Parents Television Council misleads about ABC's broadcast of "Scandal" after "You're Not Elected, Charlie Brown"

For an organization that claims to "promote and restore responsibility and decency to the entertainment industry in answer to America's demand for positive, family-oriented television programming," maybe a little bit of something called honesty should come with that mission. And heck, maybe the PTC themselves ought to exercise "responsibility" as well.

Why? It turns out...the PTC lied about ABC. H/T: Kristin Dos Santos of E! Online:

"Shame on ABC for putting a peep show next to a playground. In less than 26 seconds we were taken from the Peanuts pumpkin patch to a steamy Scandal sex scene," PTC president Tim Winter said.

Along with their statement, the PTC included a link to this video, which shows a quick flash of a Marvel commercial and then the start of Scandal, with a little bit of swimming in a pool and then Kerry Washington and Scott Foley in bed together... [video embedded in link]

Well, we checked back on to our own DVR's, and oddly enough, we had a distinctively different transition than the PTC's clip, with a longer transition from the end of Charlie Brown to Scandal. Our transition was about 30 seconds longer. Check it out…[video also embedded in link]

Wow.  So those who watched the PTC's video (which now has become the outrage-of-the-day on sites like The Blaze that aren't exactly known for journalistic integrity) get a misleading impression. The PTC's video, which is embedded on the Dos Santos article, edited out most of the split-screen end credits so that the viewer sees the last scene of You're Not Elected, Charlie Brown, then a sequence "an all-new Scandal starts now" (with the copyright boilerplate for Charlie Brown underneath). But the unedited network recording provided by Dos Santos shows two network promos between the last Charlie Brown scene and first Scandal scene superimposed over the Charlie Brown end credits: first a promo for an upcoming Marvel Comics special then a trailer promoting the new Scandal episode.

(Edit 11/6) Just realized that ABC had another Charlie Brown show between It's the Great Pumpkin, Charlie Brown (8pm) and Scandal at 9pm. At 8:30 was You're Not Elected, Charlie Brown. Which makes Winter's statement about being "taken from the Peanuts pumpkin patch to a steamy Scandal sex scene" even less accurate.

Given these facts, do you really buy into PTC president Tim Winter's statement: "Unless parents had the remote control in their hand, thumb on the button and aimed directly at the TV screen, they didn't have a chance [to change the channel]"? So far, the PTC has been getting some flak over their poutrage on Facebook such as:

"New Scandal Next" shows for at LEAST 4 seconds, bottom left. These adverts are usually at least 10-15 seconds long, if not longer. You should know Scandal is not a children's show, therefore they should have been removed before the preview even began. Swimming starts at 11.8 seconds, in this video, meaning you knew scandal was starting for at least ~30 seconds.. Scene begins at 31.6 seconds. So almost an entire minute after you know scandal is coming on, and a preview has started, you failed to stop your children from watching the TV.

To me, this says you weren't watching your children and let them sit in front of the TV without you around, then you heard the noise from the show, were like wtf, and got mad you suck at parenting when your kids watched a mature scene on the tube. Or, you don't care what your children watch 

with/without you as long as it doesn't involve this kind of mature setting.

 And:

PTC must running low on funds, they're plucking this chicken for all its worth. I guess they missed the TV rating in the first frame of a show that's in its third season.

Also:

I see all the complaints and have read only one offered solution. I would like to know what should ABC have done? What would have satisfied the PTC? What would have been considered the "right" thing to do?

My opinion, ABC did what it was suppose to do. They warned Scandal was coming up next, they posted the TV rating, and they aired the show at its normal and appropriate time. I know the PTC parents are fully aware of what show content is like during the 8 pm - 10 pm hours so, in my opinion, the parents should have been present to shut off the tv once Charlie Brown ended and yes you had plenty of time if you were in the same room with your children when it ended.

And:

If you watch the video just after Charlie Brown ends a commercial starts and it then appears as though it was fast forwarded because it jumps from "Tuesday" and showing Iron Man to the Scandal slate screen and "New Scandal starts now on ABC" and there was more than enough time to change the channel or turn the tv off. I know I had plenty of time between the time the show I was watching, on another channel, ended and the time Scandal started to change the channel and not miss any of Scandal and even saw the slate screen. ABC shows Charlie Brown every year in a prime time slot and then goes straight back to their normal programming so parents should have known that and made sure to be in the room and ready to change the channel or turn off the tv after Charlie Brown ended. Quit complaining and take responsibility for yourself, your children, and both of your actions.

And:

I just watched the transition. You can't be serious. ABC has an AD for Scandal in the bottom right hand corner, so it is not any sort of surprise AND Scandal has a clearly marked TV-14 rating box in the top corner. It was clear as day what was coming up. If you don't want your kids seeing that, CHANGE THE CHANNEL. You're the Parents Television Council. Do some parenting before you complain about TV.

I wonder who has more relevance in this era, the PTC or (to dig in '90s nostalgia memories, since the PTC was founded in 1995) - Deep Blue Something? It's OK for the PTC to criticize Scandal and recommend against parents letting their children watch it. But to mislead its members of how ABC showed a risque show right after Charlie Brown? No wonder the PTC isn't relevant anymore (besides Netflix and Hulu presenting a market threat to traditional broadcast/cable nowadays).

Another moral outrage failure for Bozell

Brent Bozell, founder of the Parents Television Council, finally has written a column condemning NBC over M.I.A. giving the middle finger during this year's Super Bowl halftime show: "Another Fleeting Failure for NBC". Of course it's predictable he'd be outraged, but this column is stilted in several ways. He opens: "Super Bowl XLVI was a good football game, marred once again by the bohemian elite at NBC." Well, the last time the "bohemian elite at NBC" played the Super Bowl (that was in 2009 with the Cardinals and Steelers and halftime with Bruce Springsteen...but I don't recall Bozell complaining that NBC had a commie pinko labor advocate perform!). I personally disagree and see this game more a carbon copy of the 2008 one with the same teams (Patriots and Giants) and a similar ending: Eli Manning with a last-minute winning drive and Tom Brady failing to reach the end zone as time runs out.

Of course after reporting how NBC couldn't blur out MIA's middle finger on time this conservative Christian activist must play the persecution card: "The same network skillfully edited God out of a clip of children reciting the Pledge of Allegiance during last year's U.S. Open golf tournament." Funny how he dismisses complaints from Muslims about drawing Muhammad yet leaving God out of the Pledge of Allegiance (by the way the ORIGINAL Pledge didn't include "under God")!

First he misleads readers into thinking that M.I.A. used a similar routine from the halftime show in the music video:

While she was launching the obscene gesture, she was rapping, "I'm-a say this once, yeah I don't give a (S-word)." That's in the newly recorded Madonna song they were performing ("Give Me All Your Luvin'"), and it's also in the video. How does NBC not prepare for a bleep and a camera shift when it knows it's coming?

I rewatched and then noticed at 2:17 mark of the video (that's during Nicki Minaj's performance) M.I.A. had her middle finger up albeit with a bandage on the finger:



HOWEVER, during her rapping part of the song (including the "I don't give a..." line) she actually uses her index finger, as Bozell concedes: "In the Madonna video, [M.I.A.] points her fingers like a gun."

Concluding his column, Bozell dismisses Sasha Frere-Jones's criticism of the PTC (but Bozell didn't mention that the PTC declined to file complaints formally with the FCC): "[Frere-Jones] tried to be offended instead that the Super Bowl show featured 'ad after ad that likened women -- negatively -- to sofas, cars and candy.' He raised his middle fingers to 'anyone who thinks profanity is somehow more harmful to our children than images of violence and misogyny.'" Bozell lets his mindless authoritarianism get in the way of addressing the issue of misogynistic ads like the GoDaddy ads and the Teleflora ad featuring Adrianna Lima. Bozell has complained about media misogyny in the past (see "MTV, Both Sleazy and Sour" from Dec. 10, 2011; "Exploiting the Teen Temptress" from Dec. 18, 2010; "Moms vs. Hip-Hop" from Oct. 20, 2006). But somehow, Super Bowl ads get a free pass even if those blatantly objectifying messages reach millions of children. Where's Bozell's outrage? (I don't want to know where his hands were on Super Bowl Sunday.) Maybe football is such an obligately macho sport that you can't have it without the cheerleaders or woman-hating ads. Plus, apparently Bozell is more scared about kids who are scarred for life because of an unnoticeable middle finger! (Case in point, that middle finger registered so slowly in many people's eyes including to NBC's control room staff.)

Credit to post #18 on Free Republic's repost of Bozell's column: "M.I.A.'s bird-flipping is far less offensive to me than the behavior tolerated by the NFL of so many of their players." (Michael Vick, Donte Stallworth, Plaxico Burress, and other players with criminal records come to mind.)

Not even 11PM is out of reach of the PTC...

PTC's newest "Worst Cable Content of the Week" targets E! Entertainment network's late night talk show Chelsea Lately. (I won't watch any garbage on E! and prefer David Letterman and Jimmy Fallon and Craig Ferguson, but I find PTC just as dumb as Handler.) Putting the usual PTC banter about everyone subsidizing offensive programming aside, why target a late night show? The author listed several jokes with sexual and even a political bent, quoting a Bill Maher appearance:

Maher: “Religion makes people crazy…[religious people] just can’t think straight.”

Chelsea: “I hate Newt Gingrich, and everyone watching this show must also hate him…The point is to influence all my young girl [fans] who don’t know any better. You must hate Newt Gingrich, you understand?”

Hmm, when did the PTC ever target Fox News Channel for broadcasting Republican talking points as news all of the day and night? Or talk radio? You can hear worse things than "religious people can't think straight" on those outlets. And of course the usual message: " every cable subscriber in America – Democrat or Republican, parent or grandparent, religionist or teetotaler – is FORCED by cable giant (and E! and NBC owner) Comcast to subsidize Chelsea Lately"...but of course, does the author not realize that channels like EWTN or Fox News or the Word Network are subsidized by the godless liberal cable subscribers? More laughable is the PTC's claim that "Comcast [is] glamorizing Chelsea Handler’s irresponsible lifestyle and behavior to millions of children." If your kids are watching TV on school nights at 11PM then you are an irresponsible parent.

PTC reviewed shows for the week of Jan. 9-Jan. 13 and found they were all rated "TV-PG-DLS" (parental guidance suggested due to suggestive dialogue, language, and sexual situations). Well again this is a late night show. And my check of the zap2it.com and eonline.com listings finds that all of this week's Chelsea shows will be rated TV-14-DLS as the PTC desires; think about TV-14 as the movie PG-13 rating. If PTC is so outraged about Chelsea Handler why not target what David Letterman and Jay Leno are saying on the public airwaves at 11PM every night?

PTC may not advocate censorship per se, but its tactics seem intimidating

swinging by its "Worst Cable Show of the Week" page I noticed in honor of the final season of FX's Rescue Me PTC decided rather than review the episode to write a review of moments from episodes of the show...all the examples were from 2006! (Rescue Me ran from 2004-2011.) PTC concludes: "Sadly, the industry seems resigned to forcing customers to pay for programming whether they watch it or not; but such customers can at least rejoice that, however many offensive programs they are supporting, at least Rescue Me is no longer among them." PTC uses that talking point over and over again in its reviews but seldom considered how people who view Rescue Me are subsidizing programming on Disney Channel or Nickelodeon that PTC would otherwise support? I've been monitoring the PTC since 2006 and now conclude that PTC is an intimidation organization that would rather stick to archaic, fundamentalist religious, authoritarian values and create a generation of unthinking zombie children who choose the bible over reason. I mean there's a reason why PTC would rather take the side of religion than a secular POV. This attitude regarding casual sex has been true of the PTC back in its founding in 1995 and now: it reviewed NBC's new show Friends with Benefits worst TV show of the week recently. Not only did PTC attack that show (which I haven't had time to watch, and I personally have little time to watch anything other than news and sports now that the new semester has begun) also PTC attacked other NBC shows Whitney and Free Agents:

As the new fall television season approaches, a preview of NBC’s upcoming sitcoms reveals its strategy for crawling out of fourth place: sex, sex, and more sex. Whitney – produced by and starring raunchy female comic Whitney Cummings, a staple of Comedy Central’s roasts – asserts the futility of marriage and the boredom of monogamy. The show Free Agents pairs a newly-divorced man with his newly-widowed female co-worker for obligation-free, clandestine sex. Over on the dramatic side of programming, the new show The Playboy Club instantly courts controversy with its name alone.

Again with PTC's one sided reviews, PTC didn't consider NBC's Parenthood or Up All Night that do cast two-parent families as main characters and in fact Up All Night is about two parents raising a newborn baby. And The Office characters Jim and Pam? If PTC really wants TV to be sanitized and friendly to "traditional values" as it wants why doesn't PTC try to attack society first? Maybe it's because nowadays more and more people know better than to be obsessively shame-fearing judgemental prudes. For example, since the 2000s more people choose not to be religious. In fact, the type of society that PTC would advocate would be Biblical or with Sharia Law if premarital/casual sex were to be a bad thing.

PS: In PTC's review of the Comedy Central roast of Charlie Sheen, PTC seems to assert that Comedy Central deliberately targeted teenagers by rating the pre-show TV-14-L but didn't point out that the actual show was rated TV-MA. A content rating doesn't indicate target audience!

...and they did

The Parents Television Council reviewed the 2011 MTV Video Music Awards as the "Worst Cable Content of the Week" as I predicte last post. With the usual too-much profanity and "we need cable choice" line. And targeting Lil Wayne's song "John". (Oh, they also mention the Beavis and Butt-head cameo with Nicki Minaj!) And what is it with the PTC's line about boasting about the largest number of 12-year olds when in fact the age group is 12-35? (12-17, 18-35 are the usual Nielsen rating age groups.) B&C reported: "The telecast, which saw Katy Perry and Adele top the award winners and Beyonce confirm her pregnancy onstage, was also the most-watched in the network's target of persons 12-34, delivering 8.5 million viewers and a 10.8 rating in the demo, according to Nielsen."

Quick comments on the PTC's new cartoon study

(note: page numbers refer to the printed ones not the ones you enter in at Adobe Reader)

The PTC today (I believe so) came out with a new study (summary) Cartoons Are No Laughing Matter. Basically that report attacks Cartoon Network for not rating its Adult Swim programming (9PM-6AM) properly and for marketing rated-R and TV-MA programming during TV-PG rated programming and worrying about teenagers (12-17 year olds) watching it, especially the TV-MA-rated Robot Chicken, which according to Nielsen Media Research is the 8th most watched animated cable show among that age group (p. 5). Well first of all why are they watching it in the first place when it's rated TV-MA and in first 3 time zones of the US after 10PM? (the show is scheduled at midnight Eastern and Pacific, 11PM elsewhere on cable, and on satellite providers carrying the East Coast feed times may be earlier.) As I look through the study the study provides examples of Family Guy, American Dad, and King of the Hill, episodes of which originally aired on primetime on the Fox broadcasting network. While PTC panicks over sexual content they claim is on TV-PG rated programming the only example of TV-PG programming as such is King of the Hill. Googling the PTC website, PTC rates King of the Hill with a mild "yellow light" rating but otherwise I can't find any other analysis of that show when it aired on Fox from 1997-2009. The examples of Family Guy and American Dad, both Seth MacFarlane-created series, usually are rated at least TV-14-DLS and were after 10PM, and many of the sexual examples had an S indicator in the content rating. The majority of the language examples had L indicators. The "male rape fantasy" example, an episode of American Dad, was rated TV-14-DSV (p. 23). If anything this study indicates the need for parents to be responsible for their kids TV viewing, and that the networks go out of their damn way to warn parents, and the PTC is essentially bullying and thinking the ratings system is too damn light. I mean ever since 2005 or 2006 I've seen TV networks putting the ratings box up after every commercial break not just at beginning of programs, and the Turner-owned networks TBS, TNT, and Cartoon Network have enlarged them. Same with NBC and Viacom-owned nets like MTV, VH1, and TV land. And while PTC may be worried about such content, they should be thankful that the content ratings warned them.

As for the drug content and references to crystal meth (such as in King of the Hill) (p. 24), well why didn't PTC raise a ruckus about that when King of the Hill was originally on Fox? And Johnny Cash's "Folsom Prison Blues" from the late '60s referred to cocaine yet I don't hear parents groups calling the legendary American country musician as a bad influence on children. What PTC is advocating in my opinion is that kids just watch preachy ABC after school specials and anything that makes their over prudent hearts bleed should be rated TV-MA. Go to the parentstv.org website and notice how their traffic lights rating system is a notch over what the networks recommend. The yellow-rated shows are "recommended for 14 and up" (TV-14 in the TV Parental Guidelines) and usually are applied to the TV-PG rated shows like The Office. The red-rated shows are recommended for 18 and older only but are usually for the TV-14 groups.

Further, this blog post by the right-wing Little Green Footballs (a blog that sometimes deviates from the US conservative establishment message) rips apart PTC founder Brent Bozell's new column that supplemented this study. Bozell continues lying and deceiving as he usually does in his occupation advocating right wing talking points as he doesn't point out how the Robot Chicken episode he was talking about was shown at midnight (enter any show in the Zap2It.com listings and there you can see when shows air).

Expect the PTC to go haywire AGAIN.

The NY Times reported: "At VMAs, Young Stars With Fresh Mouths":

This was maybe the most bleeped award show in history, and certainly among the lewdest, from Lady Gaga’s opening monologue, in drag, channeling Andrew “Dice” Clay and Denis Leary, to Cloris Leachman swapping foul talk with the cast of “Jersey Shore,” to Justin Bieber making phallus jokes with his girlfriend Selena Gomez on the pre-show. The falling-flat toilet humor of last year’s host Chelsea Handler had nothing on this.

(...)

Introducing Lil Wayne, Drake gave in to the general mood with a brief speech that required some bleeping, the theme of the night. When Tyler, the Creator, accepted his award, half of his speech couldn’t be made out between the edits. (He was, though, the only artist who appeared genuinely moved to have won.) During the preshow, he’d made unkind gestures with his microphone toward the head of Jim Cantiello, one of the hosts. Mr. Cantiello repaid him later, after announcing that Tyler’s Twitter mentions placed him above Mr. Mars, whom he dislikes: “I can’t wait to hear your homophobic rap about that later,” Mr. Cantiello said.

If you're interested, check out the Parents Television Council's annual VMA-bash from 2008, 2009, and 2010. Thanks NY Times for reporting this so that I don't need to read the PTC's take on it. BTW, I was watching a Raiders preseason game instead of the VMAs, but congratulations Foo Fighters for winning Best Rock Video for "Walk":



Of course the VMAs had to shower Katy Perry, Justin Bieber, and Lady Gaga with the big awards (respectively: Video of the year, Best Male Video, and Best Female Video.) "ET" that crappy song won TWO awards (also Best Collabo)? And the untalented NICKI MINAJ wins BEST HIP HOP VIDEO for "Super Bass" (an average song at best)??? Oh well it's mainstream stuff. The professional categories I'll check later.

Here's my earlier post criticizing PTC's cable TV reviews. And Brent McKee has another article about the PTC, this time about the PTC opposing NBC's upcoming The Playboy Club.

All that paranoia and howling for nothing

I swung by the Parents Television Council website today and found the PTC's latest review of Worst Cable Show of the Week being the Comedy Central series Jon Benjamin Has a Van. I've never heard of that show; it's amazing how much about TV I can learn from those professional prudes!

The author begins with this complaint about how Hollywood abuses children

Movies, television, and other sectors of the entertainment industry keep up a non-stop barrage of graphic, ultra-violent, sexual, and profane programming…and send it out over the publicly-owned airwaves and via cable and satellite systems, where even the youngest children can be exposed to it. And in the case of cable and satellite, the industry even FORCES subscribers to pay for such content, even if they never watch it. Apparently, those in the entertainment industry believe that, despite the proliferation of technology today, parents are capable of being, and ought to spend, at their children’s side every second, monitoring every single thing they see. This in spite of the industry’s own deliberate program of pushing clearly adult programming at kids, and their own measures taken to ensure that they are not bound by even commonsense restrictions.

This big ol' word salad precedes PTC's admission that the show is aired at 10:30PM Eastern time (an hour earlier in the central/mountain zones, and even earlier in the west coast on satellite). And the PTC didn't even acknowledge that the show is rated TV-14-L - unsuitable for children under 14 due to language, in plain English.

Does PTC not realize that under the current cable TV bundling system EVERYONE pays for SOMETHING they don't watch/like at all? PTC laid out its own example of its like-minded viewers who pay for offensive programs on Comedy Central if they subscribe to cable. I'll lay out some other examples:

• Liberals subsidizing Fox News Channel or the religious networks (those networks often have a right-wing bent too).
• Conservatives subsidizing MSNBC
• Childless adults subsidizing the Disney Channel, Nickelodeon, and Cartoon Network
• Jewish, Muslim, any non-Christian subscriber subsidizing EWTN, Trinity Broadcasting Network, any religious cable channel

And since when has Comedy Central been aimed towards children and families? If so then why does the network rate most of its shows TV-14 or TV-MA (mature audiences) anyway? I acknowledge for sure there are TV shows and movies and video games out there that kids shouldn't be exposed to. But to insinuate that the entertainment industry wants to market rated-R films straight at kids is just ridiculous and overblown. As for parents "monitoring every single thing" that kids see then what are the V-chip and cable channel blocks for then?

If PTC really wants to combat bad stuff being marketed towards children why don't they join First Lady Michelle Obama's "Let's Move" campaign for healthier eating? Why is PTC all up in arms about violence and sex in TV shows that kids shouldn't even be watching in the first place yet remain silent about McDonald's and Burger King and fast food restaurants marketing junk food to kids and contributing to the obesity epidemic? In fact, in 2005, the PTC criticized the Carl's Jr. fast food chain over PARIS HILTON - yep the slutty blonde spoiled trust fund girl - appearing in a sexual manner in ads. But when has the PTC ever criticized Carl's Jr for its kids meals? PTC does the same ol' thing for the other fast food companies for advertising on offensive programming (y'know, 10PM crime dramas and all that stuff that 7-year-olds shouldn't be watching because they should be in bed) but never attacks those companies for doing DIRECT harm to kids through fatty meals! McDonald's, Burger King, and other junk food companies and agribusiness, all of which have benefitted from massive corporate welfare, has caused more harm to American children than any stupid TV show or violent video game or corny pop song ever has.

By the way I wonder how many people who take PTC's advice regularly feed their kids processed/junk food? I'm not being stereotypical of people who agree with the PTC views, but I'm just asking.

It was illegal to produce Skins with teenage cast members?

At least the Parents Television Council thinks so. (via Drudge Retort and The Washington Post) Press release: "PTC Calls on Feds to Investigate “Skins” on MTV for Child Pornography and Exploitation":

LOS ANGELES (January 20, 2011) – The Parents Television Council ™ today called on the chairmen of the U.S. Senate and House Judiciary Committees and the Department of Justice to immediately open an investigation regarding child pornography and exploitation on MTV’s “Skins.” The New York Times reported today that the network itself is concerned about violating child pornography laws. In addition to the sexual content on the show involving cast members as young as 15, PTC counted 42 depictions and references to drugs and alcohol in the premiere episode. The run-time was only 41 minutes excluding commercial breaks.

(snip)

“However, many of the actors appearing in the show are below the age of 18. It is clear that Viacom has knowingly produced material that may well be in violation of any or all of the following federal statutes:

“18 U.S.C. § 1466A (2008) Obscene Visual Representations of the Sexual Abuse of Children

18 U.S.C. § 2251 (2008) Sexual Exploitation of Children

18 U.S.C. § 2252 (2008) Relating to Material Involving the Sexual Exploitation of Minors

18 U.S.C. § 2252A (2008) Relating to Material Constituting or Containing Child Pornography

“Since it is not necessary for Viacom or MTV to distribute the material in order to be in violation of the law, we call upon your committees to immediately investigate Viacom and MTV for the production of this material. Furthermore, we urge you in the strongest possible terms to compel the Attorney General to mount an investigation by the Department of Justice into whether the production of ‘Skins’ has violated federal law meant to protect minors from exploitation.

Yowza. Of all the PTC's complaints about TV including those artifically inflated FCC complaints and that TV is conspiring to turn all our girls into professional prostitutes who first become pregnant at age 15, I've never seen the PTC directly accuse the production of a television program of being illegal! And you thought that it was bad enough that American corporations were exporting work to Chinese sweatshops!

In an era of 9.4% unemployment in America (in my home state California being 12.4%) and with the newly Republican-dominant House of Representatives having pointlessly passed a bill repealing the 2010 health care reform bill and now targeting abortion, and all layers of government (federal, state, and city) running deficits and cutting everything to the marrow, is it really worth it for the government to investigate whether a new MTV show violated the law?

And I wonder why despite the influence of orgs like PTC, the American Family Association, the Parents Music Resource Center (now defunct though), and other orgs standing on moral pedestals holding the feet of the entertainment industry to the fire, the conditions that perpetrate all that immoral sleaze still persist in America?

Oh, PTC also disliked the fact that a teenager was cast as Jake Harper in Two and a Half Men. But they couldn't find a legal ground to get the feds to tear down the set, seize Jones, and send show creator Chuck Lorre to jail.

In October, the PTC complained about a GQ magazine photoshoot where cast members of Glee portrayed their high school aged characters in sexually suggestive manners. PTC said that the photoshoot bordered on pedophilia but stopped short of demanding that Congress grill GQ editors in lengthy hearings.

PTC must be getting desperate following that New York Times report suggesting that the PTC has been getting irrelevant for the past several years.

PTC, oh how I've missed you

British TV drama Skins was remade for the American market and debuted on MTV on Monday. America's organization of moral prudes known as the Parents Television Council was none too pleased: they are so frightened that they label their "Action Alert" regarding the program the org's "most urgent alert the PTC has ever sent to parents." Wow, they even bolded the "most urgent alert" part! The show includes "depictions of teens drinking, smoking marijuana, and using massive quantities of drugs, engaging in violent acts, and having irresponsible sex with each other, with their schoolteachers, and with other adults." Furthermore: "Internet sites like Teen.com have carried dozens of promos and stories about the new show. Many of the Internet ad campaigns have shown how Skins blatantly urges children to lie to and defy their parents, and engage in risky and dangerous behavior." Hmm, so an ad for a TV show is in the position to teach moral values? Then the failure falls on the parents.

Furthermore, MTV is showing Skins only between 10PM-6AM hours Eastern time, according to my check of Zap2It, and yes if you live in the West Coast it may be earlier depending on your provider. And it's rated TV-MA too. That's what parental controls are for. As for Teen.com promoting the show: I went over to that site and feel more offended by that site promoting Justin Bieber. Yes, they do have an interview with the Skins cast, but keep in mind that this site is probably doing it to reach out to its target audience given that MTV has always had teenage audience despite the PTC's decade-long mission against it.

Maybe if the PTC focused on tackling the root of the cause of these "dangerous TV shows" to begin with they wouldn't have to be sending out these sensationalized Action Alerts. Canceling shows like Skins won't get rid of the drugs/alcohol/sex issues surrounding American teens today. PTC is entitled to its own opinion of TV content and can even be so prudish as to freak out over simple "Elvis shaking his hips" moments - my godless socially liberal soul would not care a damn bit.

If PTC wants to find some quality programming on MTV, try Made or Silent Library. Both those shows are rated TV-PG.

Skins creator was interviewed by the LA Times and said his show is "definitely not the most dangerous program ever on television."

Hey PTC, thanks for stating the obvious

The Associated Press reports:

NEW YORK -- Mainstream online video destinations don't do enough to keep explicit content from kids, the Parents Television Council said in a report released Wednesday.

The advocacy group, which monitors decency issues, evaluated the child appropriateness of four online video portals: Hulu, Comcast's Fancast, AOL's Slashcontrol and AT&T's U-verse. None received a better grade than a D.

The study looked at home pages and 602 videos over a three-week period. The council found that standards are more lenient online than on broadcast television, that content ratings were vague and that content that may be unsuitable for children under 14 could be watched by young children.

The president of the Parents Television Council, Tim Winter, said the report proved that the four websites "are failing to protect kids on the Web."

"The content ratings and parental control devices (media corporations) tout as a solution to indecent material on television are not being applied to similarly indecent material on their websites," Winter said.

Well, one wonders...are those sites aimed towards children in the first place?

AOL disputed some of the report's findings. A spokeswoman for the company said that parental controls can be put in place for Slashcontrol and that it's a site with a primarily adult audience.

"Slashcontrol is not a kids and teens site and is not promoted to kids and teens," AOL said in a statement.

The report is called Untangling the Web of Internet Video. It's 25 pages long, and if you're really curious how much sleaze is in those TV shows that those evil, evil media conglomerates are splashing prominently online in the grand conspiracy to corrupt American children, check out the charts from page 19.

I browsed through the "Animation and Cartoons" section of Hulu and discover that programmes like A Charlie Brown Thanksgiving are included alongside more adult-oriented content like Archer and Japanese anime series Naruto Shippuden. While the AP quoted AOL stating that Slashcontrol is not targeted towards children, it is possible to access Kids' WB programming through Slashcontrol; Kids WB has its own site KidsWB.com through which users can watch full episodes of WB-distributed kids shows too.

It's been common knowledge throughout the past decade at least that the Internet ain't a safe place for children to navigate unattended. PTC just enforces this message through super-detailed studies with such exposing details. I mean wow, I didn't know that a teenager could see 15 instances of partial nudity and 25 instances of erotic dancing/strip clubs watching raunchy shows on Slashcontrol (page 19)! PTC must've been hunting real hard to find 'em! Why PTC won't specify which shows contained all that sex and drugs and violence and cussing, I start questioning.

Parents, shouldn't it be very clear that a site that's displaying Glee and Jimmy Kimmel Live on its homepage (Hulu in this case, I'm looking at it right now) is not family-friendly territory?

My thoughts on Tumblr

I've seen a lot of my friends using the blog site Tumblr. It's a less serious version of Blogspot, Wordpress, and other blog sites. Not only can authors publish rhetoric, they also are able to post visual media and quotations. Tumblr combines blogging and social networking: if a user sees an interesting item on another registered member's Tumblr, the user may "reblog" it (hence the "via ____" tags). Unlike on traditional blog sites where you can't instantly reblog every interesting thing you see on another blog, on blogspot you have to copy-and-paste and link everything manually.

There also seems to be much more decorative freedom on Tumblr, see Kathleen's for example. Compare that with my blog (and others hosted on the traditional hosts) and notice how more artsy and simple Tumblrs can be.

And celebrities seem to have taken on Tumblr too: for example, actress Dianna Agron, who plays Quinn Fabray on the TV show Glee. Responding to a rather risque photo shoot for GQ magazine that the Parents Television Council disliked, Agron apologised and elaborated on Tumblr.

What Tumblr can do is hardly new to the Internet: blogs have been around since the late '90s, and if you want to share videos or photos then Blogspot already has the hosting capability to do so. That's why I'll never use Tumblr. If I wanna share my thoughts or cool Web junk, I'll keep posting 'em here.

More broad-brush sweeping by the PTC

I have pointed out in previous posts that the Parents Television Council, an organization that advocates cable channel choice, has based its campaign on broad-brush generalizations of cable channels simply because the channel has one offensive show (usually on a late 10PM or later slot):
- In 2008, the PTC recommended "every parent who receives BBC America to look into blocking the channel" because BBC America showed the British drama Skins, which was rated TV-MA and shown at 9PM or later slots generally. However, PTC never addressed other program[me]s on the BBC America network (of course these all being UK-produced shows) that would not be seen as corrupting to youth such as Top Gear, Cash in the Attic, and World News America.
- PTC is no fan of FX's original late primetime shows. Go do a Google search for the following shows: Nip/Tuck, The Shield, It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia, Rescue Me, or Louie on the PTC website parentstv.org by adding "site:parentstv.org" (sans the quotations) on a search engine. PTC has plenty of bad things to say about those shows with its usual "your subscription to basic cable helps pay for these smutty shows" line. However, in 2008 and this year FX showed the 2006 film Invincible during primetime...and PTC turned a blind eye (I don't know if it's on purpose in an anti-FX agenda or something) despite having awarded Invincible with its Seal of Approval when the film originally was released to theatres. In 2008 the day before Invincible, FX showed Radio during primetime; PTC awarded that film with the Seal of Approval but never pointed out that FX broadcast Radio.
- This year, PTC seems to be hoping that TBS sinks down under, as it warned families that they would soon be subsidizing Conan O'Brien's next show on TBS with their basic cable subscriptions and named the new TBS animated sitcom Neighbors from Hell the worst cable content of the week last month. I have seen instances where PTC has listed TBS reruns of the sitcom Everybody Loves Raymond in Email alerts. But things change, and so do attitudes.

Now, PTC founder Brent Bozell's latest column "Art in America" provides a sneak peek of the PTC's next "Worst Cable Content" column.

The Bravo cable network has a new reality show called “Work of Art,” a competition dedicated to finding the next great American artist.

The half-dozen contestants, 20-something aspiring artists all, enter the famous Phillips de Pury art auction house. Mr. de Pury himself ushers them into the special room where they are presented with a collection of paintings by Andres Serrano, the man who came to fame in 1989 with the ghastly photograph, sponsored by the National Endowment of the Arts, depicting a crucifix dunked in a jar of urine. They are hugely impressed. The final painting they are shown is just that — the original "Piss Christ." They are in awe, quietly expressing their amazement at the talent. And then the door opens and in steps the master. The students freeze, eyes bright, mouths agape. The curator announces, "the great, great Serrano!" One girl instinctively bows reverently.

[...]

And now the contestants are given their assignment: Create a body of art as shocking as that of Serrano. The judges will select the four contestants who will proceed to the next round. More giggles and laughter. Each artist is given a $100 voucher with which to buy supplies.

[...]

...a girl, handsomely endowed, takes a batch of pictures of herself wearing only panties. "High art" is how she describes her product. The curator examines her semi-naked pictures, with emphasis on her naked breasts, and deems the display to be "gorgeous." But what the judges would later describe as "brilliant" is her special touch: setting these pictures next to a black felt-tip pen so the gallery audience could scrawl on them whatever graffiti or obscenities they inspire.

[...]

There is no outcry because our popular culture is thoroughly rotten.

Wow. Way to provide a generalized bad first impression. Because I can't exactly trust Bozell's opinion column as an unbiased reliable source. The Wikipedia article of the show summarizes other episodes. Three episodes aired before the one that Bozell decries as reflecting America's rotten pop culture:

Episode 1: Self-Reflexive

Air date: June 9, 2010

* Challenge: Create a portrait of one of your fellow artists.

Episode 2: The Shape of Things to Come

Air date: June 16, 2010

* Challenge: Create a sculptural piece from items selected from an electronics graveyard.

Episode 3: Judging a Book By Its Cover

Air date: June 23, 2010

* Challenge: Design a book cover for one of six classic novels, Alice's Adventures in Wonderland, Dracula, Frankenstein, Pride and Prejudice, Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde and The Time Machine.

So I guess a competition to design book covers for classic novels and create a sculpture from electronic waste threaten traditional values as much as the smutty fourth episode titled "A Shock to the System" (from June 30) that Bozell overanalyzed for all his readers to see. The challenged in the episode that aired the week after that one, "Art That Moves You", is summarized as "[c]reate a work of art based on your Audi experience". By the way, if you still need proof beyond the open-editing Wikipedia, here's the official Bravo show site.

In its "About Us" page Bravo describes itself as "the first television service dedicated to film and the performing arts when it launched in December 1980". During the '80s and '90s, Bravo used to have classic films, jazz music, and stage plays as its main lineup of programs. That was before NBC Universal bought the channel in 2002 and converted it to the fashion/hip/urban/reality show channel it is today. IMHO I see Work of Art as a small attempt for Bravo to return to its roots, but apparently what one man calls art is another's garbage, and just one risque episode gives Bravo a bad name once again.

Parents Television Council and "after hours" cable programs

I've noticed something about the Parents Television Council's ongoing "Worst Cable Content of the Week" column. Since the May 28 edition (The Dudesons in America, MTV, Thursday 10PM) it's been squarely fixated on shows that are broadcast on the cable channels only after 10PM (note: these times I list below are Eastern/Pacific, of course being an hour earlier in the Central, Mountain, Alaska, and Hawaii time zones), which in American broadcast TV terms is the watershed time in which FCC indecency regulations do not apply. (10PM means 10PM in any time zone in terms of FCC) I'll run down the list for those who don't want to access the PTC and get a headache:

• June 3: Half Pint Brawlers on Spike (Wednesday, 11PM)
• June 11: The Hard Times of RJ Berger on MTV (Sunday, 10PM)
• June 18: Neighbors from Hell on TBS (Monday, 10PM)
• June 25: Warren the Ape on MTV (Monday, 10:30PM)
• July 2: The Hard Times of RJ Berger on MTV (Sunday, 10PM)
• July 9: Louie on FX (Tuesday, 10:30PM, but moved to 11PM; PTC will archive the review here)

Notice something? All these shows are first-run after 10PM. And reruns take place usually even later (during overnight hours). But PTC argues for each and every time the same old line it's been pushing the past 5 years or so in its campaign for cable choice: "pay hundreds of dollars a year for dozens of channels they don’t watch, don’t want, and...may even find offensive" and in the specific case of Louie, "dump[ing] unbelievable levels of profanity and horrifically graphic sex talk into the home of every cable and satellite subscriber in America while forcing them to pay for it."

OK, first of all, this show is shown late in the night specifically because it's rated TV-MA and as a convenience so that children cannot watch it! And if you live in the Western US and have satellite, just use the V-Chip to block Louie if you have children at home.

And need I not mention that the PTC published its review of Louie the very day that FX showed the sports drama films Invincible--which earned the PTC Seal of Approval--and Miracle--which earned a positive review (no seal though) from PTC? I pointed out back in October 2008 that FX showed Invincible...but the PTC never published anything on its website promoting that. (By the way, FX will show Miracle and Invincible tomorrow at 8:30AM and 11AM respectively.) And on Saturday, July 17, FX will show Alvin & the Chipmunks, which is 1,000,000% more family friendly than those FX original shows that PTC hates so much, at 8PM.

I won't deny that most families with young children in the home or with generally socially conservative values will find channels like Comedy Central, MTV, and Spike offensive...those channels aren't even meant for a "family audience" (at least how groups like PTC define family) in the first place. But c'mon, why is the PTC branding more generally-oriented channels FX and TBS with the same hot iron branding? Does it not occur to PTC that FX reaches out to audiences besides those allegedly drunk depraved morons who laugh at Louie by showing Alvin and the Chipmunks during primetime? Additionally, Malcolm in the Middle and The Bernie Mac Show reruns are shown during the daytime; PTC doesn't have much issue with those shows but do with other shows syndicated by FX: The Practice, Spin City, and That '70s Show. Sure, TBS may show Neighbors from Hell and Family Guy, but realize that TBS also shows baseball games, Saved by the Bell, Home Improvement, The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air, Everybody Loves Raymond, and The King of Queens, all shows that PTC would find to be fairly decent. That's how TV programming works: you can't just cater to the people with the "I get offended at anything over a PG rating" mentality of the PTC, you have to include a lineup of programs that will reach the biggest audience possible. Those sitcoms that I mentioned before like King of Queens and Raymond are sandwiched alongside other shows that PTC has had issues with, like Married...with Children (a PTC Worst Show of the Season in 1997), Just Shoot Me, and Friends.

In the case of programs in development, PTC seems really sensitive to cable subscribers having to subsidize the production of late-night shows, such as Conan O'Brien's new TBS show, and Girls Gone Wild founder Joe Francis's upcoming reality show The Search for the Hottest Girl in America on HDNet; the New York Daily News reports that Francis's show will contain uncensored nudity and will be shown at midnight. The report quotes Dan Isett of PTC: "[Girls Gone Wild] has built its brand on the exploitation of intoxicated women, that’s just what they are and for them to pretend to be anything but that is quite frankly, sickening. This [new show] further demonstrates the need for people to have cable choice." Uh huh, other HDNet quality shows like Dan Rather Reports and HDNet Concert Series and World Report are so sleazy that they prove need for cable choice too. (Oh wait, is the PTC founder Brent Bozell still mad at Dan Rather? Just asking.)

And now my personal takes on the shows that PTC's been condemning this summer. (All these based on what I read on their website.) I wouldn't watch Berger or Brawlers, and from what I read in a review in my college's newspaper Neighbors from Hell is pretty much plagiarism of South Park and Family Guy, which are much funnier (and much more offensive to the PTC). Warren the Ape is a spin-off of the single-season 2002 Fox sitcom Greg the Bunny, which I watched back in its original run (I was just 11 and committed the sin of watching a TV-14 rated show but hey I didn't get scarred for life contrary to what the PTC is so concerned about). I think I'll watch Warren online once my personal schedule lets me. Finally, I first heard about Louie through a preview of NPR's Fresh Air but only got to read a summary of the interview today.

Bottom line is: don't trust the PTC with its tunnel vision of cable TV. Read the TV listings and content ratings too. Be open-minded. Monitor your kids' TV viewing. If a show is offensive, don't watch it (but what's stopping you from criticizing it?)

The PTC flip-flop on Adam Lambert

In December 2005, Parents Television Council "Culture Watch" columnist Christopher Gildemeister responded to an allegation of homophobia by Simon Dumenco in Dumenco's Advertising Age magazine column:

Mr. Dumenco flatly states, without corroborating evidence, that the PTC is "very very afraid of gay TV characters." This is a lie. The PTC is not homophobic. It simply opposes sexual references or innuendo (of any variety, hetero, homo or other) aired where children might be exposed to them.

Flash forward 4 years minus one month, and this year's American Idol runner-up Adam Lambert (who's also openly gay) performs his single "For Your Entertainment" with many sexually-charged elements (such as S&M and simulation of oral sex and Lambert kissing his male keyboard player). It happens toward the very end of ABC's live broadcast of the 2009 American Music Awards, which ran from 8-11PM Eastern and Pacific time. Lambert's performance reportedly aired at 11PM, or 10PM Central/Mountain. Federal law prohibits broadcast of indecency between 6AM-10PM local time. (The oral sex mock was edited out of the West Coast broadcast.) Then PTC raises a stink over Lambert's performance! From its press release:

While the costumes and profanity throughout the broadcast were enough to alarm any reasonable parent, the final performance by Adam Lambert of “American Idol” fame included everything from S&M bondage with the singer leading leather-clad male performers around on leashes to another dancer simulating oral sex on Lambert. The show aired live at 8 pm ET/7 pm CT and was given a TV-14 L rating. The oral sex scene was edited out of the West Coast broadcast.

“American teenagers – and especially teenaged girls – are literally under siege by the entertainment media. It is outrageous that children today cannot watch a televised awards program for an industry that is built squarely on their backs. Teens comprise a huge portion of music sales, yet this is how they are treated? It is beyond contemptible,” said PTC President Tim Winter.

“Last night’s ‘American Music Awards’ broadcast was nothing short of tasteless and vulgar. Adam Lambert, the second-place finisher in last season’s ‘American Idol’ competition, chose to treat American families to simulated oral sex and other demeaning behavior. ABC and Dick Clark Productions had every reason to know what to expect, as Lambert himself proclaimed that his performance would be ‘very sexy’ and would include leather and chains. But the producers and the network chose to bury their heads in the sand.

So apparently S&M and oral sex, with a homosexual twist, was enough to make Lambert's performance stand out, way out, way way way out, from mentioning, let's say:
- Janet Jackson's opening act, where she reportedly grabbed a male dancer's crotch;
- Lady Gaga smashing whiskey bottles, and her dancers having costumes that look revealing (that was during her performance of her new single "Bad Romance"; I saw part of it on Sunday night while breaking from studying for Monday's calculus test);
- Eminem boasting about an extensive criminal record of his stage alter ego "Slim Shady" before performing "Crack a Bottle" and his verse from Drake's "Forever";
- and Carrie Underwood's suggestive outfit and choreography.

Lambert's performance seemed strongly sleazy enough to be the centerpoint of PTC's campaign. On it's "Take Action" page that provides outraged viewers/members to write letters of complaint to ABC, sponsors, or the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), the title states: " American Music Awards Assaults Viewers with Simulated Sex Acts, S&M Themes, and Non-Stop Expletives", but the page doesn't even mention the examples I posted here. In her column (to be published on Friday's print edition), New York Times TV critic Alessandra Stanley also pointed out Jackson, Gaga, and Eminem as other examples of supposedly indecent performers at the AMA this year.

Taking a look at the facts and what PTC wants viewers to complain about, it seems that PTC is defeating itself in the process. Its automated, pre-written "Letter to ABC and Dick Clark Productions" template opens:

Dear Sir or Madam:

For years, the American Music Awards was a wholesome alternative to other trashy awards shows that used cheap gimmicks and sleazy, tabloid-baiting stunts to build a following. The AMAs were different, focusing instead on talent and love of music, so, like many Americans, I felt comfortable watching with my family. No longer. Last night ABC and Dick Clark Productions forever tarnished their hard-earned brands and violated the established trust of millions of parents by allowing S&M and bondage themes and explicit simulated oral sex to be broadcast into our homes, through our publicly-owned broadcast airwaves.

This opening passage seems to contrast the American Music Awards with other shows like the MTV Video Music Awards (and we all know the moral rivalry between PTC and MTV). The Video Music Awards has had its controversial moments like Madonna and Britney Spears kissing and this year, when Kanye West interrupted Taylor Swift's acceptance speech. However, the PTC mentioned in its press release that the awards show was rated "TV-14-L", which in TV Parental Guidelines official lingo means "contains some material that many parents would find unsuitable for children under 14 years of age" because of "strong coarse language". Given the rating, which as procedural ABC shows at the beginning of the program and after every commercial break, why would it be so surprising that the American Music Awards was so un-friendly to a general family audience? Oh, if you want an awards show that focuses on "talent and love of music", try the Grammy Awards, which will be shown on CBS next February.

Although Lambert performed just a few minutes before or just at the start of the 10PM hour in the Central Time Zone, PTC felt it wasn't good enough, so it allows just the Central Time Zone residents to file complaints with the FCC.

And now for today's latest developments.

Yesterday, ABC cancelled Lambert's scheduled performance for today's Good Morning America.

"Given his controversial live performance on the AMAs, we were concerned about airing a similar concert so early in the morning," an ABC News rep said.

However, CBS intervened and invited Lambert to perform on its morning program The Early Show instead. CBS apparently feared more retaliation from PTC or other moral guardian orgs, so the network decided to blur images of Lambert's kiss and sex simulation. "The Adam Lambert image is a subject of great current controversy, has not been nearly as widely disseminated and, for all we know, may still lead to legal consequences," reported the Los Angeles Times quoting a CBS representative.

In response to ABC's disinvitation, PTC's Dan Isett stated:

"I do think it’s a little bit unfortunate... The idea that he should be scrubbed from TV completely is not where we’re going. It may be a bit of an overreaction on ABC’s part."

And Isett insists his organisation was simply upset because the powers that be didn't censor Lambert's AMAs live performance, which was heavily edited when it aired three hours later on America's west coast.

What a surprise. I thought that PTC was going to share ABC's concern that Lambert would've repeated his sleazy choreography on Good Morning America and call on ABC also to ax Lambert's performance. It seems that PTC indirectly intimidated ABC into doing so though.

This controversy brings up a whole bunch of double standards. The one homosexually suggestive performance that began very late in the evening generated the most controversy out of all the performances from earlier in the evening that had elements some would find sexually offensive. If PTC is going to highlight Lambert's performance constantly in its campaign for tougher sanctions against broadcast indecency, it's certainly got a weak one. If the FCC finds that the indecent elements of the performance were broadcast after 10PM Central Time, then the PTC will suffer some public relations struggles.

In his Early Show interview, Lambert claims to be a victim of a double standard against gay males. This is his side of the story.

I suppose I can understand why (parents are) upset. And, honestly, it didn't cross my mind, children. It was almost 11:00. It was a nighttime show. I was there in the audience full of mostly adults. Sometimes, I forget, 'Oh, there's a camera on.' I come from the theater. And I'm programmed to kind of look at who's in the live audience, and that's kind of where I come from. So, I was looking out in the crowd and saw some of my favorite pop stars and thought, 'I want to let loose.' And it just kind of got the best of me. And I had a great time. Unfortunately, there were people upset, but I think there are also people who really enjoyed it. So, like 'Idol,' I guess I have a tendency to divide people -- apples and oranges -- you either like it or you don't.

He also stated that it's ultimately the parent's responsibility to monitor children's TV viewing:

He also said he's "not a babysitter, I'm a performer" when asked if he wanted to apologize to parents of any kids who might have been watching. "I think it's up to the parents to discern what their child's watching on television," Lambert said at one point. Later he observed, "I think it's up to a parent to watch the television. It was almost 11:00 at night. If they're concerned with certain material maybe Tivo it and preview it before your small child is watching it."

Right. And the show was rated "TV-14", for crying out loud! When will the PTC members ever realize that TV is not a baby-sitter?

And finally, for some humor, get your dirty mind on and ponder PTC president Tim Winter's statement "It is outrageous that children today cannot watch a televised awards program for an industry that is built squarely on their backs." Hmm, given the PTC's obsession with pointing out all the graphic sex acts on TV that'll turn your sons into pimps or serial rapists or your daughters into sluts or welfare queens, why not find the underlying message in Winter's statement? Maybe he's trying to get attention with a dirty metaphor referring to anal sex or rape while at the same time opposing references to these in entertainment?

This year's American Music Awards was the most-watched since 2002, second most-watched program of the week among adults 18-49, and ninth most-watched out of the top 25 programs watched by viewers of all ages.

Kudos to the FCC for ruling "Saving Private Ryan" not indecent

On Veteran's Day 2004, several ABC affiliates in the US pre-empted the network's national showing of the 1998 Oscar-winning film Saving Private Ryan because of its numerous use of profanity (such as the F-word) and graphic violence...all intended to depict the realities of World War II. Nine months earlier, Justin Timberlake exposed one of Janet Jackson's breasts at the Super Bowl XXXVIII halftime show. For that incident, the broadcasting network CBS was fined $550,000 in September 2004. (This fine is currently under legal review in the Third Circuit Court of Appeals following an order by the US Supreme Court)

Right now I'm watching the Frontline documentary "Obama's War". It was shown on Oct. 13, 2009, on primetime on PBS. In my area, KQED at 8PM. I don't know whichever parental guidelines rating (like TV-PG, etc.) that it got since it wasn't shown on screen, but there was a viewer discretion screen that said "tonight's program contains graphic imagery". The clips of military members engaged in war in Afghanistan left the F-words uncensored. In an era where groups like the Parents Television Council have intimidated networks into censorship, I applaud PBS for choosing to leave the profanity to show the realities of the environment where the men and women fighting for our freedom inhabit every day while we enjoy our luxurious lives in the free world. It's as verbally rough as it's geographically, since in the middle east days can get even hotter than in Las Vegas.

I googled to see if anyone's reacted to this also. Read Daniel Hennis's comment on this article:

I was watching PBS last night, the program about the current situation with Afghanistan and Pakistan. I was greatly disturbed that the f-word was left in, clear as a bell, THREE times in less than thirty seconds. I reported it to the FCC (because I doubt PBS's elitist leftist program managers would care to do anything about it otherwise). Normally, I allow my children to watch SOME of PBS's programming, but it's falling on my popularity list. I can tolerate some of the socialist indoctrination, but I will not tolerate profanity of that magnitude.

Daniel Hennis, Kuna, ID

Well Daniel, your complaint will be likely flushed down the john...the FCC will most likely not fine PBS as it did to ABC back in 2004 for Saving Private Ryan.

Two other comments on this article accused the title of having a bias against Obama. Other comments praised the documentary for being better than most mainstream reporting.

PTC responds to last night's Gossip Girl

Tim Winter, president of the Parents Television Council, responded to last night's controversial episode of The CW's Gossip Girl:

LOS ANGELES (November 10, 2009) – The Parents Television Council® issued a statement in reaction to the teen-targeted “Gossip Girl” episode that aired on Nov. 9. The CW Network’s own promotions indicated that major characters would be featured in a sexual threesome. “Gossip Girl” airs at 9 pm ET/PT and 8 pm CT/MT.

“Though there was no explicit sex scene on last night’s episode, the CW Network’s behavior was grossly irresponsible by adding a story line where a sexual threesome was to be celebrated as some sort of ‘rite of passage’ for teenagers. The network inserted this story line into a program that they themselves deem to be appropriate for 14-year-old children based on its content rating,” said PTC President Tim Winter.

“CW has stated that last night’s episode is not the end of the story, teasing next week’s ‘Gossip Girl’ episode as continuing the ‘threesome’ storyline. And the network’s claim that it isn’t trying to reach impressionable teenagers falls flat given that their own press release from September 2009 touts the fact that ‘Gossip Girl’ won in the ratings among women ages 12-34, and that when ‘Gossip Girl’ is paired with ‘One Tree Hill,’ these shows during the 8-10 pm block have finished first with females 12-34 and female teens.

“Advertisements for ‘Gossip Girl’ have heavily featured themes and wording that only move minors to view the program, such as ‘Every Parent’s Nightmare.’ Such marketing tactics clearly appeal to teens, not adult women. Also, ‘Gossip Girl’ creator Josh Schwartz has boasted, ‘I can honestly say that I don’t check the ratings after the show airs,’ because he knows that a vast majority of his viewers – tech-savvy teens – are watching the program online.

“Advertisers and CW affiliates still need to be on guard. CW affiliates have told the PTC that the network did not afford them an opportunity to pre-screen the program. We urge each affiliate to evaluate the content within the scope of their broadcast license that was loaned to them in return for serving the public interest.”

I searched on Google and cannot find any other source than this press release that quotes Schwartz as saying that he does not look up his show's ratings. And apparently, the PTC thinks that 14-year-olds are still not mature enough to hear about threesomes on TV. Winter also misrepresented the plot of this episode: The characters are in college (which he does not acknowledge at all in this release nor on the earlier one demanding that CW stations pre-empt last night's ep), so that supposed "rite of passage" might not technically take place (at least in the fictional world of Gossip Girl) during the characters' teenage years.

But as far as 14-year-olds and such edgy shows as Gossip Girl indicate, it just shows another one of PTC's silly strawman arguments that kids still need their innocence until they get out of high school...perhaps the reason why they recommend that children under 18 not be allowed to watch it at all? (Most episodes have been rated TV-14, which means basically my previous statement only replace 18 with 14, and a few I believe were rated TV-PG-DLS or whatever if the content was light. TV-PG is for parental guidance suggested.)

As I noted earlier, Time magazine television critic James Poniewoznik has a rebuttal to PTC's archaic ideology that is so much more compassionate and rhetorically respectful than the PTC's political agenda-driven language. This is from his blog where he responded to PTC criticizing the TV-14 rating of AMC's Mad Men as too light:

Now, the thing is, I actually think the PTC has several points. Yeah, I probably would not screen the show for an average 14-year-old...But would I show Mad Men to a mature 14-year-old? One who was, say, already reading the kind of adult literary fiction that Mad Men mirrors? Yes.

And as I said earlier:

In America, there are teenagers whose parents want to keep pure and innocent until age 18, I won't deny that. Just as there are Gossip Girl type teens who are well-cultured and know the dangers of the world around them and whose parents are willing to discuss the birds n' the bees. This criticism isn't surprising given that PTC feels that there have been cases in broadcast TV also where TV-14 has been too weak.