums in seats, crosses boundries, future production potential, etc. But should we continue to sacrifice facts that may not appeal to everyone, but are usually undeniable facts (or in some cases of regional fiction or culture: valid assumptions) regardless, to attract a wider audience? Many of these recurring distortions are broadcasted or circulated by various media outlets and often manifest themselves (among others) in modern renditions of historical and cultural events i.e - Robin Hood. A 2006 release made by Tiger Aspect Productions for the BBC, the legend of Robin Hood, is a recent-ish case in point. Picture Friar Tuck. Most online results deliver the consensus expectation of those familiar with the character. What made the aforementioned production controversial, to a degree, was that the actor cast to play Friar Tuck is black, as opposed to the classical depiction: a white man. As good an actor as David Harewood is, his casting as Tuck was a contradiction of what's widely acknowledged/expected. This is an obvious example of the more obvious axioms of political correctness: overall, positive appeal. But where does it stop? If we found ourselves somewhere in the future where actors cast to play slaves in the Transatlantic Slave Trade were white, would black people take offense at such a contradiction that's designed to appeal (and appease) to the widest possible audience, regardless of what the facts are? I'm guessing they would.