The real context of MIA's finger gesture at the super bowl halftime show

If you watched the halftime show of this year's Super Bowl (rather unexciting, more of a carbon copy of the one after the 2007 season) you might've seen rapper M.I.A sticking up her middle finger for a moment. Then the screen suddenly cuts to an aerial view of the field and blurs very quickly. If you were wondering why NBC blurred the whole screen for a second after MIA finished her performance it was because the network realized what MIA did and thought the blur could censor the action on time. It didn't, and I presume that NBC had some sort of tape delay system. But it does confirm the opinion that MIA's action was so quick that many people wouldn't notice exactly which finger she was sticking up. In fact, Time magazine TV critic James Poniewoznik commented: "M.I.A...apparently briefly flipped off the camera in a gesture so shocking that I had no idea she even did it until NBC issued an apology for it." An Associated Press report also quoted a viewer who only realized the next morning what MIA did.

Here's the video.

And here's the official music video for Madonna's "Give Me All Your Luvin'". Go to the 2:39 mark, where MIA's part is. When she raps "I don't give a sh..." she points out her index finger as in mimicking firing a gun. Hmm. So could it be that MIA might've accidentally moved her wrong finger? A possibility. UK tabloid The Sun quotes an anonymous insider: "M.I.A. did nothing similar in rehearsals," and also alleged that Madonna disapproved of MIA's action.

And of course, the good ol' Parents Television Council had to weigh in. (No long-winded column yet about "OOGA BOOGA DECLINING DECENCY STANDARDS IN AMERICA!" by PTC founder/former president/now advisor/continuing columnist Brent Bozell.) Current PTC president Tim Winter was quoted in the same AP source: "Most families would agree that the middle finger aimed directly at them is not appropriate, especially during the most-watched television event of the year."

The PTC's full statement is here, and furthermore Winter stated: "It has been eight years since the Janet Jackson striptease, and both NBC and the NFL knew full well what might happen. They chose a lineup full of performers who have based their careers on shock, profanity and titillation." The performers in this year's halftime show indeed don't lack controversy. Headliner Madonna has been provocative throughout her nearly 30-year pop music career and has especially inflamed the "pro-family" crowd, for example in 1989 soft drink brand Pepsi canceled a planned TV commercial with Madonna because the American Family Association complained about the singer's "Like a Virgin" music video using Christian symbolism and boycotted Pepsi for planning the ad. And as i blogged about earlier Brent Bozell had gripes with co-performer Nicki Minaj, who also had a wardrobe malfunction on a Good Morning America TV performance last year. Cee-Lo had a popular hit with "Fuck You" (on the radio "Forget You"), of course that would inflame Bozell's sensibilities (the golden passage in this column? "Any radio edit is just a lame Band-Aid for a pus-filled boil."). Another Bozell-founded Cultural Guardian, the Culture and Media Institute, also targeted MIA over her song "Lovalot" because its chorus sounded like "I love Allah"...oh no, those evil pop musicians can NOT be singing about ALLAH and MUSLIMS to our precious kids' ears!!!! But other than the performers' controversial backgrounds, what other evidence does Winter have to claim NBC knew another Janet Jackson moment would happen? In fact Winter had nothing to say about the suggestive dancing in the halftime show, and had the middle finger incident not occurred would he even have issued a Monday morning statement? Furthermore, the song selection wasn't highly offensive (unlike the Super Bowl show with Janet Jackson with songs like "Rock Your Body" and "Shake Ya Tailfeather"). From wikipedia: The setlist included "Vogue," a medley of Madonna's "Music" and LMFAO's two largest hits ("Party Rock Anthem" and "Sexy and I Know It,"...), followed by "Give Me All Your Luvin'," "Open Your Heart," "Express Yourself" (in a duet with [Cee-Lo] Green), and the finale, "Like a Prayer"."

Wonder why PTC doesn't have a complaint form to the FCC on its front page (even as of right now) unlike back in February 2004 after the Janet Jackson incident? The "Hilicon Valley" blog at TheHill.com explains: "A spokeswoman for the Parents Television Council said the organization won't ask the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to fine NBC over the incident, but "we're certain others will do so whether we encourage them to or not."" In fact, if the FCC decides to fine NBC over this incident, MIA is contractually bound to pitch in. It seems by not actively pursuing formal complaints over MIA's middle finger, PTC is silently acknowledging that this is a weaker case than Janet Jackson's breast.

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!

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?

Channel 6=the only existing American analog TV channel

My dad bought a new flatscreen TV today and was tuning channels. Channel 6 displayed a fuzzy analogue picture displaying "need guidance?" and the logo of Christian contemporary music radio station K-Love.

The blog Radio Survivor reports: "Channel 6 'radio' stations could be silent by 2012":

Currently the FCC is accepting comments on a Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking regarding the low-power television service [PDF]. Unlike full-power TV, LPTV is still analog. Now the FCC is considering a timeline for closing that gap.

The fact that LPTV is still analog is why some stations on channel 6 have been able effectively to operate like radio stations, due to the fact that their audio program sits just left of the FM broadcast dial, receivable at 87.7 FM. It’s a little corner of radio broadcasting I’ve been covering for over a year now.

As I predicted back in March, the FCC is now set to close this loophole by requiring LPTV stations to go digital, which would make their audio channels inaccessible to FM radios. The only question is when this will happen. The Commission has suggested that the transition might be completed sometime in 2012–so, in less than 2 years. However, it is also seeking comment on how realistic it will be for stations to meet that timeframe. At the same time the Commission notes that a 2012 deadline would be three years after the full-power transition. The Commission argues that LPTV stations should be well aware that a digital transition was imminent, and also points out that Congress created a special fund to assist low-power stations convert to digital.

Interesting. I remember tuning into channel 6 in the past...despite the fact that no channel 6 TV station exists in the San Francisco Bay Area...and seeing/hearing only static with legible audio cutting in and out. Only recently did I learn that TV channel 6 equaled 87.7 FM. When I visited San Diego in 2004 for a piano convention, I could hear XETV channel 6 (then a Fox station; now a CW station since 2008) on 87.7. (The call letter begins with X as the station is based in nearby

Tijuana, Baja California Norte, Mexico.)The K-Love website lists 3 FM frequencies that reach the city of San Jose: 91.9, KBKF-LP 87.7, and KLVS 107.3. Radio-locator identifies 91.9 as K220BV with a transmitter in the remote southern hills of Los Gatos right next to Alamaden Air Force Station. Googling KBKF led me to this page suggesting that KBKF is transmitting from the Santa Cruz Mountains. Google Maps found a transmitter at this address:

8155 Hihn Rd

Ben Lomond, CA 95005

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.

An interesting conversation with KOFY TV about broadcasting "widescreen standard definition" football

Tomorrow, KOFY-TV 20 in the San Francisco Bay Area will broadcast the San Jose State vs. Boise State football game. Currently, SJSU is 1-4 on the season and 0-1 in the Western Athletic Conference, while Boise State is undefeated 5-0 and 1-0 and is predicted to top Bowl Championship Series ratings. Although this is a home game, I'd like to stay home and just watch both the San Francisco Giants vs. Philadelphia Phillies opening game of the National League Championship Series in baseball on KTVU-TV and the SJSU game on KOFY. Given that the Boise State Broncos is the 4th ranked team that the lowly SJSU Spartans has played this season, and that SJSU fell to the national champions 48-3 and even lost to a Football Championship Subdivision (lower division than where SJSU is, the Football Bowl Subdivision) team UC Davis Aggies during the SJSU Homecoming game, 14-13 on 2 Oct., tomorrow night's score should be quite obvious.

I happened to catch the Boise State vs. Toledo football game last Saturday on KOFY, which is one of the Western Athletic Conference TV affiliates. While Boise State is undeniably a great football team, the broadcast format isn't. KOFY broadcast the match in 4:3 format as it does for all its programmes other than ABC7 News at 9. However, KOFY compressed a 16:9 picture into 4:3, thus making everything seem thinner than proportional. Thus, today I decided to ring up the KOFY switchboard over the phone, (415) 821-2020 pressing 4 for technical services, to ask the tech guy why. I left a message and promptly got a call back about 15 minutes later. The technical worker explained that Learfield distributed the football game in a widescreen standard definition picture format, and standard definition programmes must be broadcast in 4:3 format. In this case, as widescreen is the new normal format for television sets and broadcasting, the only realistic broadcasting choices that'd preserve the picture quality would either be: scrunching the picture (as I mentioned earlier) and leaving black pillars to the left and right of the screen, or letterboxing the picture within the 4:3 area and leaving the image proportional. The tech worker explained that "blowing up" the widescreen SD image just because KOFY does have widescreen capability would drastically reduce picture quality and defeat the purpose of high definition television.

So there you have it, if you're wondering why KOFY or any other WAC television affiliate is showing the football games in such a weird format. I'd suggest contacting Learfield Sports, which distributes TV/radio broadcasts of the WAC, and persuading them to start televising games in HD. I mean c'mon. If CBS could start broadcasting soap opera The Young and the Restless back in summer 2001, then why does Learfield have to broadcast football games in standard definition widescreen in 2010?

If anything: GO SPARTANS! GO GIANTS!

PS: At the SJSU student newspaper The Spartan Daily, one columnist opines that the Giants need a better offense to beat Philadelphia.

Causes: Relief for the Haiti earthquake, Keep Conan O'Brien on the Tonight Show

Haiti earthquake

On January 12, 2010, a 7.0 magnitude earthquake hit Port-au-Prince, Haiti. Death tolls are estimated between 45,000-50,000 by the American Red Cross; the Haitian government estimates it even higher, at around 200,000. Because Haiti is the poorest country in the Western Hemisphere, even government buildings and local United Nations headquarters have suffered significant damage, and the head of the Haiti UN headquarters has died in the rubble. Hospitals are so overwhelmed that they can't tend to everyone who's been hurt. Already, the US government has issued temporary asylum for illegal Haitian immigrants currently living in the US. And many countries worldwide have sent aid.

MTV Networks has organized a telethon, Hope for Haiti. Commercial-free, it'll be shown on Friday, Jan. 22 at 8PM on: ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox, CNN, BET, the CW, HBO, MTV, VH1 and CMT. It'll be hosted by Haitian-American musician Wyclef Jean (from New York City), actor George Clooney (from Los Angeles), and CNN anchor Anderson Cooper (from Port-au-Prince). Well, fans of the (now-cancelled) show Dollhouse: at least you'll have another week until your beloved show ends.

One way to donate to the Haiti relief effort is to text the word "HAITI" to 90999; as a donation to Haiti $10.00 will be charged to your cell phone bill. If you don't use texting or don't know how, then check out the American Red Cross website for information about donating the old-fashioned way (y'know, writing checks). My condolences go to all who've lost loved ones to this earthquake.

Sadly, there are those who chose to ignore or mock this tragedy. For example, conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh has remarked: "We've already donated to Haiti. It's called the U.S. income tax." And, he said that President Obama was giving aid to Haiti to gain credibility from the "light-skinned and dark-skinned black community" in the US. Regarding Limbaugh's "income tax" remark, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs and even MSNBC Morning Joe host Joe Scarborough (a former Republican congressional representative) condemned Limbaugh.

Evangelical Christian and host of The 700 Club Pat Robertson also had this to say about Haiti:

The Haitians "were under the heel of the French. You know, Napoleon III and whatever," Robertson said on his broadcast Wednesday. "And they got together and swore a pact to the devil. They said, 'We will serve you if you will get us free from the French.' True story. And so, the devil said, 'OK, it's a deal.' "

Not really surprising since back in 2001, Robertson agreed with Jerry Falwell that liberals, homosexuals, and atheists were to blame for the September 11 attacks and said that God used Hurricane Katrina to punish America.

A study by the progressive media research organization Media Matters for America found that MSNBC's primetime commentary shows (Hardball with Chris Matthews, Countdown with Keith Olbermann, The Rachel Maddow Show) devoted far much more coverage than Fox News's competing shows (The O'Reilly Factor, Hannity, Glenn Beck). While the Haiti earthquake got brief mentions on the Fox shows (think about the "headlines" segment on Good Morning America) the MSNBC shows dedicated much deeper coverage (even interviews with politicians and others associated with Haiti). MSNBC's morning show Morning Joe had several segments about the earthquake (and I again stress that Scarborough has conservative leanings), so it surely reflects on what Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, and Glenn Beck feel are priorities for their audiences and how those hosts react to tragedy.

Host of The Tonight Show

This week, NBC announced that it would remove The Jay Leno Show from its primetime lineup because affiliates complained that it decreased their 11PM newscasts' ratings. NBC experimented with its primetime schedule in the fall by giving Jay Leno a daily 10PM show on weeknights while replacing him with Conan O'Brien on The Tonight Show. Former Saturday Night Live cast member Jimmy Fallon succeeded O'Brien on NBC's other late night show, Late Night. To keep Leno on the network, there are now two choices:
- Leno's show moves to 11:35PM (current Tonight Show timeslot) but is reduced to a half-hour length. The Tonight Show with Conan O'Brien and Late Night with Jimmy Fallon follow.
- O'Brien leaves and gives The Tonight Show back to Leno.

O'Brien has stated that he refuses to host Tonight should the first option take effect:

I believe that delaying The Tonight Show into the next day to accommodate another comedy program will seriously damage what I consider to be the greatest franchise in the history of broadcasting. The Tonight Show at 12:05 simply isn’t the Tonight Show. Also, if I accept this move I will be knocking the Late Night show, which I inherited from David Letterman and passed on to Jimmy Fallon, out of its long-held time slot. That would hurt the other NBC franchise that I love, and it would be unfair to Jimmy.

I agree fully with Conan...in Internet meme-speak: I'M WITH COCO!!!!!! Leno's had his turn on Tonight, and it'd be a shame to see the brilliant O'Brien (who's written for Saturday Night Live and The Simpsons) leave after only just over half a year on The Tonight Show. Although I still watch The Jay Leno Show every once in a while (mainly for the guests), I'm personally against Leno returning to The Tonight Show. There've been many Twitter posts and Facebook groups rallying behind O'Brien. Also, according to Wikipedia's article "The Tonight Show host and timeslot conflict":

Dozens of celebrities expressed support for O'Brien, including Roger Ebert, Rosie O'Donnell, Jim Gaffigan, Paul F. Tompkins, Doug Benson, Ahmir "?uestlove" Thompson, Alyssa Milano, Chris Parnell, Jimmy Kimmel, Marlee Matlin, Ben Stiller, Ice-T, Matthew Perry, Howard Stern, and Ricky Gervais. Actor and comedian Patton Oswalt has expressly backed O'Brien, saying, "Comedians who don't like Jay Leno now, and I'm one of them, we're not like, 'Jay Leno sucks;' it's that we're so hurt and disappointed that one of the best comedians of our generation... willfully has shut the switch off."

While support for O'Brien has been overwhelming, Leno became the target for heated criticism and increasing negative publicity in his role in the timeslot conflict. Fellow late night hosts David Letterman of The Late Show and Jimmy Kimmel of Jimmy Kimmel Live! were quick to publicly blast NBC and Leno in their monologues. Kimmel went so far as to perform an entire episode of his program dressed in character as Leno, mocking his voice, jokes, mannerisms, band, and popular segments (such as "Headlines"). Shortly after, he was invited onto The Jay Leno Show to participate in its "Ten at Ten" segment, during which he sharply criticized Leno several times. Jimmy Fallon, who hosts the program immediately following The Tonight Show, refused to take sides, calling O'Brien and Leno "two of my heroes and two of my friends."

And now rumor has it that NBC is paying O'Brien $30 million to leave, but NBC denies it. ABC News called it "a PR disaster for all".

If we really want to support O'Brien, we should contact NBC in addition to howling on social networking sites.

On NBC's contact page, select "Tonight Show Conan" from the pulldown menu. Write a message expressing your support for Conan O'Brien staying on the Tonight Show as long as his contract states (right now O'Brien has about 2.5 years left on it). Other forms of communication that are more likely to be taken seriously:

Postal mail
Jeffrey Zucker
c/o NBC Entertainment
30 Rockefeller Plaza
New York, NY 10112

Telephone:
212-664-2333 (New York City)
818-840-4444 (Burbank)

Hey networks doing remakes of classic TV shows, I have an awesome idea. It's called "reruns".

The New York Times just published this new article by its TV writer Bill Carter, "Why Studios Keep Cranking Out TV Remakes, Despite the Flops". It provides a context in the major US broadcast networks remaking classic TV series. In fall 2010, three remakes of old TV shows will premiere in primetime: Charlie's Angels (ABC), Hawaii Five-O (CBS), and (NBC). Interestingly, the original versions of all these shows were on the same networks: Charlie's AngelsThe Rockford Files ran from 1976-1981, Hawaii Five-O from 1968-1980, and The Rockford Files 1974-1980.

This season, the CW network has two remakes of 1990s teen dramas Beverly Hills, 90210 (the remake is simply 90210) and Melrose Place. In this case, the original versions of these shows were on Fox; the CW was established in 2006 after the UPN and WB networks (both of which were established in the mid-1990s) merged. Beverly Hills, 90210 ran on Fox from 1990-2000, and Melrose Place ran on the same network from 1992-1999. Regarding the CW's remakes, Carter writes: "No one would claim either approaches the success of their predecessors, or even passable hit status."

In his article, Carter explains that many remakes of classic shows have flopped recently.
- The Fugitive (ABC, 1963-1967; remade for CBS, 2000). Compared with the now-successful, still-running CSI: Crime Scene Investigation, the remake of The Fugitive had a lot of buzz right before it premiered. It was canceled after one season.
- The Bionic Woman (ABC, 1976-1977, moved to NBC, 1977-1978; remade for NBC as Bionic Woman, 2007). Like The Fugitive, the Bionic Woman remake attracted a lot of pre-premiere attention. But the show lasted only 9 episodes.
- Dragnet (radio, 1949-1957; NBC, 1951-1959; remade for ABC, 1967-1970; remade for syndication as The New Dragnet, 1989-1991; remade for ABC as L.A. Dragnet, 2003). A rather interesting production history exists behind the franchise: Both the '50s and '60s versions had Jack Webb cast as main character Joe Friday and had "the same ominous theme music and intro about names being changed to protect the innocent". Dick Wolf, creator of the long-running Law & Order drama franchise, created L.A. Dragnet. Although it cast Ed O'Neill (who played Al Bundy in Married...With Children) and Eva Longoria (who was on the cast of The Young and the Restless), Wolf's L.A. Dragnet flopped after a few episodes.
- Knight Rider (NBC, 1982-1986; remade for NBC, 2008). NBC premiered a TV movie of Knight Rider in February 2008 shortly after the writers' strike ended. The remade TV series followed the next fall, but that flopped too.

Carter writes also:

It is easy to understand why. “It’s a good idea to try,” said Warren Littlefield, who was the top programmer at NBC and is now an independent producer. “Movies have proved you can do well with a presold concept.”

That is another way of saying it is only natural to turn to familiar titles because they attract attention. The question is whether the series that result will attract viewers.

The track record does more than suggest not: it screams not. In the history of network television, no remake of a previous hit series has ever become a hit itself on network television.

Regarding the relative lack of success of TV remakes:

Mr. Littlefield said that the woeful track record of previous remakes should not discourage network programmers from continuing to buy projects based on old hits. “But there has to be a series there,” he said. “It can’t be like a movie. You can’t trick them.”

Mr. Littlefield suggested a formula that could work: “At the risk of being oversimplistic: it also has to be good.”

OK, if "familiar titles" get more buzz than actual viewership, how about this: Instead of wasting money on remaking a show that has an already-established fanbase, why not instead devote part of primetime to rerunning TV classics that have been hits and have worked well with audiences? That way the networks will be giving more choice to viewers: a "then and now" type of lineup that'll get a wider age range of viewers tuning in.

So what happened in my month sans any blogging?

- Finals. Out of my 5 classes of fall semester, 4 of the classes' grades were released. Those were all A's. Still pending is my calculus grade.
- On the Saturday before Christmas, I got my wisdom teeth removed and was nearly malnourished the next few days.
- Now that finals are out of the way and I get to fool around and do nothing really until January 26 (when spring semester begins) I've started cleaning out my DVR, which has shrunken from nearly 95 shows around finals time (Dec. 11-14) to just 65 today.
- Hopefully I can find old high school friends when they've still got winter break.
- On Christmas Day, I took a hike with family in Hellyer Park.

Interesting NY Times articles

Entertainment: "An Unsteady Future for Broadcast" by Tim Arango and Bill Carter. Analyses the downfall in NBC's ratings and contrasts them with the rising ratings and profit for cable channels like ESPN, TNT, and USA.

Business: "Best Soup Ever? Suits Over Ads Demand Proof" by Stephanie Clifford. Goes over disputes between rival companies that have led to false-advertising lawsuits. Among the cases: DirecTV vs. Charter Communications, Verizon vs. AT&T, UPS vs. FedEx.

Health: "Medical Marijuana: No Longer Just for Adults" by Katherine Ellison. The ganja shall treat the hyperactive child.

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.

Parents Television Council's mission to block tonight's Gossip Girl sort of worked

According to this Twitter post by Ego Salon & Studio in Chattanooga, TN, the local CW affiliate there pre-empted tonight's controversial episode of Gossip Girl. The episode, titled "They Shoot Humphreys, Don't They?" and rated TV-14-LS, reportedly will contain a scene of a threesome between three of the college-aged characters. The show premiered in September 2007, and during its first two seasons focused on the lives of upper-class New York City prep school students. This season the students have begun their college lives in the Ivy League and other big-name universities like New York University.

Well I'm not sure what to say about The CW Chattanooga bowing down to the PTC. And apparently the CW was NOT joking about the "3some" that it printed in the promotional posters for tonight's episode. Twitter was EXPLODING around 9:50PM Eastern Time (the show currently airs Mondays at 9PM Eastern/Pacific, 8PM Central/Mountain, opposite CBS's nearly-as-risque sitcom Two and a Half Men and Fox's crime drama Lie to Me). They varied from: "disappointment", "not the 3some that I saw coming", "why can't I stop laughing", "SO WEIRD!", "hot", "don't do it", "didn't see that coming", "The CW is risque", "got me steamy", "WTF", "NOFAIR!", "not as cool as I hoped", "WHAT IS GOING ON?", "EPIC", "my dream 3some", and "whole lotta yuck". In real standard English, viewers were disappointed, shocked, amazed, and disgusted all at once. One Tweeter I noticed remarked: "I could've sworn it was Jenny havin the 3some". Well that's a lie. As far as I know Jenny Humphrey (younger sister of Dan Humphrey in the TV show) is still in high school as of this season, and if CW really had Jenny on, the network would've straight-up pre-empted this episode nationwide.

Still, the best words of wisdom came from the Ego Salon & Studio: "If you don't want your child watch[ing] a 3some episode turn it. But don't sensor (sic) it." I agree. Why is PTC singling out Gossip Girl when tonight's Two and a Half Men episode has a plot CENTERED around the two main characters in bed with a woman? Doesn't PTC think that sort of plot is much MORE harmful to teenagers than a mere scene of three-way sex within a more general and tasteful plot?

Gossip Girl has now made its mark as having one of TV's most controversial moments. Back in 1971, CBS's sitcom All in the Family made headlines for including the sound of a toilet flushing. (That episode was "Success Story", from its first season). Despite that, All in the Family went one to become America's favorite show during much of the early- and mid-70s. In 1991, L.A. Law (at the time a 10PM Thursday legal drama on NBC) broadcast the first-ever lesbian kiss on primetime TV (that episode apparently aired 20 days before I was born!) (Wikipedia expands on this.) And later we've had NYPD Blue (ABC cop drama, another 10PM show) showing male and female buttocks, but in 2008 the FCC managed to fine ABC over a 2003 episode of Blue ("Nude Awakening") that depicted a woman character's buttocks for a few seconds. The indecent moment on TV that most likely explains why you can't ever heard words like "f--k" and "s--t" on broadcast networks or you need to shell out a bunch of money to watch Entourage on HBO is the Super Bowl XXXVIII halftime show, broadcast on CBS in 2004. Performer Justin Timberlake ripped off part of co-performer Janet Jackson's costume, exposing her breast (covered by a nipple shield) for just over half a second. Nonetheless, the PTC raised hell over that, and by September the FCC fined CBS nearly half a million dollars. A federal appeals court overturned the fine, but the US Supreme Court ordered the appeals court to reconsider. There's always been something on TV for the nation to raise a fuss over. From hearing a toilet flush on a sitcom in the early 70s to women kissing each other in the 90s and then the numerous sex scenes mirroring people's daily lives to the accidental exposure of undesirable body parts . And now a show aimed towards teens and young adults daring to show three-way sex. Tomorrow, we'll see what the reaction of the PTC and the future cultural impact.

2009: Year of the heckler?

Tonight is the 2009 MTV Video Music Awards. The most talked-about moment of the awards show was when rapper Kanye West interrupted country-pop singer Taylor Swift's acceptance speech for her video "You Belong With Me".

MTV Shows

Kanye West has had a reputation for angry outbursts before at MTV award shows, notably in last year's European Music Awards and in the 2004 American Music Awards and 2006 MTV EMA's too. Blogger Pete Cashmore at Mashable asks whether this was probably a staged stunt, as happened three months earlier at the MTV Movie Awards when Sacha Baron Cohen "mooned" Eminem in the stands. Well since Taylor Swift and her mother were clearly upset by this mess, and West was evicted from the show, and Beyonce (won Best Video for "Single Ladies (Put a Ring On It)" even offered Swift another chance to speak, I hope it was staged, or else I will hate Kanye West even more than when he did the terrible auto-tuned album 808s & Heartbreak. Even other VMA nominees and winners have spoken out against West. Finally, he did the mandatory thing: apologize.

From all this, and maybe some raunchy Russell Brand jokes I missed because I don't have cable but heard about the Kanye incident from my friends, I wonder if the Parents Television Council is gonna raise a fuss over the awards, as they did last year.

This all reminds me of past incidents this summer where there were openly disruptive hecklers.

For example, as various members of Congress held town hall meetings to address President Barack Obama's proposed health care reform, conservatives have disrupted the speaking Congress members loudly and raucously because they feel that the reform is "socialism" and an oppressive "government takeover of health care". Here are some NBC Nightly News reports about that nonsense:

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

In August, the Senate held confirmation hearings for then-Judge Sonia Sotomayor. An abortion protestor hollered while Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) interviewed Sotomayor. Others followed. Of course, once again by conservatives concerned over the apparent liberalism of Sotomayor. But she was confirmed anyway.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

And most recently before the Video Music Awards, Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC) yelled, "You lie!" at President Obama when he accurately stated that health care reform will not serve illegal immigrants.

James Poniewozik and reruns pwned PTC? (updated)

This just came up on my RSS reader where I keep track of the Parents Television Council on Google News. It's a blog entry by Time magazine critic James Poniewoznik, who penned a lengthy profile of the PTC for the magazine in 2005. Poniewoznik responds to the PTC's criticism of AMC's new drama Mad Men, a show about a New York City advertising agency in the 1960s. Apparently that's part of PTC's series "So You Think You Can Rate a TV Show?", in which its entertainment analysts challenge the networks' usage of the TV Parental Guidelines. (Have you seen how the networks, except CBS, repeatedly flash those ratings at the beginning of each show and after each commercial break? Notice how Viacom-owned networks like Comedy Central and MTV have 'em uber big at the beginning? And that Fox actually plasters an XXL sized ratings box during "Viewer Discretion Advised" cards? Creepy.)

OK, enough with the off-topic ramble, but I wonder how Mr. Poniewoznik got the PTC's review when it's not even listed anywhere? Google "mad men" within the parentstv.org website (as of right now there's only one irrelevant result. PTC complains that the episode of Mad Men, which was rated TV-14-LS (unsuitable for children under 14 because of language and sexual content) contained such content more suitable for a TV-MA (17 and older only) rating than TV-14.

Here's what PTC allegedly has to say:

AMC gave the show a TV-14 (L, S) rating, which means that the company thinks that the episode was appropriate for 14-year-old children. The basic cable episode contained a shot of a character's hand going down into the underwear of another character for sexual stimulation, a half-naked woman whose hands covered her breasts just before insinuating that she had sex with another character, and a graphic scene with a prostitute that repeats several times, “I'm gonna cut your dick off and boil it in hog fat.”

And here's Poniewoznik's rebuttal:

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. I can do without the inconsistent ratings systems too, and would like to see a la carte cable choices, because I think consumer choice is a good thing, especially as it applies to cable near-monopolies.

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 other than that, what 14-year-old is actually interested in watching moody period pieces about the social mores of affluent suburbs in the 1960s? For whom is this actually a serious concern? Let me clue you in: if your 14-year-old is surfing cable alone, trying to find something dirty to watch, he wants to see Skinemax or something, not Bert Cooper talking about the nuances of Japanese tentacle-erotica art.

Apparently PTC put out a "trial balloon" to get attention or something. I don't know, but I'll post up the PTC's primary link if they ever put one out. But according to the TV Parental Guidelines, TV-14 doesn't directly mean "appropriate for all children over 14". Technically, it means:

This program contains some material that many parents would find unsuitable for children under 14 years of age. Parents are strongly urged to exercise greater care in monitoring this program and are cautioned against letting children under the age of 14 watch unattended. This program may contain one or more of the following: intensely suggestive dialogue (D), strong coarse language (L), intense sexual situations (S), or intense violence (V).

If you've been believing PTC's constant mis-representation of the TV-14 rating, then you're wrong.

And another thing: regarding PTC's constant barrage of indecency complaints to the FCC.

If you go up to PTC's website, you'll find their current pet causes: Cable choice! Yes, because Comedy Central's Roast of Joan Rivers was oh so vulgar and tasteless despite airing only (and to the steel-skulled members of the PTC, I'll repeat only) after 10PM (well 9PM in non-Eastern/pacific time zones and even earlier by satellite, but that's why there's a V-Chip) and with a TV-MA rating (again must I emphasise that parents with children under 17 should use the V-Chip to block TV-MA shows in most cases). And then, Southern fast-food chain Hardee's has a new, tasteless, and stupid TV commercial for its "biscuit hole" product. (I live in California, where there's Carl's Jr instead of Hardee's, so I don't see the ad on my local stations.) And of course as I blogged earlier, this year's MTV Movie and [Michael Jackson-smearing] BET Awards.

Pardon me for "scooping" the "enemy" if you're a TV fan, y'know, of such shows like CSI for which PTC takes a solid disdain.

Over the past two days, shows that PTC has filed complaints against have rerun over the air during the "no-indecency" period of 6am-10pm. The first was the Family Guy episode "Family Gay", which PTC strongly condemned and filed complaints over the supposedly excessive, flamboyant (no homophobia intended) sexual content when it originally aired in March. Fox re-ran the episode last night at 9:30PM Eastern/Pacific times (8:30PM in other time zones, and if I were a PTC representative I'd use a "scare bold" as PTC sometimes uses). And guess what? PTC, with all its might urging its members and the general public to complain about the episode, said nothing at all the second time around. Hmm. Do they just not care for reruns, did they give Fox leeway for scheduling it at 9:30PM instead of the usual 9PM, or are they for any other reason oblivious? (On Sunday night, Fox showed a three-episode rerun block of Family Guy, starting at 8:30PM.)

Second, there's the episode of That '70s Show that PTC fussed about back in March 2004, "Happy Jack". The episode was named after a song by British rock band The Who from their 1971 album Who's Next and was about character Eric being caught masturbating. So it's not a surprise for PTC to be so outraged, given the topic AND the fact that it aired just a month and a half after the Super Bowl halftime show incident. Well, it aired locally on TV station KICU today at 4PM, and throughout the nation at various times that might have been before or after 10PM for all I know, through stations that syndicate That '70s Show. I DVR'ed that episode today because I wanted to start watching that show regularly; I've seen only bits and pieces of it through channel-surfing. Apparently the PTC doesn't care if this episode has been rerun many many many times after March 2004 including a few times on Fox as filler primetime programming maybe.

UPDATE (8/19): Alison J. Waldman of TV Week published a brief item on PTC's Mad Men criticism today. But still no sign of the review on PTC's own website.

UPDATE #2 (8/19): I watched the "Happy Jack" episode today. It was pretty funny, and did have some pretty risque dialogue, but it used a whole bunch of euphemistic terms rather than explicit references to masturbation. Heck, it didn't even drop the word itself! But still, this episode was fresh meat for the PTC, yet the FCC has yet to put down a decision into it, nearly 65 months after it originally aired (March 24, 2004). That's longer than the time it took for the FCC to judge the infamous buttocks scene episode of NYPD Blue indecent (59 months; aired February 25, 2003; decided January 25, 2008). Perez Hilton also posted a blog about PTC's criticism of Mad Men.

UPDATE #3 (8/20): FINALLY! PTC posts this episode as "Worst Cable Content of the Week" despite admitting it's a "fine show..for adults" (italics theirs). They deny any homophobia (as Hilton and a few other bloggers somewhere allege), but still can't construct a good response to Poniewoznik's rebuttal:

Some of the same bloggers were quick to point out that teenagers likely aren’t flocking to a moody show about middle-class ennui and the shifting social mores of the turbulent ‘60s -- after all, they say, if teens want to see something inappropriate, there is no dearth of drunken strippers on VH1 or sexually active teenagers on MTV. But such criticism is ill-considered. Those bloggers know that Mad Men is a thoughtful, introspective drama because they’ve already watched it. A parent who has never tuned into the show, and has only heard the buzz and critical praise, might allow their teenager to watch an episode based on the TV-14 rating, only to be blindsided by the sexually explicit content.

The author missed Poniewoznik's point on different maturity levels of certain teenagers. 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.

Sotomayor confirmation hearings began today

So far today the Supreme Court confirmation hearings for Judge Sonia Sotomayor have been just the Senate Judiciary Committee members' commentary and Sotomayor's speech. Her speech was so deep, articulate, and moving, with her narrative of how her Puerto Rican immigrant mother worked hard with her and her brother despite their low income. As for the senators, Republicans pressed Sotomayor with the usual "activist judge"/alleged racism, while Democrats had all sorts of hopeful and praising things to say. Heck, even South Carolina Republican Lindsay Graham decided to be nice for once.

There were also some celebrity guest appearances at today's session. When the newly elected Sen. Al Franken (D-MN) - yes, the former Saturday Night Live/Air America Radio star Al Franken, in case you've been living in a cave all year - began his remarks, Norma McCorvey (the Jane Roe of the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court case) hollered along with another protestor. Then, when another Democrat, Dianne Feinstein of my home state California, began speaking, another protestor yelled: "Her record--What about the unborn. Abortion is murder! Stop the genocide of unborn Latinos!" Then, SJC chair Patrick Leahy (D-VT) actually had to remind the audience to remain silent for the rest of the session. I actually saw the Feinstein incident live on PBS (locally on the digital KQED World channel). Because I always wake up late during the summer, I missed most of the earlier senators remarks. The hearings started at 10AM Eastern, which is 7AM in the Pacific Time Zone. Unfortunately, 10AM is my average wake-up time when there's nothing to do during the day. I think I need to move to the East Coast if I want to keep my sleep schedule and political informacy.

But later during the afternoon on The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer (KQED broadcasts it live from Washington, that's why it's on at 3PM PT), I got to hear a condensed version of the session, but not Franken. You can watch Franken getting interrupted on the Washington Post website.

Tomorrow, I'll wake up early to watch Round 2 of the hearings.

These folks make the Parents Television Council look like Greek scholars

I've blogged about the Parents Television Council before. That organization has a reputation for its tough moral stance on TV and for "FCC complaint fraud", that is, recruiting "meat puppet" applicants to file multiple complaints about a certain indecent TV show. Targets have included the predictable usual suspects, exposed private parts (NYPD Blue in 2003, Super Bowl XXXVIII Halftime Show in 2004, and Survivor: Gabon in 2008 - I'm not kidding, click the link and you know what's happening) and obscene words (Billboard Music Awards in 2002 and 2003, NYPD Blue and Golden Globe Awards in 2003, Live 8 in 2005, a lot more examples - darn it TV is PROFANE!)

And? PTC has been known for raising a ruckus about otherwise harmless instances on TV, such as recent Family Guy and Two and a Half Men episodes.

But? On Broadcasting & Cable I just came upon THIS rather giggly story:

According to reports, the Little People of America has filed an official complaint with the FCC over the use of the term "midget" on TV.

"[P]eople with dwarfism find the word "midget" highly offensive," the group said last April when it complained about the use of the term on NBC's Celebrity Apprentice.

An FCC spokesperson was not available for comment at press time, but to regulate the term's use on broadcast TV, the commission would likely have to classify it as indecent or hate speech, over which it has regulatory.

So this organization, now the powerful, million-member, complaint-stuffing PTC, had to raise a "sensitivity" ruckus? When was the last time PTC went up in arms about "political" rather than "moral" or "language" correctness? I know that FCC targets words like the one that begins with F and rhymes with a bird species and another that begins with S and contains the sound of "it", but I've never heard of FCC targeting ethnic/racial/etc. slurs like "midget" or the one that begins with N and rhymes with a character from Winnie the Pooh.

If PTC has never brought up things like this, they're the scholars of the new millennium.

Did BET spit on Michael Jackson's grave? (updated 7/8)

http://www.hiphopdx.com/index/news/id.9401/title.2009-bet-awards-recap-the-dx-edition-

If these allegations against BET are intellectually true, the B should stand for Bastardly, because BET really screwed up the Awards Show while simultaneously trying to pay tribute to Michael Jackson.

First, as mentioned in HipHopDX, Lil Wayne & Young Money gave a crummy performance of "Every Girl", and Drake's ACL injury affected adversely his "Best I Ever Had".

Then Beyonce's performance of "Ave Maria" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kREAWgRgviA) was found disrespectful by some Catholics...because Beyonce wasn't wearing the right clothes, and it wasn't the "right' occassion, it wasn't "spiritual enough", etc. (http://blog.beliefnet.com/idolchatter/2009/06/beyonces-ave-maria-disrespectf.html)

And finally, a lot of bloggers were mad and shit at BET for ruining what would've been a good thing:
- http://pittsindeed.wordpress.com/2009/06/28/dear-bet-what-the-fk-was-that/

But New Edition's tribute performance was alright - http://neonlimelight.com/2009/06/28/new-edition-performs-jackson-5-medley-at-bet-awards/

Ciara's pretty weak - http://neonlimelight.com/2009/06/29/ciara-performs-tribute-to-michael-jackson-during-the-2009-bet-awards/

Ne-Yo delievered a pretty good cover of "Lady of My Life". He later performed his own hit "She Got Her Own" with Jamie Foxx and Fabolous, and then he got Keith Sweat and a bunch of other 90s "New Jack Swing" stars on stage. - http://neonlimelight.com/2009/06/28/ne-yo-performs-tribute-to-michael-jackson-at-bet-awards/

there's also all this talk about Jamie Foxx messing up his attempt at a moonwalk and using the award show as a promotional opportunity for his own concert tour, a pretty selfish move right there.

On comments sections on articles hosted by such sites as MTV.com, HipHopDX.com, and all sorts of other blogs (maybe mine?) there's been mostly negative comments directed toward BET. But hey, this is the channel that the Parents Television Council targeted last year in its "Rap on Rap" report, and this is the channel that spends most of its broadcast day airing shallow rap/R&B music videos, cancelled mediocre sitcoms, trash movies, and religious programming the rest of the way.

Most ironic of all? The BET Awards had its highest ratings ever despite all this fiery buzz.

UPDATE (7/8/09): I knew this would happen. The Parents Television Council decided to condemn the award show, not only with their moral grounds but a lot of the bloggers' complaints about how crappy the show was (pointing out the Baby Boy skit, Lil Wayne's performance, etc.). I only found out about this today when I decided to take my rare swing by the PTC's site.

PTC's selection of facts

So out of pure curiosity during this boring Monday morning right after Dead Celebrity Weekend (Farrah Fawcett, Michael Jackson, Billy Mays), I decided to visit the Parents Television Council website, of the organisation that dares take a tough moral stance against all the curse words, sex scenes, shootings, and fights on TV. As of now, their biggest, latest pet peeve is over the "Bruno incident" from the 2009 MTV Movie Awards. PTC President Tim Winter considered that "a perfect example of why consumers should be able to choose and pay for only the cable networks they want, rather than being forced to pay for unwanted bundles of programming." He asserted that every cable consumer pays $0.80 a month for MTV, meaning that MTV makes $1 billion a year out of all cable subscribers.

So a flamboyantly gay movie character mooning a vulgar, homophobic rapper is enough to cry out about the abuse of consumers' money? That's not it! PTC named the Movie Awards the "worst cable show of the week" given the following examples in a "wall-to-wall trash-fest specifically targeted at young viewers":
- The Lonely Island medley performed by "once-respectable artists" LeAnn Rimes, Chris Isaak, and Forrest Whitaker. The Lonely Island is a comedy rap trio comprised of Saturday Night Live cast member Andy Samberg (who hosted the Movie Awards) and writers Akiva Schaffer and Jorma Taccone. They make those "digital shorts" for SNL that later go up on YouTube, uncensored. I don't have cable, which is the reason I've seen this medley for the first time online, and unlike on SNL, Rimes, Isaak, and Whitaker all performed Lonely Island songs in a singing rather than rapping style, even accompanied by a choir and orchestra. The online version is edited the same way as aired, as evidenced by PTC's transcript, which showed that only the F-word in the song "Mother Lover" (originally by Justin Timberlake and Andy Samberg) was bleeped. However, the songs "Jizz in My Pants" and "Dick in a Box" were all uncensored even though NBC bleeped those words out on its original SNL broadcasts; common practice of broadcast networks like NBC is zero tolerance for words like "Dick" and stuff like that...even at 12 midnight!

And then: "The expletives just keep on rolling with the introduction of the “WTF Award.” Presenter Hayden Panitierre explains, “I know most of you are wondering, what the [bleeped “f***”] is the WTF Award? For those of you living in a cave, WTF means, ‘What the [bleeped “f***”].’”" (Amy Poehler won that award for a scene from her film Baby Mama in which she tries to perform a pregnancy test over a sink. Poehler's pre-taped thank-you message to the awards show also had a lot of bleeped words.) This just shows PTC's bleep-phobia. Also: "The musical performances were also filled with profanities. Eminem’s rendition of “Crack a Bottle” kept the censor’s thumb on the mute button with lyrics like, “Kiss my butt. Lick the fumunda cheese from under my [bleeped “n*ts”]… It’s a must I redeem my name n haters get mushed. [bleeped “b*tches”] lust. Man they love me when I lay in the cut.”" Yikes. MTV really wants to annoy parents or corrupt our youth!

But hold up. Apparently, PTC is making this look worse than they really seem. I watched Eminem's performance at the awards show, and it turns out you'd either have to be a super-skilled lip reader or look up the lyrics yourself to know what was muted out...and why can't the PTC distinguish between "bleep" and "mute" for crying out loud? Such prudes. The entire Movie Awards ceremony as seen on TV is available on MTV.com. Although PTC asserts that the "musical performances" are peppered with rancid language, the other major performer, Kings of Leon, had no cuss words at all in its performance of "Use Somebody". And then there's a comedic song "Cool Guys Don't Look at Explosions" by Samberg and Neil Diamond. That song uses only one use of "hell" and no other profanities.

PTC's press release notes that the show was rated "TV-14-DLSV", meaning (according to the official TV Parental Guidelines) unsuitable for children under 14, with pointed advisories regarding suggestive dialogue, crude language, sexual situations, and violent scenes. So what did it expect, total and cordial decency? Rather, PTC tests its shock value on certain parents: "MTV believes this content to be appropriate for a 14-year-old". That's the same argument it put forth when it asked its members/others to file FCC complaints against an episode of Family Guy back in March.

And did PTC even bother to care about which movies won at the awards ceremony? Based on Wikipedia's article about this year's awards I decided to see what PTC thought about the winners. Here's what PTC thought about Twilight, which won "Best Film" this year: "Twilight emphasizes chaste romance, loyalty and devotion between those in love, and an understanding of the need for acceptance of family and those who are different. Essentially a traditional Gothic romance updated for the 21st century, Twilight may not be to every parent’s taste; but its lack of sex and foul language and its (mostly) restrained violence make it an inoffensive choice for the romantically-minded teenager." (PTC also publishes Rod Gustafson's "Parenting and the Media" column; Gustafson differs in opinion though.) Robert Pattinson won "Best Male Breakthrough Performance" for his role in Twilight as well, and Twilight also won awards in "Best Kiss" and "Best Fight". And Ashley Tisdale won the Female counterpart of that award for her role in High School Musical 3: Senior Year, a PTC Seal of Approval winner. Heath Ledger wins posthumously for "Best Villain" in The Dark Knight, which PTC would rather rate closer to an R than the MPAA's "PG-13". And yet ANOTHER PTC Seal of Approval bearer gets high honors at the Movie Awards: Miley Cyrus's song "The Climb" from Hannah Montana: The Movie won "Best Song" at the awards, knocking out "Decode" by Paramore (Twilight), "Jai Ho" by A.R. Rahman (Slumdog Millionaire), and "The Wrestler" by Bruce Springsteen (title track of a film). Shouldn't PTC have acknowledged those facts as well? No, there's this "cable choice" thing to push, and deceptively hiding potentially "cheerable" items will advance PTC's agenda.

I have pointed out other instances where PTC has cherry-picked facts to suit its pro-cable choice, anti-MTV/BET/FX/any cable channel that dares show TV-MA rated programming even after 10 p.m. agenda. For example, PTC has been silent regarding BET's syndication of Smart Guy, a show that it twice named among the best shows of the year. In April 2008, PTC released a report criticizing BET for playing rap music videos out of concern over misogynistic and other negative messages. It also refuses to point out that Seal of Approval-awarded movies have been shown on FX before alongside those 10pm-and-later TV-MA dramas that oh-so-frequently are the object of PTC's grievances. And I'm browsing PTC's "Worst Cable Content" archives and spot yet another one: MTV's DJ & the Fro, a revival of Beavis and Butt-Head that has the titular character humorously commenting on YouTube videos (B&BH did the same for music videos back in the 90s; it was a target of rather silly moral controversy as well because one five-year-old boy killed his two-year-old sister with fire, and his mother blamed B&BH's "pyromania".) PTC's scathing criticism on the show graphically quotes everything the PTC deems sleazy, and asserts: "It is worth mentioning that this show is on every weekday at 5:00 p.m. ET, just early enough for school-kids to tune in before Mom and Dad get home. If this show is the voice of the new generation (as it purports to be), then society is in trouble." (italics & underline theirs) So now MTV is out to get kids to burn their siblings to death again in the 2010s (it's 2009 for crying out loud!) Well not so fast: MTV rates the show TV-14, so I guess that parents who believe their teenage children should be sheltered from all things evil till college should be the only ones concerned here.