R
RobertMoore
Guest
....Has any NBC affiliate made up its mind about airing the show? already 2 stations(KARK-4/Little Rock and WTWO-2/Terre Haute) has passed on the drama after giving into pressure from several religious groups.
-
Get involved.
We want your input!
Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.
After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.
After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/
Thanks in advance and have fun!
RadioDiscussions Administrators
K
KeithE
Guest
> ....Has any NBC affiliate made up its mind about airing the
> show? already 2 stations(KARK-4/Little Rock and WTWO-2/Terre
> Haute) has passed on the drama after giving into pressure
> from several religious groups.
The WB station in Little Rock will be airing it in that market. Some Terre Haute-market viewers can probably get the show from WAND Decatur or WTHR Indianapolis. I doubt that NBC is losing sleep over KARK and WTWO pre-empting it.
<a target="_blank" href=http://www.cnn.com/2006/SHOWBIZ/TV/01/05/television.daniel.reut/>Link: CNN.com</a>
> show? already 2 stations(KARK-4/Little Rock and WTWO-2/Terre
> Haute) has passed on the drama after giving into pressure
> from several religious groups.
The WB station in Little Rock will be airing it in that market. Some Terre Haute-market viewers can probably get the show from WAND Decatur or WTHR Indianapolis. I doubt that NBC is losing sleep over KARK and WTWO pre-empting it.
<a target="_blank" href=http://www.cnn.com/2006/SHOWBIZ/TV/01/05/television.daniel.reut/>Link: CNN.com</a>
T
toby
Guest
I love how these so-called "religious groups" are caved into - and they most likely have never even seen the show.
As an Episcopalian, I am wondering how the show is going to be, and from what I have read and seen so far I may like it. We'll see by this time tomorrow. And I am so happy my local NBC station is an o&o (WNBC) so I don't have to deal with censorship.
<P ID="signature">______________
<a href=http://blog.spotteddogs.org/blog/>Random Observations on Life, the Universe and Television</a></P>
As an Episcopalian, I am wondering how the show is going to be, and from what I have read and seen so far I may like it. We'll see by this time tomorrow. And I am so happy my local NBC station is an o&o (WNBC) so I don't have to deal with censorship.
<P ID="signature">______________
<a href=http://blog.spotteddogs.org/blog/>Random Observations on Life, the Universe and Television</a></P>
> ....Has any NBC affiliate made up its mind about airing the
> show? already 2 stations(KARK-4/Little Rock and WTWO-2/Terre
> Haute) has passed on the drama after giving into pressure
> from several religious groups.
>
Keith Elster's CNN link below gives a different reason for WTWO not airing the show. According to the station's GM, it's not based on religious objections at all, but rather a protest against the network. You can debate his intent, but I'm taking him at his word.
As for KARK, if they choose not to air a show out of respect for what they perceive to be the values of their viewership, what's wrong with that? They claim to have done so after getting feedback from both sides of the issue, and KWBF is picking it up in Little Rock.
Urging people to petition their local affiliates to not air the series, the American Family Association (AFA) cites the characters of the show as objectionable: a drug-addicted pastor, his midday martini-imbibing wife, homosexual son, drug-dealing teenage daughter, teenage adopted son having sex with the bishop's daughter, and lesbian secretary sleeping with the pastor's sister-in-law. The network may consider this "edgy", "challenging" and "courageous", but the premise does seem a bit insulting to those who aren't quite so hip.
AFA link: http://www.afa.net/petitions/issuedetail.asp?id=175
As for me, I didn't plan on watching it before, and I don't plan on watching it now. It doesn't make sense to me to protest something I haven't seen at the word of one organization. The best way to get rid of objectionable material is still to ignore it. If enough people ignore it, in time, it goes away. If enough people protest it, it gets media attention it wouldn't have otherwise received. Can you say "The Last Temptation of Christ"?<P ID="signature">______________
Dave</P>
> show? already 2 stations(KARK-4/Little Rock and WTWO-2/Terre
> Haute) has passed on the drama after giving into pressure
> from several religious groups.
>
Keith Elster's CNN link below gives a different reason for WTWO not airing the show. According to the station's GM, it's not based on religious objections at all, but rather a protest against the network. You can debate his intent, but I'm taking him at his word.
As for KARK, if they choose not to air a show out of respect for what they perceive to be the values of their viewership, what's wrong with that? They claim to have done so after getting feedback from both sides of the issue, and KWBF is picking it up in Little Rock.
Urging people to petition their local affiliates to not air the series, the American Family Association (AFA) cites the characters of the show as objectionable: a drug-addicted pastor, his midday martini-imbibing wife, homosexual son, drug-dealing teenage daughter, teenage adopted son having sex with the bishop's daughter, and lesbian secretary sleeping with the pastor's sister-in-law. The network may consider this "edgy", "challenging" and "courageous", but the premise does seem a bit insulting to those who aren't quite so hip.
AFA link: http://www.afa.net/petitions/issuedetail.asp?id=175
As for me, I didn't plan on watching it before, and I don't plan on watching it now. It doesn't make sense to me to protest something I haven't seen at the word of one organization. The best way to get rid of objectionable material is still to ignore it. If enough people ignore it, in time, it goes away. If enough people protest it, it gets media attention it wouldn't have otherwise received. Can you say "The Last Temptation of Christ"?<P ID="signature">______________
Dave</P>
If the show is cancelled, it should still be available online for those who wish to watch it. What be wrong with that?
All the hub-bub among the religious groups, etc., just creates curiosity among viewers. If the American Family Association, Focus on the Family, and whoever else never would have said anything about the show, it probably would have gone largely unnoticed. After all, the show is on Friday night on NBC...nobody would have seen it anyway. Now people will tune in just to see what all the controversy is about. NBC probably loves this! NBC might have been a little concerned if maybe a dozen or so affiliates had refused to air the show, but KARK and WTWO won't affect anything. And get this, KSL in Salt Lake City is actually going to air the show! Normally, KSL would have been the first NBC affiliate to bail on a show like this.
R
RobertMoore
Guest
I was thinking the same thing about KSL. Usually they would pre-empt shows that they see as questionable. You would also think that WNDU/South Bend would also pass on this show, but they didn't either.
Re: When Religious Groups Decide For You
> As for KARK, if they choose not to air a show out of respect
> for what they perceive to be the values of their viewership,
> what's wrong with that? They claim to have done so after
> getting feedback from both sides of the issue, and KWBF is
> picking it up in Little Rock.
What's wrong with it is the assumption that censoring the program "protects" the viewers who are somehow "forced" to watch it. I always love these religious political groups that decide to make my choice for me.
Shouldn't it be a personal decision on the part of the viewer and not on a handful of groups that know how to activate a phone tree?
> Urging people to petition their local affiliates to not air
> the series, the American Family Association (AFA) cites the
> characters of the show as objectionable: a drug-addicted
> pastor, his midday martini-imbibing wife, homosexual son,
> drug-dealing teenage daughter, teenage adopted son having
> sex with the bishop's daughter, and lesbian secretary
> sleeping with the pastor's sister-in-law. The network may
> consider this "edgy", "challenging" and "courageous", but
> the premise does seem a bit insulting to those who aren't
> quite so hip.
Sounds like Desperate Housewives, an afternoon soap opera, and some random show from The WB. The AFA and Don Wildmon don't come close to representing the views of the majority of Americans.
This same group opposes ANY depiction of homosexuality unless it is cast in some discouraging light, which just makes them intolerant in general. Further, I wonder just how many AFA members make the decision not to drink at all. Perhaps we need to check that out too. We will be checking their houses for any signs of anything from cheap beer to Kentucky bourbon.
I personally have no intentions of watching the show because it doesn't appeal to me, and that's where I draw the line. I don't feel a need to deprive anyone else of the program just because I personally don't care for it. I particularly am offended by the sheer hypocracy of groups like the AFA and other moral crusaders who will say nothing about violence in programming but light the phone lines up over an episode of Will & Grace. Further, the number of these people with skeletons in their own closets is the equivalent of an all-you-can-eat salad bar. There's always another helping available.
> As for me, I didn't plan on watching it before, and I don't
> plan on watching it now. It doesn't make sense to me to
> protest something I haven't seen at the word of one
> organization. The best way to get rid of objectionable
> material is still to ignore it. If enough people ignore it,
> in time, it goes away. If enough people protest it, it gets
> media attention it wouldn't have otherwise received. Can
> you say "The Last Temptation of Christ"?
An other example of people protesting things they never even saw. I saw it. I didn't leave the film thinking to myself that Jesus had hot sex scenes and now I can head down to the local store to pick out some forbidden fruit. The people who didn't want to see it didn't go and see it -AND- they tried to prevent me from seeing it as well.
This is one major reason why I don't want these people coming anywhere close to having the ability to legislate morality.
> As for KARK, if they choose not to air a show out of respect
> for what they perceive to be the values of their viewership,
> what's wrong with that? They claim to have done so after
> getting feedback from both sides of the issue, and KWBF is
> picking it up in Little Rock.
What's wrong with it is the assumption that censoring the program "protects" the viewers who are somehow "forced" to watch it. I always love these religious political groups that decide to make my choice for me.
Shouldn't it be a personal decision on the part of the viewer and not on a handful of groups that know how to activate a phone tree?
> Urging people to petition their local affiliates to not air
> the series, the American Family Association (AFA) cites the
> characters of the show as objectionable: a drug-addicted
> pastor, his midday martini-imbibing wife, homosexual son,
> drug-dealing teenage daughter, teenage adopted son having
> sex with the bishop's daughter, and lesbian secretary
> sleeping with the pastor's sister-in-law. The network may
> consider this "edgy", "challenging" and "courageous", but
> the premise does seem a bit insulting to those who aren't
> quite so hip.
Sounds like Desperate Housewives, an afternoon soap opera, and some random show from The WB. The AFA and Don Wildmon don't come close to representing the views of the majority of Americans.
This same group opposes ANY depiction of homosexuality unless it is cast in some discouraging light, which just makes them intolerant in general. Further, I wonder just how many AFA members make the decision not to drink at all. Perhaps we need to check that out too. We will be checking their houses for any signs of anything from cheap beer to Kentucky bourbon.
I personally have no intentions of watching the show because it doesn't appeal to me, and that's where I draw the line. I don't feel a need to deprive anyone else of the program just because I personally don't care for it. I particularly am offended by the sheer hypocracy of groups like the AFA and other moral crusaders who will say nothing about violence in programming but light the phone lines up over an episode of Will & Grace. Further, the number of these people with skeletons in their own closets is the equivalent of an all-you-can-eat salad bar. There's always another helping available.
> As for me, I didn't plan on watching it before, and I don't
> plan on watching it now. It doesn't make sense to me to
> protest something I haven't seen at the word of one
> organization. The best way to get rid of objectionable
> material is still to ignore it. If enough people ignore it,
> in time, it goes away. If enough people protest it, it gets
> media attention it wouldn't have otherwise received. Can
> you say "The Last Temptation of Christ"?
An other example of people protesting things they never even saw. I saw it. I didn't leave the film thinking to myself that Jesus had hot sex scenes and now I can head down to the local store to pick out some forbidden fruit. The people who didn't want to see it didn't go and see it -AND- they tried to prevent me from seeing it as well.
This is one major reason why I don't want these people coming anywhere close to having the ability to legislate morality.
T
toby
Guest
It is a miracle: AFA site down!
> AFA link:
> http://www.afa.net/petitions/issuedetail.asp?id=175
Through some miracle, as of 5:30PM ET afa.net seems to be down.
The Lord works in mysterious ways!<P ID="signature">______________
<a href=http://blog.spotteddogs.org/blog/>Random Observations on Life, the Universe and Television</a></P>
> AFA link:
> http://www.afa.net/petitions/issuedetail.asp?id=175
Through some miracle, as of 5:30PM ET afa.net seems to be down.
The Lord works in mysterious ways!<P ID="signature">______________
<a href=http://blog.spotteddogs.org/blog/>Random Observations on Life, the Universe and Television</a></P>
J
jojo_collins
Guest
> All the hub-bub among the religious groups, etc., just
> creates curiosity among viewers. If the American Family
> Association, Focus on the Family, and whoever else never
> would have said anything about the show, it probably would
> have gone largely unnoticed. After all, the show is on
> Friday night on NBC...nobody would have seen it anyway. Now
> people will tune in just to see what all the controversy is
> about. NBC probably loves this! NBC might have been a
> little concerned if maybe a dozen or so affiliates had
> refused to air the show, but KARK and WTWO won't affect
> anything. And get this, KSL in Salt Lake City is actually
> going to air the show! Normally, KSL would have been the
> first NBC affiliate to bail on a show like this.
>
Here in Wichita, KSNW said last night (1/5) that they were not going to show the show courtesy of the protest of the religious groups. Then, after all the phone calls from people who want to check out the show (my pastor included-and she's an episcopalian priest), KSNW recinded and will show it tonight (1/6).
> creates curiosity among viewers. If the American Family
> Association, Focus on the Family, and whoever else never
> would have said anything about the show, it probably would
> have gone largely unnoticed. After all, the show is on
> Friday night on NBC...nobody would have seen it anyway. Now
> people will tune in just to see what all the controversy is
> about. NBC probably loves this! NBC might have been a
> little concerned if maybe a dozen or so affiliates had
> refused to air the show, but KARK and WTWO won't affect
> anything. And get this, KSL in Salt Lake City is actually
> going to air the show! Normally, KSL would have been the
> first NBC affiliate to bail on a show like this.
>
Here in Wichita, KSNW said last night (1/5) that they were not going to show the show courtesy of the protest of the religious groups. Then, after all the phone calls from people who want to check out the show (my pastor included-and she's an episcopalian priest), KSNW recinded and will show it tonight (1/6).
> > ....Has any NBC affiliate made up its mind about airing
> the
> > show? already 2 stations(KARK-4/Little Rock and
> WTWO-2/Terre
> > Haute) has passed on the drama after giving into pressure
> > from several religious groups.
> As for me, I didn't plan on watching it before, and I don't
> plan on watching it now. It doesn't make sense to me to
> protest something I haven't seen at the word of one
> organization. The best way to get rid of objectionable
> material is still to ignore it. If enough people ignore it,
> in time, it goes away. If enough people protest it, it gets
> media attention it wouldn't have otherwise received. Can
> you say "The Last Temptation of Christ"?
Not planning on watching it either. But what I find incredibly interesting and, indeed, entertaining is that the NBC affiliate (locally-owned, no less) in the AFA's backyard, Tupelo, MS, is airing the program.
As for WTWO, their "excuse" is nothing but a smoke-screen to cover up the pressure they got from local religious groups. At least the GM of KARK-4, another Nexstar station, is being truthful about the situation.
> the
> > show? already 2 stations(KARK-4/Little Rock and
> WTWO-2/Terre
> > Haute) has passed on the drama after giving into pressure
> > from several religious groups.
> As for me, I didn't plan on watching it before, and I don't
> plan on watching it now. It doesn't make sense to me to
> protest something I haven't seen at the word of one
> organization. The best way to get rid of objectionable
> material is still to ignore it. If enough people ignore it,
> in time, it goes away. If enough people protest it, it gets
> media attention it wouldn't have otherwise received. Can
> you say "The Last Temptation of Christ"?
Not planning on watching it either. But what I find incredibly interesting and, indeed, entertaining is that the NBC affiliate (locally-owned, no less) in the AFA's backyard, Tupelo, MS, is airing the program.
As for WTWO, their "excuse" is nothing but a smoke-screen to cover up the pressure they got from local religious groups. At least the GM of KARK-4, another Nexstar station, is being truthful about the situation.
K
KML0224
Guest
Beaumont, TX, Meridian, MS, Little Rock, AR and Terre Haute, IN were the four markets which didn't air it. WVIT-TV (NBC) channel 30 of New Britain/Hartford aired a piece about the show during their 11 PM newscast tonight mentioning the negative e-mails the station received before the show even aired. The reporter claimed that they didn't get any phone calls about it during the show and hadn't received anything up until the time of their live report.<P ID="signature">______________
#13 Dan Marino...2005 Football Hall Of Fame Inductee
</P>
#13 Dan Marino...2005 Football Hall Of Fame Inductee
</P>> Here in Wichita, KSNW said last night (1/5) that they were
> not going to show the show courtesy of the protest of the
> religious groups. Then, after all the phone calls from
> people who want to check out the show (my pastor
> included-and she's an episcopalian priest), KSNW recinded
> and will show it tonight (1/6).
How nice to know Wichita's NBC affiliate is so gutless as to take phone tree polling into account before it decides to air shows. As a test, maybe everyone in this group should call them up and demand they remove an episode of The West Wing because there are secret coded messages to anti-Christian groups in the VBI. Probably two dozen calls should do it.
If people tried this kind of thing in our market, the person who answered the phone would probably laugh "that's nice" and hang up.
The best answer technology has for this problem is an automated telephone attendant. Keep them pressing buttons and never let them talk to a live person.
> not going to show the show courtesy of the protest of the
> religious groups. Then, after all the phone calls from
> people who want to check out the show (my pastor
> included-and she's an episcopalian priest), KSNW recinded
> and will show it tonight (1/6).
How nice to know Wichita's NBC affiliate is so gutless as to take phone tree polling into account before it decides to air shows. As a test, maybe everyone in this group should call them up and demand they remove an episode of The West Wing because there are secret coded messages to anti-Christian groups in the VBI. Probably two dozen calls should do it.
If people tried this kind of thing in our market, the person who answered the phone would probably laugh "that's nice" and hang up.
The best answer technology has for this problem is an automated telephone attendant. Keep them pressing buttons and never let them talk to a live person.
Somebody always decides
> > As for KARK, if they choose not to air a show out of
> respect
> > for what they perceive to be the values of their
> viewership,
> > what's wrong with that? They claim to have done so after
> > getting feedback from both sides of the issue, and KWBF is
>
> > picking it up in Little Rock.
>
> What's wrong with it is the assumption that censoring the
> program "protects" the viewers who are somehow "forced" to
> watch it. I always love these religious political groups
> that decide to make my choice for me.
>
> Shouldn't it be a personal decision on the part of the
> viewer and not on a handful of groups that know how to
> activate a phone tree?
>
Somebody's always making a choice for you of what to watch. Usually, they're not religious.
I agree with your last paragraph that I cited, which is why I don't join the "boycott". To me, it's just a bunch of lemmings following the alpha and not knowing why they're doing it.
Truth is, groups are always pressuring TV stations to show or not to show material. I may not agree with it, but it is what it is. Advocacy groups of all stripes use the same methods. Program directors have every right to tell them "no".<P ID="signature">______________
Dave</P>
> > As for KARK, if they choose not to air a show out of
> respect
> > for what they perceive to be the values of their
> viewership,
> > what's wrong with that? They claim to have done so after
> > getting feedback from both sides of the issue, and KWBF is
>
> > picking it up in Little Rock.
>
> What's wrong with it is the assumption that censoring the
> program "protects" the viewers who are somehow "forced" to
> watch it. I always love these religious political groups
> that decide to make my choice for me.
>
> Shouldn't it be a personal decision on the part of the
> viewer and not on a handful of groups that know how to
> activate a phone tree?
>
Somebody's always making a choice for you of what to watch. Usually, they're not religious.
I agree with your last paragraph that I cited, which is why I don't join the "boycott". To me, it's just a bunch of lemmings following the alpha and not knowing why they're doing it.
Truth is, groups are always pressuring TV stations to show or not to show material. I may not agree with it, but it is what it is. Advocacy groups of all stripes use the same methods. Program directors have every right to tell them "no".<P ID="signature">______________
Dave</P>
- Status