• 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

Here's What's Grinding The PTC's Gears Today

DToTheJ

DToTheJ

The Parents Television Council, along with the American Family Association, are perturbed by a program scheduled to debut on ABC, based on a novel titled "Good Christian B**ches."

This is despite the fact that the title of the series will not mirror that of the book on which it is based on. Yet it was merely insisted as a "working title" of the show.

http://www.rbr.com/tv-cable/abc-pilot-attracts-protests.html
 
D, you seemed perturbed by the fact that certain groups are perturbed by that title. If you think it's no big deal, why did you censor yourself in your own post by writing "B**ches" instead of the actual word?
 
Because it's not the title of the show.

- Trip
 
Well it is the title of the book and it is the working title of the TV project. And if PTC or anyone else wants to express their displeasure to Disney for developing a project based on a book with that title, then let them. It's their right to express their views and they should be free to do so without being mocked by people who disagree.
 
On the contrary, it is his right express his views by mocking them just as it is their right to express their views.

- Trip
 
You're right, Trip. I understand your point...I just don't get why some people are more bothered by a protester than they are by the thing that's actually being protested. If that title doesn't offend you, fine. But my original question to D hasn't been answered. If he thinks the title is perfectly acceptable and he thinks the PTC is being ridiculous, then why did he not use the actual word in question when referencing the story?
 
Back to the subject -- I'm pretty sure ABC will be changing the title to something more viewer-friendly, mainly to keep the FCC off their backs and not necessarily to shut the PTC and AFA up.

Of course, chances are the PTC and AFA will continue to complain anyway, based on the contents of the book alone.
 
Watch the title eventually be something like "$#*t Good Christian B****es Say" or something...

As for the self-edit of the B-word... I didn't think it was worth spelling out this early in the day, LOL.
 
I figured the asterisks were necessary to avoid R-I's naughty word filter.

While it's everyone's rights to express their views, I do find it amusing and ironic how many people obsess over what the PTC, AFA, and other like groups do, much the way the PTC and such obsess over what's on TV. In this case, the PTC's stance is similar to what I believe would have been the Jewish Anti-Defamation League's stance had the show been based on a novel that portrayed Jewish people in a bad light.

Having said all that, D, were you actually expressing your own views or just summarizing what was in the article? You're a prolific thread starter with a pretty good sense for what will get eyeballs, so I wasn't even assuming that these were your views.
 
dmargalotti said:
Well it is the title of the book and it is the working title of the TV project. And if PTC or anyone else wants to express their displeasure to Disney for developing a project based on a book with that title, then let them. It's their right to express their views and they should be free to do so without being mocked by people who disagree.
Click to expand...

Sure, they can express their views. The problem that I have with organizations, like the PTC, is that they take it to such an extreme. They don't stop as to saying "we don't like this", but rather go to extremes like boycotting advertisers. If you don't like something, don't watch. It's a free country, and as long as a TV network is obeying the rules and regulations already set forth, then let them broadcast what they will. There are plenty of technological devices that are easy to use, that would allow parents to block out the TV (or maybe they could be parents and actually do something with their children instead of letting the TV babysit them every night???)

We shouldn't make this country a toddler play gym just because toddlers will get hurt. What we SHOULD do is use common sense. Kids can get hit by cars. We don't ban cars, we just keep an eye on our kids, keep them out of the street, and teach them to watch out for cars. Kids can burn themselves on stoves, and get into cupboards to drink toilet bowl cleaner. And yes, kids can hear naughty language on TV. So why is it OK to censor TV, but not ban toilet bowl cleaners, streets, cars, stoves, etc?
 
mnradiofan said:
The problem that I have with organizations, like the PTC, is that they take it to such an extreme. They don't stop as to saying "we don't like this", but rather go to extremes like boycotting advertisers.
Click to expand...

And how does that make them different than any other advocacy group? That's their job. And if I want to participate in the boycott, I will. If I don't, I won't. I almost always choose the latter course of action.

You must hate unions then - they often call for boycotts. And how about all those groups calling for a boycott of Arizona after they passed SB1070? Or the gasoline boycotts I was flooded with recently? Extremists all, by your definition.
 
Calling for boycotts is certainly within the rights of any group, and it's within the rights of those with opposing views to mock them, or even to go offer extra support to the companies group 1 is boycotting. Boycotts are a fine way for people to band together to influence decision makers.

Often, calling attention to the groups some find to be "out there" does little more than draw more attention to them and their causes. If you feel strongly in opposition, then by all means, have at it, but sometimes the more effective approach is to ignore it.
 
dhett said:
...were you actually expressing your own views or just summarizing what was in the article? You're a prolific thread starter with a pretty good sense for what will get eyeballs, so I wasn't even assuming that these were your views.
Click to expand...

Don't think for a second that I side with the PTC - especially when I make an executive decision to self-edit the word "bitch" (there, I wrote it out for ya, enjoy :eek: ) in the post. Given how they've been a hot topic on this forum over reacting to the title of William Shatner's new show (which if I were to write out that exact title, it might be edited :D ), I thought I'd share this story, which is similar, if you think about it: It's based on a popular vice with a curse word in its title; however, unlike the Shatner series, they haven't even committed to incorporating the title of the book on the title of the show based on the book.
 
D, how have they over reacted to the Shatner show? Or this show? I've never seen the show and I don't really keep up with what the PTC does. Did they threaten the TV execs with violence? Did they threaten to blow up the network? Did they rally their members to storm network head quarters abd burn the place to the ground? Did they protest outside of Shatner's house and harass his family? Or were they merely adamant about making a point and adhering to a principle with which you may disagree? Seriously, what is your definition of over reacting?

I don't mean to pick on you because I really do enjoy your numerous contributions to this web site.
 
@DToTheJ: I was making no assumptions. What you wrote didn't even look to me like you were expressing an opinion; it looked more like a summary of what was in the article. As for your opinion of the PTC, AFA, et al, you're welcome to it. I just find it funny when people get so worked up over what advocacy groups do, when in essence, by getting worked up and expressing their opinion in a public forum, those same people who object to the advocacy group have just done the same thing. Or they get offended over a group advocating a point of view with which they don't agree, but have no problem with one with which they do agree. Again, I'm not saying you have done any of those things.

@dmargalotti: There was much discussion about the name of Shatner's show on this forum, not by the PTC. That's what D was feeding. Myself, I think it's indicative of the coarsening of society and I don't approve, but in the end, it doesn't change my life, nor do I waste my time watching the show. As for this current title, whether or not it's used, again, I don't approve, and I think the PTC has a valid point that ABC wouldn't dare have a show called "Good Jewish..." or "Good Muslim..." for fear of reprisal, but having said that, I'll move on and won't plan to watch the show.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom