American Family Association to Target Desperate Housewives
Posted on | February 22, 2006
Not content with picking on shows like ‘The Book of Daniel’, and kicking ‘Will & Grace’ in its final season, the American Family Association in the form of one of its sub-groups One Million Moms is taking aim at the show ‘Desperate Housewives’. The group’s chairman Donald E. Wilson, who must be a transsexual or had parents who were really cruel in terms of naming, says that he wants moms to pledge not to buy products advertised on the show for a year. Sponsors will be identified by the group as they watch the show April through June to create a hit list.
Here is a hint for these million, uptight moms - If you do not like it, do not watch it. If you do not want your kids watching it, do not let them. With all these things like program ratings, V-Chips, parental controls and other such crap that was supposed to help parents filter out television content. Is the shit really that hard to use? I have said it before and I will say it again, these people have way too much time on their hands.
What I love though is the arrogance of these people. They seem to think that they and they alone are the sole owners of the television airwaves and they have the right to dictate what is good television. If this group really wants to change television, they need to convince people to not watch the show instead of threatening to blackmail companies who choose to advertise during the program. It always comes down to one magic number… ratings. Ratings fail, the show gets pulled. It is as simple as that and could not be more capitalistic. If they do not want to watch Desperate Housewives on ABC then they can watch CBS, NBC, Fox, or UPN. If they have even basic cable they have even more options. Every channel does not need to be something AFA approved 24/7.
What really grinds my gears though is one statement made by Wilson in which he attempts to counter the "just shut the TV off" argument. Naturally he fails but his response is absolutely stupid. He says "Will they also tell us that if we don’t like drunk drivers on the highway to stay off the highway? Sure we can turn the TV off. But why should we have to do that? Why do our children need to be exposed to such trash? Why do the networks keep putting out trash and more trash?"
Well Donald the answer is simple: People who lack both corncobs inserted in their rectums and puritanical sex issues actually watch the show and justifies the costs ABC incurs in producing it. As for his drunk driver analogy, I just am glad I did not have any liquids on my mouth at the time. Comparing a television show to drunk driving is just asinine. Last time I checked, television programs cannot injure/kill you or your family like a drunk driver can. And what is so bad about changing the channel or turning the TV off? Are you trying to tell me that besides being too lazy to use the parental controls you and groups like you have lobbied for, you are too lazy to change the channel too?
External Links:
Comments
16 Responses to “American Family Association to Target Desperate Housewives”
Leave a Reply
Translator
Recent Comments
- Matt G on Senator Ted Stevens Found Guilty
- The Angry Fag on Log Cabin Republicans Bleat on Mark Buse Outting
- queerunity on Log Cabin Republicans Bleat on Mark Buse Outting
- banshiii on Plant Caught in Fight Between Muslims and Non-Muslims over Break Times
- The Angry Fag on Porn Star Kurt Wild Fired from Subway
February 23rd, 2006 @ 9:33 am
Jon, I’m not a fan of the AFA folks, but I have to tell you I agree with their effort to clean-up mainstream TV programming. Just like with content labeling for music, games, etc.
It isn’t about free speech. It isn’t about “just change the channel”. And it isn’t about ineffective metaphors, either.
It’s about winning the battle for clean TV content on mainstream TV… if people want to watch slop like DW, or the Shield, or even Will & Grace, do it in cable where access is limited by purchase or cable subscriptions –like in the theatres.
Keep it off the mainstream, public airwaves. It doesn’t belong there anymore than trying to flash JanetJackson’s tit in a SuperBowl moment… or showing the bubblebutt of a hunk on a reality show. I don’t understand why it’s so hard for guys like you on the GayLeft to grasp that point?
Some gay people seem to have a problem with understanding the difference between appropriate standards and wholesale censorship of adult themed content on mainstream TV.
You do, clearly. I don’t and it doesn’t bother me to say I agree with the AFA on this issue.
February 23rd, 2006 @ 10:36 am
Well, given the show gets good ratings it means that a good chunk of the public, and I do believe that it has received the number one slot in terms of ratings in the past so that means the largest amount of viewers, felt it was appropriate because they were watching. According to the AFA, those members of the public who also own those airwaves just as much as nutballs like the AFA, do not matter.
February 23rd, 2006 @ 2:45 pm
You know it’s ok to have trash on TV as long as it is contained on cable where purchase or subscription options were exercised by the viewer. I’m trying to get the point across to you that the mainstream public TV channels should be managed regarding content because it’s clear that there aren’t very high standards now… if any.
It doesn’t matter what the viewership of one show is or isn’t, Jon. If you pursue that argument, the AFA people can say the larger number of regular TV viewers want better, cleaner standards and that trumps the smaller viewership of DH.
According to the AFA, mainstream TV needs to clean itself up and they are willing to engage a boycott of DH sponsors in order to highlight the need for better standards. I buy into that. It’s needed.
Just like we need to press our gay community’s leadership to adopt a better political strategy to win civil rights advantage, clean up our image in America’s eye, and help spread tolerance for diversity –not a radical Left agenda.
February 23rd, 2006 @ 2:49 pm
Cite where the AFA gets that statistic please.
February 23rd, 2006 @ 2:49 pm
One final thing, Jon. On your point that a good chunk of the public thinks it’s ok, that’s the right test. Be careful when you hoist that rationalization up the flagpole… it can come back to fatally bite you on the ass. ‘Cause last time I looked, we’re in the minority on just about everything in America –from sexual preference to core values to many political convictions.
February 23rd, 2006 @ 2:51 pm
Your arguement would be valid if ABC were the only network around. Unfortunately there are not 5 parallel nations that we can selectively live in at various times.
However there are 5 networks running programming at the same hours that people can go ahead an jump between.
February 23rd, 2006 @ 2:57 pm
“Cite where…” No offense, Jon, but I’m not the one writing the blog. You are. You do the 4 minutes of research it takes…
That whole thing about discussion opponents saying “cite it” is lame.
If had the initiative, you could have found it here
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/23/entertainment/main645195.shtml
here
http://www.srbi.com/time_poll_tv.html
and countless of other places.
February 23rd, 2006 @ 2:58 pm
Jon, it isn’t the fact that people have choices –again, it isn’t a change the channel thing.
It’s that the crap is ON tv that’s the problem… mainstream, public, easily accessible to all TV.
February 23rd, 2006 @ 3:02 pm
Don’t get pissy about being asked to back up something you presented as fact. If I submit a paper to an academic journal, it is MY job to cite my sources not the editor/publisher to look them up.
And what about those who do not find DH or similar programs offensive? You basicaly say they do not matter. If we went with the strictest denominator like you are suggestion, then I guess women need to wear burkahs in television to accomdate the handful of conservative muslims who believe women should wear burkahs and are offended by the fact women on TV od no wear them.
February 23rd, 2006 @ 3:02 pm
It’s clear to me that you see it as issue of personal choice and viewers ought to have a right to see DH and other adult-themed shows on mainstream, public TV.
It isn’t. They don’t have a right to that “choice”; govt grants the license and use of the airwaves. Govt can moderate its content.
In the DH-AFA case, it isn’t even govt moderating content! In this case it’s a boycott aimed at sponsors who help indirectly underwrite the show.
February 23rd, 2006 @ 3:05 pm
Jon, #9 with all due respect, this isn’t even close to an academic or scholarly journal –it’s an opinion blog by a guy who self identifies as an Angry Fag.
And no, arguing for moderate content in mainstream public TV doesn’t mean women need to adopt muslim dress codes (gheez) or a minority group can impose standards on all… that’s absurd and you know it.
February 23rd, 2006 @ 3:10 pm
What I see is the AFA attempting to dictate standards in place of a government which is legally unable to do so. They can attempt to attain their goals without resorting to failed blackmail attempts. Just ask Disney how much an anti-gay boycott of them hurt.
And you’re right, this is not an academic journal. But that still does not mean you get a blank check to throw facts around without getting being asked to cite the source. It is not about the kind of medium, but rather the responsibility of the author. That is the whole reason I created the “Corrections” page last month.
February 23rd, 2006 @ 3:12 pm
And yes, you do seem to say that we have to cater to a minority. If DH has the largest share of viewers, then that means that show is acceptable to the largest amount of viewers. Therefore their standards should reign supreme.
February 24th, 2006 @ 12:37 pm
I love your blog! Keep up the good work. I too am sick of these pseudo-religious hate mongers trying to dictate what all of us should do, say, feel, and watch. Why can’t I watch Desperate Housewives? Just because a group of so-called “million moms” say I can’t? I’m sorry, I moved out of my parent’s place 20 years ago. Anyway, keep at ‘em!
February 24th, 2006 @ 2:30 pm
Jon, #12 “attempting to dictate standards in place of a government which is legally unable to do so” –have you even been following the debate over govt standards for public, mainstream TV this last year? Leaggly unable?? Govt does have the authority to set standards for content on licensed airwaves.
Period.
What the AFA is doing is to use their political and econmoic pressure to compel corp sponsors not to buy ad time on DH. It’s a boycott that underscores the need to create meaningful standards for public, licensed airwaves.
The producers of DH, the network, and sponsors have viable alternatives and venues to present their version of what a small segment of the TV viewing public wants… it’s called cable.
The AFA has every right to engage in a boycott as I do to press my elected representatives toward gay civil rights, adequate funding for AIDS research, tax parity.
On cleaning up the public, licensed airwaves, I agree with the AFA. Howard Stern, Al Franken’s vulgar spew, and m2m reality shows have no business on those airwaves –anymore than objectionable art depicting religious themes has a “right” to govt support or placement in the public square.
February 24th, 2006 @ 2:34 pm
The government cannot legally go in and say “Desperate Housewives” has to come off the air specifically Mike and you know that. Provided that the show falls into objective standards for decency, the FCC cannot do anything.
Get over it Mike.