Religious groups want "Boston Public" investigated
David
By Bill McConnell
Broadcasting & Cable
2/5/2002 5:59:00 PM
Family and children's-advocacy groups are asking Federal
Communications Commission chairman Michael Powell to investigate
whether Fox program Boston Public has violated the commission's
indecency rules.
'Boston Public and its ilk do not belong in prime time when any child
in America can see them,' the groups said in their letter.
Organizations signing on to the complaint include Focus on the Family,
the National Association of Evangelicals, Morality in Media, the
Christian Coalition, the Family Research Council and others.
Boston Public story lines they criticized specially include:
• A female candidate for class president performing oral sex on a male
opponent for his support.
• A student earning extra money as a stripper.
• A teacher's affair with a student.
• A deceased teacher's journal describing sexual fantasies about a
young girl.
• A young teacher boasting that the best part of an affair with a
recent graduate was the feeling of power.
The groups used the letter to lambaste Fox and parent News Corp.
Rupert Murdoch in general, noting that in 1999, William Bennett warded
Fox with the 'Silver Sewer Award.'
Phil from Chicago
storylines either
Phil is RAT's Pro Wrestling Ambassador
"you've got words such as pasghetti and mamato, you've made several threatening
references to the U.N. and at the end you repeat the words SCREW FLANDERS over
and over!"
-Homer's first try at being a food critic
IceBlast
just like that dumb bitch who tried to get Married...With Children taken off
the air back in the day. You know what? IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT, CHANGE THE
DAMN CHANNEL or get away from the TV and do something productive.
IceBlast
David Levy
[snip]
> Organizations signing on to the complaint include Focus on the Family,
> the National Association of Evangelicals, Morality in Media, the
> Christian Coalition, the Family Research Council and others.
I dislike "Boston Public," but now that I'm aware of the above groups'
outrage, I hope that it stays on the air for many years to come.
David Levy
manhn
"David Levy" <d_l...@lifeisunfair.net> wrote in message
news:sd816u09imncehgtm...@4ax.com...
The weird thing is is that this show actually supports prayer in school.
Lewis.
Ian J. Ball
David Levy <d_l...@lifeisunfair.net> wrote:
And I don't give a rat's ass about the show, but now knowing that so many
are outraged at the "censors" trying to get it yanked, I hope the
"censors" succeed! ;p
--
Ian J. Ball | "You know why I left you to die? - Because you're so
TV lover, and | uncompromisingly *inferior*!" - Tyr Anasazi,
Usenet slacker | from the "Andromeda" episode "Exit Strategies"
ib...@san.rr.com | http://members.aol.com/IJBall/WWW/TV.html
Gary L. Dare
This is exactly the excuse that (e.g.) Bill O'Reilly
needs to get this Fox Network show onto the Fox
News Channel ...
gld
Gyumaoh
It's about the most unrealistic portrayal of high school I've ever seen;
despite all the "modern issues" it pathetically tries to tackle.
I'm glad the Jesus-freaks have focused their energies on a crappy show instead
of a good one this time.
"They don't want to LEARN! They don't want to LISTEN!!"
tim gueguen
"David" <diml...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3c609ad6...@news.mhogaming.com...
> Religious, Family Groups Target Boston Public
>
> By Bill McConnell
> Broadcasting & Cable
> 2/5/2002 5:59:00 PM
>
> Family and children's-advocacy groups are asking Federal
> Communications Commission chairman Michael Powell to investigate
> whether Fox program Boston Public has violated the commission's
> indecency rules.
>
> 'Boston Public and its ilk do not belong in prime time when any child
> in America can see them,' the groups said in their letter.
>
> Organizations signing on to the complaint include Focus on the Family,
> the National Association of Evangelicals, Morality in Media, the
> Christian Coalition, the Family Research Council and others.
>
tv "when any child in America can see them." Could it be that they know a
large percentage of their "customer" base watches such programs?
tim gueguen 101867
Andy Jakcsy
Organizations signing on to the complaint include Focus on the Family,
the National Association of Evangelicals, Morality in Media, the
Christian Coalition, the Family Research Council and others.
>>
When Dr. Dobson phones the PTC and brings them on board, we'll have ourselves a
GRAND ol' witch hunt!
(At least he tries to be as central as possible in his radio vignettes...but
fails miserably...)
Richard Hudson
>Funny tho' isn't it that they never go after the soaps, many of which are on
>tv "when any child in America can see them." Could it be that they know a
>large percentage of their "customer" base watches such programs?
Or mabye because the soap operas air when children are or at least should be IN
SCHOOL!
Richard Hudson
IceBlast
"Richard Hudson" <rhuds...@aol.com> wrote
> Or mabye because the soap operas air when children are or at least should
be IN
> SCHOOL!
If these parents can't keep their children from tuning into a certain
channel, what makes you think they can make them go to school? :)
IceBlast
Randy
The issue isn't whether or not BP is liked or not, it's some dumbass
religious groups attempting to impose their views on others. What
would your reaction be if the WWF was their target?
Phil from Chicago
>religious groups attempting to impose their views on others. What
>would your reaction be if the WWF was their target?
first of all those storylines involve adults not teenagers which under the law
are still defined as children. Plus I'm not 100% behind every storyline the
WWF does either I've seen some real crap the WWF creative team has done. I
just don't care for Boston Public because the show does a terrible job of
capturing what a real high school is like Hell the high school in Dangerous
Minds was more real than that terrible fantasy world. Plus I've never liked it
from the beginning no church leader is going to change my mind on anything
To...@fred.net
Have they come up for air since last year?
--
To...@Fred.Net http://www.fred.net/tomr
* Faith Manages...... But Willow is in Tech Support
* "Hello, girls.... I'm the Easter Bunny!" - Janet Reno, "South Park"
* Look out! If Bender says "ass", Katherine Harris will appear!
* This .sig brought to you by the "Boxleitner/Doyle-2004" Election
Committee.
"I read "Free Mumia Abu-Jamal" so many times, it was starting to sound
like a mail-in order - add $5.95 shipping and handling." - Kathi
Mary Kay Bergman 1961-1999
tim gueguen
"Richard Hudson" <rhuds...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020206025536...@mb-cg.aol.com...
individual schools. For example All My Children appears at noon hour in
this market because of the US station our cable system uses, when lots of
kids are home for lunch. Furthermore kids are not in school 365 days a
year.
tim gueguen 101867
Donna L. Bridges
rec.arts.tv <VL388.29505$Jq.15...@news2.calgary.shaw.ca> "tim
gueguen" <ad...@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca> virtually chirped:
>Funny tho' isn't it that they never go after the soaps, many of which are on
>tv "when any child in America can see them." Could it be that they know a
>large percentage of their "customer" base watches such programs?
I cannot imagine that many fundies would be interested in soaps,
which, BTW, primarily are broadcast when children old enough to make
decisions about their own viewing, are in school, although, yes, many
fundies do do home schooling, still, ... very unlikely that they tune
in to that part of daytime. They have whined about the values on soaps
in the past but I don't think they've ever made them a major focus.
--
DonnaB <*> shallotpeel on Yahoo Msgr 8^>
"We must believe the things We teach our children" - Woodrow Wilson
Donna L. Bridges
rec.arts.tv <sd816u09imncehgtm...@4ax.com> David Levy
<d_l...@lifeisunfair.net> virtually chirped:
>I dislike "Boston Public," but now that I'm aware of the above groups'
>outrage, I hope that it stays on the air for many years to come.
Yep.
--
DonnaB <*> shallotpeel on Yahoo Msgr 8^>
"There are three great things in the world: There is religion, there
is science, and there is gossip." - Robert Frost
J. Stone
cringe
and am somewhat embarassed by the sexual references especially when he ask me
"what does that mean"?.
Mark E. Mallett
tim gueguen <ad...@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca> wrote:
>>
>Funny tho' isn't it that they never go after the soaps, many of which are on
>tv "when any child in America can see them."
or commercials..
or MTV (although perhaps they have conceded defeat in that one; still,
complaints about Boston Public seem irrelevant).
-mm-
Could it be that they know a
>large percentage of their "customer" base watches such programs?
>
>tim gueguen 101867
>
>
--
Mark E. Mallett | geezer at http://www.geezer.org/
MV Communications, Inc. | http://www.mv.com/
NH Internet Access since 1991 | (603) 629-0000 / FAX: 629-0049
--
Mark E. Mallett | geezer at http://www.geezer.org/
MV Communications, Inc. | http://www.mv.com/
NH Internet Access since 1991 | (603) 629-0000 / FAX: 629-0049
userb3
>'Boston Public and its ilk do not belong in prime time when any child
>in America can see them,' the groups said in their letter.
You wonder if these people have ever read the Song of Solomon, or if
they know where the off switch is on their TV.
--
userb3
"A religion which requires persecution to sustain it is of the devil's propagation"
Hosea Ballou
userb3
>I wouldn't mind seeing Boston Public go off the air. I'm no fan of those
>storylines either
>
>
>Phil is RAT's Pro Wrestling Ambassador
Personally, I'm no fan of professional wrestling, and think its bad for
kids. So I discourage mine from watching it. If you think its great,
then watch away! No need to get the FCC involved. How hard is that?
--
userb3
Music and art education produce better mathemeticians, better scientists, better historians, and even better athletes.
Support art education today.
userb3
>
>I dislike "Boston Public," but now that I'm aware of the above groups'
>outrage, I hope that it stays on the air for many years to come.
It'll end up boosting ratings. I started watching NYPD Blue when Donald
Wildmon and his bunch of radical morons launched their efforts to band
the show. I figured anything those fanatics hated must have some value.
IAPW
J. Stone <sto...@pilot.msu.edu> wrote:
>I watch BP with my 12 year old son (am I a bad parent?). I have to admit I
>cringe and am somewhat embarassed by the sexual references especially
>when he ask me "what does that mean"?.
Then why do you watch it? If you want to watch a show which won't
embarass you by sexual references and is very, very wholesome you should
watch Dawson's Creek.
--
"I like internet freaks; they're all right by
me." Thora Birch
userb3
>It's about the most unrealistic portrayal of high school I've ever seen;
>despite all the "modern issues" it pathetically tries to tackle.
Interesting. My wife (a public high school teacher) and my son (a
public high school student) both think it does a good job of presenting
a variety of issues in a realistic fashion.
Lori
>On Wed, 06 Feb 2002 02:54:47 GMT, David wrote:
>
>>'Boston Public and its ilk do not belong in prime time when any child
>>in America can see them,' the groups said in their letter.
>
>You wonder if these people have ever read the Song of Solomon, or if
>they know where the off switch is on their TV.
Oh but the Song of Solomon is just a metaphor for God and his church,
didn't you know? It's not REALLY about sex. Plus there are no pictures.
</sarcasm>
++
Lori
J. Stone
userb3 wrote:
I remember a 5 year old neighbor kid imitating obscene gestures and bad language he saw on WWF. Bad parenting I guess.
J. Stone
userb3 wrote:
A lot of it is probably over the top but I think some of it hits home. I heard that
a number of high school teachers have talked to the actors and told them how
much the story lines are similar to what they are going through.
I remember a befuddled old high school teacher who was similar to (sorry I know
I'm going to misspell his name) Lipshitz.
J. Stone
IAPW wrote:
Why? because I know I'm fighting a losing battle.
Donna L. Bridges
in rec.arts.tv <hfreolnubbpbz....@news.alt.net> "userb3"
<use...@yahoo.com> virtually chirped:
>It'll end up boosting ratings. I started watching NYPD Blue when Donald
>Wildmon and his bunch of radical morons launched their efforts to band
>the show. I figured anything those fanatics hated must have some value.
For its first year it wasn't even on the air in Tupelo, MS, because of
those particular few nuts.
--
DonnaB <*> shallotpeel on Yahoo Msgr 8^>
"According to a new poll, a majority of Americans think that Al Gore
will win if he faces off against George W. Bush in the 2004 election.
Of course, they don't think Gore will become President, they just
think he'll win." - Conan O'Brien
Donna L. Bridges
>Interesting. My wife (a public high school teacher) and my son (a
>public high school student) both think it does a good job of presenting
>a variety of issues in a realistic fashion.
Whoa, something must be wrong then because realism isn't their goal.
--
DonnaB <*> shallotpeel on Yahoo Msgr 8^>
"Celebrity is good for kick-starting ideas, but often celebrity is a
lead weight aroung your neck." - Sting, interview in Mojo, Feb 1995
IceBlast
"J. Stone" <sto...@pilot.msu.edu> wrote
> Why? because I know I'm fighting a losing battle.
Why watch TV at all if it makes you uncomfortable?
IceBlast
userb3
>>It'll end up boosting ratings. I started watching NYPD Blue when Donald
>>Wildmon and his bunch of radical morons launched their efforts to band
>>the show. I figured anything those fanatics hated must have some value.
>
>For its first year it wasn't even on the air in Tupelo, MS, because of
>those particular few nuts.
It was on in Memphis, and I'm nearly certain you can pick up channel 13
in Tupelo.
userb3
>
>
>userb3 wrote:
>> Interesting. My wife (a public high school teacher) and my son (a
>> public high school student) both think it does a good job of presenting
>> a variety of issues in a realistic fashion.
>A lot of it is probably over the top but I think some of it hits home.
It is drama - if it was entirely realistic, it'd be boring. But the
basic issues - the problems facing school administrations, faculties,
students, and parents are pretty well on target.
Donna L. Bridges
>On Wed, 06 Feb 2002 12:29:38 -0500, Donna L. Bridges wrote:
>
>>>It'll end up boosting ratings. I started watching NYPD Blue when Donald
>>>Wildmon and his bunch of radical morons launched their efforts to band
>>>the show. I figured anything those fanatics hated must have some value.
>>
>>For its first year it wasn't even on the air in Tupelo, MS, because of
>>those particular few nuts.
>
>It was on in Memphis, and I'm nearly certain you can pick up channel 13
>in Tupelo.
At first you couldn't get it on cable on the Memphis channel for some
local/non-local cable channel reason & then you could get it & I began
watching it on the extra ABC channel out of Memphis & then Tupelo's
more local channel began carrying it as well.
--
DonnaB <*> shallotpeel on Yahoo Msgr 8^>
"The tragedy of life is not that it ends so soon, but that we wait so
long to begin it." - Richard L. Evans
The Girl Connor
> Family and children's-advocacy groups are asking Federal
> Communications Commission chairman Michael Powell to investigate
> whether Fox program Boston Public has violated the commission's
> indecency rules.
<snip>
I've never actually seen it. Maybe it's simply too racy for its timeslot?
I have to say that drumming up this much controversy is just going to
attract new viewers. I think the same publicity did so for the Abercrombie
& Fitch catalog a few years back.
Connor
--
"I don't know why you're not Snow Queen.
But I do know this...I am Snow King. And
that is cool."
~Kelso, That 70s Show
Bill Steele
(David) wrote:
> Boston Public story lines they criticized specially include:
>
> • A female candidate for class president performing oral sex on a male
> opponent for his support.
>
> • A student earning extra money as a stripper.
>
> • A teacher's affair with a student.
>
> • A deceased teacher's journal describing sexual fantasies about a
> young girl.
>
> • A young teacher boasting that the best part of an affair with a
> recent graduate was the feeling of power.
Presumably these moralists would prefer that such events not be discussed,
so that in the real world they can continue uninterrupted.
Annie Keitz
wrote:
>>
>>Funny tho' isn't it that they never go after the soaps, many of which are on
>>tv "when any child in America can see them." Could it be that they know a
>>large percentage of their "customer" base watches such programs?
>
>Or mabye because the soap operas air when children are or at least should be IN
>SCHOOL!
Not all of them. In some timezones General Hospital and Guiding Light
air at 3:00 pm...
Annie
Lynn
>
> I watch BP with my 12 year old son (am I a bad parent?). I have to admit
> I cringe and am somewhat embarassed by the sexual references especially
> when he ask me "what does that mean"?.
Sounds like a perfect parenting opportunity.
--
Lynn
http://www.lynnsland.com
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Life is a search for the truth; and there is no truth
- Chinese Proverb
=======================================================
* Netiquette: http://www.lynnsland.com/Netiquette.html *
* West Wing: http://www.lynnsland.com/Tww.html *
********************************************************
Lynn
>
> You wonder if these people have ever read the Song of Solomon, or if
> they know where the off switch is on their TV.
I suspect the power comes, not from turning off their own TVs, but in
turning off yours.
Randy
wrote:
> In article <3C614E17...@pilot.msu.edu>,
> J. Stone <sto...@pilot.msu.edu> wrote:
> >I watch BP with my 12 year old son (am I a bad parent?). I have to admit I
> >cringe and am somewhat embarassed by the sexual references especially
> >when he ask me "what does that mean"?.
>
> Then why do you watch it? I
Probably because he's a good parent and would rather have the
opportunity to discuss these things with his son as opposed to having
his son "learn" these things outside the home. You can't keep them
sheltered outside your home, might as well deal with these issues in
the home.
Randy
level4...@aol.comNONONO (Phil from Chicago) wrote:
> >The issue isn't whether or not BP is liked or not, it's some dumbass
> >religious groups attempting to impose their views on others. What
> >would your reaction be if the WWF was their target?
>
> first of all those storylines involve adults not teenagers which under the
> law
> are still defined as children. Plus I'm not 100% behind every storyline the
> WWF does either I've seen some real crap the WWF creative team has done. I
> just don't care for Boston Public because the show does a terrible job of
> capturing what a real high school is like Hell the high school in Dangerous
> Minds was more real than that terrible fantasy world. Plus I've never liked
> it
> from the beginning no church leader is going to change my mind on anything
>
Apparently, you didn't read what I wrote. The issue is some religious
group attemping to impose *their* views on you. How would you feel if
the WWF was their target? Whether one likes or dislikes wither show
is irrelevant.
PkJ0891
>IAPW wrote:
>
>> In article <3C614E17...@pilot.msu.edu>,
>> J. Stone <sto...@pilot.msu.edu> wrote:
>> >I watch BP with my 12 year old son (am I a bad parent?). I have to admit
>I
>> >cringe and am somewhat embarassed by the sexual references especially
>> >when he ask me "what does that mean"?.
>>
>> Then why do you watch it? If you want to watch a show which won't
>> embarass you by sexual references and is very, very wholesome you should
>> watch Dawson's Creek.
>
>Why? because I know I'm fighting a losing battle.
Those embarrassing moments can be used to good advantage, especially with a
12-year-old. If you think your son isn't being exposed to sex in other ways,
you're kidding yourself. It might be awkward to discuss stuff like that, but
it's better than not talking. Use those moments as a starting point. I think
you're making a wise decision to watch the show with your kid. You know what
he's watching, you're spending time with him (as I did with my son and the
WWF), and you get the chance to make a point or two about difficult subjects as
a natural outgrowth of what you're watching, rather than having to bring up
touchy subjects cold, with no common reference. This is a good thing.
PKJ
Gyumaoh
>heard that
>a number of high school teachers have talked to the actors and told them how
>much the story lines are similar to what they are going through.
Well, there you go. It seems to be over-the-top propaganda for teachers'
unions.
None of the teachers at my high school would have been so tolerant of the kids'
antics.
"No, we can't make him take down the web page... that would be violating his
right to free speech!", etc.
Give me a break.
Matt Miller
>Religious, Family Groups Target Boston Public
>
>By Bill McConnell
>Broadcasting & Cable
>2/5/2002 5:59:00 PM
>
>Family and children's-advocacy groups are asking Federal
>Communications Commission chairman Michael Powell to investigate
>whether Fox program Boston Public has violated the commission's
>indecency rules.
I think it's absurd that the FCC even has such a power, let alone
that these people are asking them to invoke it. However Boston Public is
a crap show filled with weak people which seems to be mostly designed to
advocate moral resignation.
I'm an atheist through and through, wasn't even raised in a
religion. But I'm seriously annoyed by this "Oh well what can you do?"
sort of attitude. No god is going to come along to make things better, we
have to take care of them ourselves.
If kids are spending more time on their genitals than their minds
we have a problem, just shrugging your shoulders doesn't cut it. Moral
decay is not inevitable. Drunk driving has been successfully made into an
unacceptable activity, other things can to.
And indeed kids are having less sex and doing fewer drugs than they
did in the past. Which is my biggest beef with this show. It just isn't
real. It's not just over the top, it doesn't represent the modern teenage
experience. Kids today just don't get enough credit, and Boston Public
isn't helping the situation.
--
-Matt Miller
Now available in mint!
shoof
"userb3" <use...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:hfreolnubbpbz....@news.alt.net...
> On Tue, 05 Feb 2002 22:28:18 -0500, David Levy wrote:
>
> >
> >I dislike "Boston Public," but now that I'm aware of the above groups'
> >outrage, I hope that it stays on the air for many years to come.
>
> It'll end up boosting ratings. I started watching NYPD Blue when Donald
> Wildmon and his bunch of radical morons launched their efforts to band
> the show. I figured anything those fanatics hated must have some value.
There is a big difference between BLUE and BP. Until this year Blue aired at
10 PM. BP is on at 8. The show's subject matter is inappropriate for 8 pm. I
don't care what wacko group agrees with me. The show should be pushed back
to a later time.
shoof
"Donna L. Bridges" <shall...@rcn.com> wrote in message
news:uup26uouqrvnneksd...@4ax.com...
> A little bird told me that on Wed, 06 Feb 2002 10:27:43 -0600 (CST),
> in rec.arts.tv <hfreolnubbpbz....@news.alt.net> "userb3"
> <use...@yahoo.com> virtually chirped:
>
> >It'll end up boosting ratings. I started watching NYPD Blue when Donald
> >Wildmon and his bunch of radical morons launched their efforts to band
> >the show. I figured anything those fanatics hated must have some value.
>
> For its first year it wasn't even on the air in Tupelo, MS, because of
> those particular few nuts.
>
shoof
"J. Stone" <sto...@pilot.msu.edu> wrote in message
news:3C614E17...@pilot.msu.edu...
> I watch BP with my 12 year old son (am I a bad parent?). I have to admit
I
> cringe
> and am somewhat embarassed by the sexual references especially when he ask
me
> "what does that mean"?.
>
>
Donna L. Bridges
rec.arts.tv <u6514sa...@corp.supernews.com> "shoof"
<mr...@frontiernet.net> virtually chirped:
Yes, I know. See the paragraph above my reply & you will see that that
poster went on to mention the AFA when NYPDB came on. Get it?
--
DonnaB <*> shallotpeel on Yahoo Msgr 8^>
"If I were asked to name the chief benefit of the house, I should say:
the house shelters day-dreaming, the house protects the dreamer, the
house allows one to dream in peace." - Gaston Bachelard
userb3
>None of the teachers at my high school would have been so tolerant of the kids'
>antics.
>
>"No, we can't make him take down the web page... that would be violating his
>right to free speech!", etc.
Interestingly, my wife, an art teacher, runs into this very issue with
some regularity. She had a major confrontation with the administration
over a student art show just last year.
userb3
>> It'll end up boosting ratings. I started watching NYPD Blue when Donald
>> Wildmon and his bunch of radical morons launched their efforts to band
>> the show. I figured anything those fanatics hated must have some value.
>
>There is a big difference between BLUE and BP. Until this year Blue aired at
>10 PM. BP is on at 8. The show's subject matter is inappropriate for 8 pm. I
>don't care what wacko group agrees with me. The show should be pushed back
>to a later time.
Bah humbug. What ever happened to parental responsibility? Personally,
I don't think the show's as racy as you do. I frequently disagree with
the politics of the writers, but the show is still a well-written,
entertaining, and reasonably accurate portrayal of the issues that
teachers, students, and parents face every day.
I do sympathize with people who find modern mainstream culture, and
have friends who feel as you do. They keep their TVs turned off except
for approved programs, and monitor their children's reading and music
closely. Seems to work out for everyone concerned. They're raising
their kids as I see fit, and I'm rasing mine as I see fit. No one's
rights are being violated, and no one's forced to go along with a value
system not their own.
So if prime time TV offends you, turn it off! Read, listen to the
radio, talk to your kids, go to museums, worship, sit by the piano and
sing, or otherwise occupy yourself in the evenings. There's no reason
in the world you have to watch TV unless you want to.
KBuck40088
From: Randy rdo...@xmacx.com
Date: Wed, Feb 6, 2002 6:42 PM
Message-id: <rdownsx-5761A8...@nyctyp01fb.rdc-nyc.rr.com>
But by disagreeing with them aren't you sorta impose your views on them?
Everett Will
Email to above or see post sig for address! <KXDPHY...@spammotel.com>
wrote in message news:3nu46uo5uosgdfu94...@4ax.com...
> The REAL WORLD is a cold, harsh, cruel, sick place, get over it ! Little
Johnny
> & Janey can handle it just fine, and you "jesus freaks" are the problem
any way.
Okay, I don't agree with this religious coalition's campaign against "Boston
Public" but that certainly doesn't excuse your use of the bigoted term
"jesus freaks" to make your point.
I guess your standards are quite low, indeed.
Everett W.
userb3
>But by disagreeing with them aren't you sorta impose your views on them?
???
flightofrainbirds
> Religious, Family Groups Target Boston Public
>
> By Bill McConnell
> Broadcasting & Cable
> 2/5/2002 5:59:00 PM
>
> Family and children's-advocacy groups are asking Federal
> Communications Commission chairman Michael Powell to investigate
> whether Fox program Boston Public has violated the commission's
> indecency rules.
>
> in America can see them,' the groups said in their letter.
THis is probably supposed to be all gasp-worthy and shocking that
people would DARE get in the way of the "free"...um, expression, I
guess, of this dull, and apparently trashy show..
......
>
> Boston Public story lines they criticized specially include:
>
> • A female candidate for class president performing oral sex on a male
> opponent for his support.
YUCK. Did they SHOW that happening?
>
> • A student earning extra money as a stripper.
If that was just mentioned in conversation, that would be one thing,
but was there more than that?
>
> • A teacher's affair with a student.
>
Trash, and not very creative of Mr. Kelley, either..
> • A deceased teacher's journal describing sexual fantasies about a
> young girl.
>
> • A young teacher boasting that the best part of an affair with a
> recent graduate was the feeling of power.
Ugh
>
> The groups used the letter to lambaste Fox and parent News Corp.
> Rupert Murdoch in general, noting that in 1999, William Bennett warded
> Fox with the 'Silver Sewer Award.'
I agree something should be done about this dumb show. Why can't they
move it to 9:00. If it were any other station, it could be at 10:00,
but FOX is weird, and does not have programs at that time.
The dumb plots seem like things that would be on an HBO series, or on
that monstrosisty "Undressed," which at least aired on cable in the
wee hours of the morning. Not at 8:00 pm where kiddies are still
watching TV and might be interested in a show about teens. Stupid
show.
And of course FOX all stands behind David E Kelley and acts like this
all goes on at normal high schools. It hasn't been all THAT long since
I graduated from HS and I don't remember it being a THING like "Boston
Public," so they can cut that excuse.
http://www.angelfire.com/wa/jeroenkrabbe/
http://members.tripod.com/~dylanbaker/caseyspage.html
Jules Day
news:20020207111014...@mb-mq.aol.com...
>Randy wrote:
> Apparently, you didn't read what I wrote. The issue is some religious
> group attemping to impose *their* views on you. How would you feel if
> the WWF was their target? Whether one likes or dislikes wither show
> is irrelevant. >>
>
>
> But by disagreeing with them aren't you sorta impose your views on them?
Umm, Randy isn't forcing the religions group to watch Boston Public, hence
Randy isn't forcing his views on them. What many of us object to are
religious nutjobs who try to foist their views on us by deciding what can
and cannot be broadcast.
For the record, I've never watched a minute of BP and probably never will.
I just loathe censorship.
SmkMirrors
>group attemping to impose *their* views on you. How would you feel if
>the WWF was their target? Whether one likes or dislikes wither show
>is irrelevant.
>
I say turn about is fair play, for years David E. Kelly and Steven Bocco have
been pushing a stealth left wing agenda through the shows they produce.
David Johnston
Turnabout is putting out a show that supports a right wing agenda.
J. Stone
IceBlast wrote:
> "J. Stone" <sto...@pilot.msu.edu> wrote
> > Why? because I know I'm fighting a losing battle.
>
> Why watch TV at all if it makes you uncomfortable?
>
> IceBlast
That is a pretty stupid statement. I didn't say all TV made me
uncomfortable.
There are many shows I don't watch for that reason but that does not
mean I
don't want to watch TV at all.
J. Stone
PkJ0891 wrote:
Yes, that is what I was thinking too. He is going to be exposed to all this stuff
at school anyway so I might as well be open about it right now.
Randy
kbuck...@aol.comnospam (KBuck40088) wrote:
Not at all. They are free to try and get a show on TV that pushes
their agenda. I am free to watch it or not.
shoof
>
> Bah humbug. What ever happened to parental responsibility? Personally,
> I don't think the show's as racy as you do. I frequently disagree with
> the politics of the writers, but the show is still a well-written,
> entertaining, and reasonably accurate portrayal of the issues that
> teachers, students, and parents face every day.
>
> I do sympathize with people who find modern mainstream culture, and
> have friends who feel as you do. They keep their TVs turned off except
> for approved programs, and monitor their children's reading and music
> closely. Seems to work out for everyone concerned. They're raising
> their kids as I see fit, and I'm rasing mine as I see fit. No one's
> rights are being violated, and no one's forced to go along with a value
> system not their own.
Noone is negating the responsiblity of the parents. The problem is that its
becoming more and more difficult for a parent(and I am one) to determine
what an approved show is. For households with kids, network television is
fast losing its shows that parents can feel confident that their kids can
watch. Every time I mention that the 8 o'clock hour not air shows with adult
content people complain. I just don't understand that. There has always
been an assumption at the 8 pm hour that your child would not hear things
like a teacher recommending breast orgasms to their students. I for one
think it's best for everyone of the 8 pm hour stays kid friendly. Air BP at
9. Air the Sapranos at 10 on CBS for all I care. It make sense for eveyone.
Donna L. Bridges
rec.arts.tv <u67mvg7...@corp.supernews.com> "shoof"
<mr...@frontiernet.net> virtually chirped:
>Noone is negating the responsiblity of the parents. The problem is that its
>becoming more and more difficult for a parent(and I am one) to determine
>what an approved show is. ...
I continue to think that this is a total crock. There is more
information available about shows in general & specific episodes ahead
of time than ever before.
DonnaB <*> shallotpeel on Yahoo Msgr 8^>
See a birthday card page to me. [blush]
http://tucson-chase.freeyellow.com/birthday/Donna.html
"Mr. Clinton better watch out if he comes down here. He'd better have
a bodyguard." - U.S. Senator Jesse Helms (North Carolina)
KBuck40088
Date: Fri, Feb 8, 2002 10:05 AM
Message-id: <v7q76u4ucjsjmps1u...@4ax.com>
A little bird told me that on Fri, 8 Feb 2002 09:08:37 -0500, in
rec.arts.tv <u67mvg7...@corp.supernews.com> "shoof"
<mr...@frontiernet.net> virtually chirped:
>Noone is negating the responsiblity of the parents. The problem is that its
>becoming more and more difficult for a parent(and I am one) to determine
>what an approved show is. ...
I continue to think that this is a total crock. There is more
information available about shows in general & specific episodes ahead
of time than ever before. >>
No that is crock. The average working parent has little time to spend browsing
the internet to research each show and episode that their child wants to watch.
There just isn't enough time in the day.
J. Stone
KBuck40088 wrote:
Trying to root out every possible negative influence in a child's life is hopeless.
If they don't hear it on TV they will hear it at school, among their friends and
even their parents in unguarded moments.
userb3
>I say turn about is fair play, for years David E. Kelly and Steven Bocco have
>been pushing a stealth left wing agenda through the shows they produce.
I don't know about Bochco, but DEK is anything but stealthy. Bt so
what? Why shouldn't a TV producer produce television that agrees with
his politics? There's no such thing as objective fiction. ALL
television has a bias, and the bias is all opver the spectrum.
--
userb3
Make America Safer! http://www.banscrewdrivers.com/
userb3
>Noone is negating the responsiblity of the parents.
When you ask the government to control what television is available to
your children, you're asking them to take on a duty that properly
belongs to parents.
>The problem is that its
>becoming more and more difficult for a parent(and I am one) to determine
>what an approved show is.
I'm a parent, too. And I don't think I have things harder than my
parents or their parents. There have always been cultural influences
that parents wanted to control, whether it was music, television,
questionable literature, or the gang of thugs down the street. If
you're not sure what's appropriate, watch the show yourself! How hard
is that?
> For households with kids, network television is
>fast losing its shows that parents can feel confident that their kids can
>watch. Every time I mention that the 8 o'clock hour not air shows with adult
>content people complain. I just don't understand that.
You're home, right? If you're not home, you have a trusted babysitter
home, right? You're in control. Set limits and enforce them. Its that
simple. But don't expect me to live by your limits. I don't expect you
to live by mine.
> There has always
>been an assumption at the 8 pm hour that your child would not hear things
>like a teacher recommending breast orgasms to their students.
I've never made that assumption. The assumption you can make in my
house is that if my kids are watching something, I am either watching
it with them, or approve of their watching. If one of those isn't true,
the TV goes off.
As I posted before:
>>So if prime time TV offends you, turn it off! Read, listen to the
>> radio, talk to your kids, go to museums, worship, sit by the piano and
>> sing, or otherwise occupy yourself in the evenings. There's no reason
>> in the world you have to watch TV unless you want to.
--
userb3
Make America Safer! http://www.banscrewdrivers.com/
Donna L. Bridges
<20020208102412...@mb-fi.aol.com> kbuck...@aol.comnospam
(KBuck40088) virtually chirped:
Now, please, re-read what I said. I made no mention at all of people's
prioritizing of their time. That's up to them. The information is
there in many different ways, more than ever before. Yes, we live more
complicated lives, and people have to make the time to make good
choices. But, of course, that would be much preferable to forcing
everyone else to live by their non-decisions.
DonnaB <*> shallotpeel on Yahoo Msgr 8^>
See a birthday card page to me. [blush]
http://tucson-chase.freeyellow.com/birthday/Donna.html
"Capitalitism is the legimate racket of the ruling class." - Al Capone
userb3
>No that is crock. The average working parent has little time to spend browsing
>the internet to research each show and episode that their child wants to watch.
>There just isn't enough time in the day.
Then they shouldn't let them watch TV. Children come with
responsibilities. Knowing what they're watching/eating/doing/listening
to/reading is one of them.
Donna L. Bridges
rec.arts.tv <rdownsx-8F155E...@news-server.nyc.rr.com>
Randy <rdo...@xmacx.com> virtually chirped:
This is probably the single most important thing that people don't
seem to be learning these days. No, civil disagreement doesn't mean
that the parties don't like each other; don't love each other; that
civil disagreement is somehow wrong & to be avoided. And, even beyond
that, no civil disagreement does not at all imply any imposition on
another person's views. The End.
DonnaB <*> shallotpeel on Yahoo Msgr 8^>
See a birthday card page to me. [blush]
http://tucson-chase.freeyellow.com/birthday/Donna.html
"For those who remember a certain toothpaste commercial back in the
60s in the US ... 'Christ has been shown to be an effective decay
preventative when used in a program of conscientious moral hygiene &
regular professional prayer.'" - DPB Smith, AltQ
KBuck40088
>Date: Fri, Feb 8, 2002 11:38 AM
>Message-id: <hfreolnubbpbz....@news.alt.net>
All this from a person who advocates banning screwdrivers instead of take
personal responsiblity for the use of those screwdrivers.
KBuck40088
>Date: Fri, Feb 8, 2002 12:43 PM
>Message-id: <ne386usjn0db9oce0...@4ax.com>
>
>A little bird told me that on Fri, 08 Feb 2002 00:40:04 GMT, in
>rec.arts.tv <rdownsx-8F155E...@news-server.nyc.rr.com>
>Randy <rdo...@xmacx.com> virtually chirped:
>
>>In article <20020207111014...@mb-mq.aol.com>,
>> kbuck...@aol.comnospam (KBuck40088) wrote:
>>
>>> << Subject: Re: Religious groups want "Boston Public" investigated
>>> From: Randy rdo...@xmacx.com
>>> Date: Wed, Feb 6, 2002 6:42 PM
>>> Message-id: <rdownsx-5761A8...@nyctyp01fb.rdc-nyc.rr.com>
>>>
>>> In article <20020206070528...@mb-cc.aol.com>,
>>> level4...@aol.comNONONO (Phil from Chicago) wrote:
>>>
>>> Apparently, you didn't read what I wrote. The issue is some religious
>
>>> group attemping to impose *their* views on you. How would you feel if
>
>>> the WWF was their target? Whether one likes or dislikes wither show
>
>>> is irrelevant. >>
>>>
>>> But by disagreeing with them aren't you sorta impose your views on them?
>>
>>Not at all. They are free to try and get a show on TV that pushes
>>their agenda. I am free to watch it or not.
>
>This is probably the single most important thing that people don't
>seem to be learning these days. No, civil disagreement doesn't mean
>that the parties don't like each other; don't love each other; that
>civil disagreement is somehow wrong & to be avoided. And, even beyond
>that, no civil disagreement does not at all imply any imposition on
>another person's views. The End.
So you are saying that the right wingers DO have a right to their opinion and
agenda?
KBuck40088
>Date: Fri, Feb 8, 2002 12:35 PM
>Message-id: <hfreolnubbpbz....@news.alt.net>
Sounds like a perfect idea to me.
Donna L. Bridges
<20020208133532...@mb-fy.aol.com> kbuck...@aol.comnospam
(KBuck40088) virtually chirped:
Of course they have a right to their opinions, both the ones that are
well-thought out & grounded in reality as well as those that are
little more than feelings & based on emotionalism, fear & the way they
were brought up.
As to agenda, that would be according to whether that fit with civil
disagreement. Seems to me that their agenda does not do so & that some
of them at least do actively pursue imposing their beliefs on others.
That this isn't clear simply makes me even more alarmed that people
don't get it.
DonnaB <*> shallotpeel on Yahoo Msgr 8^>
"I say bomb the hell out of them. If there's collateral damage, so be
it. They certainly found our civilians to be expendable." - Sen. Zell
Miller, D-GA
userb3
>So you are saying that the right wingers DO have a right to their opinion and
>agenda?
Your right to swing your fist ends at my nose, and all that.
userb3
>>Make America Safer! http://www.banscrewdrivers.com/
>
>All this from a person who advocates banning screwdrivers instead of take
>personal responsiblity for the use of those screwdrivers.
Humor is wasted on some people.
David Johnston
wrote:
To their opinion of the show, certainly. To get it taken off the air
for pissing them off, no.
KBuck40088
>Date: Fri, Feb 8, 2002 1:49 PM
>Message-id: <hfreolnubbpbz....@news.alt.net>
Actually I hoped to God that you weren't serious...
KBuck40088
>Message-id: <hfreolnubbpbz....@news.alt.net>
>
>On 08 Feb 2002 18:35:32 GMT, KBuck40088 wrote:
>
>>So you are saying that the right wingers DO have a right to their opinion
>and
>>agenda?
>
>Your right to swing your fist ends at my nose, and all that.
Never heard that one - I like that analogy.
Randy
"shoof" <mr...@frontiernet.net> wrote:
>
> Noone is negating the responsiblity of the parents. The problem is that its
> becoming more and more difficult for a parent(and I am one) to determine
> what an approved show is. For households with kids, network television is
> fast losing its shows that parents can feel confident that their kids can
> watch. Every time I mention that the 8 o'clock hour not air shows with adult
> content people complain. I just don't understand that. There has always
> been an assumption at the 8 pm hour that your child would not hear things
> like a teacher recommending breast orgasms to their students. I for one
> think it's best for everyone of the 8 pm hour stays kid friendly. Air BP at
> 9. Air the Sapranos at 10 on CBS for all I care. It make sense for eveyone.
No, it makes sense for you and, more than likely, other parents. I
want to see shows I want to watch at all hours of primetime. You say
it's more difficult to detemine what an approved show is. Well,
parenting is tough too but I'm sure you don't leave the tough
parenting decisions to others. It is your responsibility, and noone
else's, to determine what is approved and appropriate for your kids.
If the network idiots said that they would only program (what they
consoder) family friendly shows at 8pm, would that be good enough for
you? Nobody but you can and should determine what is apprpriate for
your kids. There are many alternatives to the networks for
appropriate programming for your kids.
Randy
kbuck...@aol.comnospam (KBuck40088) wrote:
All this from a person who has no sense of humor.
Help stamp out humor impairment in my lifetime!
Randy
"J. Stone" <sto...@pilot.msu.edu> wrote:
Good point, all the more reason to watch with your kids and deal with
these issues as they pop up. You can do it or let others. The choice
is yours.
Randy
kbuck...@aol.comnospam (KBuck40088) wrote:
OK, this took me all of 30 seconds. You could easily spend less than
an hour on a weekend and plan out your kids TV week. Might not want
the kids to watch Boston Public next week.
Boston Public
Chapter Thirty-Six
60 min.
A student's illness rattles Senate, who's haunted by feelings of
futility; a teen's eating disorder upsets Lauren, who's also unnerved
by a Web site advocating anorexia. Max: Ben Foster. Jeremy: Kaj-Erik
Eriksen. Randa: Jill Noel. Brooke: China Jesusita Shavers. Kyra:
Jessica Wright. Jamaal: Jackson Dunn. Mrs. Horst: Heidi Heller. Nicole
Warner: Cyd Strittmatter.
Visit our Boston Public show page
Cast: Anthony Heald, Jessalyn Gilsig, Nicky Katt, Chi McBride, Sharon
Leal, Loretta Devine, Jeri Ryan, Michael Rapaport, Ben Foster,
Kaj-Erik Eriksen, Jill Noel, China Jesusita Shavers, Jessica Wright,
Heidi Heller, Jackson Dunn, Cyd Strittmatter, David Grant Wright
Rating: TV-14
Content: Strong, Coarse Language
Category: Drama
Release Year: 2002
shoof
"Donna L. Bridges" <shall...@rcn.com> wrote in message
news:v7q76u4ucjsjmps1u...@4ax.com...
> A little bird told me that on Fri, 8 Feb 2002 09:08:37 -0500, in
> rec.arts.tv <u67mvg7...@corp.supernews.com> "shoof"
> <mr...@frontiernet.net> virtually chirped:
>
> >Noone is negating the responsiblity of the parents. The problem is that
its
> >becoming more and more difficult for a parent(and I am one) to determine
> >what an approved show is. ...
>
> I continue to think that this is a total crock. There is more
> information available about shows in general & specific episodes ahead
> of time than ever before.
>
you the information nessassary to determine weather a particular show is
appropriate or not for your kids. If you really believe what you say, you
would have no problem with hardcore porn on tv. If you do, then you agree
with me. We just draw the line in different places.
Donna L. Bridges
rec.arts.tv <u695v4o...@corp.supernews.com> "shoof"
<mr...@frontiernet.net> virtually chirped:
>"Donna L. Bridges" <shall...@rcn.com> wrote in message
>news:v7q76u4ucjsjmps1u...@4ax.com...
>> A little bird told me that on Fri, 8 Feb 2002 09:08:37 -0500, in
>> rec.arts.tv <u67mvg7...@corp.supernews.com> "shoof"
>> <mr...@frontiernet.net> virtually chirped:
>>
>> >Noone is negating the responsiblity of the parents. The problem is that
>its
>> >becoming more and more difficult for a parent(and I am one) to determine
>> >what an approved show is. ...
>>
>> I continue to think that this is a total crock. There is more
>> information available about shows in general & specific episodes ahead
>> of time than ever before.
>>
>I think what you just said is a total crock. No episode description can give
>you the information nessassary to determine weather a particular show is
>appropriate or not for your kids.
No episode description can? Ever? Amazing. I've certainly read episode
descriptions that I think would, as well, of course, as reading
episode descriptions that would not have. Fortunately, our discussion
involves so much more than simply episode descriptions as we mention
that there are more resources available, and quickly available, to
help parents evaluate potential TV viewing for their children than
ever before!
>If you really believe what you say, you
>would have no problem with hardcore porn on tv. If you do, then you agree
>with me. We just draw the line in different places.
If? My, what a totally unnecessary implication that someone who
doesn't agree with you may not believe what they obviously have said
they do, which here is the only thing we have to go on! But, in some
circumstances I would have no problem with no external body making
judgments at all for others of what is available on media. However,
that is not the case, at all, with our FCC influenced networks & their
affiliate stations, so it's strictly a theoretical. But, as to my
agreeing with you, well, perhaps so, but on something besides what
you've posted here, which is the only reason what you do or don't
think or agree about is of any relevance to me at all. And, I don't
agree with you based on what you have posted here. Nothing personal,
of course, simply the issues.
--
DonnaB <*> shallotpeel on Yahoo Msgr 8^>
"I don't believe in an afterlife, so I don't have to spend my whole
life fearing hell, or fearing heaven even more. For whatever the
tortures of hell, I think the boredom of heaven would be even worse."
- Isaac Asimov
shoof
>
> No episode description can? Ever? Amazing. I've certainly read episode
> descriptions that I think would, as well, of course, as reading
> episode descriptions that would not have. Fortunately, our discussion
> involves so much more than simply episode descriptions as we mention
> that there are more resources available, and quickly available, to
> help parents evaluate potential TV viewing for their children than
> ever before!
I'm not an overly paranoid parent but I am concerned that my kids viewing
experience be age appropriate. For example, next weeks Boston Public episode
has a situation dealing with the Anorexia. I think that is a worthwhile
topic for my 13 year old to watch. My hesitation is that unless there is an
entire transcript of the show somewhere on the web,(and I know there isn't
because I searched for 30 minutes to find as much info as I could about this
episode)there may be dialoge and subtexts that are really irresponsible for
that time of night. Oral sex and breast orgasms will hit you without
warning.(the ladder I've never heard of until a teacher recommended it to
the students a few weeks ago)That's why I'm saying that that TV should be
more sensitive to children. They always have in the past. It's only recently
that truly adult fare has crept into the 8 o'clock hour. People have very
hectic lives and it's impossible and I think unreasonable to demand that
parents preview all their children's show beforehand just so some adults can
have what they want at all times. Wouldn't it just be allot easier to do
that England does? Before 9 PM television must be family friendly. After 9,
show what you like.
Donna L. Bridges
rec.arts.tv <u6cuq3f...@corp.supernews.com> "shoof"
<mr...@frontiernet.net> virtually chirped:
>I'm not an overly paranoid parent but I am concerned that my kids viewing
>experience be age appropriate. For example, next weeks Boston Public episode
>has a situation dealing with the Anorexia. I think that is a worthwhile
>topic for my 13 year old to watch. My hesitation is that unless there is an
>entire transcript of the show somewhere on the web,(and I know there isn't
>because I searched for 30 minutes to find as much info as I could about this
>episode)there may be dialoge and subtexts that are really irresponsible for
>that time of night.
If you're that paranoid about it, tape it & watch it first or watch it
with your child & use whatever comes up as an opportunity to discuss
issues. Either that or don't. But, don't agonize about it. It's just a
television show.
>... That's why I'm saying that that TV should be
>more sensitive to children.
TV is sensitive to children, look at children's fare!
>They always have in the past. It's only recently
>that truly adult fare has crept into the 8 o'clock hour.
You're speaking of the so-called Family Hour no longer being such. I'd
say that in the last 10 years more & more networks have abandoned a
strict Family Hour approach to 8 pm, yes. But, that does not mean that
there aren't family hour type shows available at that hour, either. It
just means you have no guarantee. That's life. A guarantee like that
isn't secure over time. The idea of a Family Hour grew up over time,
wasn't a part of TV viewing at all for a long while & then came into
popularity & now is passing out of popularity, beginning first with
the newer networks that initially only have the 8 & 9 pm slots for
non-news programming.
>People have very
>hectic lives and it's impossible and I think unreasonable to demand that
>parents preview all their children's show beforehand just so some adults can
>have what they want at all times. Wouldn't it just be allot easier to do
>that England does? Before 9 PM television must be family friendly. After 9,
>show what you like.
Easier? To create some sort of rule that the 8 pm timeslot must be
'family friendly'? No, I'd say that wouldn't be either easier or in
any way desirable. Besides, who would define what is family
friendly?!! Is sex the only criteria in use in disqualifying shows?
Me, I'd rather trust people to make their own decisions. That should
work for all kinds of families, whether they have small children in
them or not.
--
DonnaB <*> shallotpeel on Yahoo Msgr 8^>
"There are basically only two types of exercise in Hollywood: jogging
and helping a recently divorced friend move." - David Wagner
Brad Filippone
: >
: > No episode description can? Ever? Amazing. I've certainly read episode
: > descriptions that I think would, as well, of course, as reading
: > episode descriptions that would not have. Fortunately, our discussion
: > involves so much more than simply episode descriptions as we mention
: > that there are more resources available, and quickly available, to
: > help parents evaluate potential TV viewing for their children than
: > ever before!
: I'm not an overly paranoid parent but I am concerned that my kids viewing
: experience be age appropriate. For example, next weeks Boston Public episode
: has a situation dealing with the Anorexia. I think that is a worthwhile
: topic for my 13 year old to watch. My hesitation is that unless there is an
: entire transcript of the show somewhere on the web,(and I know there isn't
: because I searched for 30 minutes to find as much info as I could about this
: episode)there may be dialoge and subtexts that are really irresponsible for
: that time of night. Oral sex and breast orgasms will hit you without
: warning.(the ladder I've never heard of until a teacher recommended it to
: the students a few weeks ago)That's why I'm saying that that TV should be
: more sensitive to children. They always have in the past. It's only recently
: that truly adult fare has crept into the 8 o'clock hour. People have very
: hectic lives and it's impossible and I think unreasonable to demand that
: parents preview all their children's show beforehand just so some adults can
: have what they want at all times. Wouldn't it just be allot easier to do
: that England does? Before 9 PM television must be family friendly. After 9,
: show what you like.
Ok, this gets into a parent's personal preference, so I'm not trying to
shame you or anything, but what's wrong with your children learning
something about sex? A healthy attitude towards the subject goes a long
way to help her or him make the right choices when the time comes. Your
child is 13, so it seems to me the time has come. I would only suggest
that you watch as well so that he or she cn have any questions answered.
Hey, it's better then learning everything from peers.
Brad
Chris Carollo
> I'm not an overly paranoid parent but I am concerned that my kids viewing
> experience be age appropriate. For example, next weeks Boston Public episode
> has a situation dealing with the Anorexia. I think that is a worthwhile
> topic for my 13 year old to watch. My hesitation is that unless there is an
> entire transcript of the show somewhere on the web,(and I know there isn't
> because I searched for 30 minutes to find as much info as I could about this
> episode)there may be dialoge and subtexts that are really irresponsible for
> that time of night. Oral sex and breast orgasms will hit you without
> warning.(the ladder I've never heard of until a teacher recommended it to
> the students a few weeks ago)That's why I'm saying that that TV should be
> more sensitive to children. They always have in the past. It's only recently
> that truly adult fare has crept into the 8 o'clock hour. People have very
> hectic lives and it's impossible and I think unreasonable to demand that
> parents preview all their children's show beforehand just so some adults can
> have what they want at all times. Wouldn't it just be allot easier to do
> that England does? Before 9 PM television must be family friendly. After 9,
> show what you like.
Boston Public is clearly marked as TV-14. Parents who are concerned
about showing TV-14-level content to their under-14 children should
take the time to screen the material themselves. I don't see how
the time of day has anything to do with it, particularly now that
the V-chip is ubiquitous. Just disallow TV-14 and up, if you're
worried that your children will stumble across inappropriate
programming while you're not there to monitor them.
-Chris
KBuck40088
>Date: Sun, Feb 10, 2002 12:12 PM
>Message-id: <a469l7$i4h$1...@News.Dal.Ca>
All my children need to know about sex will be taught to them by me and my
wife, not some Hollywood mindset.
Ripclawe
: that truly adult fare has crept into the 8 o'clock hour. People have
very
: hectic lives and it's impossible and I think unreasonable to demand
that
: parents preview all their children's show beforehand just so some
adults can
: have what they want at all times. Wouldn't it just be allot easier to
do
: that England does? Before 9 PM television must be family friendly.
After 9,
: show what you like."
Television is not a right, its a want. I am sick and tired of parents
whining, "What about me and my kids???? waaaaaaa waaaaa" The world is
not made for kids, television is not made for kids and parents should do
their parental duties and actually parent instead of whining that
everyone else(including other parents who don't whine) putting their
entertainment lives on hold because you got a kid. garbage.
KBuck40088
>Date: Sun, Feb 10, 2002 12:59 PM
>Message-id: <3C66B5...@aol.com>
It is becoming increasingly difficult to teach your kids the morals that you
want them to learn in a 'global community' that doesn't always hold the same
standards. It is overly simplistic to say 'turn off the TV.' While my children
not view the programs, perhaps children in their class may and no one has found
a way to control peer pressure. Notice that I said that the task of a parent is
increasingly difficult, not impossible. Still it is ever tougher with a
barriage of outside influences. About the only way to keep media influences
from your children totally is to move into a cave somewhere.
hamilton
<chris...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
how hard is this? a family that can't monitor or pre-screen if they are
concerned is watching entirely too much TV. We always pre-screened films
for our kids when they were young teens -- since many R rated films are
perfectly appropriate by our lights and many PG 13 are not -- with VCRs it
is even easier to pre-screen shows that one is concerned about -- or
better yet -- lock up the TV and do something worthwhile as a family which
will have a lot more powerful impact on kids psychosexual development than
schlock TV.
starcro1
"KBuck40088" <kbuck...@aol.comnospam> wrote in message
news:20020207111014...@mb-mq.aol.com...
> << Subject: Re: Religious groups want "Boston Public" investigated
> Date: Wed, Feb 6, 2002 6:42 PM
> Message-id: <rdownsx-5761A8...@nyctyp01fb.rdc-nyc.rr.com>
>
> In article <20020206070528...@mb-cc.aol.com>,
> level4...@aol.comNONONO (Phil from Chicago) wrote:
>
> > >religious groups attempting to impose their views on others. What
> > >would your reaction be if the WWF was their target?
> >
> > first of all those storylines involve adults not teenagers which under
the
> > law
> > are still defined as children. Plus I'm not 100% behind every storyline
the
> > WWF does either I've seen some real crap the WWF creative team has done.
I
> > just don't care for Boston Public because the show does a terrible job
of
> > capturing what a real high school is like Hell the high school in
Dangerous
> > Minds was more real than that terrible fantasy world. Plus I've never
liked
> > it
> > from the beginning no church leader is going to change my mind on
anything
> >
>
> Apparently, you didn't read what I wrote. The issue is some religious
> group attemping to impose *their* views on you. How would you feel if
> the WWF was their target? Whether one likes or dislikes wither show
> is irrelevant. >>
>
>
> But by disagreeing with them aren't you sorta impose your views on them?
It's one thing to publicly disagree. It's something else to call for action
from an agency of the government with the aim of taking "Boston Public" off
the air because you don't like the subject matter. Fox has the right to free
expression, and the audience has the right to watch, or not.
To date, the government has never forced a network to cancel a dramatic
series, or imposed any punishment for broadcasting what they want. If the
FCC gives these religious groups what they want, you can use an egg timer to
measure the future of freedom of speech in this country.
shoof
> Television is not a right, its a want. I am sick and tired of parents
> whining, "What about me and my kids???? waaaaaaa waaaaa" The world is
> not made for kids, television is not made for kids and parents should do
> their parental duties and actually parent instead of whining that
> everyone else(including other parents who don't whine) putting their
> entertainment lives on hold because you got a kid. garbage.
Most of the people that complain about parents whining are the people that
don't have kids. If and when they do, suddenly these things become
important.
Donna L. Bridges
<20020210124447...@mb-da.aol.com> kbuck...@aol.comnospam
(KBuck40088) virtually chirped:
>All my children need to know about sex will be taught to them by me and my
>wife, not some Hollywood mindset.
Then, you might seriously consider not watching any popular media at
all. Children potentially learn from everything they are exposed to &
sometimes in retrospect learn from what they weren't exposed to, but,
if they learn it completely divorced from the context of home &
family, that influence is MIA on that subject matter.
--
DonnaB <*> shallotpeel on Yahoo Msgr 8^>
"The least thing contains something unknown. Let us find it." - Guy de
Maupassant
Donna L. Bridges
<20020210131030...@mb-mj.aol.com> kbuck...@aol.comnospam
(KBuck40088) virtually chirped:
>It is becoming increasingly difficult to teach your kids the morals that you
>want them to learn in a 'global community' that doesn't always hold the same
>standards. It is overly simplistic to say 'turn off the TV.' While my children
>not view the programs, perhaps children in their class may and no one has found
>a way to control peer pressure. Notice that I said that the task of a parent is
>increasingly difficult, not impossible. Still it is ever tougher with a
>barriage of outside influences. About the only way to keep media influences
>from your children totally is to move into a cave somewhere.
That is the best way to teach morals, in context, with contrast to
other people's varying beliefs that are the way other people look at
things which is not the way 'we' do & why.
There are chances that some people apparently see as obstacles instead
of opportunities. Of course, we've always lived in a diverse community
with many outside influences. One of the best ways to make outside
influences completely irresistible to children is to keep them secret,
shrouded in mystery.
--
DonnaB <*> shallotpeel on Yahoo Msgr 8^>
"For certain people, after 50, litigation takes the place of sex." -
Gore Vidal
KBuck40088
>Date: Sun, Feb 10, 2002 4:08 PM
>Message-id: <a6od6ug7k9h52cjca...@4ax.com>
You must not have any children; in addition to my own I have 20 years of public
school teaching to tell you that your comments are idealistic but not
realistic.
userb3
>I'm not an overly paranoid parent but I am concerned that my kids viewing
>experience be age appropriate. For example, next weeks Boston Public episode
>has a situation dealing with the Anorexia. I think that is a worthwhile
>topic for my 13 year old to watch. My hesitation is that unless there is an
>entire transcript of the show somewhere on the web,(and I know there isn't
>because I searched for 30 minutes to find as much info as I could about this
>episode)there may be dialoge and subtexts that are really irresponsible for
>that time of night.
So tape it and let Junior watch it this weekend after you've pre-viewed
it. Or watch it with him so you can discuss anything that makes you
uncomfortable. Or just don't watch it. Discuss anorexia instead. Just
because its there doesn't mean you have to watch it.
That said, there is NOTHING on that program that a normal 13 year old
isn't hearing about at school, so your concern may be a little bit
after the fact.
> Oral sex and breast orgasms will hit you without
>warning.
Oh, how I wish!
> People have very
>hectic lives and it's impossible and I think unreasonable to demand that
>parents preview all their children's show beforehand just so some adults can
>have what they want at all times.
If you're so hectic that you can't take time to control what your kids
are doing while they're at home, you're not making much of an effort in
the parenting department. Sorry, but there's not a nice way to put
that. Stand up and take responsibility for your kids. Raise them
according to your values and stop expecting society to cowtow to your
personal views.
userb3
>Most of the people that complain about parents whining are the people that
>don't have kids. If and when they do, suddenly these things become
>important.
I'm a parent, and I don;t want my (or my children's) TV access to be
limited by you and your values. I'll make the decisions about what goes
on in my home, and encourage you to do the same in yours.