SNL censor coming to the 'Nati!

[NoWayNoCC]

Bonneville owns the NBC affiliate in Salt Lake City, which has never shown 'Saturday Night Live'. SNL is a little too much for Bonneville, despite the late hour at which it airs.

Funny, I don't think there's any other station that's had that much trouble with SNL. SNL has survived 32 years of nationwide moral panics, yet it's no match for Bonneville.

This just goes to show you the type of ultraconservative mentality that we're going to have to be subjected to once Bonneville takes over the radio here. At least they're not taking over the TV too.

This also illustrates why we MUST reverse the 1996 telcom law and reestablish ownership caps.

 

[RumourMonger]

And that would put SNL on in slc? What are the new Bonneville stations doing now that will be different when they take over?

The double entendres of Bob & Tom and Eddy & Bob the Producer aren't enough? You need to have the punchline unzipped and smack you on the chin before you get it? It needs to be broadcast on every frequency without restraint?

What's wrong with a company making a choice of an audience and programming to them. Let's make WAKW broadcast Moslem prayers five times a day. Damn Christians control all those frequencies and not one Buddadist monk to be heard. /sarc

 

[marko83]

I think SNL not airing on KSL has more to do with it being in Utah (aka Mormon Country) than a Mormon group owning it. They arent as conservative with programming outside of Utah.

 

[techie2]

SNL airs on the WB affiliate in that market instead of KSL. I think the WB affil gets any NBC programming that KSL won't clear.

If NBC gets tired of KSL not clearing stuff they could always dump them as an affiliate. I'm sure there are plenty of others in the market that would take the NBC affiliation if offered.

The other NBC affil that frequently censored shows was WNDU which has since been sold (previously owned by Notre Dame University) and I would imagine it is now running them uncut.

 

[microbob]

SNL sucks anyway... MAD TV is better

 

[marko83]

Wow they still have The WB in Utah? Those Mormons really are living in the past huh?

 

[techie2]

Oops ;D probably the CW affiliate now.

 

[keys2]

Oh Bandit, please. Why is it you liberals throw that word "censor" around with such reckless abandon? If they choose not to air something because it may conflict with their moral beliefs, how is that "censorship?" If a liberal group chooses not to air religious or conservative programming that conflicts with their world view, why is that not censorship too?

 

[NoWayNoCC]

Oh Bandit, please. Why is it you liberals throw that word "censor" around with such reckless abandon? If they choose not to air something because it may conflict with their moral beliefs, how is that "censorship?"

I didn't say it was government censorship. I just said it was censorship.

 

[LocalGuy]

I didn't say it was government censorship. I just said it was censorship.

All censorship comes from a government, Bandit. By definition. Nothing else is "censorship."

 

[NoWayNoCC]

I didn't say it was government censorship. I just said it was censorship.

All censorship comes from a government, Bandit. By definition. Nothing else is "censorship."

Wrong.

If you ever see some of the old memos from the AT40 people to affiliates, they tell stations that "censorship" of songs is up to them. Thus using the word "censorship" for a non-government act.

 

[LocalGuy]

I didn't say it was government censorship. I just said it was censorship.

All censorship comes from a government, Bandit. By definition. Nothing else is "censorship."

Wrong.

If you ever see some of the old memos from the AT40 people to affiliates, they tell stations that "censorship" of songs is up to them. Thus using the word "censorship" for a non-government act.

No, Bandit. Other people's misuse of a word does NOT change the actual definition of that word.

By definition, Bandit, if it doesn't come from a government, it is NOT censorship.

 

[LocalGuy]

This also illustrates why we MUST reverse the 1996 telcom law and reestablish ownership caps.

Bonneville owns (are you ready for it?).................25 stations.

 

[NoWayNoCC]

This also illustrates why we MUST reverse the 1996 telcom law and reestablish ownership caps.

Bonneville owns (are you ready for it?).................25 stations.

But most people own (are you ready for it).................zero.

 

[almaniac27]

I read on Wikipedia that 94.9 WSWD was supposed to have a new morning show that started in December 2006 and was supposed to be formatted somewhat like Comedy Central's Daily Show. I guess either the Bonneville deal stopped it or Wikipedia is full of crap. And if Wikipedia us full of crap, then I don't know what to believe in anymore...

I guess Bonneville wouldn't like that sort of a morning show if it is as liberal as Jon Stewart. I can see it now:a conservative Daily Show. "Our next guest is an Illinois senator named Barack Hussein Osama!" Ha ha and also ha. It might be funny if Fox News didn't make that "joke" every day.

Sorry. I got a little off track there. I think it can be censorship even if it doesn't involve the government. My high school made the front page of the Cincinnati Enquirer a few weeks back because an article critical of the football team was ripped out of every copy of the school magazine. The guy who wrote it is actually in my chemistry class. The Enquirer called it censorship, and I think they're smart enough to not misuse a word.

 

[exradio]

By definition, Bandit, if it doesn't come from a government, it is NOT censorship.

By whose definition?

A search of the current Merriam Webster Collegiate, Cambridge, American Heritage, and MSN Encarta dictionaries linked at http://www.dictionarylink.com/ shows none of them describing censorship exclusively as an act of government. Their first definition of this term makes no mention of a particular actor, or describes the actor as an official, not necessarily a government official. Most of these dictionaries include government censorship, particularly of war information, as a second or third definition, sometimes making no mention of any governmental activity besides the suppression of war information.

Outdated dictionaries I consulted, the 1913 Merriam Webster Unabridged (found online) and the 1931 Oxford English Dictionary (which was published through the late 1970's when my copy is from) seem to prefer a government censor in their definition, but neither of those dictionaries requires that to be the case.

The Oxford's first definition was of the ancient Roman censor whose job was to count citizens (as in census) as well as monitor the morals of a particular precinct. Many passages cited in the OED from the 1700's through the 1800's seem to use censorship as a simile to the term judgment, with no particular reference either to the Romans or to prohibiting the publication of particular language, thought, or information, which is virtually the only definition that is familiar to present-day Americans.

 

[microbob]

I read on Wikipedia that 94.9 WSWD was supposed to have a new morning show that started in December 2006 and was supposed to be formatted somewhat like Comedy Central's Daily Show. I guess either the Bonneville deal stopped it or Wikipedia is full of crap. And if Wikipedia us full of crap, then I don't know what to believe in anymore...

I guess Bonneville wouldn't like that sort of a morning show if it is as liberal as Jon Stewart. I can see it now:a conservative Daily Show. "Our next guest is an Illinois senator named Barack Hussein Osama!" Ha ha and also ha. It might be funny if Fox News didn't make that "joke" every day.

That was quoted in Kiesewetter column right before the format switch. They were already supposed to have the jocks and the new morning show on the air.


At noon today, station began playing 9,490 consecutive songs – so we won’t hear commercials or DJs until early December. (They estimate it will take about 23 days to play that many songs.)
The hybrid format is aimed at listeners 25-34. Entercom managers -- Jim Bryant, Mike Fredrick from the former CBS Radio group bought by Entercom last week -- promise all local DJs (no out-of-town voice-trackers), with sophistication and humor, and not in-your-face (ala 'EBN) radio. They call it "a progressive rock station for adults." The refer to Jon Stewart and "The Daily Show" when trying to describe their goal for a morning show – "a little wittier, not your typical rock and roll station."That’s a tall order. We’ll see if they can pull it off.

 

[keys2]

Regardless of whether it is government mandated or choice by private ownership, censorship is an incorrect use of term in a case such as this, Bandit. In the free market of capitalism, a company can elect to not carry programming it deems morally offensive if it so chooses. There are plenty of other sources for "immoral" content from which you can choose.

So answer my question, Bandit. I don't pretend to know your religious persuasion or if you have any, but hypothetically......if you happened to be an atheist and were the CEO of a liberal, non- or anti-religious network of stations, would not airing religious or conservative programming make you a censor? And how about if I or the government forced you to air it anyway, even though it goes totally against your beliefs? Does not your incorrect interpretation of censorship work both ways? Or are only conservatives and people of faith capable of censorship?

 

[gr8oldies]

Our friend Bandit seems to want government beauraurcrats in Washington determining station formats and individual stations' programming down to the locla level 9especially a demand that once a format is in place it never be changed no matter how much it is failing), government mandated control of political speech, but the f-word 60- times a minute on every station (I guess even if those stations choose not to air the material in question). And no, my bookstore is not "censoring" if it doesn't stock every title in existence on its shelves, a TV station that passes on SNL is not guilty of censorship, or the school newspaper that drops a story written by a student.

 

[LocalGuy]

This also illustrates why we MUST reverse the 1996 telcom law and reestablish ownership caps.

Bonneville owns (are you ready for it?).................25 stations.

But most people own (are you ready for it).................zero.

But people who own zero are (are you ready for it).................not owners!

"Ownership caps" apply to "owners," not "not owners!" ;D

Geeeez, Bandit.


And, by the way, even if the ownership limit went all the way down to one, still only one in 24,000 could own a station.

Bonneville is the smallest of the "name" owners.