| Show No. 116 | First hour: Actor and comedian Sid Veda, who plays Chad on the popular "Ranjit and Chad" commercials for mobile phone service provider Metro PCS, talks to Ed, Tony Figueroa and Donna Allen about some of his early influences as a comedian, as well as his work on the NBC comedy series Outsourced. Also in this hour: This Week in TV History celebrates the 50th anniversary of The Dick Van Dyke Show on television. Plus: Phil Gries with Part 2 of our tribute to TV talk show pioneer Joe Franklin, including clips from Joe's conversations with Jim Backus and Myrna Loy. |
I represent the first generation who, when we were born, the television was now a permanent fixture in our homes. When I was born people had breakfast with Barbara Walters, dinner with Walter Cronkite, and slept with Johnny Carson. Read the full "Pre-ramble"
Tuesday, December 13, 2011
TV CONFIDENTIAL Archives: Dec. 9, 2011
Friday, June 11, 2010
Your Mental Sorbet: Carroll O'Connor Sings Ending Theme Song of "All in the Family"!
Here is another "Mental Sorbet" that we could use to momentarily forget about those things that leave a bad taste in our mouths.From 1971, here is an appearance by Carroll O'Connor, tux and all, singing the ending theme song of "All in the Family".
Stay Tuned
Tony Figueroa
Thursday, July 31, 2008
Janet Jackson Fine Thrown Out
I just got this E-mail today from TV Watch
From Broadcasting & Cable
The Third Circuit Court of Appeals threw out the fine against CBS stations for their airing of the Janet Jackson Super Bowl reveal.
That was the incident that prompted the Federal Communications Commission's crackdown on broadcast content, under pressure from Congress.
The court concluded that the FCC was arbitrary and capricious in changing a decades-old policy of not holding fleeting nudity indecent.
It also concluded that the commission could not hold broadcasters to strict liability, which means that they could not be held "vicariously liable" for actions they did not take on their own. That means that stations could not be liable for an action they could not foresee.
Read the Full Story
I got this E-mail from Parents Television Council
PTC Condemns Court Decision Overturning Super Bowl Striptease Indecency Fine
The Parents Television Council responded to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that threw out the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) fine given to CBS for airing Janet Jackson's breast during the 2004 Super Bowl, which shocked millions of unsuspecting families and children. The PTC and its 1.3 million members led the charge to clean up the airwaves by calling on the FCC to levy a hefty fine against CBS and its affiliates for violating the federal indecency law over this so-called "wardrobe malfunction," and the FCC rightly levied a fine. "Once again, a three-judge panel has hijacked the will of the American people -- not to mention the intent of the Congress acting on behalf of the public interest - when it comes to indecent content on the public airwaves. While we are not surprised that the legal venue hand-picked by CBS would rule in favor of the network, the court's opinion goes beyond judicial activism; it borders on judicial stupidity," said Tim Winter, president of the PTC, which filed an amicus brief in the case. "If a striptease during the Super Bowl in front of 90 million people -- including millions of children -- doesn't fit the parameters of broadcast indecency, then what does? If the Court thinks that the event wasn't shocking enough, even though it was the single largest news story for weeks when the nation was at war, then what is shocking enough?" ► Read More
I will now be short, sweet and to the point. IT IS TIME TO MOVE ON. We have given to much time and ink to one breast. People are loosing their houses. Gas is almost $5.00 a gallon. We are still fighting two wars and we will be selecting a new Commander and Chief in less than 100 days. IT IS TIME TO MOVE ON. So lets take one last look at the breast and then never speak of it again.
To quote William Shatner on SNL, "GET A LIFE, will you people? I mean, for crying out loud, it's just a TV show!"
Stay Tuned
PS: This goes for Charlotte Ross' 1.4 Million-Dollar buttocks too.
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
I have some questions about Charlotte Ross’ 1.4 Million-Dollar buttocks.
Sometime around late February or early March of 2003 my wife and I were at a party and the subject of Charlotte Ross’ nude scene on NYPD Blue came up in conversation. I mentioned that we had missed the episode, as did several others at the party. The lady of the house was so impressed with Charlotte Ross in that now infamous scene that she had her husband pop the episode in the VCR so we could all watch.
The consensus of the women in the room was that it was great to see a woman with a real body on TV. Words like "Brave" and "Bold" were used to describe Charlotte Ross’ choice to do that scene. Not wanting to sound like total pigs, the guys in the room discussed the camera work and the editing. The Man of the house paused the scene (approximately 34 seconds on the YouTube video) and pointed out that the boy’s head was perfectly positioned so we could not see Charlotte Ross’ nipples. When the scene is paused it is obvious that this was a composite shot and the boy was filmed separately and added in later. Personally I thought the scene had the innocence of the label on a bottle of Coppertone.
Why is this scene just now being addresseed now by the FCC? Other controversial issues like the profanity (The F-word is used 21 times) used in ABC's, broadcast of Saving Private Ryan on Veterans Day in 2004. Or earlier that year when Janet Jackson had her "wardrobe malfunction" during the Super Bowl halftime show. Both issues took much less time to resolve. If you are keeping score at home:
Janet Jackson’s breast: $550,000.
Charlotte Ross’ buttocks: $1.4 million.
($27.500 x 52 ABC central & Mountain Time zone stations)
The F-word 21 times: Priceless.
(The FCC later cleared the film, nothing that "Contextual considerations are critical in making indecency determinations.")
In my research I can’t find an answer to my timing question. I just seem to have more questions. I also could not find any logical or even a reasonable reason as to why the FCC would want to go after a show that has been off the air for almost three years. Talk about beating a dead horse. Most importantly why does the FCC in their order refer to the buttock as a sex organ when it is not an organ, but a muscle. The FCC report described Charlotte Ross’ naked buttocks as titillating. That assessment seems subjective since butts may vary. If Charlotte Ross’ naked buttocks is titillating, then is not the mind is also a sex organ? If someone gives you a "come hither" look or "bedroom eyes" then are not eyeballs sex organs? I can go on with more examples but why go down that road?
Logically I think that the FCC is pandering to social conservatives and their watch dog groups. Many would complain about the subject matter in the scene even if there were no nudity in it at all. These same groups just insured that ABC will make their 1.4 million dollars back from increased DVD sales thanks to all the press this story is getting. Does this make the FCC the true... buttock here? Finally, is the FCC is insisting that the buttock is a sex organ because of what they plan to do to ABC.
I’d love to quote Sgt. Andy Sipowicz (Dennis Franz) here but instead I’ll keep it clean and quote William Shatner on SNL, "GET A LIFE, will you people? I mean, for crying out loud, it's just a TV show!"
In Solidarity
Tony Figueroa
Friday, January 18, 2008
Changes (CLICK PODCAST)
Take Out Stories
Shop Doc
United Hollywood
Deadline Hollywood Daily.
Comedy Callback - the Show (Nov. 2007) part 2
Screen Actors Guild
Directors Guild of America
Writers Guild of America
American Federation of Television and Radio Artists
International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employes
YouTube - In solidarity
YouTube - Why We Fight
In Solidarity
Tony Figueroa
Saturday, December 16, 2006
My take on the Parents Television Council’s Faith in a Box Study.
I would not have a problem with the study if was presented in the style of Detective Joe Friday "Just the facts" but this study is peppered with bias commentary. Where I have a problem is the following statement, "Such findings imply that while most Americans enthusiastically endorse religious belief, Hollywood tolerates an indistinct "spirituality" but is deeply negative towards openly religious individuals and organized religion." The PTC’s Christopher Gildemeister states in his conclusion, "This stands in stark contrast to Hollywood’s "creative" elite, which demonstrates its contempt for religion -- and for its own viewing audience -- by deliberately portraying God as subject of ridicule, and followers of organized religion as oppressive, fanatical, hypocritical and hopelessly corrupt". While Mr. Gildemeister lists his findings he likes to generalize Hollywood as the source of all that is negative. In other words he insults my friends, neighbors and me. Why must you generalize Sir? You are basically taking this statistical data and twisting it to say that everyone in Hollywood deliberately portrays God and Religion in general as subject of ridicule, and followers of organized religion as oppressive, fanatical, hypocritical and hopelessly corrupt. Nowhere in this study did I find anything that reveals what is in the hearts and minds of what you call Hollywood’s "creative" elite. I live in Hollywood and I am in walking distance of more than half a dozen churches. There are many Christians in the entertainment industry who contribute their perspective (although it may differ from yours) at philcooke.com Media, Faith, and the Power of Change. Many of my friends and neighbors in Hollywood are people of faith, and even those who are not are hard working, charitable, contributing members of society. They all want what everyone in America wants and that is to house and feed their families. I do have my faith (READ: Must See Sabbath), but whenever I, and others like me, criticize a self appointed respective of our faith we get branded Anti-Religion or Anti-Christian.
Having seen many of the shows listed in the study I want to present a slightly different and hopefully more pragmatic conclusion to this data.
First, I believe that God has a great sense of humor. Depicting him commercially with the long white beard is more mocking of Charlton Heston than it is of God. I also feel that the showing God commercially as a man with the beard and robes is less offensive than committing real atrocities in his name and isn’t it great that we live in a country where an artist can depict God in whatever medium he chooses.
Second, I don’t really see Hollywood’s "creative" elite demonstrating its contempt for religion just those who pervert their religion for their own personal agenda (Kind of like the conclusions to this study). Not all religious people are targets, just a select few like the following:
Those who peach morality and have affairs.
Those who preach against homosexuality and are themselves gay.
Those who make claims that SpongeBob SquarePants and Tinky Winky (The Teletubbies) are gay and are part of a plot to turn children gay.
Those who think that they are above man’s law.
Those who are in a position of leadership who harm children and are transferred to another parish by their superiors.
Those who ban books like Harry Potter, Macbeth and Cinderella because they promote witchcraft instead of being thrilled that their kids are reading.
Those who boycott stores that hang a sign that says "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas" for moral reasons. These same people have no moral problem with the "Merry Christmas" store’s employees, who may even be Christians, not making a living wage, not having medical insurance while they sell you merchandise made by children in sweatshops for pennies a day.
Those who in times of crisis blame the problem on gays, feminists, the ACLU and Hollywood/The Media for being morally bankrupt.
I do not see Hollywood’s "creative" elite negativity presenting those Americans who live a life of faith and prayer. Nor did I see negative portrayals of the pastor who needs to work part time job because his parish can’t pay him enough to live on. The same pastor who is probably more interested in helping the hungry and homeless in his community than what the people in Hollywood or Washington are doing. Finally, Hollywood’s "creative" writers, actors and directors still need to make a product that is commercially viable. New Line Cinema’s The Nativity Story came in 4th place at the box office and made less than $8 million it’s opening weekend. Those numbers will have more of an impact on Hollywood than this study. Those who put this study together should be nominated for a SHATNER AWARD because they need to be told to, "Get a life". They accuse Hollywood, a city in California, of having an agenda while the PTC a publicly funded organization is obviously pushing theirs.
To quote Bill Maher from HBO’s Real Time with Bill Maher, "Hollywood isn't your cesspool America. It's your mirror."
Stay Tuned
Tony Figueroa
Wednesday, August 24, 2005
Another Quick Note to "The Parents Television Council". RE: Pat Robertson
Pat Robertson's Killer Comment Annoys ABC Family
Did you notice that this was said on ABC Family?
Friday, August 05, 2005
Another Quick Note to "The Parents Television Council". RE: Robert Novak
I saw Robert Novak use profanity describing bovine excrement on the air. CNN Daily News Clips :Novak Swears, Walks Off Set I immediately went to your site expecting to read a tirade from someone and found nothing. I think you should go after Robert Novak with the same zeal you had when you went after Paris Hilton.
Thursday, June 02, 2005
A quick note to the “PTC”. RE: That Paris Hilton hamburger ad. (Click PODCAST)
CHILD OF TELEVISION: My message to "The Parents Television Council".
CHILD OF TELEVISION: Another message to "The Parents Television Council". RE: Crossing Jordan
CHILD OF TELEVISION: And another message to "The Parents Television Council". RE: TIME Magazine "The Decency Police"
CHILD OF TELEVISION: And still another message to "The Parents Television Council". RE: The V-Chip and the TV Ratings System.
If you are not familiar with the Carl's Jr. commercial in question, click the link and come back.
After extensive study of this ad I have come to the conclusion that Paris Hilton is having a 3-way with a car and a burger. This leaves me with a very important decision make, whether to spend $6.00 on a burger or not.
I would like to make some other pragmatic observations.
- I'd still rather see Paris Hilton wash a car than Ronald Mc Donald, Jack (from Jack in the box), or Dan the "Del Taco" guy.
- The guy in the "Burger King" mask is more traumatizing to children, potentially appearing in their nightmares, than a woman washing a car while eating a $6.00 burger.
- The more your group goes on TV to chastise Carl's Jr. and Hardees the more free publicity you give them.
Your organization on the web site PTC Calls Paris Hilton Ad for Carl’s Jr./Hardees Ultimate Example of Corporate Irresponsibility describes this commercial saying, "This is the ultimate example of corporate irresponsibility". Really? Does the name ENRON mean anything to you people? But lets just keep the discussion to the fast food industry. I encourage you to close shop for a day and rent the Academy Award nominated documentary "Super Size Me" and seriously reevaluate your priorities. Then if you still think "This is the ultimate example of corporate irresponsibility", then I say move over Burger King, because the PTC is the new "Home of the Whopper".
Stay Tuned
Tony Figueroa
Thursday, April 28, 2005
And still another message to "The Parents Television Council". RE: The V-Chip and the TV Ratings System.
CHILD OF TELEVISION: My message to "The Parents Television Council".CHILD OF TELEVISION: Another message to "The Parents Television Council". RE: Crossing Jordan
CHILD OF TELEVISION: And another message to "The Parents Television Council". RE: TIME Magazine "The Decency Police"
Recently the PTC has released two editorials the first one was "The V-Chip is No Magic Pill". No where in the article does it mention a flaw with the technology with the V-chip. L. Brent Bozell sites two reasons as to why the chip is useless,
"For starters, most parents have no idea how this V-chip works, or know that their TV set even contains one. A survey done by the Kaiser Family Foundation discovered that only 15 percent of parents they surveyed have used the V-chip. Many of the survey's respondents (39 percent) didn't realize that their new TV sets were equipped with a V-chip, while others (20 percent) knew they had a V-chip, but haven't used it".
The PTC should use their web site to educate parents on how to use the V-chip. I can sum this us with, "It's a poor workman who blames his tools" It was parents groups who insisted that we have TV ratings and the V-chip. Finally, as I said in CHILD OF TELEVISION: "V" is for Chip.
"Parents are outraged over the fact that little Timmy mastered the V-chip faster than they did, but find it funny that little Timmy can open Mommy’s child proof bottle of Prozac when Mommy can't figure out the child proof cap herself. So something that could kill little Timmy takes a back seat to a TV show".
L. Brent Bozell's other point is,
"More important, however, is what the industry knows but isn't saying: the V-chip is worthless. Even if parents know how to use it, for the V-chip to be effective in blocking programming, it needs to identify the content descriptors listed at the beginning of the program -- such as "V" for violence, "L" for harsh language, "S" for sexual material, and "D" for sexual dialogue."
This proves that there is no problem with the chip itself. His issue is with the ratings system and the fact that the networks pick the rating for the show. Forgive my skepticism, but since there is an ongoing battle between the morality and children's advocates who want to see more restrictions, and the creative talents, who by their nature will want to express their creative freedom, push the envelope and defend their First Amendment Rights. I would like to see some examples as to why you think the ratings system is useless.
Ask and ye shall receive.
L. Brent Bozell followed up with "PTC Study Finds TV Ratings System A Failure". Where he said,
"The ratings system is a failure and consequently the V-chip, which depends upon reliable ratings to work, also is a failure. It cannot be relied upon to consistently and accurately block offensive programming since parents can't rely on the ratings to identify potentially offensive content," (Again this proves that there is no problem with the chip itself.)
The PTC study (That looks like a PTC Commercial) is very detailed and may have some valid points, but I have to question the credibility of the people who put the study together since the PTC has a specific agenda. One reason for me questioning the study comes from this April 18, 2005 Reuters article PTC: Nets' ratings mislead "The TV ratings are meaningless," said PTC President Brent Bozell.
"Most television programs showing foul language, violence and inappropriate sexual dialogue or situations do not use the appropriate content descriptors."
Here is one of the examples.
"It cited censored profanity on ABC’s "America's Funniest Home Videos," which had a PG, or parental guidance, rating but no language warning."
If the un-scripted profanity is censored, then why does it need a warning? The PTC study has many examples of un-scripted censored profanity like this (many on Reality Shows) padding their statistics and they list the words that were censored making the study more offensive that the shows themselves. I would think that the PTC would be thrilled that the Networks are bleeping foul language.
To quote Author: Aaron Levenstein, "Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital".
Stay Tuned
Tony Figueroa
Friday, April 01, 2005
And another message to “The Parents Television Council”. RE: TIME Magazine “The Decency Police”
Photo for TIME by Jill Greenberg
As I said before, "When I started writing this column, it wasn’t to be an anti "Parents Television Council" forum".
CHILD OF TELEVISION: My message to "The Parents Television Council".
CHILD OF TELEVISION: Another message to "The Parents Television Council". RE: Crossing Jordan
I was reading Time Magazine's (March 28, 2005) article "The Decency Police" written by James Poniewozik. I thought that the article presented a fair and balanced look at the Television industry post Janet Jackson. Prominently featured in the article is "The Parents Television Council". After reading the article, I had to visit the Parents Television Council site. I was surprised to find that they were thrilled with the article. Here are some highlights.
"In addition to raising the overall issue of broadcast indecency, this week's Time was able to capture the essence of the PTC as the most influential advocacy organization protecting children from graphic and gratuitous programming.
As I'm sure you know, research is the foundation of all our work here at the PTC. And the core of our research is our massive computerized information database, which Time accurately described:"
My question to the PTC is, WHAT ARTICLE WERE YOU READING? CAN'T YOU SEE THAT YOU ARE BEING MADE FUN OF? Desperate Housewife Teri Hatcher's expression on the magazine's cover is mocking enough (Isn't "Desperate Housewives" on your hit list?). She got paid big bucks to pose for the cover and mock you. I’m doing it for free.
NOTE TO SELF: Get Teri Hatcher to autograph my copy of TIME magazine.
The article describes an analyst, Kristine Looney, taking inventory of every time the word "damn" was said on the March 13th episode of "Crossing Jordan". This data then goes into their "Entertainment Tracking System" along with other swear words, sexual content, violence, disrespect for authority and other negative content. Let me quote a section of the TIME Magazine article that the PTC also quotes on their site.
"The Entertainment Tracking System - it sounds like something the Pentagon would have if we had fought a war to depose Viacom's Sumner Redstone instead of Saddam Hussein. And in a way, the ETS is the nerve center of a war: The War on Indecency."
I sensed a hint of mockery with that statement, but the PTC saw it differently as they state on their site,
"How true this statement is. And together we're foot soldiers in this war; a war that really has only just begun. We have seen recent and dramatic victories. And thanks to you, the entire nation is now talking about broadcast decency. But the issue of responsible broadcasting and decency enforcement is not going away. Over the coming months, I assure you that the conversation will only get louder. The cover of this week's Time is a superb barometer of this."
You're right. You got me talking about it. I wonder if the PTC would be as thrilled if "Saturday Night Live" did a sketch about their organization.
NOTE TO SELF: Submit PTC sketch idea to SNL producer Lorne Michaels.
I'd say that since your organization does not know when it being mocked and your efforts are mainly dedicated to taking an inventory of swear words, sexual content, violence and disrespect for authority, you are in no position to judge the hard work of others. Unless you are taking the position that there is no such thing as bad press then... I'll stop writing now.
To quote William Shatner on Saturday Night Live, "I'd just like to say... GET A LIFE, will you people?"
Stay Tuned
Tony Figueroa
PS: So far the PTC has not returned my messages. If you share my concerns about groups like the PTC, I invite you to Check out Amanda Toering’s SpeakSpeak News
Thursday, March 24, 2005
Another message to "The Parents Television Council". RE: Crossing Jordan
When I started writing this column, it wasn’t to be an anti "Parents Television Council" forum, but as I said in my Pre-ramble "I live in Hollywood, California and am tired of members of my community being described as amoral and trying to undermine the fabric of the American family". In fact I sincerely hope that some day we will find ourselves on the same side. In your mission statement you state, "The PTC's primary mission is to promote and restore responsibility and decency to the entertainment industry in answer to America's demand for positive, family-oriented television programming. The PTC does this by fostering changes in TV programming to make the early hours of prime time family-friendly and suitable for viewers of all ages. We serve as the conscience of the entertainment industry and corporate advertisers who sponsor broadcast content." FAQs About the Parents Television Council. In my opinion, your intentions are noble, but your execution is flawed.
A few weeks ago I was on the Parents Television Council web site researching for another article and I saw that an episode of the medical drama "CROSSING JORDAN" titled "MURDER IN THE RUE MORGUE" was voted the "Worst TV Show of the Week". Crossing Jordan - Worst Family TV Shows of the Week. I had seen that episode and enjoyed it. I had to read further.
Aubree Bowling mentions, on your site, the name of the show, the episode title, the date the episode aired (January 9), the network the show aired on (NBC) and even some of the stars. What was not mentioned was it’s TV rating (TV-14) or it’s time slot (10pm-9pm central) not "the early hours of prime time" that’s mentioned in your mission statement. If you look at the shows listings on the NBC web site NBC.com > > Episode Guide you will see the show's ratings, it's time slot and a synopsis that gives enough detail on the episode with out revealing the mystery that is playing out. In my opinion, parents were sufficiently warned as to what they were about to see. If you are a parent who lets your small child see this show (on a "School Night"), then shame on you. In my opinion, the PTC won’t admonish parents for watching inappropriate programs because that could cause them to loose members and support.
Aubree Bowling also wrote, "But to involve innocent child actors in the dramatic process not only creates an extra-disturbing episode; it also can negatively affect the young actors and actresses." I didn't know that the PTC was also a child actor advocacy group. I did not see any mention of the show on the "A Minor Consideration" web site A Minor Consideration Website. Many times when you see children in "an extra-disturbing episode" it's really a baby faced adult (kind of like the cops on "21 Jump Street"). Casting breakdowns will read, "18 to play younger". Also looking out for the child's interest on the set are Social Workers, Network Standards and Practices Representatives, Studio Teachers (The studio teacher may refuse to allow the engagement of a minor on a set or location and may remove the minor therefrom, if in the studio teacher's judgment, conditions are such as to present a danger to the health, safety and morals of the minor.) SAG 24/7: Screen Actors Guild - YoungPerformersDB and the child's parents.
In my opinion there are bigger threats to children than a TV show. The Internet for example exposes children to imagery that they would never see even on cable. Sexual predators use the Internet to prey on children as depicted in many TV crime dramas. NBC (the network that brings you Crossing Jordan) does a series of public service announcements "The More You Know" where they discuss a variety of issues including Internet safety NBC.com > The More You Know In my opinion the PTC does want to address Internet related issues because that may force parents to confess their computer illiteracy. The same way parents have to admit that their kids mastered the V chip before they could. CHILD OF TELEVISION: "V" is for Chip. That admission could cause them to loose members and support.
In my opinion the PTC would rather ride the wave of a popular TV show thus being able to condemn the show while hitting the talk show circuit. I find this behavior similar to a serial killer that goes after celebrities in order to take their fame. This whorish behavior is no better than someone who is willing to eat an animal part that the butcher would normally throw out, just to be on TV. In my opinion the Parents Television Council lacks the moral high ground to judge people who work in television. On the bright side, being The Parents Television Council’s "Worst TV Show of the Week" may be the new "Banned in Boston", and be the best free publicity for the show. Kring crosses into new deal at NBC Uni TV
To quote Dennis Miller, "Of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong."
Stay Tuned
Tony Figueroa
PS: If you’re a "Crossing Jordan" fan check out Nigel's Blog.
Thursday, January 06, 2005
My message to “The Parents Television Council”.
NBC Welcomes the New Year with the F-Word
According to an unidentified NBC official, NBC hasn't received any calls about the F-word that Mötley Crüe rocker Vince Neil dropped during the live New Year's Eve broadcast of "The Tonight Show With Jay Leno."
Maybe that's because it's impossible to find a phone number on their website? The PTC has received many complaints on the incident. Too bad the Associated Press didn't think to ask how many email complaints they'd gotten.
Want to make your voice heard? Email TheTonightShow@nbc.com Phone (818) 840-4444 ( yes, that's right if you don't live in LA then it is a long distance call). You can find info for your local NBC affiliate here. It's no surprise that the only place you can find NBC's phone number is on the PTC website. NBC doesn't want you to have their phone number because they don't want to get your complaints. They don't care if you let your children stay up to celebrate the new year only to be welcomed by the f-word. Please let them know what you think about that and write a letter to the editor of your local paper as well.
Here is that moment Tonight Show "F" word.
Perhaps that unidentified NBC official hasn't received any calls about the F-word is because people don’t care about an isolated incident (a verbal malfunction) made during a moment of escape during a week where we were bombarded with the horrible news on the deadly Tsunami in Asia. In fact you should be commending the NBC because the NBC Universal networks will be airing a tsunami benefit on January 15th. You also failed to mention that per the Associated Press article, "The remark was carried to viewers on the East Coast but was edited out before it was broadcast in the West, according to the entertainment trade paper Variety, which reported the incident on its Web site Monday night". This tells me that NBC did take immediate action to incident.
Your organization was founded to "ensure that children are not constantly assaulted by sex, violence and profanity on television and in other media". Perhaps at this time you should dedicate your efforts to making sure that children are not constantly assaulted by Tsunami News Coverage. There are other children’s issues related to the Tsunami including children who are now orphans, their medical needs, illegal adoptions and being sold in to the sex trade.
Making this an issue bigger than it really is make the members of your organization look like you are going through Janet Jackson withdrawal.
To quote William Shatner on SNL, "I'd just like to say... GET A LIFE, will you people? I mean, for crying out loud, it's just a TV show!"
Stay Tuned
Tony Figueroa
Saturday, December 04, 2004
Queer Eyes are seeing Red. (Click PODCAST)
Some conservatives will blame the "Liberal Media" (by the way I believe that the media is only as liberal as the corporations who own it) for undermining family values by presenting an immoral life style as acceptable. Well, somebody was watching these shows and I tend to believe the Nielsen TV Ratings more than I believe the pollsters. Is it morality or hypocrisy when people are in essence saying, "Sure I like seeing them on TV, but I don’t want them getting married and moving into my neighborhood".
There have been times when I’ve used the word "Homophobic" to describe people’s behavior, only to hear in response, "I don’t like that word". Hey, I don’t like "Couch Potato" but if the shoe fits...
Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary defines homophobia: ho·mo·pho·bia
Function: noun: irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals
There is a fear that same-sex unions will weaken the institution marriage (would someone please tell me how?). People have used the so-called liberal media to scare citizens with stock footage of the most outrageous moments from Gay Pride parades and say, "This can happen in our town". Instead of trying to find ways to overcome their fear, they just prefer that I just not to use the word "Homophobic" in describing them. Fine, I’ll stop using the word "Homophobic" when you stop using the word... Actually there are several words and I don’t want to dignify them in this column.
Let us all live by The Golden Rule "Do onto others as you would wish them do onto you."
To quote Jerry Sienfeld, "Not that there's anything wrong with that".
Stay Tuned
Tony Figueroa