Who Does The PTC Hate This Week – November 21, 2007

I'm doing this separately from my usual base for these rants against America's Nanny for a couple of reasons. First, they didn't have anything new for me to work on when I started the Short Takes piece this week, and then too I knew I wanted to include the strike related videos. The main thing though is that of late the title "Short" Takes has been a misnomer given the number of words I've been writing and in most cases that's been because I've gone on at length in my PTC posts. I want to keep writing these posts because I think that the PTC and any related organizations are a menace to North American broadcasting. I'm including Canada here too, that even though you can show nudity and say words on broadcast TV in Canada that would have the FCC emptying a network's bank account we don't make that many of our own shows (more's the pity), and when organizations like the PTC force producers and networks to run scared and to produce shows that aren't edgy and don't push the envelope we Canadians lose just as much as Americans do. And yes, amazingly this issue does come up this time around.

First up this week is the Broadcast Worst of the Week. And the proud winner (at least I think that people associated with any show that is called Worst of the Week by the PTC should be proud) is Gossip Girl on the CW. I think it's probably inevitable that any teen drama coming out of The CW and before that The WB is bound to earn the ire of the PTC. Here's how they introduce Gossip Girl: "The CW's new teen drama Gossip Girl, which airs on Wednesday nights at 9:00 p.m. ET, takes all the foul content from The O.C. while stripping away any of that program's redeeming features. This far-fetched soap opera about filthy rich teens deals with every vice from drug use to promiscuous sex to violent rape." The PTC points to three separate story lines – one about drugs, and two about sex – all while managing to mistake a character's name for the actor who played him and getting the actor's name wrong! (Nate Archibald is a character involved in the drugs story, and he is played by Chace Crawford; the PTC repeatedly calls the character "Chance Crawford.") From what I can tell, the PTC made a complete mess of their analysis of the drugs story. They state, "Chance Crawford tries to be a loyal son when he confesses to cocaine possession to take the fall for his father. His father has no remorse for his own actions and seems to find his son's cover-up perfectly honorable. Troubled by the lies, Chance encourages his father to confess. His father responds by punching his son in the face. Chance ultimately turns his father over to the police." On the other hand the recap of the episode from TV.com (and reprinted in Wikipedia) states, "Nate eventually confronts his father about the drugs that he had found and been blamed for....
When Nate goes to his mother to confess that his father has been doing and buying drugs for a while, he is upset when his mother rejects the idea that his farther needs help with the problems that he's having....Nate finally tells his father that he needs help and that he has to go and get it, when he ends up punching Nate and getting arrested....The show ends with ... Nate's mother telling him that his father has more charges on him than what it would have been because the police had been building a case against him for fraud for some time and they are not able to make the one million dollar bail." (Apologies for the ellipses, the elements I was looking for are spread throughout a long recap.) Setting aside at least one apparent error – the claim that "Chance" confessing to cocaine possession rather than Nate being blamed for it, - the story line reads quite differently the way TV.com reports it as opposed to the way that the PTC interprets it. Then again, the PTC has an agenda, to portray shows it disapproves of in as negative a light as possible.

The two sex storylines are treated in a similar manner. In one the PTC says, "Dan, at his father's suggestion, attempts to prep his room for sex with his girlfriend. He replaces his football-themed bedsheets, lights candles, and brushes up on his sex moves by watching internet porn. Dan is shown lying in bed with a laptop as female voices are heard moaning." I hate to say it but the porn at least seems to be the normal action of a teenaged male hoping to get laid for the first time. The other focuses on Chuck and Blair at a "burlesque" club that Chuck is trying to persuade his father to buy: "Teenage Chuck is shown sitting front and center watching the girls as he masterminds a business plan for his father to purchase the club. He and fellow teenager Blair sip champagne as they admire the girls. When Chuck dares Blair to go on stage she unashamedly takes the stage, strips, and dances for Chuck and the audience." The PTC even put that scene (which is such a minor moment that TV.com doesn't even mention the dance in the recap) on their website as "proof" of how terrible the episode is. The PTC offers up this conclusion: "The depictions of teenage behavior in this episode were mind-blowingly inappropriate on any network at any time. This program exhibits Hollywood's concept of appropriate behavior for youth. The show further promotes the hedonistic irresponsible lifestyle that is captivating our country through pseudo-celebrities like Paris Hilton." The PTC seems totally unaware of the source material for the series, the twelve Gossip Girl novels by Cecily von Ziegesar, a New York based author who based the school in the books on the private prep school she attended, and while the novels are controversial they are extremely popular and accepted by the American Library Association as a way to get teenage girls to read.

Next up we have Cable's Worst of the Week and amazingly it's a familiar name – The Sopranos. This time of course it's The Sopranos on A&E because the PTC had no objection to the show on Premium Cable (yeah, right, tell us another funny one) but this is Basic Cable where viewers subsidize channels (and the networks give away commercial time for free, at least if you believe the PTC) and The Sopranos as a show is evil, evil, evil and can't be made
unveil. Here's what the PTC has to say about A&E's attempts to present the show at what the PTC thinks should be Basic Cable level standards: "But A&E has shown throughout its Sopranos run the impossibility of cleaning out Tony Soprano's mouth – let alone muting his heinous violence. The episode titled Cold Cuts, which aired on November 8^th, at 10:00 p.m. ET, featured multiple beatings, profane language, and the novelty of watching Christopher and Tony B. dig up and dispose of buried bodies." All right, first let's take a look at what the PTC cites as examples of the show's language:

• Janice: "How do you like it now, bitch?"
  
  
• Tony: "My name was all over the TV because of your bullshit!"
  Bobby: "It's not that simple, Ton. Apparently the woman's kid was picking on Sophia.
  Tony: "No, no you're not (Janice)! What you're going to do is call Neil Mick, you're going to plea it down, you're going to pay the fine, and not turn this into one of your freakin' cause celebre."
  Janice: "Anybody side's but mine. That bitch is lucky I didn't kill her."
  
  
• Tony: "If it's so freakin' important, then you answer the freakin' phone."
  Melfi: "Stay with that."
  Tony: "It's just the level of bullshit. Every freakin' idea they come up with that's supposed to make things better, makes things worse."
  Melfi: "Okay, right. I agree. The center cannot hold, the falcon cannot hear the falconer."
  Tony: "What the hell are you talking about?"
  

In those three examples of dialog cited by the PTC as "proof" of "the impossibility of cleaning out Tony Soprano's mouth" the only word that probably couldn't be used on Broadcast TV in the United States is the word "bullshit." Sure, we all know what Tony is really saying when he uses the word "freakin'" but guess what, it is the same thing that every other character on TV means probably 90% of the time. If this is all they can come up with in terms of profane language then as the characters on The Sopranos would say, "fuggedaboudit." As for the accusations about violence, besides the mention of the buried bodies, they are only bother to cite two examples:

• Tony throws his glass mug at Georgie, cutting his face. Tony then jumps over the counter, and is shown beating Georgie to the ground with a cash register. After multiple blows, Tony's crew pulls him back. Georgie's face is shown covered in bruised and covered in blood.
  
• Janice attacks the mother of a child who trips her daughter during a soccer game. Janice punches the woman in the face, and then jumps on top of her, repeatedly punching her. The woman's face begins to bleed, and Janice attempts to flee from the police.
  

Given what the PTC mentions in those descriptions, it can argued that this scene would pass muster on Broadcast TV as well. here's the thing; while The Sopranos aired in its first run on Premium Cable channels in Canada and the United Kingdom, repeats of the show aired on Broadcast TV in Canada (CTV) and Britain (Channel 4) and Australia's Network 9. In Canada the series was broadcast by CTV uncut, uncensored and unbleeped. In fact it is one of my 78 year old Great-Aunt's favourite shows. My 78 year old mother doesn't like it, but she doesn't organize committees to protest, she just doesn't watch it, which is the whole point really – she makes a conscious choice not to watch it while her aunt makes the conscious choice to watch it. Nothing can please everyone.

Sure, the PTC is right to press for cable choice even if it is for reasons that most consumers couldn't care less about, but their claim, "Finding The Sopranos an appalling show isn't shocking: it's a sex-filled, gangland bloodbath. The real shock is that now every cable subscriber has to pay for it – whether or not they will ever watch it," is wrong. Every cable subscriber is also "forced" to pay for a network like ABC Family which includes in its line up The 700 Club whether or not they will ever watch that show or not. But of course the PTC will never in a million years describe that as being just as bad a thing as The Soppranos being on A&E.

Next up we have the Misrated section of the PTC's site. This time the supposedly misrated show is Supernatural on The CW. The episode in question is rated TV-PG DLV (suggestive dialog, mild coarse language, moderate violence). Naturally the PTC finds the violence and the imagery extreme, and the language too coarse and too smutty. They demand a TV-14 "perhaps with a V and L descriptor" (strong violence, coarse language). They even go so far as to describe the violent content in the show's opening title sequence – in fact that's the clip that they show on their site. I've often said that the PTC totally misses the mark on the premises of shows and they blow it with this one too. Here's what they say about the show in their introduction: "But this program is no humorous, gentle Ghostbusters imitator." Where on Earth did they get the impression that it would be? But then they're sure that the network is aiming the show at young kids. They (the PTC just to clear up our pronouns) state "What age does the CW network consider appropriate for this bloody, dark, occult-themed mayhem? Why, seven and up, of course." I assume they are stating this because the show is rated TV-PG although I have always assumed that most people seeing the PG in the rating actually took the idea of "Parental Guidance" seriously and didn't depend solely on the V-Chip as their only line of defence for programming.

The PTC mentions several incidents that they term violent in the show (although of course no context is provided and the actions are described in the most graphic detail possible to heighten the outrage):

• A woman taking a shower hears a sound, opens the shower door and peers out. Seeing nothing, she resumes her shower. Suddenly a clothed male arm grabs her around the neck, strangling her. The woman's face, contorted in pain, is pressed against the glass, as the mysterious figure slams her repeatedly against the shower's glass walls. The woman chokes, and her dead body slowly slides down to the floor as evil, demonic laughter is heard.
  
• A man is in his bathroom is mystified as his bathtub fills with black water and won't drain out. He peers into the dark water. A hand explodes out of the water and grabs the man by the throat. Veins pop out on the man's forehead as he is strangled to death.
  
• A ghost with a greenish face and wet hair appears in Peter's car and glares at him. The ghost touches Peter's face. Water starts shooting out of Peter's mouth. More and more water gushes out as Peter makes choking and gurgling noises. Peter frantically claws at his dashboard and car door, trying to get out, then collapses with face against steering wheel as he dies an excruciating death by drowning, the water filling his lungs.
  

They also look at a couple of incidents of "sexual" content that would probably be considered mild by most people: "CW has thoughtfully added several instances of sexual innuendo as well: when Bella mentions a "Hand of Glory" (an occult object), Dean smirks, "A Hand of Glory? I think got one of those at the end of my Thai massage last week!"; as Dean appears wearing a tuxedo, Bella looks him over approvingly and says, "You know, when this is over, we really should have angry sex"; and Sam is forced to dance with an elderly -- and randy -- woman, who gropes him (below camera range) and squeals, "Oh! You're just firm all over!"

When I was working out how to write this part of this piece I initially thought doing a compare and contrast between what the PTC found so objectionable about Supernatural and a fairly recent past series to show that the rating wasn't wrong. The more I thought about it the less effective such an idea seemed to me. True by comparing this specific episode of Supernatural with – for example – Buffy The Vampire Slayer (a show which was normally rated TV-PG with descriptors) it could be shown that the content of the episode was rated in a consistent manner. And most thinking people – which I assume includes most of my readers – would be open minded enough to see the point. Ah, but the PTC wouldn't. They would claim that the content of Buffy The Vampire Slayer was consistently under-rated, proof – as they put it in their summation for this episode of Supernatural – that, "Networks consistently under-rate their own programs, because by doing so they can lure more – and younger – viewers, thus making a mockery of the V-Chip – and their own rating system."

Finally, in their new TV Trends section, the PTC continues with last week's total failure to understand the basics behind My Name Is Earl. Just read these two bits from the start of their piece NBC Comedy Hit: My Name Is Earl Raunchy: "When NBC's situation comedy My Name Is Earl premiered in the fall of 2005, it was lauded by critics not only for its offbeat humor but also for its gentle and life-affirming premise, stated at the beginning of every episode.... Undoubtedly the show's unusually moral premise was a factor in the instant success which the program enjoyed. To audiences weary of incessant "comedy" programs consisting of mean-spirited, unpleasant individuals endlessly insulting, injuring and taking advantage of one another, Earl provided a comic and bumbling but also upbeat and positive lead, struggling to do what so many in the real world also aspire to: trying to live a good life and be kind to others." Huh? Were they watching this show at all? Still they even provide pull quotes from TV critics to "prove" that the show was exactly what they claim, like this one from Robert Bianco of USA Today from September 19, 2005: "[Earl] is trying to improve himself, which makes him a welcome relief from the all those TV frat boys who yearn only to grow ever more stupid and slothful." It's all in aid of supporting the premise that the evil networks (or someone - probably the liberals) taking this beautiful little show about redemption and turning it into something sleezy and evil: "While at first the program gave prominent play to Earl's attempts at redemption, in the last season-and-a-half My Name Is Earl has descended into the cesspool. The program's new direction was presaged in the middle of season two, with episodes focused on: Earl and Joy stealing a police car while urging a cameraman from the TV show COPS to film them having sex in the back seat." It's gotten worse (or at least the PTC says so): "And since this fall's premiere, My Name Is Earl has totally forsaken Earl's quest to do good in favor of crude, hypersexual storylines. As the season opens Earl is in prison, leading to multiple "jokes" about prison sex. Earl even acquires a transsexual "girlfriend." Every episode features extended scenes set in the Club Chubby strip joint, with stripper Catalina performing a "jump dance" which causes her breasts to bounce wildly." They even manage to attack Jaime Pressly as well as the TV critics: "Predictably, television critics applauded the program's new direction, as is shown by the fact that Playboy model Jaime Pressly was awarded an Outstanding Supporting Actress in a Comedy Series Emmy for her portrayal of Joy as an ignorant, foul-mouthed nymphomaniac." (Pressly did two layouts for Playboy when she was 20.) The PTC concludes their TV Trends article with a quote from Tom Shales that seems to support their position about how "bad" the show is: "...My Name Is Earl…amounts to a character study of a character not worth studying." Minor problem with that quote – it was written on September 20,2005, the day after the Bianco quote that talks about how My Name Is Earl is such a welcome relief from "TV frat boys who yearn only to grow ever more stupid and slothful." Of course, since I can find no further Shales comments on the show since he eviscerated it in 2005 we don't know what he thinks of it now. Or for that matter, what Mr. Bianco thinks about it either.

I’ve Been Plagiarized – I Think

See I'm not really sure if the story that follows qualifies as plagiarism. I might have served as someone's muse, or it might just have been a case of slightly greater than average brains thinking alike. Here's the story, you decide.

I used to enjoy sending letters to the editor of the local newspaper. It's an interesting challenge to muster arguments and craft them clearly and concisely for the public in a forum where they'll probably get more readership per day than this blog (sorry but it's a fact). I did it a lot back in the days when my instrument for such things was a Remington that had seen better days or some cheap Japanese made electric rebranded by Eatons as one of their store brands (the Remington still works by the way, but like the company that sold it the Eaton's store brand typewriter has ceased to function – broken belt). I went on about any number of subjects but I think my proudest moment was when I had a brief letter published in the international edition of Britain's Express newspaper, correcting a story that claimed that if Prince William were to come to the throne under his given name (they don't have to you know) he would be William IV – he would in fact be William V; apparently I knew the history of the English monarchy better than the English.

In the days after I started my old Diplomacy zine (Making Love In A Canoe – it would also be the name of my first attempt at blogging) my output for the newspaper dried up. I was my own editor, not bound by the newspaper's restrictions on length or content. However the other day I saw something in the paper that was enough to get me to write. The city has a program to honour veterans by allowing them free parking. Currently this is tied to a special license plate that is issued by the provincial government through its insurance agency SGI to qualified people. The problem is that the government's criteria includes anyone who has ever served in the Canadian military or the reserves regardless of time of service or whether the person had ever been stationed overseas. City Council voted on Monday to ask the city's parking officials to come up with a new parking pass that would be issued to surviving veterans of the First (!?) and Second World Wars and the Korean War.

For a variety of reasons – not the least of which is the current Canadian military involvement in Afghanistan this seemed unfair to me so for the first time in a long time I wrote a letter to the newspaper. In my letter I claimed that restricting the parking reward (for their service) to veterans of the World War II and Korea was to denigrate the actions of others; men in women in the armed forces, including reservist, who are currently serving in Afghanistan, who had served during the Gulf War (mainly Air Force and Naval personnel), or in a host of peacekeeping missions from the Sinai, Cypress, and the Congo to Croatia and Bosnia. I even mentioned Canadian soldiers who were deployed to Germany during the Cold War. I pointed out that the risks they faced – including actual deaths and permanent injuries – were equal to the risks faced by veterans in the World Wars and Korea. I sent the letter by an email form on the newspaper's website on Tuesday morning and received a phone call to confirm that I had in fact written the letter.

Today (Wednesday) the newspaper ran an editorial called "All true veterans deserve parking" (not sure if this link works if you don't have an account with the newspaper) in which the collective editorial brain of the Saskatoon Star-Phoenix came out with the exact same proposal that I made in my letter. Here are three paragraphs from the Star-Phoenix editorial:

While it's a good idea to de-couple the issue of free parking for veterans from SGI's special poppy plates, it makes no sense to treat the contributions of some uniformed men and women who risked their lives on foreign missions as of lesser value than that of people who did it in two world wars and Korea.

From the service people currently on duty in Afghanistan to those who participated in the Gulf War to naval personnel who enforced UN sanctions against Iraq, plenty of others deserve equal recognition. And that's not to gloss over the contribution of soldiers who were stationed in Europe during the Cold War or the countless peacekeepers who served everywhere from Cypress to Sinai, or in Rwanda, Congo or the Balkans, or Mounties who helped out in Haiti.

The risks they faced cannot be discounted any more than the injuries many of them suffered in Answering Canada's call to serve its obligations on the international stage.

It's not bad stuff but you'll excuse me for thinking that a significant portion of it seems familiar to me. And it's not as if I dismiss the possibility that the newspaper came up with this position without input from me – though if they did, why didn't they come up with the idea on Monday night for their Tuesday morning edition (which is when the report on the original proposal to restrict the parking "reward" was published) or that they got more submissions than just mine which served as an inspiration. And it's not as if I don't appreciate the fact that the newspaper has taken what I obviously believe is the right position on this matter, given that an editorial in their pages will have more influence than one little letter to the editor. The problem is that if they run my letter tomorrow it comes across as me saying "me too" when it's entirely possible that the opposite is the case – that they're saying "us too" to me.

(Very) Short Takes – September 23, 2007

I haven't got much to write about today outside of taking my regularly scheduled run at the PTC – if I can't make fun of them editorially I am in real trouble. Part of the problem is that we're in a sort of doldrums when all the shows about to pop out are shiny and new and have finally have had their casts and scripts tweaked, and each and every one of them is going to draw a 40 share. It's sort of like Spring Training in baseball, the last time anyone seriously thinks the Washington Nationals have a shot at winning the World Series (I would have said the Cubs but this year they're contenders – it's only been a century since their last Series win, they don't want to be greedy). Harsh reality will assert itself within the next couple of weeks with a couple of shows falling by the wayside at the hands of the evil network weasels and I'll have something to write about.

As it is right now I seem to be suffering from a bit of writers block, or as I'm inclined to call it, literary constipation (because nothing's coming out; of course it could be called literary diarrhea – the only thing coming out is crap – but literary constipation just feels like the right metaphor). That's one reason why the other blog – The Good Old Days Weren't So Bad – is so stagnant. I come up with what seems like a good idea, start writing and after a few paragraphs decide "well that's a big steaming pile of crap" and delete it from my hard drive.

I mean here's an example. One of the things that really bothers me is people writing critical commentary about shows they admit they haven't seen. I mean take this example: "To be honest, I have never really heard much about The Unit. The most that I knew about it was that a guy that I recognized as a character on 24 (and also from those Allstate Insurance commercials) was on it. I had no idea who else was in it or what it was about. After reading up on the show, I can't really say that it sounds like something I'd like to watch, although I'm sure that there's an audience out there for this show somewhere." It's a Cinema Blend Fall Preview of The Unit. Or this one from the same source, about NCIS: "NCIS is one of those shows that I always see getting decent ratings despite the fact that I don't know a single person who watches it. I expect the series appeals mostly to people with military backgrounds or if not, people who have an interest in military shows. I'm all for supporting the troops but my enjoyment of anything even remotely military related is limited to movies like Platoon and Saving Private Ryan and Nelson DeMille books. I have no interested in crime related procedural dramas and even less interest in a series that shows the genre in a military light. That said, the show has gotten good ratings over the last few years so there must be something to it." The writer has never watched NCIS, has no interest in the subject matter but takes a shot at it anyway. These two weren't the only ones either. At times it seemed like Cinema Blend was deliberately assigning people to comment on previewing shows they had never seen and explaining that the show wasn't worth watching. And in righteous indignation I was prepared to take a run at them. And then a little voice (which sounds almost exactly like Tweety Bird) pops up and says "Ooo, what a hypotwite!" Because of course I do that all the time when I write my "TV On DVD" commentaries; I haven't seen all of those shows or even most of the shows but here I am telling my readers what they should spend their money on, sometimes quite vehemently. And since I'm not planning on stopping anytime soon, Delete!

Who does the PTC hate this week?: Well, they don't hate the US Congress, that's for sure. In fact the PTC is ecstatic that Representative Charles Pickering (R – Mississippi) introduced House Resolution HR 3559, a bill similar to that proposed by Senator Jay Rockefeller (D – West Virginia) "that affirms the FCC's ability to restrict the use of profanity and indecent images during times of day when children are most likely to be in the viewing audience." The bill was co-sponsored by Representatives Joseph Pitts (R-Pennsylvania.), Jim Matheson (D-Utah) and Mike McIntyre (D-North Carolina). As usual the PTC is railing against the decision of the Second Circuit on the "fleeting obscenity case." This time though Tim Winter is taking a new tack in his condemnation of the decision. First there's the usual assertion that the networks are plotting to fill their programming with S-words and F-words when children are watching: "No matter what the industry claims, if it had no intention of broadcasting the 'F-word' or 'S-word' during hours when children are watching, then it would not have sued – likely spending much more in legal fees than it would have faced in FCC fines – for the right to air these words and other indecent content." Well setting aside the fact that the PTC is yet again denying the networks the rights that even the most hardened criminal has, that is to say the right to appeal, they're getting their numbers wrong. I doubt that the networks collectively have spent $32.5 million on this suit, which is the fine that could currently be levied by the FCC for an obscenity aired on 100 stations, at the current maximum fine the Commission can levy - $325,000 per station. It's no wonder that some PBS stations have requested a censored version of Ken Burns's new documentary The War. However, as I have said, the PTC is taking a new approach on this issue – that all such language and images are fleeting. Tim Winter states in his press release, "I want to be clear: vulgar, profane language is, by its very nature, 'fleeting.' 'Unscripted' images that are highly sexual in nature may still meet the Supreme Court established criteria for broadcast indecency and are certainly highly inappropriate content for children. The so-called 'fleeting' nature of this type of programming does not absolve broadcasters of their responsibility to protect children from indecent content during the times when kids are most likely to be in the audience." If I'm understanding this correctly, any use of "vulgar and profane" language is fleeting therefore the court decision allows it all and legislation must be brought forward to prevent a person on live TV saying a "rude word" in the heat of the moment because it will allow scriptwriters to fill the screen with the vilest filth. Obviously you Americans are far more pure than we vile and obscene Canadians.

They are also applauding a class action suit launched against the practice of cable bundling. In their press release the PTC states that "The overwhelming majority of Americans support the notion of Cable Choice, so it is somewhat surprising that it has taken this long for a class action grievance to emerge against cable television's bundling practices. There is no question that a remedy is very much in order to put an end to the wantonly anti-competitive, anti-consumer and anti-family practices of the cable industry – a remedy rendered nearly impossible because of the industry's Washington power brokering. A victory in this court case will be a victory for parents and families – and indeed it will be a victory for all consumers. For decades now the cable industry has successfully dodged the free market by hiding behind a litany of falsehoods and PR spin. They have spent tens of millions of dollars on political campaign donations, on lobbying, and on contributions to a myriad of groups and individuals that have helped them to perfect and perpetuate a system that reliably produces price increases that are several times the rate of inflation." It's a great statement but it doesn't mention any of the details of the suit. For that you have to go elsewhere. The suit was launched by "veteran antitrust attorney Max Blecher" on behalf of fourteen cable and satellite subscribers in various cities. It "asked the court to enjoin the companies from "unlawfully bundling expanded basic-cable channels and ordering defendant cable providers and direct-broadcast satellite providers to notify their subscribers that they each can purchase 'a la carte' (separately) except for 'basic cable,'" basic cable being defined as the stations that the systems must carry per government mandate. The suit claims that the plaintiffs have been "deprived of choice, have been required to purchase product they do not want and have paid inflated prices for cable-television programming." Treble damages are sought, claiming "contracts between the programmer defendants and the cable and direct-broadcast satellite providers constitute a combination among and between the named defendants to monopolize trade and commerce in the relevant product market." In the past, the cable industry has argued that "government-mandated per-channel pricing will reduce programming diversity and could actually raise rates as channels forced to fend for themselves die off or have to charge more to make the numbers work." It is interesting to note that about half of the companies named in the suit - NBC Universal, Viacom, Disney, Fox, Time Warner, Comcast, Cox Communications, DirecTV, EchoStar Communications, Charter Communications and Cablevision Systems – are either content providers or companies which provide content and service (Time Warner, Comcast).

I have stated in the past that I support a la carte or "pick 'n' pay" pricing for cable channels although not for the same reason that the PTC does. I would rather not pay for channels that I don't watch. I am also cognizant however of the fact that bundling is almost essential for analog systems or systems that have not required subscribers to buy a digital box. In digital systems the digital cable box can be programmed to exclude individual stations however for people receiving analog services and using their TV's "cable ready" tuner a la carte service would require manpower intense changes to each customer's connection. The industry is almost certainly correct in their assertion that bundling subsidizes less viewed channels. What I do know from my own experience is that even if Blecher and his fourteen plaintiffs – representing, they say, all cable and satellite subscribers "except the defendents [sic] or their subsidiaries and employees" – are successful it will not mean the end of bundling. My experience in Canada, both with Shaw Cable and with every other Canadian cable and satellite system, including SaskTel which is owned by the government of Saskatchewan as a Crown Corporation and operates in competition with Shaw, is that while they offer "pick 'n' pay" as an option the price per channel is such that buying bundles are actually cheaper than buying individual channels even if you only want half of the channels in the bundle.

It's time for the PTC's Broadcast Worst of the Week. This time around it's a rerun of Criminal Minds, about which the PTC said "simply flipping channels past CBS could have potentially been traumatic for any viewer." The episode was the one in which a serial killer uses an abandoned slaughter house that he owns to torture and eventually kill street people. A significant portion of the episode focuses on a young woman who is taken off the streets anesthetised. She awakes in the slaughter house and is challenged by the killer to escape, a sadistic game on the part of the killer – he's rigged things so no one can escape. The PTC describes her efforts to escape: "In a frenzy she tries to escape, but mistakenly crashes into a room covered in broken glass. The girl falls to the ground where she gains multiple wounds, including several on her face. She cries as she pulls the shards of glass from her cheek. A voice is heard telling her that if she can find her way out of the building she will be set free. Throughout the entire episode the girl is shown running for her life, but only finding rooms with the words 'dead end' written on the walls in blood. A Doberman pinscher is released and chases her into the 'Kill Room,' where body parts hang from the ceiling. The head of the old man from the first scene is shown on a table. The viewer learns that he was killed and cut into pieces with a circular saw. The girl is ultimately put on a gurney and prepped for death, when just in the nick of time FBI agents rush in and save her." While I found her efforts to escape heroic even as the FBI team tried to find the killer (and dealt with the sceptical police captain who didn't think there was a crime) the PTC felt that, "The plot was practically nonexistent. The entire point of the episode was frightening and sickening viewers with graphic scenes of blood and dismemberment." They also said that had it been a movie the episode would "certainly be considered for an 'R' rating due to violence." Hardly. An "R" rated film would have been far more graphic in terms of seeing victims (more than one) being dismembered, with abundant blood spattering in the scenes.

The Cable Worst of the Week (which the PTC still refuses to set up as an archived resource) is It's Always Sunny In Philadelphia on FX, for the episode with the Dumpster Baby. Here's how the PTC describes the show: "Charting the heinously decadent misadventures of Mac, Dennis and Charlie, the owners of a Philadelphia pub, It's Always Sunny premiered its third season on September 13^th. Filling out the degenerate gang are Dennis' sister Dee and their father Frank (played by Danny DeVito). And this season promises to pack an even more offensively crude punch to viewers – a punch subsidized by every cable subscriber, whether or not they feel the warmth of Sunny." As usual the PTC is sticking with their assertion that cable subscribers are subsidizing shows. It's not true and anyone with a hint of intellectual honesty will acknowledge this; the shows are sponsored and if they don't draw ratings that the advertisers are happy with (both in terms of total numbers and the specific demographic) those shows will be cancelled, as we saw with The Simple Life. The details that the PTC describes for the show aren't ones that would usually qualify for worst of the week (I think the PTC is desperate). One is the scene in which Mac and Dee try to get a tanning salon employee to let them put the baby they found in a tanning bed to give it a more "ethnic" look so it can be in commercials. The other scene they quote is the one in which Frank's mother tells him that he had survived her attempt to abort him. On the whole pretty tame stuff. In their conclusion the PTC writes "While this macabre humor may appeal to some (2.3 million viewers last week), what about the over 50 million cable subscribers who didn't watch, yet still subsidized this programming? Shouldn't those viewers get to choose whether or not they pay for It's Always Sunny's acerbic and polarizing humor?" By that standard we should probably be asking the companies who sponsor shows like According To Jim (just as an example – I could just as easily attack one of the PTC's favourite reality shows) why those people who don't watch the show but buy their products should be subsidizing that show's polarizing humour.

Finally we come to the PTC's Misrated section. They actually give us two this time around one of which they've mentioned several times in the past. The main one was the Emmy Technical Awards. As you may (not) be aware, these aired on the E! cable channel. The PTC believes that the show should have had a language descriptor. Here's why: "This award show was not live like other awards shows; it had been pre-taped and edited for time — yet the producers still chose to leave in many bleeped words like "f-word," "s-word," "b*lls," "d*ck" and "p*ssy." There were also un-bleeped words like "hell," "damn," and "bastard." In other words the PTC are complaining because "bad" words were bleeped and other words, which can be heard on many over the air shows were spoken on a cable channel. They note host Carlos Mencia's comment about sound editors: "…and a sound editor. He could cut all the bull [bleeped 'shit'] out of his own speeches. I apologize. I was going to say BS. I was back there and I asked Elaine Stritch. I said, 'Hey should I say BS or should I say the word?' And she grabbed me by the [bleeped 'balls'] and told me to 'be a man you [bleeped "fucking"] [bleeped "pussy"]'." And then they add this: "Just to be clear, the words were only bleeped, not blurred, so the viewer could see what words Mencia was actually using." So it's not just children that the PTC is concerned about but lip readers as well. And of course they were upset that clips of the nominated song Dick In A Box were shown: "The producers of the Creative Emmys decided to show clips of the song, during which Timberlake sings, 'One: cut a hole in the box. Two: put your junk in the box. Three: make her open the box…' and later Timberlake sings, 'It's my [muted "dick"] in a box, my [muted "dick"] in a box, girl. It's my [bleeped "dick"] in a box, my [bleeped "dick"] in a box, babe.'" Again, I remind you that if you read either of these quotes out loud you heard more obscenities than anyone who watched the show did. And then they added "Not only are there bleeped words, but there is clear sexual dialogue which would warrant the "D" descriptor." Not in that clip, at least in my interpretation.

The bonus material The PTC crowed in triumph about the airing of the season finale of NCIS which, they claim, includes a scene of "of a drug addict snorting heroin out of the intestines of a corpse." Actually the scene shows nothing of the sort; it simply implies it. In the scene, we see the back of the woman bent over the body of her brother (the corpse in question) and it is indicated primarily by the prior reaction of Tony and Dr. Benoit that she is snorting the heroin off of his body, but we don't see the intestines or indeed whether she is snorting the heroin. What the PTC seems happy about is two things. First, the episode initially ran with a TV-14 rating; in the rerun it ran with a TV-14 V rating. Secondly the episode initially ran in the first hour of primetime; the rerun ran in the third hour. To the PTC these two things indicated "that CBS recognized that the show was misrated, and that the network now took the necessary steps to warn parents of it's [sic] particularly offensive content." While the addition of the "V" descriptor might have indicated that, the show had been moved to the third hour of primetime following the debut of The Power Of Ten while the second hour was devoted to Big Brother which had its season finale on the night in question.

Short Takes – September 12, 2007

I confess that I came close to not doing even an abbreviated version of Short Takes this week. There wasn't that much that I was that enthusiastic about writing about beyond the ritual skewering of the PTC, and while that's fun, it isn't enough. There were stories – the apparent decision to put Doctor Who on hiatus for a year after the coming season because David Tennant wants to do Hamlet in the West End was one of those stories, but I just didn't have the fire in my belly to do it. Then something happened. I think I'll let the item in question explain itself.

Jim Shaw, arbiter of taste: If you live in Western Canada the odds are pretty good that you get your cable TV service from Shaw Cable. I get my Cable and Internet from Shaw, and I'll let you in on a dirty little secret – I don't hate my cable company. The service is usually up, the customer service in Saskatoon at least is good, and when you're given an afternoon appointment for a service call then by the gods the service guy shows up that afternoon. So I'm a pretty contented customer (except maybe for the rates but that's a part of this story). Now Management – in the form of company CEO Jim Shaw – well that's a whole other question.

On September 8^th my local paper the Saskatoon Star-Phoenix and most of the other newspapers in Western Canada ran the following ad from Shaw, the company but it reflects the views of Shaw the man:

What does spending 2.5 Billion of your money to fund original Canadian TV programming get you?

(Not much. We were hoping you knew.)

The Canadian Television Fund was created to help promote and develop quality TV programming in Canada. But somewhere along the line, they lost their way. Firstly, they give the CBC a backdoor to $120 million each year. Secondly, instead of promoting the creation of better children's programming or developing a series based on the icons and the elements of our country that make Canada great, they pumped 2.5 billion dollars into shows about the dysfunctional residents of a mobile home park, shape shifting aliens with a grudge against the government and educational programming that.

At Shaw, we believe television should entertain, inform, inspire and make you think. We support the development of original Canadian programming that reflects this great country of ours. However this programming should be a lot more reflective of the audience that will ultimately watch it. We need a better way to create Canadian programming. The CTF is broken and can't be fixed.

This needs some background. Back in 1996 the Canadian Radio Television and Telecommunications Commission (the CRTC) established the Canadian Television Fund (CTF) to "support the production and broadcast of high quality, distinctively Canadian television programs." According to the CTF website their objectives are to "To encourage the financing and broadcasting of high-quality Canadian television productions; to reflect Canada to Canadians by assisting the creation and broadcast, in prime time, of high-quality, culturally significant Canadian programs in both official languages in the genres of drama, children's, documentaries and variety and performing arts, and by both majority and minority official-language sectors; and to support Aboriginal language productions in the eligible genres." According to CRTC regulations broadcasters are required to contribute 5% of their revenue to the fund. If I'm not mistaken, the cable company contributions were in return for relaxation of some regulatory requirements. According to a letter sent by Shaw to the CTF in January 2007 when he announced that his company would not be making its $56 million contribution to the fund for the year, "Over the past 10 years, Shaw has contributed over $350 million in direct subsidies to the Canadian production industry." And Jim Shaw is not happy with the programming that the CTF is funding.

Now it's no surprise that Shaw throws and off-handed comment about the CBC in there; Shaw comes from a corporate culture – the Canadian private broadcaster – that regards the CBC as a sort of amalgam of Satan and Stalin (evil incarnate and socialist). There's a whole history behind this but suffice it to say that the Canadian Association of Broadcasters has always wanted the CBC dead.

No it's the second part of his diatribe that is irritating (and mystifying because I can't identify two of the shows he mentions) is that Jim Shaw sets himself up as an arbiter of good taste. Trailer Park Boys (the show "about the dysfunctional residents of a mobile home park") doesn't match Shaw's standard of good taste and quality television and so shouldn't receive funding. As I mentioned, I can't identify the other two shows he describes, the one about the shape-shifting aliens and the one that "offers instruction on the right and wrong way to host an S&M Bondage Party." They may be inventions of his own mind or they may be shows that are funded and he is drawing some aspect of them into the cold hard light of his "critical" eye. Not knowing what they are, I can't tell you if they're good or bad shows. I also can't tell you if they're popular or how they do in the ratings. I do know that Trailer Park Boys is one of the great successes of Canadian cable TV. People know and enjoy the characters to the point where the actors can make appearances on other networks (the CBC) as hosts of events and people know them. To me that's successful TV. Worse is that Jim Shaw doesn't suggest an alternative beyond a vaguely defined request for "better children's programming or developing a series based on the icons and the elements of our country that make Canada great" to go along side his equally ill-defined comments about the quality of the programming that is funded.

Now I get people like the PTC. I know what they stand for and (mostly) against in terms of programming. They don't like sex, violence, and bad language. I don't agree with their definitions or thresholds for objectionable material – I think they are far too strict in every area, at every time period, and in every venue – but at least I know what they stand for. I don't get that with Jim Shaw. All I get from him is an echo of the US Supreme Court Justice who said that he couldn't define pornography but he knew what it was when he saw it. Shaw hasn't defined what a show that should be funded would be but he knows what it isn't when he sees it.

I don't object to Jim Shaw expressing an opinion about shows. Everybody does it all the time. But Shaw is a man with power – green power and I'm not talking eco-friendly here (okay so Canadian money isn't green, work with me on this one). A critic – especially an amateur critic like myself – doesn't have power beyond the power to tell people our opinion and trying to use our words to persuade them to watch or not watch particular shows. Jim Shaw is expressing an opinion about the shows he thinks should be funded and I defend to the death his right to express this opinion. But he's doing more than that and that's where he's crossing the line. He's saying in effect "fund the sort of shows that I think should be funded or you don't get my $56 million." I'm not a lawyer, but that sounds like extortion. Or is it reverse blackmail? And it's the way he puts it in the ad, a way that generates an emotional response: "What does spending 2.5 Billion of your money to fund original Canadian TV programming get you?" It makes it seem as though all the money that is going into the fund is coming directly from the taxpayer, and we all know that the taxpayer hates to fund things without getting some direct benefit. Of course what he's not mentioning is that that money stopped being ours when we paid it to Shaw Cable as part of our cable bill. And don't believe for a minute that if the CTF didn't exist your cable bill would go down by the per capita amount that would make up the $56 million.

To be fair to Jim Shaw, Shaw Communications has been a major funder of quality children's programming through their Shaw Rocket Fund which between 1998 and 2006 has spent $58.3 million to help produce quality children's programming, and presumably that has standards to define "quality." What I find objectionable is that Shaw is attempting to use his company's contribution to the CTF – which as far as I can tell is not voluntary but required as part of his license – to get the CTF to change their policy. And it's the question of whether the contribution is require that may trip him up. There are policies of Shaw Cable's that I disagree with – for example at the inception of the premium digital channels in 2001 the company decided which channels would be offered to its subscribers in a completely arbitrary manner. If I were to protest Shaw's policy on this by refusing to pay my cable bill but insisting that they continue to provide me with service, how far would I get? The answer is not very far at all – my cable service would be cancelled faster than it takes to type it. Actions have consequences, and Jim Shaw's action in not making his required payment to the Canadian Television Fund – for which he gets benefits – needs to have consequences.

Who does the PTC hate this week?: As I said above, I get where the PTC is coming from even if I don't agree with their position or their logic. But it does make studies like the recent one they released on content during the "Family Hour" suspect. Set aside the fact that the "Family Hour" as such hasn't existed for over a quarter century, having been thrown out by the courts as an arbitrary use of power by the FCC, the fact that the PTC defines an act of violence as showing a dead body, considers words like "damn" and "crap" as foul language, and counts verbal references to adultery as sexual content means that the results of this study are inflated to say the least. Still the PTC claims that TV is going to H E double hockey sticks and dragging us all with it: "Our study clearly demonstrates that corporate interests have hijacked the Family Hour from families. This early prime time block was once reserved for programs the whole family could enjoy but it is now flooded with shows that contain adult programming. The Family Hour was once lauded by the entertainment industry and members of Congress as a solution for parents who do not want their children to be exposed to graphic content for at least one hour each night. Shockingly, this data shows that parents cannot trust what is on during the so-called Family Hour for even a minute." When they find that "in 180 hours of original programming, there were 2,246 instances of objectionable violent, profane and sexual content, or 12.48 instances per television hour," though, any validity the study might have is significantly eroded by the organization's definition of violent, profane and sexual content, definitions which may only be shared by the more extreme of the social conservative groups that support the PTC. And here's a question to consider, when exactly was it that Congress and the entertainment industry lauded the Family Hour as "a solution for parents who do not want their children to be exposed to graphic content?" Not recently I suspect.

Onto the PTC's Broadcast Worst of the Week and the organization continues in reruns, this time attacking Heroes for an episode that originally aired back in late November 2006 (at a time when the PTC wasn't doing new reviews; I suspect they were mourning the loss of a Republican Congress during the midterm elections). Their vision of the show doesn't seem to be in agreement with any of the episodes that I've seen: "While Heroes is marketed as a show about super-powered do-gooders and their quest to save the world, it is hard to find that theme in the typical episode." Uh, no it isn't about that at all. In the first season at least Heroes was about ordinary people suddenly discovering that they have extra-ordinary abilities and trying to cope with those abilities. About the only character who was really determined to be a "super-powered do-gooder" was Hiro. The rest of the characters were at the very least ambiguous about their motivations. Not unlike comic book characters have been since the 1970s – the early 1970s (heaven alone knows what they'd think of Roy Harper – Speedy – and his heroin addiction). Here's another gem which shows the PTC's incredibly harsh definitions: "Graphic violence involving fights, guns, bladed weapons, blood, burns, and death are commonplace on Heroes." So are the guns and bladed weapons "graphic violence" or is their use – that sentence doesn't entirely make it clear. Context doesn't matter either: "This week's episode featured Niki attacking her estranged father and beating him into submission." Context does not enter into the PTC's consideration – Niki, has at least one other personality (Jessica) as a result of being physically abused as a child by her father and it is Jessica (the strong personality) who beats her father into submission after the father yells at Niki's son. But as I say, for the PTC motivation and character development don't matter.

The Cable Worst of the Week is the PTC's perpetual target Rescue Me. The Council must be going soft – all they can find to comment on is Tommy's promiscuity ("the August 29^th episode features Tommy having sexual relations with two different women. In one scene, Tommy is shown sitting naked in a chair talking to Valerie after a brief sexual encounter") and a bit of dialog that happens after Tommy tries to grope the fire chief's daughter Beth: "My parents always want me to go back on [her medications]. Because they're always worried if I go off it that I'm going to snap and try to, you know, run into the room where they're sleeping and stab their eyeballs out with an ice pick or rip their chest out and then bury it in the backyard next to my ovaries. Why'd you take your hand away?" Before their usual final sentence decrying the fact that basic cable subscribers have to "subsidize" this filth (even though it airs at a time when children, the group that the PTC is supposedly protecting, aren't watching) they add this bit of artistic criticism: "Rescue Me continues its tradition of graphic content matched to superficial character analysis, mocking everything from monogamy to manic-depression. For a show that prides itself in exploring the human psyche in all its dysfunctional glory, this episode seemed only to mock real-life tragedies for a cheap laugh." Clearly they just don't get what this show is about.

In the PTC's Misrated section this week we find The Hills, which is MTV's self-described "reality drama" an intern working at Teen Vogue and her friends. The episode is rated TV-PG with no descriptors, and the objection seems to be concerned with a single scene: "Justin: "Who [muted 'fucking'] cares? Why do they [muted 'fucking'] care? It actually pisses me off. Because when something's working you don't [muted 'fuck'] it up by throwing labels or doing stupid [muted 'shit'] like throwing a ring on your finger. Because society or friends said so. So you know what? [Muted 'Fuck'] them. Literally. I don't give a [muted 'shit']." Although the words aren't bleeped and the mouth of the person saying them isn't blurred they also aren't heard either. Moreover, in the past the PTC has objected strenuously when those particular words have been bleeped and the lips were blurred because the words weren't bleeped to their standards. And yet, despite the fact that if you read the first sentence of the PTC's version of the dialog aloud (complete with the words in the square brackets) you'd have heard more "bad words" than in the actual transmission of the episode, the PTC feels that it requires at least a descriptor and probably a higher rating. Or as they put it, "Wow. In mere seconds, viewers are subjected to four muted 'f' words, two muted 's' words, one "piss" – and the ratings never reflected that. The entertainment industry wants consumers to believe that the ratings system works, but clearly there was nothing correct about the rating for this episode of The Hills." But here's the real question: how can you justify putting an "L" descriptor on a show for strong language when the words in question were only present in one's imagination. The context is clear but the words are taken out. It's not like taking the words "son of a bitch" out and replacing them (badly) with "scumbum" (as was done in Smokey And The Bandit when it was redubbed for TV) but it does the job.

Short Takes – September 3, 2007

I have depressingly little today. Part of it was my week spent goofing off, but part of it is this sort of "calm before the storm" period that we're in. In a sense the Emmys do what the start of the new car year used to do; mark the end of the old TV season and the beginning of the new one. But we're two weeks away from the Emmys and there isn't that much right now that's worthy of my usual commentary. I mean even the PTC has take the week off. But let's see what we can come up with.

NBC pulls out of iTunes: This one literally has no impact on me; Canadians haven't been able to get any video content through iTunes since they started offering it. Well I take that back since there've been some short material from Pixar and movie trailers, but when it comes to the commercial content (like stuff you buy), the Canadian iTunes Music Store offers nothing. However it's different in the United States where ABC and some fifty other networks offer content online through the iTunes Store. One of those networks is NBC, or rather it was. NBC-Universal has decided to end its contract with iTunes despite the fact that the company's networks were the top provider of downloaded content, with shows like Battlestar Galactica, The Office and Heroes representing over 40% of the video material downloaded from iTunes. Initial reports claimed that NBC wanted to increase the price of their content from the standard $1.99 to a whopping $4.99 which would mean that a complete 22 episode season, downloaded to your video capable iPod would set you back $110. In fact what NBC proposed was somewhat different. They wanted the right to offer "flexible pricing" with some shows being under $1.99, while others would be priced higher. Furthermore some shows would be offered as part of a bundled package. For example you might get an episode of The Office "free" if you bought the movie Evan Almighty. In response Apple has stated that they will not offer new episodes of NBC shows that they currently sell between the start of the new TV season and December when the contract runs out. In other words when the new season of The Office debuts you'll still be able to download last season's episodes but not those from the coming season. According to the San Jose Mercury-News the two sides are still negotiating, at least as of the end of August. The situation is a difficult one for both companies. Apple's product lines – which include the iPhone (which you can't get in Canada because they can't find a cell partner that will offer affordable Internet access), Apple TV which allows people to play their iTunes video content on their home TVs (which is available in Canada but is kind of useless because there's virtually no video content available – see above), and a reported revamping of the iPod line which is expected to include a video model with a larger screen, like the iPhone – is becoming increasingly oriented towards video offerings. However the amount of content available has been relatively small. According to the Mercury-News, "The loss of NBC's television shows would mark a big hole in iTunes' catalog. If consumers don't have readily available video for their iPods, iPhones and Apple TV's, Apple could have a harder time selling those products, analysts say." At the same time NBC faces its own risks with dropping away from iTunes: "The NBC network came in fourth place in the Nielsen ratings last year and has struggled to come up with new hit shows. Not only does iTunes provide an extra source of revenue, but it can serve as an important buzz generator and audience builder for new programs, something NBC arguably could use." Just as an example, at least some of the initial success of The Office has been credited to it becoming available on iTunes. The Mercury-News article seems to suggest that this sort of thing is likely to become the norm: "The entertainment companies' traditional business models are starting to crumble in the face of digital distribution. While they are all dabbling with distributing their content online, digital sales have yet to make up for the traditional revenue they're losing. And some analysts doubt that the entertainment companies can ever make a legitimate business out of selling individual songs or TV shows a la carte. Until they do – or figure out a better model – dust-ups with iTunes and its rivals are likely to be the norm, analysts say.

Katie Couric goes to Iraq: I'm not a huge Katie Couric basher – I think she was the wrong woman for the job (I would have loved it if they'd hired someone like Dianne Sawyer or Christianne Amanpour – someone with a serious news background) but I will give her credit for getting better at her job. And now she's headed for Iraq for what is, coincidentally (or is it), the anniversary of her taking over the reins as anchor. Starting on September 4^th she will be broadcasting from Baghdad for two days and then from Damascus Syria for two days. She will be the second network anchor to go to Iraq since the roadside bomb that severely injured former ABC co-anchor Bob Woodruff. Couric, who stated at the time that she took the job that she wouldn't necessarily travel to places like Iraq (unlike her predecessor Dan Rather) in part because she's a widow with two teenage children and in part because she felt that they didn't necessarily add to the story: "I'm not just window dressing to show that I'm at a particular story, which I think does happen quite frankly in certain situations." In this particular case the trip is timed to precede the release of the Petraeus report on the war in Iraq about which Evening News Executive producer Rick Kaplan has said "The future of our involvement in Iraq will be decided when the Petreaus report is released; if you're going to go to the Middle East at all, this is the time." It is also something that will likely have a major impact on the 2008 elections which is another part of the effort to rebrand Couric as a more traditional anchor after her rather disastrous debut. Kaplan's opinions on anchor trips seem similar to Couric's. Kaplan told Television Week, "Great coverage trips are not based on interviews. There may be great interviews, and I can't imagine taking a trip that didn't have great interviews, but that's not how you gauge a trip. When somebody goes over and interviews the head of a country or whatever, that's wonderful. But that's just not a lasting accomplishment, and that's not what we think will benefit this program, this network or Katie. If you're overseas, you want to get extraordinary interviews, but what you will find is going to distinguish the trip is the caliber and content of the stories that we do: where we go, the stories we choose to tell, the situations we describe, the situations we get into. It's the old Nightline in me. When we go somewhere, we want to come back and we want you to understand where we've been. That's what makes a great trip. That's the take-away for the CBS Evening News."

FOX underestimates intelligence of American TV viewers: I know, so what else is new. This time around it has to do with who would host the Emmy Awards which will be on FOX on Sunday September 16^th. The network chose American Idol host Ryan Seacrest to host the broadcast. It was an unusual choice since most networks tend to go for a comedian when they host the show – previous hosts have included Wanda Sykes, Conan O'Brien, Ellen DeGeneres, Gary Shandling and Jon Stewart. Gold Derby now reports that FOX was close to naming House star Hugh Laurie as the Emmy host. Although he's best known on this side of the Atlantic for the dramatic role of Dr. Greg House, Laurie is an accomplished musician who made his name in comedy with frequent partner Stephen Fry in shows such as Jeeves and Wooster, Blackadder and of course A Bit of Fry and Laurie. According to the Gold Derby site, "In the end, Fox decided to go with its Idol star over its House star because exex felt Seacrest would draw a larger TV audience and because viewers might be confused seeing Laurie in an unfamiliar role." (Italics mine) For me this logic is up there with the CBS decision in 1970 to make have the lead character of the Mary Tyler Moore Show be a single woman rather than a divorcee because they were worried that viewers would think that Laura Petrie had divorced Rob (and then moved to Minnesota and changed her name to Mary Richards from Laura Meehan). But maybe the American public is that easily confused. They still expect FOX to let shows like Newsanchor run to a conclusion after all.

War of words possible over The War: With the new Ken Burns documentary The War coming to PBS later this month stations seem to be taking positions on exactly what they will and won't let go on the air. The documentary will use the words of World War II veterans including four which are no-nos on TV. According to the San Francisco Chronicle "two are f-; one is s-; and the fourth is –hole. They are words that 1940s military personnel and countless other Americans use every day, but expletives that The Chronicle doesn't ordinarily publish and that the Federal Communications Commission says can't be uttered on public airwaves between the hours of 6 a.m. and 10 p.m." Note that this isn't repeated use of the four words, merely four incidents when the words are used (they are "shit", "asshole" and the full versions of FUBAR and SNAFU – "Fucked Up Beyond All Recognition" and "Situation Normal, All Fucked Up"). The problem is that, as usual, the FCC hasn't made its position clear on whether stations can air the documentary uncensored and the individual stations are afraid of the $325,000 fine that the Commission can levy if the material airs and is found "offensive" by the FCC. It's more than a little circular in terms of logic – the FCC won't tell the stations beforehand if the material can be fined so they know where they stand, but will fine them if they step over the line that hasn't been clearly defined. And the line isn't clearly defined. After all, the FCC okayed the broadcast of Saving Private Ryan during primetime (in a 2005 ruling), which the Chronicle points out "included at least six times as many f- bombs" (than The War I suppose) because "the words weren't 'used to titillate or shock'," but in a 2006 ruling they fined a PBS station, KCSM in San Mateo, for airing an uncensored version of Martin Scorcese's documentary The Blues: Godfathers and Sons because "The gratuitous and repeated use of this language in a program that San Mateo aired at a time when children were expected to be in the audience is shocking." The FCC ruling came after exactly one complaint from a viewer, and was apparently overturned on appeal in June of this year. As a result of the potential for fines stations are being offered both the uncensored version and a censored version which removes the "offensive" words. Our old "friend" Tim Winter of the Parents Television Council has stated "I don't know why the stations wouldn't just air the version without those words in it.... It's hard to believe that removing four words are going to significantly damage the program." The PTC will evaluate the show when it premieres. For his part Burns has stated that he understands the position that PBS stations that will air the censored version are in; it is "absurd and yet, at the same time, I understand it. Public television has this impossible mandate to be all things to all people." He also wonders at the fact that there has been no negative reaction over the graphic nature of the violence in the documentaries, which include beheadings and "the dead bodies stacked up like cordwood" to which Winter has replied "it's hard to make a movie about war without showing what war is like." Of course part of showing what war is like includes hearing soldiers say "fuck" and "shit" but Americans are more willing to accept violence over harsh language. As a partial explanation Burns offers this assessment: "'We are both a permissive and a puritanical culture," he said. And the discussion over the language in The War 'is like one of those intersections where an old jalopy filled with drunken revelers is headed toward a bus full of evangelicals.'"

Who does the PTC hate this week?: Nobody. Well at least nobody new. There are no new press releases, no new "Worst of the Week" for either broadcast or cable, and no new "Misrated." Either they've taking the week off or the week they would be drawing their shows to hate from was pristine and totally up to PTC standards in every way. ... Nah!

Bill Maher: Fator hater: I generally like Bill Maher. I enjoyed his series Politically Incorrect and I think he got a genuinely raw deal when ABC cancelled the show after his comments about the 9-11 attacks in 2001, not to mention the reaction of then White House Press secretary Ari Fleischer who said "...they're reminders to all Americans that they need to watch what they say, watch what they do. This is not a time for remarks like that..." I would love to be able to see his current series, Real Time With Bill Maher on Canadian TV but it's not available. That said, I take exception to something that Maher said on his August 24^th show in his "New Rules" segment: "New Rule: If your winner is a ventriloquist, then "America Hasn't Got Talent." Besides, if there's one thing Americans have had enough of, it's the guy who puts words in the dummy's mouth. [photo of Bush and Rove shown] Oh, we kid President Bush. It's all with love." Now I know that he's taking a shot at President Bush and Karl Rove (and probably Dick Cheney), and I defend to the death his right to say it (unlike Ari Fleischer) but Mr. Maher, until you can actually do this you are really in no position to say that Terry Fator doesn't have talent.

Short Takes – August 21, 2007

I think I'm having one of those weeks. No, not that sort of week – well in my personal life maybe but in my blogging life no. It sort of like those old westerns or war movies where one guy turns to the other and says "It's quiet," And his pal says, "Yeah, too quiet." That's how I've been feeling this week about the sort of TV news I like to put into these Short Takes posts. There hasn't been anything that's really excited me. Casts of shows are set and the shows are out there being shot; schedules are set – or at least seem set; this is the television industry after all where schedules are set in Jell-o – and the most outrageous thing that I can find that has happened is that Drew Carey has sustained more injuries on the set of The Price Is Right before shooting has even started than Bob Barker sustained in thirty years of doing the show (if you don't count bear hugs from Samoan women or sex with Dian Parkinson). Yawn. I was worried that I wouldn't have much to write about beyond my usual ridicule of the PTC – which is both fun and righteous – but it's not enough to be really fulfilling. I think I've cobbled together a few worthy pieces though.

Oh by the way, I'm coming up with a couple of ideas for a second blog. I haven't hammered out the details in my mind quite yet, but it will be a sort of nostalgia/cultural history of the 20^th Century thing (which makes it sound a lot more pompous than I intend it to be). Suffice it to say that the inspiration is the one episode of Mad Men that I've watched, combined with a Coronation of George VI drinking glass that my mother got at the time of the actual event. I'm leaning towards rambling tales related to some bit of topical material like a DVD release or something, or really whatever tickles my fancy (or fancies my tickle). I doubt that it will be more than about two posts per week. What do you guys think?

HBO cancels John From Cincinnati: I don't know that anyone is really surprised by this. The show had a lot of things going against it, starting with the fact that by all accounts (because of course I haven't seen it – if it airs here it is on one of those premium cable services that I don't get because I don't have to in order to get the services that I want) it was quirky to the extreme. I am, on the whole, convinced that there is a limit to the amount of quirkiness that people are willing to accept. Then too, there was probably a bit of a natural backlash since David Milch supposedly stopped doing the very popular Deadwood to bring John From Cincinnati to the air. I say "supposedly" because since the cancellation of John From Cincinnati there is more than a little evidence that it was HBO that cancelled Deadwood and used Milch's new idea as a reason. As for Milch, he is currently working with his friend (and NYPD Blue executive producer) Bill Clark on an idea for a cop show, set in the New York of the 1970s. According to Variety the lead character will apparently be a man who is "recruited as a soldier while he was overseas, to come back as a disaffected veteran and infiltrate the antiwar movement, as a shortcut into the New York City police force as a detective." Fans of NYPD Blue with good memories will recall that this is basically the backstory given to Andy Sipowicz as an explanation for his racism.

HBO renews Entourage and Flight of the Conchords: I've seen maybe one episode of Entourage, although it is more available to me than most HBO series – earlier seasons are on Showcase, I just can't remember to watch it – and I've never seen an episode of Flight of the Conchords, mostly because it's a new series and most HBO series go first to the premium services in Canada – Movie Central in Western Canada and The Movie Channel in Ontario and the rest of Eastern Canada. The renewal of Entourage for a fourth season is not a huge surprise even though some people apparently are not overly impressed with some aspects of the current third season. Apparently the renewal of Flight of the Conchords is a slightly bigger surprise, but only very slightly. But as I say I really can't judge whether the renewal is justified or not.

(More) New cast members for Heroes: Just when I thought I'd have to resort to a YouTube video of Rob Mariano (of Rob & Ambuh) taking a swing at some guy at a San Francisco audition for Rob's new reality series Tontine (the guy totally deserved it by the way – he shoved Rob twice and splashed him with water before Rob hit him), I remembered some casting news from Heroes. The show added three new cast members last week. First was Janel Parrish who is currently starring in the live action version of Bratz (which quite frankly is a major box office bomb). The next casting announcement was that Nichelle Nicholls had been cast to play the mother of one of the other new characters. I may be mistaken but assuming that George Takei returns to play Hiro's father again this season, this may be the first time she's worked on a non-Star Trek series series with another member of the Star Trek cast – well except for Futurama which shouldn't really count. (The ideal of course would be for George and Nichelle to have at least one scene together). Finally, in perhaps the biggest casting news for the show, Kristen Bell, who starred as Veronica Mars until the series was cancelled, has signed onto the series. She had previously been rumoured to have accepted a role on Lost but this was denied by all concerned. The supposed reason for Bell not doing Lost was her desire to take over the role of Elle in the Broadway version of Blonde Ambition. Based on her decision to join the cast of Heroes this has also proven to be false. Bell will also be providing the voice of the unseen Gossip Girl on the CW series of the same name.

Who does the PTC hate this week?: Well they don't hate the J.M. Smuckers Company. The PTC presented the jam company with their "Integrity In Entertainment Award" for, as the citation says, demonstrating "an enduring commitment to uplifting, enlightening, educational and wholesome media messages, and eschewing the harmful, offensive and undermining messages so frequently seen in our entertainment media today. We want to honor the J.M. Smucker Company for its commitment and history of sponsoring television shows that the entire family can enjoy." They add, "Corporations are starting to realize that it's good business to be socially responsible. Television sponsors contribute to the culture through their advertising dollars. The content they choose to underwrite is a direct reflection on their corporate values and beliefs. Through its sponsorship decisions, the J.M. Smucker Company shows that it values the family and will not help to finance the harmful, graphic and gratuitous content that airs all too often on television today." Call me cynical, but it's the old business of reaching your desired customer base that is motivating Smuckers to make the advertising choices that they do. I would argue that advertising on "family" programs has very little to do with being "socially responsible" (and I would almost guarantee you that the PTC's concept of "socially responsible" is totally different from mine) and has an awful lot to do with being the right venue to reach the parents and children that buy and consume jams and jellies. If the target audience for the Smuckers products were watching programming that contained "harmful, graphic and gratuitous content" (as defined by the PTC of course) wouldn't it be the responsibility of the company's advertising department to put their commercials on those shows in order to ensure the company's bottom line.

The PTC's Broadcast Worst of the Week is more than slightly bizarre. It is Killer Wave on ION. What, you've never heard of ION? Maybe you'd know it under its former identity – PAX. The PTC's objections to the show, which was a four hour mini-series was that the show "was clearly influenced by the violent anti-terrorism Fox show 24, both in style and content. Mass casualties, graphic gunfights, bloody fistfights, and foul language are found throughout the program, making it completely inappropriate for viewing by children and families." They detail some of the 24 style action, which includes the lead character bludgeoning a female assassin to death with a statue, a shoot-out between police and a hitman, and a woman being shot by a terrorist: "Her body slumps lifeless on the ground, with blood streaming from a hole in her forehead." They also object to the language that peppered the show "like "hell," "damn," "ass," and "g*ddamn." But the big objection wasn't any of this, it was that the show was on the network formerly known as PAX: "This week Bud Paxon, founder and CEO of PAX -- who started the network in an effort to bring family-friendly programming to the airwaves -- must have been disappointed to see the road down which his predecessors(!) are steering his former network." Of course they mean his successors. They underline the point though: "Killer Wave would have qualified for our pick for Worst of the Week on any network, but we at the PTC are particularly disappointed that it aired on ION. This once wholesome network is headed down the wrong path. It is our sincere hope ION corrects its course." Of course it amazes me that the PTC is so fixated on a network that rarely draws more than 1% of the total TV audience, and is losing affiliates. If PAX was the sort of network that the PTC would run if only they were able then it is proof that their programming philosophy would be a commercial disaster; if PAX was the model that the PTC wants to impose on all of the television networks then it would be the end of broadcast TV.

The Cable Worst of the Week is Comedy Central's Flavor Flav Roast. I'm not going to defend this show on content. I thoroughly despise Flavor Flav and can't understand why anyone would watch anything that his name was attached to. However the PTC seems to have a far rosier picture of past celebrity roasts than those roasts deserve. "Celebrity "roasts" are a long-standing tradition among organizations of entertainers, with the famed Friar's Club roasts dating back to the 1920s. The "roast"
format first appeared on television as a segment on The Dean Martin Show during its 1973 season. A year later, NBC spun the concept into a separate series of specials, the Dean Martin Celebrity Roast." They then compare this to what Comedy Central did with Flavor Flav: "Comedy Central has opted to turn this set-up on its head. Instead of roasting a proven star, one with genuine talent and showbiz accomplishments to his or her name, Comedy Central's producers instead have opted to mock "stars" of limited talent, subjecting them to the crudest and most simple-minded humor. And who delivers the jokes? The crudest, most simple-minded quasi-celebrities available…most of whom are mainly memorable for not being memorable." Here's the thing though. The Friars Club roasts may well have "celebrated" bigger stars but they were usually as raunchy and ribald as they accuse the Comedy Central Roasts of being. As for the Dean Martin Celebrity Roasts, you might just have noticed that they were heavily edited. I'm not saying that they were as raunchy as the Friars Club Roasts or the Comedy Central roasts, but they were heavily (and frequently badly) edited. As for mocking "'stars' of limited talent'" I refer you to Wikipedia which includes a list of the people roasted by Comedy Central or by The Friars Club on shows which aired on Comedy Central: Drew Carey, Jerry Stiller, Rob Reiner, Hugh Hefner, Emmitt Smith, Chevy Chase, Denis Leary, Jeff Foxworthy, Pamela Anderson, William Shatner, and Flavor Flav. Hardly a list of people with "limited talent," even discounting Flavor Flav. The PTC ends with their usual complaint about "subsidizing" filth, but as usual fails to explain what you are to do if you object to this Roast, but are generally happy with the bulk of the programming on Comedy Central.

The PTC's new Misrated feature continues to provide plenty of fodder for ridicule. This week the "misrated" show is a rerun of Law & Order: SVU which was rated TV-14. That's a show that is not recommended from children under the age of 14, something which is consistent with the time slot that the show is normally seen in (third hour of prime time on Tuesdays). In this case the PTC's complaint is the lack of descriptors. They point to "violent" content and dialogue. In the scene described by the organization we see the body of a "murdered" woman ("Stabler pulls the sheet away from the murdered mother's body. The mother's face is shown with packing tape wrapped tightly around it, her arms bound, and her naked body covered in blood.") and discussion of the rape and murder of the woman and her ten year old daughter. This alone, says the PTC, warrants the application of "V" and "D" descriptors: "This scene is shown in the first five minutes of the program, even before the opening credits. Just this portion of the show alone warrants the "V" and the "D" descriptors because of the depiction of the brutally murdered bodies and the graphic discussion of what the rapist did. Of course, the rest of the show continues to depict the dead bodies, either in pictorial form or in the morgue, and the graphic discussion of rape continues." But does it? For a TV-14 rated show, the "V" descriptor is for intense violence, while the "D" descriptor is for highly suggestive dialogue. The scene described doesn't meet either of those criteria. We aren't seeing the performance of a violent act, we are shown the aftermath – the dead body. As for "highly suggestive dialogue," this is the most suggestive part I could find in the portion of the scene provided by the PTC: Beck: "Hands are bound, breasts and genitals slashed…" Stabler: "A sexual sadist gets off on pain and humiliation; it doesn't track that he'd cover 'em after. Is this how you found them, officer?" That doesn't came anywhere close to what either of the two descriptors mentioned are intended to cover and if they weren't so determined to find something wrong, the PTC would admit it.
But of course that would mean that the ratings actually do work and it is a central platform of the PTC's lobbying efforts with politicians that they have to do something because the inaccurate rating of shows means that the V-Chip is useless as a protection against objectionable programming.

Short Takes – August 13, 2007

It is sometimes irritating how time can slip away. I meant to do one of these last week, along with a TV on DVD posting, but with one thing and another (and another after that) by the time either one would have been done it would have been time to do this one – and some of the stuff that I had promised myself I would do this past week wouldn't have been done. And that doesn't even count some ongoing projects that have yet to be resolved. Plus I really wanted to get out to the new casino that opened about 24 miles out of town (a long and gory story exists about why it is 24 miles outside of Saskatoon but the short version is that the people of my hometown are moralistic morons – if you'd like to hear the full story ask me in comments and I'll do an off topic post) – I wanted to go on opening day (Friday) but decided against it and now I don't know when I'll get the chance.

Another thing that fell by the wayside was taking notes for this post. I have a system but it sort of fell apart this week in part because I didn't really check all of my usual sources. The end result is that I'm sort or winging it this week and it might not be terribly long or complete. Well except for the PTC section this week, which is huge.

Big Brother bigotry: The really big story concerning this season of Big Brother in the U.S. has nothing to do with banner planes or the twist of "America's player" or "Evel" Dick (that's how he wants "evil" spelled) cursing at anyone who gets in his way and dumping iced tea on Jen's head. No it has to do with statements that have never been broadcast either on the three weekly episodes of Big Brother that air on CBS or on the nightly three hour live show – Big Brother After Dark – that airs on ShowtimeToo. These were statements made by houseguest Amber which happened to be picked up on the Internet live feeds. Speaking to fellow houseguest (and truly odd Christian – at least in my experience) Jameka, Amber said "The majority of people I know from New York are Jewish, and the majority of Jewish people I know, my gosh, so many are so selfish. So weird. Even my sister always tells me, she's like my sister, and my mom will meet someone and I'll be like, 'I don't like that person. That person doesn't seem like a very good person to me,' and my mom and sister are like, 'You know why?' Why? 'They're Jewish.' How do you know? 'Amber you can tell by their last name, you can tell by their nose.' I'm like, 'Really?'" One of the other houseguests with whom Amber has had an on and off feud is Eric Stein who, as it happens, is from the New York City area (Westchester County) and is Jewish.

Needless to say the statements made their way from the show's live feed to the various video sharing sites including YouTube. Also needless to say there has been considerable reaction, some calling for Amber's removal from the house. It was a story on both FOX News and CNN. Abraham Foxman, National Director of the Anti-Defamation League, said "It's part of the unintended consequences of the communications revolution. Anybody can say what they do - but reality shows are now giving license to these expressions of anti-Semitism. Now, all of a sudden, the world is privy to their bigotry and it's on national television... then enhanced on YouTube. What they've done is distributed anti-Semitism -- which started as a private conversation -- and by putting it on a reality TV show broadcast it to the world at large. I want CBS to understand they are facilitating anti-Semitism. They should act responsibly to the community; they are legitimizing bigoted conversation." In the same posting on TMZ, CBS responded by stating that "Big Brother is a reality show about watching a group of people who have no privacy 24/7 - and seeing every moment of their lives. At times, the Houseguests reveal prejudices and other beliefs that we do not condone. We certainly find the statements made by Amber Siyavus on the live Internet feed to be offensive and they will not be part of any future broadcast on the CBS Television Network."

I confess that this whole controversy bothers me, and it bothers me on both sides. It is pretty apparent that Amber is a very stupid and very strange woman. She's a former drug addict who lied a couple of times to her former boyfriend about being pregnant. That in fact was part of the reason for her extremely angry breach with Eric. Her bigotry isn't surprising. In many ways it is a throwback to the way that North American society was for many years, the sort of prejudice that was common into the 1950s, well after Hitler's rise and fall took anti-Semitism to a frightening extreme. That said, I feel that the statements that have been made about Amber's statements are significant overreaction. They are also expected of course. The live feeds are just that – live – and therefore uncensored. CBS has not, and according to their statement will not "broadcast it to the world at large." The live feeds are Internet rather than television and are a pay to view service. That's significantly different from making "the world ... privy to their bigotry and it's on national television." What is CBS supposed to do to not distribute anti-Semitism? Were they supposed to pull the plug on the Feed and if so at what point were they supposed to do it? Were they supposed to force YouTube to pull the clips off of their site? It is a fact that Amber was aware that she is on camera all the time but it is also a fact that people who are under constant surveillance – either in documentaries or in business situations – who are aware of the fact come to either forget or ignore the fact that they are under surveillance and revert to their normal pattern of life. I think that Amber either forgot that she was constantly on camera or was just living her life and having a conversation with someone she regards as her closest friend in the house. That her speech was bigoted is obvious but so is the fact that if Amber's statement hadn't been the subject of such righteous indignation far fewer people would have seen it or been aware of it since few people – including our Jackie – watch every minute of the live feeds (though she tries).

Coming to Criminal Minds – Harvey Keitel Joe Montegna: When Mandy Patinkin pulled – well a Mandy Patinkin – and suddenly left the successful Criminal Minds in much the same way that he left Chicago Hope (then for "personal reasons" now for "creative differences") a number of names were bandied about as possible replacements of various degrees of seriousness. Geena Davis was under consideration as were Michael Keaton and Bob Hoskins. Eventually it seemed likely that Patinkin would be replaced by Harvey Keitel, star of such movies as Reservoir Dogs and The Bad Lieutenant. TVSquad actually announced that he was in serious negotiations for the part. And almost immediately they had to recant when a TV Guide report stated that the negotiations had fallen through. Eventually it was announced that Joe Montegna, who previously starred in Joan of Arcadia, and First Monday, would be replacing Patinkin.

Who does the PTC hate this week?: And the answer is so many things that it's hard to keep count.

The PTC announced their list of "Best" and "Worst" advertisers. The definitions are obviously based on the degree to which the company advertises on programming that the PTC regards as suitable, although they say that they base it on "how frequently they sponsor wholesome, family-oriented television shows or those containing sexually graphic, violent or profane material on broadcast television." The 10 "Best" are (in order): Proctor & Gamble, Walt Disney Co., Ford, Unilever, Viacom, McDonalds, Johnson & Johnson, Schering-Plough [Products include: Afrin, Claritin, Nasonex, Dr. Scholls, Lotrimin], Coca-Cola, and General Mills. The 10 "Worst" are: Toyota, GM, Limited Brands, Payless Shoe Source, Vonage, Volkswagen, Dunkin Brands, Reckitt Benckiser [Products include: Clearasil, Lysol, Spray and Wash, Air Wick, Woolite, Jet Dry, Glass Plus, Electrasol, Easy Off], GEICO, and Bayer.

There is an obvious fault in this list, and that is that it seems to assume that the "good" advertisers are making the decisions that they have as to where to put their advertising dollars based on moral grounds, and presumably the "bad" advertisers are immoral scum. Maybe some of that is in fact the case – at least as far as the "good" advertisers – but I suspect a lot of both groups' choices are based on where they can get the most bang for their bucks; in other words which programming will target their demographics that buys their products. Obviously Disney is going to market most of their movies and their theme parks to families with pre-teen children and will therefore advertise primarily on programs that reach that demographic. In much the same way, most automobile companies will target their advertising to people who buy cars. General Motors and General Mills are not aiming at the same demographics and it makes sense that they will advertise to different audiences and on different programs. If General Mills suddenly found that the population who bought their cereals was watching Rescue Me, they would be advertising on Rescue Me.

Next up, the PTC is upset with MyNetwork TV, and its parent company News Corp. You may remember MyNetwork TV; they were the motley collection of UPN and WB stations, many of them owned by News Corp (which also owns FOX and FX) that were formed into a network after being excluded after The CW was created. Their line-up is a thoroughly pathetic mix of reality shows, movies and a lesser extreme fighting league with Wednesdays in the summer being devoted to "various programs." On August 1, MyNetwork TV aired the first two episodes of the new F/X series Damages, which stars Glenn Close in what the PTC descrinbes as "the so-called Family Hour" (whether the use of "so-called" is a case of the PTC finally acknowledging that the Family Hour doesn't really exist or – more likely – is a protest against the networks who fail to acknowledge the "existence" of the Family Hour, is unknown). The PTC was scathing in their denunciation of News Corp for running the show: "The programming executives at News Corp. and its subsidiaries have demonstrated once again their blatant disregard for children and families, in spite of giving considerable lip-service about being responsible. Coming less than a year after airing a scripted 'S-word' on an 8 p.m. broadcast program, this contemptuous act – airing an adult-themed, mature-rated, 10 p.m. cable program on broadcast television during the family hour – illustrates just how little they truly care about their public interest obligation." Later they add "More children watch television during the 8 pm hour than on Saturday mornings or after school. If the Fox executive suite truly cared about acting responsibly, the company wouldn't put an adult-targeted, MA-rated cable program on one of its broadcast networks at the start of the family hour. Their FX channel has proven to be a cable network that regularly – and proudly – attacks the decency sensibilities of most American families, and now this same graphic and gratuitous content is airing on broadcast television at 8 pm. This behavior proves once again that the self-serving TV ratings system managed by the industry is a sham. Television networks cannot be trusted to rate their own programs. If parents are ever going to trust and rely on a TV ratings system for content information, the system needs to be accurate, consistent and transparent. The networks must be held to an objective and uniform standard, and there needs to be a real consequence for failing to apply ratings accurately."

In a separate article the PTC outlines their objections to the show which primarily seems to be that not enough was cut to meet the standards that the PTC feels should be met for the rating and descriptors used by the network. The FX airing of the show was rated as TV-MA SL (Mature Audience, Sexual Content, Language). The My Network TV version was listed as TV-14 SLV (Sex, Language, Violence). The PTC notes that an article in Variety about the airing of the show stated "the Damages episodes will be edited to reflect a TV-14 rating, which means some of the language will be trimmed, as well as some sexual content, from the original FX airing." In other words, violent scenes would not be edited. The PTC then stated that "Comparing the FX premiere episode with the MyNetworkTV premiere episode, the only discernable difference is that all instances of the "s-word" and "g-ddamn" were cut, as well as a few (but not all) instances of the word "bitch." Left uncut were the words "ass," "hell," "damn," and "bitch," which are not uncommon for TV-14 broadcast shows." In other words the show had been edited to bring the show down to the common standard for a TV-14 broadcast show. They next turn their attention to a bedroom scene that was edited from 55 seconds to 30 seconds. Here's the PTC description of the scene: "there is a scene in which the main character Ellen and her fiancée Noah are clearly having sex. The viewer can see Ellen drag her hands down Noah's bare back, which is glistening with sweat. They passionately kiss, Ellen is shown on top of her fiancée smiling while Noah is on the bottom, smiling up at her." The PTC states "The FX version of this scene is 55 seconds long, while the MyNetworkTV version is 30 seconds long – so, to be fair, the executives did "edit" the scene. But are network executives making the argument that if a sex scene on broadcast is shorter than on cable that somehow makes it appropriate content for a 14-year-old? What is of real concern is that the scene was edited for length, not for content." They may very well be arguing just that. During the period of the Production Code in Hollywood after all the duration of a kiss was one of the defining factors as to whether or not a scene was acceptable (any kiss lasting longer than 3 seconds was defined as lewd, and there could be no open mouth kisses). A 30 second sex scene may indeed be acceptable in the context of a TV-14 series with an S descriptor. Finally the PTC objects to two scenes of violence which were unedited between the FX and MyNetwork TV editions despite the fact that the FX version carried a TV-MA rating but no V descriptor while the MyNetwork TV shows had a V descriptor for the TV-14 rating. In other words the violence in the cable version was not sufficient to earn the V descriptor but in the broadcast version it was. In terms of violence the episode would seem to be correctly rated.

The PTC's new Misrated feature seems to be directed primarily at ABC's series (well really ABC Family's series) Greek and their most recent attack on the show contains what has to be the most absurd and prudish thing I've seen in a while, something literally worthy of The Simpsons' Ned Flanders. The piece starts with a piece of dialog between Casey and her ex-boyfriend Cappie which is apparently about coffee: "Nothing starts the day off right like that first cup of Joe. After all, your first is always the best, don't you agree? The one that's most special?" The PTC points out that "Cappie is referring to the fact that he and Casey had their first sexual encounter together." But then they bring out the next part of the same scene where Cappie's fraternity brother comes in. His nickname is "Beaver": "Beaver: 'You guys are way too into your coffee. Pardon. I spy a tasty morning muffin. [Beaver then walks over to Rebecca.] Beaver: 'Top of the morning, muffin.'" The PTC points out "What is the most offensive about this content is that both the term 'beaver' and 'muffin' are commonly used vulgar slang for a part of the female anatomy, and they are deliberately used to emphasize the sexual nature of the conversation." Heavens, what they must think of Beaver Cleaver, the little sex fiend! They also choose to ignore the fact that "muffin" is frequently used as a non-sexual term of endearment and even directed at children. The PTC decries the fact that the episode is rated TV-PG SDL (Sex, Dialog, Language): "If Greek's content is only rated TV-PG SDL, one can only wonder what would warrant the TV-14 SDL rating." In the case of the scene described above, we are obviously seeing double entendre at work, material that more mature people will catch (and presumably be amused by) but which younger and less sophisticated viewers wouldn't catch. The PTC is so fixated on sexual innuendo that they deliberately ignore the non-sexual contexts that exist for the situation. Not that I'm surprised of course

The PTC's Broadcast Worst of the Week was more reruns; in this case a two hour package of Family Guy episodes tied to the new Fox movie Superbad "the latest sex comedy geared for teens and young adults." Despite the fact that the PTC says that the episodes contain "some of the most outrageous and depraved content of the season" they are episodes which have aired before. Instead let's turn to the PTC's Cable Worst of the Week, which is "repeat offender" Rescue Me. Their approach on this one is interesting. They start off with their usual objections to the show: "Rampant alcoholism. Violent outbursts. Rape. Falling babies? Those four lines now sum up Rescue Me, FX's gritty chronicle of the tragic New York City firefighter Tommy Gavin. But last week the program reached a new low: depicting falling, and dying, babies." Which you would think is all they object to but you'd be wrong. They actually try to argue about the artistic merits of the show, but in typical PTC fashion they don't get it: "The producers of the show undoubtedly considered the August 1^st episode critical to Tommy's growing sense of alienation." They delineate the events of main character Tommy Gavin's life include his apparent reconciliation with his ex-wife because of a new baby. Then they describe his life falling apart – the baby turns out to be his brother's and his ex-wife is suffering from post-partum depression. And here is where they don't get it: "At this point the show's writers and producers had a choice: they could have depicted, however hyperbolically, the real difficulties of infidelity and parenthood, or they could go for cheap thrills. You can guess which they chose: Tommy, contemplating infanticide is shown dangling Janet's baby over a city bridge." Here's the thing though; it wouldn't be in character for the Tommy Gavin we know deal with this any way other than this. Tommy is an incredibly flawed and haunted human being (arguably schizophrenic), and this is in character for him. And then they got into the question of "art": "Art, whether on your television or in the Louvre, deals with profound – and sometimes ugly – truths of human nature. But disagreement can and should occur on the line between aesthetic evolution and graphic sensationalism. That basic cable viewers – whether offended or enthralled by cable's programming, whether avid watchers or V-Chip users – are forced to subsidize all basic cable programming is not only unfair, but violates another component of art: the spectator's right of choice."

It is, as I have said numerous times, a bogus argument. Basic cable is advertiser supported, a fact which the PTC acknowledges every time they criticize advertiser for putting their commercials on Rescue Me. The cable user is paying for the cable network's delivery of programming; the advertisers pay for the shows (yes it's a bit simplistic but essentially true) and if the audience isn't there – as was the case with E!'s most recent edition of The Simple Life – the show will be cancelled because the advertisers won't support the show. It is a clear proof that "the spectator's right of choice" really does exist and it exists through the medium of the On-Off switch on the TV. I you don't like the show, don't watch it. If enough people don't watch the show it will end up being cancelled.