Family Friendly Forum supports five Prime TV Series

[Dmon4u]

http://www.mediaweek.com/mw/news/networktv/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002651394

By John Consoli

JUNE 09, 2006 - "

"The shows are ABC's Betty the Ugly, Notes from the Underbelly, and Brothers & Sisters, NBC's Friday Night Lights, and the CW's Runaway."

==

I guess I can cross these shows off my Fall list !

* Story edited (shortened) per Moderator request. Some people, like Newsweek, are not very friendly ! Check out the Link, above, for more info.

[wmcbrine]

I'd be tempted to suggest starting a letter writing campaign to get these shows cancelled, except that I actually want to see "Betty the Ugly".

[JYoung]

Wouldn't rejecting a show outright because it's "family friendly" be no better than Donald Wildmon's snap judgements?

[midas]

Wouldn't rejecting a show outright because it's "family friendly" be no better than Donald Wildmon's snap judgements?

Of course it would. That's the whole point isn't it?

[ThomasDrew]

These shows are now on a "no watch" list for me....whther I wanted to TIVO them or not.

Any group with the word "family" in it is a front for a church/conservative action group with motives.

I think we need LESS family friendly television and more gritty, realistic programming. Sex, drugs, crime, rape, disease, etc...are all a part of "real" life and, for some reason, this content is sanitized by the networks.

Another reason why America sucks..... :mad:

[JLucPicard]

Another reason why America sucks..... :mad:

Holy cr@p - "America sucks"??? That's a bit extreme, isn't it?

Gritty, edgy, excessively violent? That's what "cable" channels are for. Some of the best shows I've seen in recent years are/were "The Shield", "Wanted", "The Wire" and "Deadwood". However, I would NOT want to see those on network TV.

And I happen to think America is still the best!

[Dmon4u]

The 'Family' part of this is not my objection.

The part that gets me is that there's some sort of cookie-cutter / fill-in-the-blanks / paint-by-numbers / don't-do-anything-offensive / use-no-creative-imagination guidelines being followed - that's what "the Forum's Script Development Fund" implies to me.

This time, apparently, it's Advertisers and not the usual religiously related organization fanatics.

It all comes as close to computerized homogenized blandness as there can be. I have no doubts. Check out the lists of 'approved' shows by any other organization like this - all of the great shows are typically panned and wanted banned by them.

[weymo]

Stuff like this doesn't bother me. Vote with your dollars and your eyeballs. When the show tanks....it'll take care of itself.

[busyba]

Wouldn't rejecting a show outright because it's "family friendly" be no better than Donald Wildmon's snap judgements?
Well, I'd say the campaign to get them cancelled would be less about the shows themselves and more about doing something spiteful against Wildmon and his coven, and I'm totally supportive of that. :up: :up: :up:

He won't let us watch what we want to watch, so why should we let him have his shows?

[JYoung]

Well, I'd say the campaign to get them cancelled would be less about the shows themselves and more about doing something spiteful against Wildmon and his coven, and I'm totally supportive of that. :up: :up: :up:

He won't let us watch what we want to watch, so why should we let him have his shows?


So, essentially, you're saying that you're no better than "Wildmon and his coven"?

[busyba]

So, essentially, you're saying that you're no better than "Wildmon and his coven"?
Nope. I'm better, just more spiteful.

[Bierboy]

...He won't let us watch what we want to watch, so why should we let him have his shows?Hmmm...last time I checked, we had the freedom in this country to purchase whatever movies, TV shows, etc., we want.... :rolleyes: Isn't that what America is all about...capitalism?

[busyba]

Hmmm...last time I checked, we had the freedom in this country to purchase whatever movies, TV shows, etc., we want.... :rolleyes:
So far we do.

The PTC would really rather we didn't, so I'm not sure why proposing a proportionate retaliatory response warrants eyerolling and condescension.

At least righteous indignation isn't smarmy. :rolleyes:

[jsmeeker]

Nope. I'm better, just more spiteful.


better?? hardly. You're exactly the same. Just on the opposite side of the same hateful bigoted coin.

[busyba]

better?? hardly. You're exactly the same. Just on the opposite side of the same hateful bigoted coin.
I'm not sure where you're finding the hate or the bigotry. I freely admit the spite, but that's about it.

If I were advocating getting rid of, say, "Touched By an Angel" on the grounds that it's got all that god stuff in it, then perhaps your assesment would be correct, but that's not what I'm saying.

There's an organization whose purpose is to remove shows to which they personally take offense from the airwaves.

Apparently, they don't care to listen to reason.

It would seem that a logical response would be to find shows that they specifically like and give them the same treatment in kind in order to demonstrate to them the error of their ways.

So what's so hateful or bigoted about that? :confused:

[Bierboy]

So far we do.

The PTC would really rather we didn't, so I'm not sure why proposing a proportionate retaliatory response warrants eyerolling and condescension.

At least righteous indignation isn't smarmy. :rolleyes:Eyerolling and condescension? And what's that just above here? I'm sure you pure as the driven snow...
I won't stoop any further in this thread...it's already in the negative IQ area...I'm done.

[busyba]

Eyerolling and condescension?....and I'm sure you pure as the driven snow...
Never claimed to be, I leave such pretension to others. I'm certainly not above eyerolling and condescension; I just dispute that it was warranted in this case.

I won't stoop any further in this thread...it's already in the negative IQ area...I'm done.
If by "negative IQ area" you mean the "I know you are but what am I"esque use of your snow metaphor, then sadly I'm forced to agree.....

[mike3775]

Just ask the PTC how many millions they have had to pay to various shows because of the lies they stated to get advertisers to pull out of agreements.

[IndyTom]

Help me out here. If by Family Friendly, they mean that I need not worry about my young children being in the room - than what's wrong with that??

Don't get me wrong, my wife and I love shows like Sopranos, NYPD Blue, etc as much as others (after the kiddos are in bed). However, it's nice to know a list of shows to watch at least, for the first time, without wondering if they will be dropping some bombs during the show while "junior" is doing a puzzle on the floor.

[Dmon4u]

You know, every now and then, the Chinese Government publishes a list of Tv shows that are banned in China.

Tell me why you would not trust their judgement (I hope so), yet you trust some group of Religious fanatics or in this case a bunch of Advertisers to tell you what's good an what's bad to watch ?

A similar discussion came up during the great Kids Zone debate. I'm always amazed that anyone automatically gives legitimacy and control over their own or their Kids televison viewing to any group or individual that wants to run everyone's daily home life. I've found that the more people read about what these people want to do - the less anyone wants to listen to them.

[IndyTom]

I've found that the more people read about what these people want to do - the less anyone wants to listen to them.

Except in your case, apparently. ;) You successfully brought the attention to a group that I wasn't even aware of.

In all seriousness - they pose no threat. The only service they are providing is info for parents who do care about these sort of things (since there are millions of those - many of whom don't hang out on Tivo boards like us). Is that really a bad thing?

Personally, I like my swearing, flash nudity, and gratuitous violence found on primetime after 10:00. Be that as it may - I don't necessarily want my kids in the room for any of that. I take these reports with a grain of salt as an 'FYI' at most. They aren't telling you what to watch - they are telling you what shows are safe to watch. There is a difference.

[Crrink]

These shows are now on a "no watch" list for me....whther I wanted to TIVO them or not.

Any group with the word "family" in it is a front for a church/conservative action group with motives.

I think we need LESS family friendly television and more gritty, realistic programming. Sex, drugs, crime, rape, disease, etc...are all a part of "real" life and, for some reason, this content is sanitized by the networks.

Another reason why America sucks..... :mad:
Oh, the irony...

[Dmon4u]

The only service they are providing is info for parents who do care about these sort of things (since there are millions of those - many of whom don't hang out on Tivo boards like us).

If I'm going to recommend one of these people or Groups to my friends that have kids, which one is the best authority on appropriate Tv shows ?

Over the years, I have yet to see any of them that totally agree. There has to be some criteria that makes one better than the others. How do you choose ?

[doom1701]

The part that gets me is that there's some sort of cookie-cutter / fill-in-the-blanks / paint-by-numbers / don't-do-anything-offensive / use-no-creative-imagination guidelines being followed - that's what "the Forum's Script Development Fund" implies to me.


I'm just gonna ignore the other stuff in this thread--too silly of a discussion for me. But this got a chuckle. You say that as if 99% of the rest of the stuff on TV isn't "cookie-cutter / fill-in-the-blanks / paint-by-numbers / don't-do-anything-offensive / use-no-creative-imagination".

Have you seen any TV lately?

[bottomsup]

Look, I find the PTC to be totally offensive and I am not sure that a big initiative for family programming is necessary. I wactch a heck of alot of tv but really think kids should stay away from it for the most part--for reasons unrelated to content.

Anyway, I always get a little wowed when I think of the people at PTC pushing for better family programs and scaring away advertisers because they think they have a RIGHT to tv, and specifically, programming they agree with. As someone already mentioned, tv is capitalism at work, and that which generates money is going to last. Is there a room for conscience and responsibility in TV? There should be--just as in any business, but at the end of the day, it is a business.

That being said, the The Forum Family Friendly Script Development did produce shows like Gilmore Girls, which I am incredibly glad I did not bypass simply because of its origins.

[sieglinde]

The shows may be OK. I have seen G rated movies that were very entertaining but suitable for children.

I don't like people trying to censor my TV on behalf of their children but I don't mind watching any good TV program no matter who it is aimed at.

[Vito the TiVo]

I believe I understand busyba's (and others) point, and its surprising so many people jumped down his throat for stating an opinion (no matter how terse and unclear).

Its reverse political manuevering that he is advocating. "Family Friendly" television in this case doesn't refer to "good for your children" in the sense that Sesame Street is good for your children. In this case "family friendly" is code for Christian values. Whether the shows named intended it or not, these shows are viewed by the group as being good for families because they line up with Christian values, and these lists always do everything but outright state that other television is not okay to be viewed in a Christian home.

Maybe this group isn't preaching towards the protest or cancellation of television series but you better believe that these groups have influence and sometimes shows suffer because of the pressure these groups bring with their influence and their dollars.

As a non-christian, and as an American who fears the kind of power that many of these short-sighted groups wield over secular sections of our society, I understand busyba's point, as I will now be hard-pressed to support these shows (same as "Passion of the Christ") because it simply consolidates more power in their corner in some small way. I would much rather support a show that I feel truly adds something to the television landscape, that may not be accepted by group such as this... be it "The Shield" or be it "Buffy".

Obviously, however, an excellent program will overcome Christian stigma in me, same as many programs overcome an amoral stigma in society.

I just think you will be hard pressed to find an atheist protesting and calling for the cancellation of something like "Touched by an Angel", but you'll find a Christian ready to destroy an "NYPD Blue".

It just seems like every one (especially when in agreement) expects the secular or liberal side of an argument to turn the other cheek, out of some desire for calm or out of the misguided idea that they are more intelligent, while groups like this out think and out manuever the average person in society and actively conspire to tell you what your life will be like. You should be just as outraged at the small steps like this as the big steps (like censorship). Otherwise the small steps become the big steps without you even noticing.

:eek: How long til this thread is killed for being political?

[IndyTom]

I believe I understand busyba's (and others) point, and its surprising so many people jumped down his throat for stating an opinion (no matter how terse and unclear).

Its reverse political manuevering that he is advocating. "Family Friendly" television in this case doesn't refer to "good for your children" in the sense that Sesame Street is good for your children. In this case "family friendly" is code for Christian values. Whether the shows named intended it or not, these shows are viewed by the group as being good for families because they line up with Christian values, and these lists always do everything but outright state that other television is not okay to be viewed in a Christian home.

Maybe this group isn't preaching towards the protest or cancellation of television series but you better believe that these groups have influence and sometimes shows suffer because of the pressure these groups bring with their influence and their dollars.

As a non-christian, and as an American who fears the kind of power that many of these short-sighted groups wield over secular sections of our society, I understand busyba's point, as I will now be hard-pressed to support these shows (same as "Passion of the Christ") because it simply consolidates more power in their corner in some small way. I would much rather support a show that I feel truly adds something to the television landscape, that may not be accepted by group such as this... be it "The Shield" or be it "Buffy".

Obviously, however, an excellent program will overcome Christian stigma in me, same as many programs overcome an amoral stigma in society.

I just think you will be hard pressed to find an atheist protesting and calling for the cancellation of something like "Touched by an Angel", but you'll find a Christian ready to destroy an "NYPD Blue".

It just seems like every one (especially when in agreement) expects the secular or liberal side of an argument to turn the other cheek, out of some desire for calm or out of the misguided idea that they are more intelligent, while groups like this out think and out manuever the average person in society and actively conspire to tell you what your life will be like. You should be just as outraged at the small steps like this as the big steps (like censorship). Otherwise the small steps become the big steps without you even noticing.

:eek: How long til this thread is killed for being political?

Excellent points throughout, however, I must ask for clarification on a couple of them.

For starters, where does this group say they are for Christian values? I think the crux of this thread is that posters are confusing Family values with Christian values. I would believe many non-Christians would be offended to hear that that in order to have family values, one must be a Christian.

Secondly, I read through their public release, and their slate on their website, and I can't find any language that suggests they want to ban certain shows. They are only endorsing certain shows. Therein lies the main difference.

I liken it to JD Powers annual car ratings. Every year, they evaluate every car and truck and select the ones that, based on thier criteria, are the ones that receive their highest ratings. Does this mean that they want every other car and truck off the road? Of course not. They are just ranking them based on their own ranking systems.

I believe this group is simply doing the same thing. They look at every show; use thier own criteria for what "family values" are; and publically release who made their grade. Nothing more, nothing less.

I am finding that the alarmist mentalities that are posting on this thread to be more disturbing than this group's press release.

[durl]

Excellent points throughout, however, I must ask for clarification on a couple of them.

For starters, where does this group say they are for Christian values? I think the crux of this thread is that posters are confusing Family values with Christian values. I would believe many non-Christians would be offended to hear that that in order to have family values, one must be a Christian.

Secondly, I read through their public release, and their slate on their website, and I can't find any language that suggests they want to ban certain shows. They are only endorsing certain shows. Therein lies the main difference.

I liken it to JD Powers annual car ratings. Every year, they evaluate every car and truck and select the ones that, based on thier criteria, are the ones that receive their highest ratings. Does this mean that they want every other car and truck off the road? Of course not. They are just ranking them based on their own ranking systems.

I believe this group is simply doing the same thing. They look at every show; use thier own criteria for what "family values" are; and publically release who made their grade. Nothing more, nothing less.

I am finding that the alarmist mentalities that are posting on this thread to be more disturbing than this group's press release.


+1,000,000

[Vito the TiVo]

I do apologize for being unclear. I was responding more to the thread than to this particular organization. In general I was speaking about being very careful of groups that use the word "family" but actually mean "Christian censorship"

Please see the example of the AFA - American Family Association:

http://www.afa.net/about.asp

And its founder, Donald Wildmon, and his history:

http://www.mediacoalition.org/reports/wildmon.html


It would be great if there were family groups who simply reported facts about shows (revolves around a gay relationship, includes some language) like a JD Power but unfortunately these group also seem to be biased with their particular (typically religious) brand of moral values.

Nor is any of this new. Many groups tried to ban the classic film "Frankenstein" because they viewed it as amoral. Things do change with the times.

I just don't particularly like groups conspiring to limit the freedom of speech whether it is through bans or protests for "The DaVinci Code" or doing their best to overpromote a bland nonthreatening show simply because it airs opposite something they see as amoral.

[JYoung]

I just don't particularly like groups conspiring to limit the freedom of speech whether it is through bans or protests for "The DaVinci Code" or doing their best to overpromote a bland nonthreatening show simply because it airs opposite something they see as amoral.


But whether you like it or not, under the First Amendment, they have the right to voice their opinion on what they think of certain shows and they have the right to choose what shows they want to watch.
Someone who advocates taking this away from them is no better than Wildmon and his ilk.

[ThomasDrew]

Vito the Tivo's post says it all.

Outstanding Vito! :up:

Bravo!

[Dmon4u]

One of the most recent examples of some of the tactics of these groups (particularly the religious ones) is the CBS "Without A Trace" controversy:

http://www.mediaweek.com/mw/news/recent_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002652454

"About 8.2 million people saw the Dec. 31, 2004 broadcast, which was a repeat of an earlier airing of the same episode that drew no indecency complaints. E-mails about the episode began arriving at the FCC on Jan. 12, the same day the PTC sent an alert to its members, the CBS stations said."

Apparently nobody was offended the first time the episode was shown. What changed that made a rebroadcast unacceptable to people like this ?

* Check out both sides of the story through the Link, above.

But, I think this quote says more about the practices of these groups than anything else. They simply choose to stir up some trouble whenever it suits them. I'll let others speculate the reasons.

Think, also, about those True Believers that may have watched this show at least once, perhaps twice, and not been warned ahead of time by the PTC. Those poor people had to be told after the fact that they had watched something indecent. No wonder they were upset ! It must hurt when you can't decide on your own whats good and whats bad. I fell sorry for these folks when they simply want their lives run by someone else. I don't feel sorry for them when they want someone else to run everyone's life.

[Vito the TiVo]

But whether you like it or not, under the First Amendment, they have the right to voice their opinion on what they think of certain shows and they have the right to choose what shows they want to watch.
Someone who advocates taking this away from them is no better than Wildmon and his ilk.

I agree. I am not advocating taking away his rights to voice opinions, but I am advocating that the populace pay attention and realize his tactics. Occasionally it is necessary to fight fire with fire.

[durl]

Advertisers would be better off focusing on family friendly shows according to this study:

http://www.iastate.edu/news/releases/2001/jun/tvads.shtml

[Dmon4u]

PAX TV should become a huge hit with Advertisers, from what the study indicates !

What Cable, DBS, or Telco carries it ?

[MickeS]

Help me out here. If by Family Friendly, they mean that I need not worry about my young children being in the room - than what's wrong with that?

Nothing, of course. Some very childish attitutes on display in this thread.

But of course, the same should be true the other way - these organizations calling on "family friendly" material should keep their stinking paws off shows that other people like.

[busyba]

Advertisers would be better off focusing on family friendly shows according to this study:

http://www.iastate.edu/news/releases/2001/jun/tvads.shtml
The study seems flawed to me.

Basically I don't need a study to tell me that people who watch shows with compelling content generally remember that content more, and that people who watch shows with content that has little or no impact on the viewer is more likely to remember the commercials.

That the study chose specifically to use what they call "sexual and violent" shows as the "compelling" group and PAX-TV shows as the "bland" group indicates to me that they had a bias against shows with sexual and violent content.

If they were interested in completeness rather than spreading FUD amongst advertisers about mature programming (while simultaneously raising PAX's profile), they would have studied the effects of shows with content that was impactful but without sex and violence. I think that such shows would have shown comprable levels of "advertisment awareness" as the "sex and violence" shows.

[durl]

The American Psychological Association ran the article so I figured that it had a good measure of validity. - http://www.apa.org/monitor/oct02/sex.html

The article appeared in the Journal of Applied Psychology.

[busyba]

The American Psychological Association ran the article so I figured that it had a good measure of validity. - http://www.apa.org/monitor/oct02/sex.html

The article appeared in the Journal of Applied Psychology.

You're just being glib.[/TomCruise] :D

The APA ran the article and the JAP published the study, but the study itself was done by a professor and a grad student at Iowa State University.


"I like to challenge these conventional beliefs that people hold--that violence sells or sex sells," Bushman says. "A lot of my research focuses on the myths that lay people hold." And in this case, he says, there seems to be no scientific evidence to support the myth.
The problem with that quote is that he completely twists the concept of the myth that "sex sells". When we say "sex sells", we don't mean that a sexy show helps sell the products that advertise on the show, we mean that having sex on a show helps sell the show.

That a self-proclaimed "nationally recognized expert on the effects of media violence" would get that simple concept so completely wrong gives me serious doubts about his credibility. (Actually the fact alone that he claims to be a a "nationally recognized expert on the effects of media violence" raises some flags for me, not necessarily red flags, maybe yellow ones)

In any case, I don't see what's so groundbreaking about the study. If the show is more interesting than the commercials, people are less likely to remember the commercials. Big deal, that's common sense. It doesn't need to be sex and violence that makes the shows interesting, but the study seems to ignore that fact because it interferes with the "family-friendly" conclusion.

Besides, the study is irrelevant from a practical standpoint. It basically says that advertisments on crappy shows will be better remembered by the viewers, but what good is it if your commercial will be better remembered if no one is watching the show you're advertising on in the first place? :D

[djej1]

That kinda makes me lose some interest in "Friday Night Lights," but I will still watch it.