Brent Bozell's culture columns in the last two weeks have tackled some very contemporary topics, from new MTV star Tila Tequila to CBS's "reality" fest "Kid Nation" to Fox's "Family Guy" even working itself into submarine sandwich commercials. The latest column explored how MTV keeps looking for a new sexual barrier to cross on its "reality" shows:
The twist in the series is that Miss Tequila is bisexual. As the new MTV star tells it, "They found out about my lifestyle, and said ‘How would you feel about putting it on MTV?’" Viacom thought it was time for America’s youth to watch a bisexual dating show. So the show’s plot called for inviting 16 straight men and 16 lesbians to compete for her physical attention. Neither the men nor the women were informed of the other gender’s presence so they could look shocked for the cameras.
In the predictably, painfully tawdry first episode on October 9, one girl contestant announced she was a virgin, to which Tila replied, "My prayer has been answered!" The same woman soon was marching down a runway dressed as a Girl Scout, asking the show’s star: "I’m sweet and innocent. Can I interest you in my cookie?"
This show seemed desperately in need of a writer’s strike. Quality, however, was never necessary. The lack thereof was – and it worked.
It scored first place on cable among MTV’s desired demographic of 18- to 34-year-olds. What Viacom also knows, and had absolutely no qualms about, is that this sex-obsessed show would also play well with junior-high and high-school kids, and grade-school children, too.
Tony DiSanto, MTV’s executive in charge of "series development," promised the show would be a "rollercoaster ride of drama, conflict, and emotion, busting stereotypes and challenging the norm – proving that the rules of attraction are made to be broken."
The most recent episode centered on forcing each of the remaining contestants to eat a bull penis and testicles to win some hot tub time with Miss Tequila. What followed were a series of cheesy references to oral sex. Then the first man and woman to finish that stomach-turning feast moved on to crunching on bull eyeballs, a heart, and a shot of blood. In a nutshell, this is another show designed to shock, shock, shock.
For Thanksgiving week, Brent wrote about how "reality" shows that appeal to kids, from CBS's "Kid Nation" to several nanny shows on ABC and Fox have thrown in bleeped profanities to spice up the brats on each program. After noting that the Parents Television Council has found that most of the top programs for kids are "reality" shows, it remains that Fox's sleazy "Family Guy" and "American Dad" cartoons are also on the hot list. Bozell noted that Peter Griffin, the lead character of "Family Guy," is now selling Subway on television:
Now Fox’s iconic idiot is even making its way into commercials, with Peter the obese title character touting the Subway Feast: "it’s as big as my head." Fox’s army of merchandisers is delighted. "Subway's attitude and irreverence is the perfect platform for the 'Family Guy' brand's trademark twisted humor," said one Vice President for Spinning Off Sleaze.
The latest "Family Guy" plot featured Peter touting how he tattooed his private parts to look like the space shuttle. As for "American Dad," it recently aired an episode with themes of incestuous masturbation. Perhaps Subway can work all that into a commercial, too.
The network chieftains approving all this "adult" TV would assert that it’s unreasonable for parents to think their children aren’t exposed to this kind of "reality" in their daily lives at school or in the neighborhood. But if parents worry about the problem of "monkey see, monkey do," nobody’s a bigger monkey to children than Hollywood.
—Tim Graham is Director of Media Analysis at the Media Research Center
Comments Policy
riiiiight......
December 1, 2007 - 22:28 ET by candanceA twenty something woman who has remained a virgin is willing to make sexual advances to a woman on a reality show.
Cause, you know, perveted sex-obsessed dirty talking lesbians save themselves just to talk about it on a TV show. Cleverly done to persuade virgin girls that even prudes act like that with other women.
Lies and the lying liars who lie about them.
The most dangerous thing in the world is an angry person with political power.
Can you say actor, woman,
December 2, 2007 - 01:49 ET by Right2thePointCan you say actor, woman, money in hand paid to say something.
Just how many things would have had to come together to make up the girl she was representing to be.
This ain't wrestling it's reality TV!
Tim...this is GROSS!
December 1, 2007 - 22:44 ET by BlondeI heard Laura Ingraham the other day advocating for "unbundling" of cable channels....and this is the plusperfect reason why it ought to be done.
I know Sarc goes off on the FCC....but we all ought to as well.
I am hardly interested in pubescent bi-sexual children consuming bull testicles for an opportunity at a shot for a teen porn star.
I'd really like the opportunity to eliminate it from the panapoly of channels I'm required to pay for on my cable bill, though.
This is too gross for words.
And thanks, Candance, I'd have not read about this if you hadn't posted, here.
Time to rid the filthy, vile, leftist tripe from our lives.
Buh-bye cable.
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
Buh-bye cable
December 1, 2007 - 23:06 ET by MrShyI said buh-bye to cable via a TV that stopped working... (divine intervention, perhaps?)
and JJ.... "bull testicles" ??
Dana Perino and Newsbusters gals will look great in Shywear
(*NB guys, too)
Shy
December 1, 2007 - 23:14 ET by BlondeRead the linked article here.
Disgusting.
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
gosh Blond(i)e
December 1, 2007 - 23:29 ET by MrShyYeah, YUCK..... !
Funny, libs were all over "Rummie's" shock & awe, but they love their shock & awe on the boob-tube.
Dana Perino and Newsbusters gals will look great in Shywear
(*NB guys, too)
Rather, Shy
December 1, 2007 - 23:35 ET by BlondeSo who is more dangerous?
Shock & Awe with bombs & death....or Shock & Awe with Teens & (bi) Sex?
Which one bodes worse for us, as a country?
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
Blonde
December 1, 2007 - 23:47 ET by MrShyBodes worse for us?
It's not about "us, as a country"... it's about other people and other countries. I can't believe you're putting yourself and the country you live in first.
Geez, Blonde. Get with the compassionate-left program.
Reminds me of an old friend of mine who told me something his mom would often say, about the mind of so many in today's culture. She calls it:
"Save the whales, and f*** you."
Dana Perino and Newsbusters gals will look great in Shywear
(*NB guys, too)
Nevah, Shy!
December 1, 2007 - 23:55 ET by BlondeScrew the whales, & save me (and mine).
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
Screw the whales!
December 1, 2007 - 23:58 ET by MrShyGreat idea for the next shock-awe reality/porn show!!
Dana Perino and Newsbusters gals will look great in Shywear
(*NB guys, too)
Don't give them any
December 2, 2007 - 07:55 ET by motherbeltDon't give them any ideas!!!!!
That's like asking: "Who
December 2, 2007 - 10:28 ET by JasonCThat's like asking: "Who was more dangerouns for France? Napoleon or the Marquis de Sade?
If parents are too authoritatively impotent to keep their kids from watching a show that's on at 9 PM on Sundays (I'm only addressing Family Guy here because I'm unfamiliar with Tila) and every episode of which is preceded by an ominous "Viewer Discretion is Advised" warning, that's their problem. The show does, admittedly, indulge in relentless boundary-pushing, but it does so in the service of cultural satire. A tip to those who are so affronted by every other thing the MsM broadcasts: cut the cable altogher already!
Family Guy is the only TV show in history to be canceled because of a particularly risque episode and then two years later come back on the air because of overwhelming demand. Clearly, something about the show taps into the American consciousness.
OK, but I'm getting off topic. I vote for Shock and Awe being at least 50X worse for the culture, of course. Hello, we bombed a major city in a sovereign nation?
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
JasonC, Which episode got
December 2, 2007 - 15:25 ET by hydrodynDMJasonC,
Which episode got Family Guy canceled?
I'd read that the show was originally cancelled because of low rating and the low rating were the result of its time slot being shuffled around.
I didn't even know the show existed until about half a year before it was cancelled in 2002 (I think that was the year).
Never thought Family Guy was
December 2, 2007 - 15:36 ET by balboaNever thought Family Guy was all that funny. Simpsons and South Park are better, IMO.
balboa, Being someone in
December 2, 2007 - 15:43 ET by hydrodynDMbalboa,
Being someone in their 30's, I really dig the cultural referenced from the 70's and 80's - that's what always made Family Guy worth watching.
But over the last two seasons, MacFarlane has gotten into the habit of interjected his preachy liberal views (usually via Brian) into the shows. I still try to catch it, but it's annoying and unnecessary. He has American Dad for that stuff.
Family Guy
December 2, 2007 - 19:58 ET by taterThe show has been going downhill since it came back. I think the first two seasons while having some risque parts were actually funny and well written. I can't think of too many hilights since the show has come back.
Do you realize how much it costs to run for office? More than any honest man could afford. -Montgomery Burns
Hydro, It was the one
December 2, 2007 - 16:13 ET by JasonCHydro,
It was the one where Peter figures all his money problems will be solved if he gets a Jewish accountant. You're right, the show wasn't doing well anyway, that episode was the last straw that got it canned early. The funny thing is, it's a pretty tame episode by today's standards, and for the most part it mocks people who indulge in Jewish stereotypes, not Jews themselves. I think it's pretty obvious that most of the time Peter Griffin's attitude is being critiqued, not endorsed. Anyway, it was the popularity of the DVDs of the first two seasons that brought the show back (ah, the power of $$$ to mediate righteous indignation).
I think the show is usually quite brilliant but it's also extremely subversive and boundary-pushing in its presentation and you really do have to be okay with a lot of really crass cheap jokes in order to get to the intelligent content. But it's there.
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
JasonC, I figured that
December 2, 2007 - 16:25 ET by hydrodynDMJasonC,
I figured that was the episode you were talking about. According to the commentary on one of the DVDs for the show, that episode itself was originally banned (though it is aired now a-days in reruns) but that episode didn't get the entire show cancelled.
I pretty sure it was just crummy rating since no one knew the show was even on.
Hydro, That makes sense,
December 2, 2007 - 18:24 ET by JasonCHydro,
That makes sense, the idea that it was canceled because of that did feel a little urban legendish. I've never listened to the commentaries. It's funny though, how tame that episode is compared to the one where Peter takes Chris to the Irish museum.
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
Too many channels, too little talent
December 1, 2007 - 23:09 ET by nkviking75It's been argued that Major League baseball has more teams than major-league caliber talent to staff them. Likewise, both cable and broadcast TV have far more channels than talented people to program them. That's one reason why we get all this tripe. Have you ever noticed how much "original" cable programming consists of lists? Another problem is the Hollywood types pushing their agendas.
If the marketplace allowed us to pay for only the channels we want, perhaps a lot of this garbage would be starved for funds and die off.
When you put the clowns in charge, don't be surprised when a circus breaks out.
SO...............
December 1, 2007 - 23:23 ET by Cape ConservativeHow do we get the message across??? Do you suppose Laura I. will be able to beat the drums long and loud enough to get some attention? This is a matter that should have been addressed long ago.
Sounds like the usual Democrat plan - have the successful support the losers - REGARDLESS of quality of content!
I just find it a bit ironic
December 1, 2007 - 23:14 ET by sarcasmoThat Brent Bozell often watches raunchier TV than I do, unless you count the endless string of boner-drug commercials. :)
I've always suspected these boner-commercials don't get the scrutiny they'd otherwise get due to pharmaceutical companies' strong political influence. I think there's good proof the constant commercials actually buy good press. Everyone recalls how I tried & abjectly-failed right here on NB to get the shooter's (predicted by me before it was officially revealed) "antidepressant" drug, the dosage prescribed, and the prescribing doc's name, following the VA Tech shooting. Everyone saw that it was mediabias due to big money which made me fail, and I don't mind admitting at this point that I've obviously-failed. I'm still curious if it was big Viagra-money, big Cialis-money, or big Levitra-money that kept the media silent, and I'm still in the dark despite my constant-carping about knowing the calibers, handgun brands, and firearm sources almost-instantly. It's media bias, bought and paid-for by the drug companies. Grrrr.
But I do like the idea of voting with my dollars for the few cable TV stations I'd actually want. Cable-monopolies buying up crooked local politicians is the reason that choice isn't available right-now, IMO, along with the FCC's general one size fits all approach common to all aspects of obese government.
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
I think those are
December 2, 2007 - 08:08 ET by motherbeltI think those are disgusting too. Why should anyone have to explain to a child what "erectile dysfunction" is? It was bad enough years ago having to explain to my sons what tampons were (I was very vague, believe me.) I suppose they get away with it because it's a "medical condition"?
I'm all for "unbundling" if that means a "cafeteria-style" cable where you can choose channel-by-chanel, what you want.
So, for the privilege of watching
December 1, 2007 - 23:18 ET by Cape ConservativeNational Geographic and other family/nature-oriented programs, our monthly fees cover this filth!
Whenever the "unbundling" movement gets going, I hope someone will post it so we can all join in. We watch 1/10 of the channels we pay for in our package - and that is obscene! If a channel doesn't get enough $$ on its own, it shouldn't be offered!
Regardless of the fact that we don't watch it, it sickens me that our young people are being exposed to such trash. And then we wonder why there seems to be a lack of values in our youth.
Precisely, Cape.
December 1, 2007 - 23:21 ET by BlondeI twigged to this the other day, listening to Laura Ingraham.
Sarc, of course has been telling us this all along, and we've been ignoring him because we don't care for his Ron Paul message.
Shame on us!
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
Blonde... It's worse than
December 1, 2007 - 23:41 ET by Clear thinkerBlonde... It's worse than you may know. One of the things I got involved in was public broadcasting on local cable channels. We lost the fight but we gave them hell for over 3 years over it. Here's the short version... any local group that has any TV, radio, handheld video camera buffs, cell phone picture takers, or anyone that can draw with a crayon experience, can go to the local authorities to start up public access tv in the local cable market. Your local politicians get the cable companies to give up a channel for free, then the above group can broadcast on it. Here's the kicker, they can broadcast ANYTHING! Public access tv has become the latest porn channel that everyone pays for. First your local politicians give taxpayer money to one of the above groups to start up this new tv channel, then the cable company raises one of their fees to cover thier costs. During the day some of the crappiest programming on earth gets played, then starting around 10:00 pm (depending where you live) it's wall to wall porn til about 3:00 am. And it's some of the sickest porn you have ever seen. The Playboy channle is like watching Sesame Street compared to what you get on public access tv. Like I said, this is the short version, it's actually much worse!
Rush Limbaugh stated that of the top 5 Republicans running for the presidency, only one was a true conservative. http://www.fred08.com/ Rush then stated that the conservative was Fred Thompson.
Clear
December 1, 2007 - 23:53 ET by BlondeI had no idea.
I (intrinsically) hate cable....is it any better on Direct TV (sat)?
I'd love to dump cable....but here in So. Fla....the satellite is a tad, um, unpredictable.
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
Blonde...
December 1, 2007 - 23:57 ET by Clear thinkerI went to Direct TV years ago. Dump cable as fast as you can!
Rush Limbaugh stated that of the top 5 Republicans running for the presidency, only one was a true conservative. http://www.fred08.com/ Rush then stated that the conservative was Fred Thompson.
Why is your Sat
December 1, 2007 - 23:59 ET by Clear thinkerWhy is your Sat unpredictable?
Rush Limbaugh stated that of the top 5 Republicans running for the presidency, only one was a true conservative. http://www.fred08.com/ Rush then stated that the conservative was Fred Thompson.
Clear
December 2, 2007 - 00:04 ET by BlondeFrequent storms....and not tropical ones.
The sat doesn't work too well, even in bad rainstorms.
But I would love to dump my cable!
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
Blonde
December 2, 2007 - 00:06 ET by Clear thinkerHmmmm, maybe you could talk to Carl Rove about adjusting his weather machine!?
Rush Limbaugh stated that of the top 5 Republicans running for the presidency, only one was a true conservative. http://www.fred08.com/ Rush then stated that the conservative was Fred Thompson.
Don't think so, Clear
December 2, 2007 - 00:16 ET by BlondeKarl obviously has it tweaked perfectly...no hurricanes in the last two years...to bad Perfessor Bore.
So I can put up with a few minor inconveniences.
Bawahahahah, Global Warming! My arse.
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
It's not just that we all watch 1/10th of them
December 1, 2007 - 23:25 ET by sarcasmoThe cable monopolies sprinkle the interesting ones deliberately among the annoying choices, even when customer convenience would dictate something like "put all the Spanish language stuff in consecutive channels." It's the impudence of monopoly. Unbundling wouldn't end the monopolies, but it would be nice, just the same.
Somewhere in the seldom-seen archives of Reason, there's an article nobody-else read about how competition in this so-called "natural" monopoly in one Colorado city led to (gasp!) better service than nearby cities with monopolies. Politicians on the take from local monopolies, of course, don't like hearing about that particular article...
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
Unbundling? Great idea,
December 2, 2007 - 00:24 ET by bretzysdudeUnbundling? Great idea, but it will never happen. Cable companies are too greedy. They figured that the loss of some customers will be less than charging many people for only a few channels.
Hey bretz,
December 2, 2007 - 00:52 ET by BlondeIf a bunch of us unsubcribe....they might think about it.
I think I heard ESPN gets like $.35 for each subscriber....while the new & greedy NFL channel wanted $3 & change. No wonder our cable bills are insane.
But....imagine what your bill would look like if you could pick & choose.....
I'd take:
Food Network; Animal Planet; Military Channel; HGTV; SpeedTV; ESPN: SciFi; FoxNews; CSPAN...and that's about it.
I'd be interested to see how much each of those "cost" per subscriber, per month.
We consumers ought to get over bending over. It's about time to get active....and in the immortal words of that idiot in the movie...."We're mad as hell...and we're not going to take it any more"!
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
Blonde
December 2, 2007 - 01:15 ET by MrShyWe have NYC Time Warmer Cable here, and it's friggin' highway robbery.
And: SciFi and Animal Planet? Man, you ARE a nerd :p
Mine would be: ESPN, TCM, TNT (gotta have Charles Barkley and co's NBA Tues & Thurs) FoxNews, CNN & MSNBC (just for giggles), Comedy Central (still like Jon) & some PPV (mainly NBA...) but that's about it....
Dana Perino and Newsbusters gals will look great in Shywear
(*NB guys, too)
Yep, Shy, I am a bit of a nerd
December 2, 2007 - 01:19 ET by BlondeBut I forgot TCM, think I had ESPN, tho. MSNBC, you are correct...for giggles...Morning Joe is rather amusing.
Other than that...I think I about covered my viewing spectrum.
Well, maybe the Nets for college football...but only for a quarter of the year. :D
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
Not trying to pick a fight,
December 2, 2007 - 01:21 ET by balboaNot trying to pick a fight, because I think the Tila Tequila show is ridiculous garbage, but the people on the show are adults, not teens.
I've watched some of Kid Nation, and some of the kids are hilarious, smart, heart-breaking.
Ugh!
December 2, 2007 - 17:01 ET by UnsaneYou know what really sucks, Blonde? I am subjected to that show at work during my lunch breaks as my co-workers ALL love it and think it is great!
It is all I can do to hold down my food watching this garbage...(that or I just leave)
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
MTV BET SPIKE VH1 =
December 1, 2007 - 22:46 ET by nicksmith112MTV BET SPIKE VH1 = Chairman Sumner Redstone!!!
I'm a refugee from the Democratic Party.
Just when you think they
December 1, 2007 - 23:08 ET by motherbeltJust when you think they can't get any lower, they exceed your expectations.
The bottom of the barrel has been broken through, and they are scraping the ground underneath.
The description of the Miss Tequila thing was stomach-churning. What's next..cannibalism?
Bi-sexual
December 1, 2007 - 23:11 ET by Clear thinkerBi-sexual cannibalism!
"Rush Limbaugh stated that of the top 5 Republicans running for the presidency, only one was a true conservative. http://www.fred08.com/ Rush then stated that the conservative was Fred Thompson.
I weep for the children in
December 1, 2007 - 23:58 ET by motherbeltI weep for the children in this country.
This is why my TV is more often than not, on the Food Network.
mother...
December 2, 2007 - 00:04 ET by Clear thinkerAmen!
Rush Limbaugh stated that of the top 5 Republicans running for the presidency, only one was a true conservative. http://www.fred08.com/ Rush then stated that the conservative was Fred Thompson.
Food Network
December 2, 2007 - 01:06 ET by well99Is good for kids.That way they dont turn into a microwave Chef like me.
I support the unbundling
December 1, 2007 - 23:56 ET by GoldenEagleI support the unbundling movement, but I do not support making it a government objective. If someone wants to start a cable/satellite company that runs off of this business model, I think people would support it. The religious right has the money and clout to do it, so perhaps they should go ahead.
I do see an advantage in cable being completely free of government regulation with respect to content. The fact that we have Fox News Channel makes up for the drivel. If you are concerned about your children watching, you know what to do. I am still trying to understand why any parent would allow a child under 16 (or even 18) have a TV in their room to begin with.
All a kid really needs in their room is a bed for SLEEP, desk for HOMEWORK, bookcase for BOOKS, a chest for CLOTHES, and maybe, if they deserve it, maybe a shelf for a few toys. NO COMPUTER, TV, VIDEO GAMES, ETC. All of those, if you are generous enough to bestow them upon the little crumb crunchers, should be kept in the family room, UNDER LOCK AND KEY!!! That way, you, as their parent, control their access.
Of course, they will complain. Explain to them that they should bow down and kiss your feet and pledge allegiance to this great nation and its beneifts that they are not living 50 years ago, when they would have to get up at 4 am to do backbreaking labor that even most adults will not do now. And that was before they walked 10 miles to school, where a REAL TEACHER taught them with a hard hand and a rule and made the MEMORIZE everything. Of course, our children would be much better people if they had to endure the hardships of our grandparents and prior generations. For the most part, they live like the spoiled pooches of the blue blood class!
The harder you make a child's life, without allowing for excuses, they better they turn out to be!
None of us would want a
December 2, 2007 - 06:39 ET by Right2thePointNone of us would want a whore to live on our street but I have to let one in my house to get my dish to work and have to go around and block a number of channels on all the TV's around the house just so my son does not see them.
And some call that progress.
And even worse they keep
December 2, 2007 - 06:43 ET by Right2thePointAnd even worse they keep moving the channel numbers so that my blocking and locking has to be updated almost every month or so.
Has anybody noticed
December 2, 2007 - 06:50 ET by Right2thePointHas anybody noticed internet type arrests for porn passion people have fallen to record low numbers because now they can get whatever they want to see short of some really extreme things over any TV dish.
I mean you really have to be totally perverted to not get want you want on public TV any more.
I go to watch my sons
December 2, 2007 - 07:17 ET by Right2thePointI go to watch my sons school a lot of the time and what I am seeing now is 6 , 9 or 12 year old girls leaving their panties home to spread their thighs and entice the younger guys who only want to enjoy that.
And these are the same gals who are burned out on sex by the time they are 20.
To be blunt now when girls
December 2, 2007 - 07:35 ET by Right2thePointTo be blunt now when girls can be sexually aware they do.
But, Tim. Tortilla Flats, er
December 2, 2007 - 07:49 ET by Warner Todd HustonBut, Tim. Tortilla Flats, er what ever her name is, is really, really hot and she's posed nekkid for pictures. So, she HAS to be cool, ya know?
We are getting cable next
December 2, 2007 - 08:47 ET by msh1973We are getting cable next weekend (we have gone 14yrs without it). Comcast has a deal with TV, Internet and phone for a pretty fair deal. To tell you the truth I really don't want it in my home, the networks are bad enough. The kids and hubby are screaming for more choices in viewing. We were told we could have HBO free for six months, I said "thanks but no thanks". At least now I will get Fox News. Wish me luck!
For maybe 3 months you are
December 2, 2007 - 11:44 ET by Right2thePointFor maybe 3 months you are going to get a cheap out deal, but then they are going to rape you for over a hundred a month just to get Fox news. And they are going to have you with a contract with a hefty cancellation fee just to throw them out the door. Do yourself a big favor and cancel them before they get there.
Your kids are in school and
December 2, 2007 - 12:02 ET by Right2thePointYour kids are in school and all the other kids are telling them about the channel numbers of all the porn they get. They have the channel numbers written down on the inside of their underwear and are having wet dreams just waiting until you turn the service on.
yet more calls for censorship
December 2, 2007 - 13:42 ET by shawn228If you don't want to watch it, turn to another channel. The GOP likes to preach freedom, so let people watch what they want to watch. Parents should be responsible for what their kids watch on tv and no one on the Tila show is under 18.
BS We have standards it's
December 2, 2007 - 13:50 ET by Right2thePointBS
We have standards it's only the Dems who say give everybody whatever they want. I shouldn't have to cut down the channels to two or three out of the 200 or so I have available just to keep the brown stuff from staining my carpet.
These shows succeed because
December 2, 2007 - 13:55 ET by JasonCThese shows succeed because there is a market for them. I don't know anything about Tila, but Family Guy is successful because it can be watched on the crass, cheap-gag level, or a sophisticated cultural satire level. The bottom line is, they have large viewerships (and highly desirable, advertising-revenue-laden timeslots) because they appeal to something in the American consciousness. If anything, take it up with the American people. It is, after all, just the free market running it's course, and that's as conservative a defense as one could mount.
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
BS We are not getting
December 2, 2007 - 14:06 ET by Right2thePointBS
We are not getting those channels because we want them and want to buy that we are getting them just to get the other channels we want to watch. Don't even have the brain dead thought that we wanted to go to that sesspool of thought because people were requesting them to be add ons.
You have to $uck as a person to know.
I didn't say you wanted
December 2, 2007 - 14:13 ET by JasonCI didn't say you wanted them - and those channels are Fox and VH-1, respectively, not "Adult" channels. I'm saying the shows that Bozell writes about are popular and therefore are highly visible; the producers of these shows don't just spew out whatever they feel like, or if they do, it only lasts if it brings in the do-re-mi.
I have to $uck as a person to know what? Argue coherently.
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
right2thepoint
December 2, 2007 - 14:02 ET by shawn228I shouldn't have to cut down the channels to two or three out of the
200 or so I have available just to keep the brown stuff from staining
my carpet
I have no problem with you choosing what channels you have, in fact I agree with you. I have a problem with cenorship
Huh?
December 2, 2007 - 17:04 ET by UnsaneHow is it censorship to allow people what channels they want in their homes?
If it were me, out of all the channels on cable, I'd allow 5, MAYBE 6, to enter my home, and I don't have children...I just think everything else is crap.
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
unsane
December 2, 2007 - 17:20 ET by shawn228Its not censorship unsane, but telling us what we can or can't watch is.
Um, you just agreed with his
December 3, 2007 - 00:09 ET by bretzysdudeUm, you just agreed with his point. He wants the freedom to be able to deal with those cable channels and not pay for anything he doesn't want.
Some day I would imagine
December 3, 2007 - 00:12 ET by balboaSome day I would imagine that you'll be able to pay for only what you want. I mean, I pay for C-SPAN, MSBNC, MSG, and lots of other stuff I never watch.
Again, I wish that would
December 3, 2007 - 00:36 ET by bretzysdudeAgain, I wish that would happen, but I just think Cox here would rather be greedy than do this.
bretzydude
December 3, 2007 - 00:30 ET by shawn228Your right i did. Since the thread pretty much insinuates the sleaze on the Tila Tequila show, I was defending free speech, not bundle packages.
Okay, my apologies...
December 3, 2007 - 00:34 ET by bretzysdudeOkay, my apologies... should've read the rest of the thread on that one.
bretzkydude
December 3, 2007 - 00:44 ET by shawn228No problem bretzkydude, Just like my example a few post below, I was pi$$ed that the Packer/Cowboy game was on NFL network. I already pay over 70 bucks a month to Comcast.
And I'll just be you've got
December 2, 2007 - 13:54 ET by Right2thePointAnd I'll just bet you've got no trouble at all with strip joints right next to your childrens schools where they can go for extra credit study.
I would much rather have you
December 2, 2007 - 14:00 ET by Right2thePointI would much rather have you to pound your pud out of your own imagination than have my kid watching something they moved the channel number on something I had to block last week.
That's tasteful. So it's
December 2, 2007 - 14:03 ET by JasonCThat's tasteful. So it's not an issue of parental laziness or parents' lack of authority and gumption to, say, limit children's TV viewing to an hour a day, or something responsible like that, it's that grown people who can choose for themselves what to watch are in fact deviants and chronic masturbators?
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
So you believe we have to
December 2, 2007 - 14:10 ET by Right2thePointSo you believe we have to proactivly block the porn you wnat to have to be available to watch. Sure do you want to think even for one minute that I want to buy that idea?
I haven't had expansive
December 2, 2007 - 14:15 ET by JasonCI haven't had expansive cable in a long time (OnDemand and all that), but isn't porn pay-per-view? I don't think you could just change the channel from Seventh Heaven and accidentally land on porn. You're basically saying that everyone else's viewing habits should be inconvenienced to suit your selectively tailored moral outrage.
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
right2thepoint
December 2, 2007 - 14:06 ET by shawn228This is sort of like the argument I heard as a kid. If Jimmy jumped off a bridge........ Come on R2TP, Having a strip club next to a children school is totally different, you are also talking about drunk men, booze, and scantily clad woman and perhaps prostitution if that happens.
If you do not want to watch it change the channel. That is your choice and most cable subscibers have the power to block any channels the subcriber wishes.
Where Why and tell me
December 2, 2007 - 14:13 ET by Right2thePointWhere Why and tell me how!
Give it your best shot the last one wasn't.
What did I count like 4
December 2, 2007 - 14:26 ET by Right2thePointWhat did I count like 3 or 4 excuses all in a row.
Man your a sick puppy.
You are so foolish enough
December 2, 2007 - 14:29 ET by Right2thePointYou are so foolish enough to say prostitution my be an IF.
Please save me from people as dumb as you.
Are you so dumb you have
December 2, 2007 - 14:58 ET by Right2thePointAre you so dumb you have somehow missed all the commentary about how we had to clean up and block all those channels.
And you expect us because of what you want to have to go to all the trouble to block them just so you can have what you you want IF you want to want it some night when the old lady doesn't want to give it up.
R2
December 2, 2007 - 15:02 ET by BlondeI think this is commonly known as "crickets chirping".
I guess I kicked over the topic of "unbundling" cable....but after reading all of the reponses here...I'm kind of in the "why bother" category. DishTV here I come (and I have my rabbit ears...handy in hurricane country).
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive