“Viewer Discretion is advised.” That’s right. Tuesday night’s debut of Fox’s new reality show “Osbournes: Reloaded” was not suitable for anyone who believes marriage is sacred.
The Osbourne family’s new variety show made light of the covenant of marriage as Ozzy Osbourne walked the real-life bride down the aisle. Ironically, the preacher warned that marriage is “not something to be entered into lightly.”
Any show involving the Osbournes is sure to have its fair share of f-bombs and inappropriate humor and the March 31st unveiling of Fox’s ”Osbourne’s: Reloaded” was no exception. But it was the strange marriage ceremony held on-stage before an audience of thousands that was the true head-scratcher.
Audience member Nick was pulled up on stage and surprised to discover that his longtime girlfriend Lilly had set him up. A teary-eyed Lilly appeared on screen and told Nick, in front of the audience, “I’ve had enough. It’s over, unless you marry me tonight.” Nick would reveal his answer at the end of the show when the preacher asked Nick during a real wedding ceremony, “Do you take this woman to be your wife?”
To everyone’s delight, Nick agreed to marry Lilly and the two were wed in front of family and friends and all of America, under gobs of white tulle and gorgeous flowers. But the ceremony was comical at best. Ozzy walked Lilly down the aisle, and the couple was on camera saying their “I dos.”
“The marriage union is the closest relationship that can ever exist between two individuals,” the unnamed preacher announced. “It is not something to be entered into lightly.” Tying the knot on stage during a variety show hosted by drug-addled has-been rock stars is certainly taking it lightly.
Several Fox affiliates preemptively decided to refuse to air, expecting the trashy content associated with the Osbournes. The Parents Television Council applauded those stations for protecting young viewers.
It can be argued, “It’s just a TV show, and it’s all in fun.” True, but with divorce rates for first marriages hovering around 50 percent and tabloid celebrities running through disposable unions at a clip of one every two years or so, the institution of marriage has been tragically cheapened. This was just another example of that depressing trend.
Then again, what should we expect? It is the Osbournes.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Doubling down on stupid is
April 1, 2009 - 14:10 ET by bigtimerDoubling down on stupid is not a particularly good idea. ~Andrew Breitbart
Black eye for the bible belt.
April 1, 2009 - 14:20 ET by aakaakaakSo we'll televise and popularize shows "Who wants to Marry a Millionare" including the "only for money" marriages, but when we plan on marrying two people "man and woman traditional" but they happen to live rocker lifestyles we shun them from television? What? Were they going to eat live bats as the symbol of their union? I think not. This is retarded, and not in a "special needs" sort of way. Blocking to show only serves to make bible bangers look just that much more out of touch with things.
Hm
April 1, 2009 - 15:46 ET by Kelly72But if you really consider the importance and significance of marriage, you realize that setting someone up with a "do it now or else" shocker and televising it all for entertainment... is a very sad thing.
Anything that trivializes marriage is a very sad thing. Society certainly does not need any more of it. I applaud those who take this seriously.
Well, all I can say is that I hope this show does not get very good ratings. I guess we'll see...
Sorry.
April 1, 2009 - 21:19 ET by someloudthunderWhat you just stated is an opinion and that means nothing.
Uh...
April 1, 2009 - 21:36 ET by Kelly72You posted just to say that?
My concerns are my concerns... and they are very real.
I agree that the move was dumb.
April 1, 2009 - 14:53 ET by SpaceManSpiffI agree that the move was dumb. We actually stayed up until midnight because we were in need of a laugh. I'd hardly categorize the content salacious enough to warrant the last-minute change.
Sure, f-bombs were dropped (and bleeped) aplenty, but I don't feel it was any different than Gordon Ramsay on Hell's Kitchen.
Besides, the show felt wooden and amateurish in parts. Ozzy himself was a hoot, but everything else was just so-so.
Honestly, THIS is what
April 1, 2009 - 15:17 ET by balboaHonestly, THIS is what concerned you, Erin? The wedding?
Erin, the divorce rate is not 50
April 1, 2009 - 15:52 ET by candidcameracatErin, the divorce rate is not 50 percent. It's no higher than 12 percent. The 50 percent stat comes from the fact that one year there were 2.4 million marriages and 1.2 million divorces, which doesn't mean that half of all marriages fail because almost no one gets divorced the same year he or she marries. If there were 2.4 million births and 2.4 million deaths every year, it doesn't mean you would have no chance of being born.
With the faults they have,
April 1, 2009 - 16:08 ET by ApacheWith the faults they have, the Osbournes have managed to stay together for an eternity in Hollywood time.
I got another poll
April 1, 2009 - 16:56 ET by general companyWho's IQ is higher, Ozzies, or his audience? With an over and under of 19?
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
Wow
April 1, 2009 - 20:12 ET by shawn228Those Fox affiliates should be so proud of themselves for being the morality police.
He had my vote
Why
April 1, 2009 - 21:00 ET by general companyBecause it doesnt conform to your beleif that they lean Right? I sure dont recall them claiming to be the morality police.
Your gonna watch anyway arnt you?
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
general company
April 1, 2009 - 22:59 ET by shawn228This has nothing to do with leaning right or left. This was meant for all FOX networks to show this, just a few affiliates thought that because they did not agree with the tone of the show, they would take something away that many wanted to see.
If they are not forcing their idea of morality on their audience, then what is it?
He had my vote
Whose idea should it be?
April 1, 2009 - 23:20 ET by Kelly72Someone has to make the decision in each case. The affiliates get to make the decision. That's the way it goes.
They obviously aired something in that slot. Maybe that something was more interesting to more people. Anyway, the affiliates get to make the decision. That's their business.
Kelly
April 1, 2009 - 23:31 ET by shawn228I am not saying it is not their right to do it. They aired a repeat show of the Simpsons.
The Osborne show was supossed to have been shown on all their stations, the affiliates did not put on the Simpsons to get better ratings, they felt that the Osbornes were too riskee, in their opinion and took away something, I'm sure many Americans wanted to see.
He had my vote
Okay
April 1, 2009 - 23:39 ET by Kelly72Okay so they had a right to do it. It's their business.
I don't think all that many Americans are sorrowful about missing it... but either way that's certainly not the responsibility of the Fox affiliates.
If there are indeed those who do desperately want to see it... with all the options available in this day and age, I'm sure they will find another way.
Kelly
April 2, 2009 - 00:24 ET by shawn228Your right it is their business, I just disagree with their decision to judge the morality of the show and not let the FOX audience decide for themselves.
He had my vote
Mm hm...
April 2, 2009 - 00:36 ET by Kelly72I'm sure they are quite concerned about your disagreement. :)
(j/k)
this is what libs do
April 2, 2009 - 00:44 ET by shawn228Libs want to take away other peoples points of view and want to censor opposing views.
The morality police are the same, they pretend they are protecting out children from filth, but it is them that don't like it and don't want other adults watching it either.
edit
btw, The name Kelly is like the name Pat or Terry : -) U male or female?
He had my vote
Yeah, but...
April 2, 2009 - 00:49 ET by Kelly72Yeah, but it's not the same thing. A business has the right to make those decisions for itself. If people don't like the decision that a business makes, they can choose not to support that business. They can support someone else.
Libs just don't want anyone else besides them to have a voice. They want to make the decision for EVERYONE.
In addition, I hope you are not suggesting that children should NOT be protected from filth. (I don't think that's what you meant.)
Edit: As for your question... does it matter? Just wondering.
Kelly
April 2, 2009 - 01:04 ET by shawn228The folks that did not get a chance to watch the Ozzy show did not have a choice to watch it because it was not shown in their area, therefore they did not have a choice.
Its like owning a Macdonalds franchise and corporate wants to bring back the McRibb for a promotion and corporate is springing the bill for the ingredients. The Mcribb is disgusting to some, but it has its own cult following. You find the McRibb disgusting, so you decide not to have it in your store and take away the choice for many people.
I can understand it from a money making stand point, but I doubt a rerun of the Simpsons would have generated more ad revenue. It was strictly deciding morality for other folks, so yes Kelly. The morality police in this case are making the case for everyone.
You notice that I did not once say "The Right" "Conservatives" or "Republicans" . I said morality police. Thats because the past few threads we had about Family guy and South Park, the majority of the members here, believe in the right to free speech. Thank God.
I believe we should have less censorship on tv, but protecting our children at the same time.
It does not matter if you are male or female, I was just curious, because there are some here, that I did not find out they were female until much later and I did not want to make the same mistake.
He had my vote
Oh
April 2, 2009 - 01:23 ET by Kelly72Oh. I kind of like to get to know someone a bit before I answer that question. Just my thing. (Yeah, if people assume or guess wrong, I kind of find that amusing.) Most of the time it doesn't matter.
So, again, why can't a McDonald's franchise make the decision for itself whether or not to offer the McRibb? If it makes a poor decision, business-wise, then it will pay the price. A franchise has the right to make that decision. They, in turn, reap the benefits or suffer the consequences of that decision.
It's not the responsibility of the McDonald's franchise to make sure that anything that any person might want to eat is available to them. That's ridiculous.
It's not the responsibility of the Fox affiliate to make sure that anything that any person might want to view is available to them. It just isn't. If people want to view something, they can check out their options, and figure it out for themselves.
I think we need to realize a distinction here. The Fox affiliates are not telling people what they can or cannot watch. Rather, they are deciding what they will or will not put on the air. (Again, that is their right.)
I understand your concerns, but I see an important distinction.
Good morning Shawn
April 2, 2009 - 01:34 ET by cocodrieWhy can't independent TV stations and McDonalds make their own decisions without interference?
Jesus Loves You so much He died for you
Coco and Kelly
April 2, 2009 - 08:18 ET by shawn228Nowhere have I stated that independent tv statios and Mcdonald don't have the right to make their own decisions
My point is they are being the morality police that is it, both of you keep focusing on the fact that it is their right and I am not disagreeing with that.
He had my vote
Good morning Shawn
April 2, 2009 - 08:37 ET by cocodrieYou say it is their right yet you indicate that you don't want them to exercise that right.
Other stations exercise their right to broadcast The Family Guy and South Park and you indicate that is A-OK. Why the difference?
Free speech is free speech, or is it?
Jesus Loves You so much He died for you
Okay
April 2, 2009 - 08:41 ET by Kelly72But the point is... if you understand that it's their right to make their own decisions, them leave them alone. When they make their own decisions about their own affairs it is not being the "morality police". It's just doing their thing. You actually seem more like the morality police, by insisting on judging their decisions that they make about their own business.
Kelly and Coco
April 2, 2009 - 08:46 ET by shawn228This was meant for FOX's national audience, I am just questioning there motives.
If they are not being the morality police, why did they not show the Osborn show?
He had my vote
Oh dear
April 2, 2009 - 08:56 ET by Kelly72You've got to be kidding me. Who cares?
Obviously, they have the right to choose to not be involved in something. They have that right. Surely you don't claim that a business should be forced against their will? They made their choice. They don't want to be involved in this. So what? Their motives are their own business as well. Leave them alone. Stop policing them.
Shawn
April 2, 2009 - 08:59 ET by cocodrieThese stations are independently owned and make decisions based on their markets. Why should they be forced to broadcast anything they don't want to?
Is it immoral for the NFL to refuse to broadcast a game to local stations if it's not sold out?
Jesus Loves You so much He died for you
coco and kelly
April 2, 2009 - 09:05 ET by shawn228"Is it immoral for the NFL to refuse to broadcast a game to local stations if it's not sold out?"
That is coming from a money making standpoint, which I understand
Both of you are not answering my question, what motive do they have not to show it if they are not being the morality police?
He had my vote
No, we've addressed that.
April 2, 2009 - 09:14 ET by Kelly72No, we've addressed that. They didn't want to be involved in it. Their motives are their business. It might be for the sake of being true to their corporate principles (which is perfectly reasonable), or it might be because they did not think it was a good fit for their particular market (which is perfectly reasonable), or it might be something else. Could be a lot of things. It doesn't matter.
You are avoiding the real issue: It is not your place to police them. You don't know their motives. Who does? It doesn't matter. Even if you did know their motives with certainty, and disagreed with them completely, it would still not be your place to police them. Leave them alone.
kelly
April 2, 2009 - 09:17 ET by shawn228If I was looking forward to a show and my local affiliate did not show it, I would be p*ssed. Just like they have their rights, I have my right to complain about it. Gotta go to work, have a nice day.
He had my vote
:)
April 2, 2009 - 09:24 ET by Kelly72Yes, you can voice your complaints. Let them know that you wanted to see it. Fine. But trying to claim that they are somehow "wrong" to make their own decisions about their own affairs? Nope.
Glad we settled that. :) Hope you have a good day.
AS usual Shawn
April 2, 2009 - 09:16 ET by cocodrieYou want it both ways. You want free speech but want it limited to the grey world of liberal compromise.
These independent stations are coming from a money making standpoint and make their decisions as they see fit. Why should they be forced to do otherwise?
Jesus Loves You so much He died for you
coco
April 2, 2009 - 09:21 ET by shawn228I have stated no less than 3 times now, they shoud not be forced to do anything, I am questioning there motives. As a fan of many FOX shows that is my right.
He had my vote
THEY NEED NO MOTIVE SHAWN
April 2, 2009 - 09:40 ET by cocodrieIf you don't like their decision then write and tell FOX.
Did you attend Network Police Academy?
Maybe Present Hussein Obama can take over Fox and satisfy your desire to take away their right to make their own decisions on programming.
Jesus Loves You so much He died for you
~Question
April 2, 2009 - 08:50 ET by choselife3xIf choosing not to air ribald content makes the network 'morality police', what would you call a network that refuses to carry a pro-life ad?
That high-pitched scream you hear is the troll under my heel.
chose
April 2, 2009 - 09:02 ET by shawn228I believe they should follow the same standards. Commercials and ads are different than the show itself. If the network allowed a commercial about planned parenthood, then the same should be allowed for a pro-life ad.
He had my vote
→ Unrelated, Shawn
April 2, 2009 - 09:09 ET by Cool ArrowI think the message here is that the decision whether to air the episode was made at the local level.
Those affiliates are answerable to their local audiences, and likely know their respective audiences better than we do.
Personally, I appreciate a local affiliate being sensitive to their audience.
LYDSEXICS UNTIE!
This is not what you were suggesting
April 2, 2009 - 09:25 ET by general companyThis has nothing to do with leaning right or left.
By claiming them to be the morality police. They are showing the morons on TV because many morons like watching morons. That is the start and end of it.
If they are not forcing their idea of morality on their audience, then what is it?
Capitalism, but please continue with you convoluted thoughs.
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
"This has nothing to
April 2, 2009 - 19:54 ET by shawn228"This has nothing to do with leaning right or left.
By claiming them to be the morality police. They are showing the
morons on TV because many morons like watching morons. That is the
start and end of it. "
Sorry I have no idea what you mean.
"If they are not forcing their idea of morality on their audience, then what is it?
Capitalism, but please continue with you convoluted thoughs"
Ok, so the next time I see a really sexy episode of the Tila Tequila show, I will remember that as capitalism at its best. Thanks GC
He had my vote
It's truly sad
April 1, 2009 - 20:52 ET by RESTLESS 1to see ozzy whoring not only himself, but his family as well.
I grew up listening to ozzy, especially the Randy Rhoads years, and it was great music. I've always had a suspiscion, (who am I kidding, I was dead certain), that if not for Randy, ozzy would have tanked and died some 25 years ago.
Now, a nice musical interlude.
"This
liberal would be all about socialize -- uh, uh, would be about
basically taking over and the government running all of your companies."-Maxine Waters 2008
Oh No They Showed Things I Disagree With On the TV!!!!
April 1, 2009 - 21:16 ET by someloudthunderI'm old and confused and young people use curse words.
It's the osbournes
April 1, 2009 - 21:36 ET by RESTLESS 1with the exeption of the kids, they ain't young.
You're still stupid though. You libs foster and claim to care about the freedom of expression, then you post pathetic, derogatory comments here.
You're not only stupid, but a hypocrite too.
"This
liberal would be all about socialize -- uh, uh, would be about
basically taking over and the government running all of your companies."-Maxine Waters 2008
Restless
April 1, 2009 - 23:02 ET by shawn228You know your one of favorite people on this site, but what derogatory comments did the poster say?
How do you know he is a liberal?
You called him stupid, did he call you any names?
He had my vote
I just have one question, what does it matter what they put on
April 2, 2009 - 09:22 ET by thebutlerdiditany channel? Why in the world would anyone sit through the dumbed down garbage that is on tv, now? Sorry, that was two questions. I just don't get it, this stuff is eye/ear vomit, who in their right mind ingests this garbage? Oops, got up to three.
All a Democrat needs is the upper-story window of public attention and the chamber pot of rhetoric. How else to explain the rise of Joe Biden? P.J. O' Rourke
Shawn,
April 3, 2009 - 08:20 ET by RESTLESS 1I've seen plenty of somequietbs's posts. As trollish as they come.
As for the stupid comments, I've just got a short fuse these days. It seems liberals try to diminish morality with derogatory insults, and mocking whenever they can.
And I really hate hypocrisy,so the comments stand.
(BTW Shawn, how would you take to being called "old and confused??)
"This
liberal would be all about socialize -- uh, uh, would be about
basically taking over and the government running all of your companies."-Maxine Waters 2008
Restless
April 3, 2009 - 09:13 ET by shawn228It was just a general comment, I do not believe he called you "old and confused" personally.
He had my vote
Shawn
April 3, 2009 - 10:02 ET by RESTLESS 1It's obvious what he was doing. I feel my response was appropriate. That's what it's all about these days. FEELINGS.
"This
liberal would be all about socialize -- uh, uh, would be about
basically taking over and the government running all of your companies."-Maxine Waters 2008
Kelly72
April 2, 2009 - 19:46 ET by shawn228You seem fixated on the fact the the affiliates had right to do what they did.
For the last time, I do not disagree. This was your comment.
"Libs just don't want anyone else besides them to have a voice. They want to make the decision for EVERYONE. "
What I am saying is the affiliate is making the desision for everyone of their audience right?
No
April 2, 2009 - 21:21 ET by Kelly72You seem fixated on telling me I'm fixated. :) I'm not.
The affiliate is making the decision for themselves.
They do not want to be involved. They can, and should, decide that for themselves. If a business does not want to be a part of providing something, they can choose that for themselves. For themselves.
You seem to indicate that they should be forced to be a part of something that they do not want to be a part of... just in case... what? That's ridiculous.
The "audience" can choose for themselves. They can seek out whatever they want to seek out. That's their decision. Just like the rest of us, if they do not like the options available at any particular time or place, they can keep seeking or create their own options. No one else is responsible for it.
Businesses aren't fairy godmothers. They make their decisions for themselves.
This "entitlement" attitude needs to go away...
Kelly :-)
April 2, 2009 - 22:53 ET by shawn228Why are you falsely saying I am saying anyone should be forced into anything?
Once again here is what you said.
"Libs just don't want anyone else besides them to have a voice. They want to make the decision for EVERYONE. "
The FOX affiliate is forcing their view on their audience that the Osborne show is too riskee and this similar to what libs do.
The audience cannot choose for themselves like you say, because the choice was made for them already.
"Anyway, the affiliates get to make the decision. That's their business."
fair enough, so I guess you and others should not second guess the affiliates that did show the Osborne show then huh? :-)
He had my vote
Shawn
April 2, 2009 - 23:18 ET by Kelly72Shawn, you are the one second guessing. I never tried to "second guess" any of the affiliates. I'm fine with each of them making decisions for themselves. Nice try.
I do hope that the show does not get good ratings, because it's full of crap... but that is merely my hope. I'm entitled to that.
You seem to imply that the affiliates should be forced, by your elevation of the alleged "rights" of the audience. That's how it seemed in the way that you kept bringing it up. Okay. You do not think they should be forced. Good.
I don't think you understand rights and freedoms in general. The audience (ie. people) have the right to seek out what they want. They do not have the right to have it handed to them on a platter. That is a false claim of entitlement, which puts an undue burden on someone or something else.
Customers do not have the right to demand that anything and everything they want be provided to them by a business, whether it be types of hamburgers or types of programming. That, of course, is absurd. They can ask. They can tell. They say they will withdraw support. They can let the business know what they like and want. But they do not have any right to have it provided to them by that business. That would be infringing on the rights of that business.
The Fox affiliates are NOT trying to make the decision for everyone. They are making the decision for themselves. You claim that they have that right... then you want to put blame on them for it.
They are not making the decision for everyone. They are not putting a magic force field in place - presto - no one can ever see that program! They are simply saying that they will not participate in putting that program on the air.
Good grief. I'm not particularly technologically savvy, but I can think of several ways to seek out a program that I did not get to see for one reason or another. Several. (Who are these "oppressed" people? Sheesh.)
Again, this "entitlement" attitude needs to go away...
Kelly
April 2, 2009 - 23:29 ET by shawn228I guess I am missing where I ever said the audience was "entitled" to watch it.
The affiliates are forcing their decision on their audience, because FOX is the only channel where it was shown.
I am also saying that there are many threads on Newsbusters which complain about how vulgar some of the shows on tv are.
So judging by your attitude about the affiliates that don't show the Osborne show, The channels that show vulgar humor have every right to show what they want and it is a business decision right?
He had my vote
So...
April 2, 2009 - 23:43 ET by Kelly72You're trying to change the topic because you can't win? Is that it?
I think our first duty as a civilized society is to protect those who are dependent on us. If we cannot do that, if we put other more self-centered ideas ahead of protecting the innocent, then we are not civilized. Ideally, children's viewing times should be free of the filth of society. I just think that's civilized.
Perhaps you think it's up to the parents, which is correct, but some parents don't do their jobs, so I still think it's a mark of a civilized society to make that effort.
Other than that, businesses can make their decisions and do their thing.
How many times do we need to say the same thing. Did you even read my last post?
Making a decision for themselves, which we ALL agree is their right, is about just that. It's not about "forcing" anyone else. If the decision of a business inconveniences someone else, that's too bad. Go elsewhere.
Since you seem rather obsessed with the whole idea... and you seem to think there is a great problem here (which there is not)... what is your suggested solution?
I'm not trying to change the topic at all
April 3, 2009 - 00:03 ET by shawn228I'm also not putting words in your mouth. Your the one that is defending the affiliates business decision, so I'm simply ask what is good for the goose.....
I am for protecting children as well. I am for less censorship and let tv programs push the boundries, but they should be responsible and and have them after 10 pm.
Have 8-10pm as family hour and let people see what they want within that law after 10pm
He had my vote
Okay
April 3, 2009 - 00:07 ET by Kelly72Okay, well let's agree on that. :)
agreed
April 3, 2009 - 00:10 ET by shawn228good night :-)
He had my vote
:-)
April 3, 2009 - 00:15 ET by Kelly72'Night. :-)