MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland

Outrageous Censorship At A PBS Station

It’s ironic that I started the day today discussing the many media outlets focusing on penises in movies this week.  And yes, Kinsey does included penises and homosexuality and omnisexuality and a very strong message about the power of love and the support of a family.

But now, WNET in New York City has rejected interstitial advertising from the film, their representative saying, "WNET executives found the ‘Kinsey’ spot "too commercial and too provocative." 


There have been shows of media conservatism and fear of the FCC lately and most of them have left me shrugging my shoulders.  Even the Monday Night Football/Desperate Housewives non-event last week has been played in full on show after show after show with no further threats.  Comedy Central continues to air the uncut South Park: Longer, Bigger & Uncut occasionally as well as the "How many times can we say shit?" episode of the show… no threats.  Things tighten up every once in a while, whatever the administration.  It seems like minutes ago when the Reagan Administration was going to end pornography forever with the idiotic Meese Commission… nope.

But this… New York City… PBS, the first network to air nudity and language, long before NYPD Blue… a message approved by the MPAA tight asses…

I find this very disturbing, much the way I find it far more disturbing when the NY Times makes a bad call than when some smaller paper does… some things should be more sacred than others.  And freedom of speech in New York City, even after the sanitizing of Times Square, is one of those.

If you agree, please make your voice heard…

WNET’s Phone – 212-560-1313
WNET’s local New Jersey line: 973-643-3315
or send a nasty e-mail via:

And you can read the full AP story here

51 Responses to “Outrageous Censorship At A PBS Station”

  1. MsLibrarian says:

    I was unable to send a comment using the page you supplied, so I e-mailed them directly. Their address is.

  2. Mark says:

    This is beyond dumb. You ever see the programming on PBS? Me either but I assume its terrible.

  3. Nick says:

    I protest your site. I am offended by your content. You are a moron. Kinsey, the movie, is not a movie but propaganda, and you aren’t thinking right. There is no censorship as long as you morons take one station’s decision and promote it to death. How stupid can you be???

  4. bicycle bob says:

    hey nicky, u give all catholics a bad name. kinsey was a scientist who finally shed some light in important human studies. a movie is a movie. where does a shitbag station like pbs get off censoring content thats not nudity?

  5. Nick says:

    Hello Bi-Boob–
    You treat Kinsey as if he was untouchable, as if his methods were beyond dispute. Not true. There are problems with his studies, and the movie glosses over them. There are victims in his experiments, and the movie glosses over that.
    BTW, a movie is not just a movie, you should know that. A movie like this is a signpost for cultural engagement. It is made as a political statement, as an artwork that is used to help promote the values of Bill Condon. Besides, if it’s just a movie, then why complain about “censorship”?
    PS–It’s not censorship–you can fork over your $9.50 and see Kinsey all you want.

  6. Stella's Boy says:

    Have you at least seen Kinsey, Nick? I hope so. Please, enlighten us. What does it gloss over? Who did he victimize? Kinsey certainly wasn’t perfect, as none of us are, and the movie does not gloss over that at all. He may have made some mistakes, but what he did was groundbreaking and way ahead of its time and amazing.

  7. bicycle bob says:

    its bicycle not bi, champ
    and if u weren’t so damn homophobic maybe u could watch a movie based on a guy who researched sex. does the S word offend u???
    people like u make me ashamed to be catholic. now touch an altar boy…

  8. Nick says:

    Now, now, before this board goes out of control…
    In terms of the science–has it ever occurred to you that, no matter how vast a survey was taken, it will always be skewed, because it will only incorporate those folks who would be willing to participate in such a survey? Kinda like the first telephone survey ever taken in the 1920s, which was way off, because it failed to take into account that not everybody had telephones.
    There are BOOKS disclaiming Kinsey’s research. You surely don’t want me to tie up the blog space here, do you? Surely, you’ve READ them, no? Perhaps you’d best read them, before you complain about how effective his resarch.
    Secondly, interesting that Bicycle Bob (who’s so quick to affirm his preferences, before going on the sophmoric and none-too-humorous ad hominum attack) that he ends “now touch that altar boy.” Suppose the “final interview subject” at the end of the film was not Lynn Redgrave, (who thanked Kinsey for saving her life, affirming that there were other lesbians out there like her), but a character actor playing a pedophile priest, such as Fr Geoghan, saying the exact same thing. “Thank you, Dr. Kinsey, for affirming that there are other pedophiles out there that I can relate to. You literally saved my life.” Tell me, honestly, you would be dancing in the aisles, no? Because “Kinsey is such a great man.”
    You can’t have it both ways. Think a little. It might hurt your head at first, but it’s well worth the effort.

  9. Stella's Boy says:

    You’re telling others to think a little? Irony, anyone? What exactly do you find so offensive about Kinsey and his research? We could go back and forth forever about the research and his methods in collecting it. That’s pointless. So tell me what you find so offensive about Kinsey and what he did.

  10. Reece's Pieces says:

    David, I strongly disagree with you on this one!
    Why should a PBS station be obligated to show whatever is given them? Any reason you can give WHY they refused to show those clips, other than your assumption it has to do with the FCC? They have as much a right to accept or reject material to show to their viewers (a customer base I imagine they know FAR better than most anyone else) as we have.
    I am so weary of people who feel free speech means anyone can dump anything on everyone else. Do I have to accept any idiot to preach opposing doctrine at my church? Should I have to accept free pornography in my mailbox, just because a marketer has a right to send it? Why must every channel be open to the diarrhea of mass media?
    I agree there is massive inconsistency on TV, but to be “stunned” and demand a protest is ridculous. No film is worth such high-handed leftist “morality.”

  11. Stella's Boy says:

    Leftist morality? I thought the left didn’t know the meaning of the word? Only the right is moral and can tell us all what to do. Oh, and Catholics.

  12. Nick says:

    Stella, Stella, Stella…
    The only person here telling somebody else what to do is Dave Poland, telling NY PBS to air a ten-second “sponsorred by” advertisement. It’s not censorship to say no. People who declare it such think that there are, good heavens, folks out there who watch nothing but public tv and are missing out on a prestigious Academy-baiting skin flick with an agenda. Like these folks aren’t gonna hear about Kinsey any place else. GIVE ME A BREAK.
    Secondly, I’ve already stated what is offensive about Kinsey, the man. But I’ve never said don’t see the film. Please, by all means, make it a box office smash if you want to. You may have to max out your credit cards to have it break even, but there you have it.

  13. Stella's Boy says:

    Can you please direct me to where you already stated your problems with Kinsey and his study? I would like to see what you said. And where did you see me crying censorship?

  14. Nick says:

    “There are victims in his experiments.” The man was a pedaphile–in the name of (hallowed silence, please…) _science_. There’s a new documentary out called “The Children of Table 34″–which has the testimonials of the children who were molested in the name of (quiet, that word again….) SCIENCE.
    Now, if you want to defend such actions, be my guest. If you want to complain why this documentary is being _censored_ by “The Hot Button” blog, you can take over for me. If you want to turn it around (like Bicycle Bob did) and mock me as wanting to touch altar boys, he has no idea how Kinsey the man would have endorsed such a practice.

  15. Stella's Boy says:

    So, there is a new documentary out that claims Kinsey was a pedophile? Is there hard evidence, or just some accusations? Is it fact, or just an attempt to smear his name because of his study? Is that your entire case against him?

  16. Nick says:

    I don’t care for the tone in your questions. It’s as if you don’t believe that there was anybody harmed during the study. That it was all consensual. Or that no such children were harmed at all in the study. Please explain.
    One documentary does not a case make. But living testimonies do. So why wouldn’t the living testimonials of those abused count in your book? And, correct me if I’m wrong, isn’t the bulk of Kinsey’s research (the non-pedophile kind) based upon these living testimonies? If so, why would you choose one set of testimonies over another, especially when the other are childhood victims of sexual abuse?
    You may say that you’re not, that you’re playing devil’s advocate, that you’re only hearing such things for the first time (even tho it’s lightly touched upon in the movie). But there are organizations dedicated to bringing this to the public view, and but for some unknown reason, some people wish to pigeon-hole this into some big culture war between the red states and the blue states. It’s not, and you know better.

  17. Stella's Boy says:

    I never looked at this as a culture war between the red states and blue states, or anything similar to that. I don’t like it when bio-pics leave out unflattering details of the subject’s life. I hated that sordid and negative details of John Nash’s life were left out of A Beautiful Mind in order to turn it into a Hollywood love story. I think it’s self-defeating. I am not familiar with claims that Kinsey was a pedophile. That is news to me. If there is concrete proof that he was one, of course I would have a problem with that. As I asked before, is it just a smear campaign, or is there hard proof of it? I’m sorry that you dislike my tone. I am merely attemtping to find out if there is evidence or not.

  18. Stella's Boy says:

    I started to do a little research, and this is what I found. He was not a pedophile. Suggestions that he was are nothing but a right-wing witch hunt. As I suspected, it’s a smear campaign that ignores facts in an attempt to discredit Kinsey because of his study and its results. Nice try. Example:
    Kinsey, Reisman told me, was “absolutely a pedophile. The evidence is incontrovertible in my view.” When I asked what evidence she had to support that allegation, she replied: “Everything he wrote. Nobody but a pedophile could write what he did.”
    In fact, there is no evidence that Kinsey ever engaged in pedophile activities. The present director of the Kinsey Institute, Dr Julia Heiman, believes that allegations of Kinsey’s “pedophilia” are a way to try to discredit the work of the institute.

  19. MsLibrarian says:

    The Children of Table 34 is a documentary produced by the Family Research Council. That is about as credible as a documentary on abortion produced by a pro-life organization.

  20. Stella's Boy says:

    Exactly MsLibrarian. There’s no truth to the allegations. It’s a disgusting and ridiculous smear campaign by some right-wing lunatics and nothing more.

  21. Nick says:

    Or as credible as a pro-Kinsey activist making a pro-Kinsey movie.
    Face it. If the documentary is testimonials, you CANNOT EASILY DISCREDIT it. I didn’t quote Reisman or Heiman, and the fact that the Family Research Council produced the film is besides the point. The stories therein are true, and if the victims find that Bill Condon is not interested in their stories, they’re going to go to places that are.
    Facts. Not spin.

  22. Stella's Boy says:

    That’s too bad Nick. I actually thought you were somewhat reasonable, but apparently that’s not the case. I simply can’t take you seriously at all anymore. Of course it matters that the documentary was made by a right-wing, extremely conservative group like the Family Research Council. You’d say the same if it was a pro-choice documentary made by Planned Parenthood. How do you know the stories are true? Are you just conveniently ignoring the fact that there is no evidence to support the claim that Kinsey is was a pedophile? How do you respond to Reisman’s evidence, which is that he wrote like a pedophile? That is hilarious in its absurdity. Sorry, but you’re losing this one buddy.

  23. Nick says:

    It’s actually quite easy to back up Reisman’s defence. If the study itself indicates that children had to go thru sexual acts, just so that a chapter can be written in a research project, how else can such a study be performed? EVEN THE MOVIE TOUCHES UPON THIS. And yet it handles it in such a manner that makes you let Kinsey off the hook, coz he was such a swell guy.
    Bye bye.

  24. Nick says:

    The difference between me and you is, if charges of pedophilia crop up, no matter what the circumstance, I have to take them seriously. It’s not about labels at that point. You, however, seem to discard the pain of victims because they do not adhere to your political beliefs.

  25. chinq says:

    I think this thread has missed to point. According to this quote,”WNET executives found the ‘Kinsey’ spot “too commercial and too provocative.”, the station has a problem with the TV Spot, not the feature itself. If a spot is approved by the MPAA for air after 9pm, it is approved to air in that time period for all programming, and at that point it is up to each network to decide it’s approprateness.
    If WNET does not want to run ANY commercials/sponsership interstitals for KENSEY based on the film’s content, then they are free to do so and should come out and say so. But this, “…too commercial, too provocative.” stuff is just CRAP.

  26. Stella's Boy says:

    You arguments have gotten more desperate and weaker as this discussion has progressed. I never said Kinsey was a swell guy, so you’re pulling that out of nowhere, a definite indication that you’re reaching. I also never said anything that would lead you to believe I don’t take pedophilia seriously. That is just asinine and untrue. Of course I take it seriously. It’s something that has nothing to do with a person’s political persuasion. But the fact remains, there is zero evidence to support the claim that he was a pedophile. Apparently you are blinded by your own conservative ideology, rendering you incapable of accepting the truth.

  27. CRDFilm says:

    Accusing Kinsey of being a pedophile based on “witness testamonials” does not necessarily make the accusations true. Has anyone here seen “Capturing the Friedmans”?? Many of the witnesses that came forth with “facts” of abuse seem to have more manufactured memories because the people questioning them would say things like “we know he touched you” instead of “tell us what happened” therefore leading the alleged victims to start telling the investigators exactly what they wanted to hear. A child’s testimony is not always reliable if that child has been lead to say and believe things by an investigator.
    It seems most of the protests against “Kinsey” deal with Kinsey’s research in general because these religious organizations and family values people want to blame the man and his research for unleashing everything from teen pregnancy to AIDS upon us. Better that we all remain in the dark about human behavior according to them. As with most protests, these people don’t seem to realize that the more noise they make about something, the more people will be curious to see it. These are the same people who protested the recent airing of “Saving Private Ryan,” so what they say holds little, if any, value. As adults, we should be able to make our own decisions and not have to deal with these narrowly focused groups telling the rest of us what is right and wrong. We are not mindless zombies! If you want to see the movie see it; if you don’t, don’t. It’s that simple. In this day and age, the PBS station probably is terrified to air anything with a hint of controversy because of the way things have gone since the Super Bowl. PBS relies on donations from corporate sponsors and viewers, and some government money. In the current climate of people flipping out over “Saving Private Ryan” (which has aired uncut twice already), and a comedy bit before Monday Night Football, PBS certainly has to err on the side of caution because they certainly don’t want funding to dry up because they aired something that some nut could deem “controversial.” I feel sorry for the people at PBS, and all of the broadcast networks, who now have to toil under such scrutiny that any little thing can result in swift retribution from the KGB. . .I mean FCC. So instead of vilifying the PBS station, take a moment to think about what they have to deal with.

  28. Mark says:

    Please don’t even call this wacko nutjob a right wing wacko. Gives us right wingers a terrible name. To not see the scientific research and the value to society in Kinseys work is going against society. And flat out harmful. To bash the movie without even seeing it? Even worse. What do you expect from a self loathing guy like Nicky?

  29. Nick says:

    Stella’s Boy: All I’m asking is that if you’re willing to consider going to a movie that paints Kinsey in a positive light, from someone who was a fan of his work, then that is the same thing as seeing, as you quote, an abortion movie by a pro-choice activist. You prefer to see the film, which admittedly touches upon his pedophilia acts, but paints those things as lightly as, “well, he wasn’t a perfect guy.” Look, there’s imperfect, and then there’s worse. This is worse.
    Kinsey devoted chapters to the sexual life of children. These were not done by interviews. The data was not pulled out of thin air. If real children were not abused, “in the name of SCIENCE”, then, tell me, how did this research take place? This is the one answer you keep evading.
    I find it odd that the testimonial video is being disregarded because of its source, as if the testimonies themselves aren’t valid in of themselves. Listen to the testimonies. Read the chapter in Kinsey’s book. Decide for yourself. Don’t ever disregard matters as grave as this.
    Mark: get a clue, you moron. What’s truly embarrassing about folks like you is that you consider the weight of the accusations vs the “importance of scientific research.” Since you agree with Kinsey’s findings, you let him off the hook, and wouldn’t dare consider the darker side of his findings. That you turn it as an ad hominum cheesy name-calling against me is so stupefying it’s beyond description.

  30. Stella's Boy says:

    I am not disregarding what you’re saying. Of course it’s serious. But read CRDFilm’s excellent post. I also just firmly believe that you are wrong. As has been said again and again, there is no evidence. That is a fact. No evidence. You just want it to be true, to throw some ammo at the “lefties” and liberals in Hollywood and elsewhere, point out how “anti-family” they are or whatever it is you believe so strongly. You have been deluded by what you wish was true. Sorry, but you have failed miserably to convince me. And if the best you can do to back up your claims is a documentary by the Family Research Council, well, then you’re hopeless. They have zero credibility on matters such as this.

  31. Nick says:

    Testimonials = no evidence?? That makes absolutely no sense. In other words, if a person had unspeakable horrors done to them, and then the perpetrator dies (of natural causes), then you’re not able to share what that person did? What more is there to say?
    You may not like a documentary by the Family Research Council–I’m not asking you to accept every single thing that they say in their documentary and materials. I’m not asking you to believe their propaganda. I’m asking you to take the TESTIMONIES at face value. Follow up the testimonials with research on your own. Email the poor victims. Then, draw your own conclusions about the “merit” of Kinsey’s research.
    Unfortunately, this is what I’m hearing from you: “Kinsey a child molestor? Well, child molestation is BAD. But Kinsey is _good_ (but not perfect). And the folks who are bringing this out to open are (gasp!) _conservatives_! Well, even tho child molestation is bad, if they allow themselves to be interviewed by conservatives (who are equally bad), then their testimony is probably not true.” Nope. A testimony is not true because it is proven so, not because of its political affiliation.
    And the kicker is, the movie touches upon this. And you still won’t acknowledge that.

  32. Stella's Boy says:

    But I do not believe that Kinsey was a child molestor. Understand? And have you even seen the movie? I don’t think that you have. The only time what you are talking about is addressed is when Kinsey talks to William Sadler’s character about his sexual history. That is it. No mention is ever made of Kinsey himself molesting children for his research. There is no evidence that it ever happened. And no I do not believe “testimonials” in a Family Research Council documentary. It is propaganda and a smear campaign, nothing more. Simple as that.

  33. Nick says:

    Why don’t you believe the testimonials of a documentary you haven’t seen? Because of your policial beliefs. That’s simply not good enough. You have to discredit the testimonials based on logic.
    You also have to explain how Kinsey and his apprentices did their research on the kids. There’s no way that such research could be done without overstepping boundaries on these kids. But you will evade this question too.
    Bye bye,

  34. Reece's Pieces says:

    I see only a couple of people actually tried to keep this thread on topic, but it’s been a struggle…
    I have yet to hear a valid argument why David and others are “stunned” to the point of wanting to protest at refusing this commercial. Has anyone SEEN it? I imagine it might seem odd if we were talking about HBO or NBC here, but how often do we see commercials on PBS, much less for commercial films?
    The question still stands, and I’ve yet to hear a valid answer: why must a PBS be obligated to show every bit of media it’s asked to show? Why must free speech negate the listener’s interest, especially when those in charge of a station’s success make such decisions all the time?
    Is it censorship because they canceled LAX? THEY’RE DENYING ME MY RIGHT TO WATCH HEATHER LOCKLEAR, DANG IT! Oh, that’s right, it’s okay because it’s an issue of money–but isn’t denying such a commercial on PBS an issue of money too, because public opinion means EVERYTHING to the life or death of a public television station?
    Let’s hear your opinions!

  35. Stella's Boy says:

    Sort of like you have been evading my questions? Have you even seen the movie? It sure doesn’t seem like it? You talk about certain things like they are in the movie, when in fact they are not. Do you believe everything you hear? Is everything in a documentary automatically true? Should I believe everything in Fahrenheit 9/11 because it’s a documentary and Michael Moore would never lie? And I am discrediting it on logic. Look who made it. Look at their agenda. It is pretty simple. One would think so anyway.
    As for PBS, of course they can do whatever they want. But I think it’s sad, the direction this country is going in and that they would remove a Kinsey ad out of fear. Very sad indeed.

  36. bicycle bob says:

    theres not one shred of evidence that kinsey was a child molestor. that was started by u people in order to disregard and defame his scientific research. why u so scared of it, nicky boy? u afraid ur a 6 on the kinsey scale?
    closet cases. all the same.

  37. chinq says:

    Reece’s Pieces,
    Trying to stay on topic…AGAIN.
    I worked at a studio that produced a “trailer cutdown” TV spot for PBS in the mid-1990s. Since then, I’ve seen numerious movie spots on PBS, many for mainstream studio projects.
    I am curious what in the particulat spot WNET found too commercial(listing of Academy Award nominees?, mention of director, writer?[usually guild requirements]). Perhaps the studio isn’t willing to tweek the spot, which they often will for specific network requests/restrictions.
    I do find it odd that a major market like NYC is having this problem, and not say, markets in which Sinclair Media owns 2 different network affiliates.

  38. Nick says:

    A link for Stella and Bi-Boob:
    Now, to keep it on track, I agree with Reece’s Pieces–it’s not censorship at all. As I wrote earlier, advertisements for this film are all over the place, and certainly NY-PBS has every right to pick and choose, for whatever reason they want. I think it’s ridiculous to call this censorship–and Kinsey’s getting free publicity for it.

  39. Stella's Boy says:

    That article is a joke. No more credible than anything produced by the Family Research Council. These people have an agenda. Do you understand that? They will do and say anything to push said agenda. The truth and facts are irrelevant if they do not serve their purpose. Sorry Nick.
    As for the free publicity, yes, I’m sure Fox Searchlight is very pleased with it.

  40. Nick says:

    But the movie itself has an agenda. Don’t you get that?

  41. Stella's Boy says:

    Yes, I do get that. I’m sure Condon has an agenda in telling this man’s story. But that doesn’t mean lies from groups like the Family Research Council should be taken seriously. The Catholic Church has enough problems of its own. I don’t think it should worry about trying to dig up dirt on Alfred Kinsey, especially when the dirt is not there.

  42. Mark says:

    What is his agenda? Telling a good story? About a scientist who had a profound effect on people in this country? For better or worse? Censorship is wrong on every count. Because he can make this movie gives jerks like you the freedom to say whatever you want. Respect peoples rights to see whatever they want to see. Where do you or PBS or some bullshit league come off saying what intelligent people can watch and pay to see?
    You’re not God and you don’t know what he wants.

  43. Stella's Boy says:

    You’re right Mark, but people like Nick think that they’re God. They claim to know the true definition of morality and then feel that they are in a position to preach that to everyone else. Only they know what’s right and wrong and only they can save you. I’m sure you are exactly right about Condon’s agenda. It’s amazing that so many decades later, narrow-minded people are still so afraid of Kinsey and what he did.

  44. Nick says:

    Need I remind you, I never once said don’t see the movie. Don’t presume to speak for me. Go ahead, see it. I say it again… see it. It needs all the money it can to break even.
    What I keep bringing this back to is… science. And you throw ad hominum arguments at me. And I bring this back to… history. And you judge me and show no tolerance for me. And I bring this back to… logic. And you throw logic out the window. And I bring this back to… the subject matter at hand. You cannot declare anything to be censored if people in this country can see this movie if they choose to. The only censoring being done is you guys censoring anything I bring to the table, because of its being from a conservative angle.
    I’m done arguing with you folks. Be rational or admit that you’re not.

  45. Stella's Boy says:

    Nick, it has nothing to do with you presenting conservative viewpoints. It has to do with the facts. And the fact is, the Family Research Council is running a shameful, baseless smear campaign. The fact is, there is zero evidence to support the claim that Kinsey was a pedophile. And Kinsey is doing just fine at the box office, just so you know.

  46. Reece's Pieces says:

    Thanks for trying! I guess I’ve never seen too many commercial film trailers on PBS myself, but I always like the so-called educational commercials associated with kid’s programs. Especially when you get places like Chuck E. Cheese’s trying to convince us that they strive for quality educational experiences for all children. :-)
    I just think it’s funny that because that PBS station chooses not to air a particular trailer, one no one on this board has even seen, people naturally assume it’s all about censorship and refusing people the right to access information. Maybe it doesn’t make business sense? Maybe it was inconsistent with the type of trailer that station ususally airs, regardless of the film?
    Would it have had the same reaction by David and others if the film was “Van Helsing”?

  47. PeppersDad says:

    Just curious, Nick – did you and your conservative buddies spend this much energy to debunk the flagrant, well-documented historical inaccuracies of “The Passion of the Christ”? Stop insulting us with your protests that you don’t have an agenda here or with your bald assertions that you support the public’s right to see this film. That kind of nakedly dishonest spin, which the “moral” far right has successfully exercised to trammel our democratic system, is far more insidious than any traditional notion of overt censorship. As my father, a genuine bounty of traditional wisdom, always says, “Don’t piss on my head, then tell me that it’s raining.”

  48. Mark says:

    Please stop calling Nicky a conservative. He’s not. He’s some kind of wacko though. I don’t even have a name for it. You give a bad name to conservatives like me when you lump freaks like him, who hate science, morality, free thought, free will, into a conservative grouping.
    Ripping the science of the study? The research is there. It is all in the books. Documented. Cited. Gone over a million times. What is your problem with it? Does it offend you that much?

  49. chinq says:

    Reece’s Pieces,
    I remember being bombarded by “Eternal Sunshine…” spots nightly after The News Hour on my local PBS station. And please, what about the “Bonsai” car commercial(I can’t even remember the car’s make & model), that ran for months.
    Again, it’s up to WNET to choose which “advertising” to run. I don’t understand why they just don’t turn the ad down because of the film’s content, and not this BS about the “spot’s” content.
    The issue of “self censorship” has to do with the current FCC crackdown. I self censor my language depending upon who I’m speaking to(my mom, a 10 year old, my sister), but that’s out of respect, not fear.
    If FOX is presenting WNET with an inappropriate spot, why not state that in the press release, stating that a spot currently running on, say ABC, would be acceptable. Again, these spots are MPAA approved. If you consciously watch TV for movie spots, you’ve probably seen the spot in question currently running on broadcast networks and other PBS stations(TV spots minus release dates).
    I did wonder if perhaps FOX set this up for the publicity, but why has only WNET taken the bait?

  50. bicycle bob says:

    they can choose who to let advertise or not but even making reference to this brings unwanted publicity on them. and honestly where does pbs get off not taking someones money????

  51. Mark says:

    I hope Nicky actually sees it before he butchers it some more.

The Hot Blog

leahnz on: BYOB - RIP The Goldfinch

leahnz on: BYOBlog

Stella's Boy on: BYOBlog

Stella's Boy on: BYOBlog

movieman on: BYOBlog

Hcat on: BYOB - RIP The Goldfinch

palmtree on: BYOBlog

Pete B. on: BYOB - RIP The Goldfinch

Dr Wally Rises on: BYOBlog

movieman on: BYOBlog

Quote Unquotesee all »

“Well, actually, of that whole group that I call the post-60s anti-authority auteurs, a lot of them came from television. Peckinpah’s the only one whose television work represents his feature work. I mean, like the only one. Mark Rydell can direct a really good episode of ‘Gunsmoke’ and Michael Ritchie can direct a really good episode of ‘The Big Valley,’ but they don’t necessarily look like The Candidate. But Peckinpah’s stuff, even the scripts he wrote that he didn’t even direct, have a Peckinpah feel – the way I think there’s a Corbucci West – suggest a Peckinpah West. That even in his random episodes that he wrote for ‘Gunsmoke’ – it’s right there.”
~ Quentin Tarantino

“The thought is interrupted by an odd interlude. We are speaking in the side room of Casita, a swish and fairly busy Italian bistro in Aoyama – a district of Tokyo usually so replete with celebrities that they spark minimal fuss. Kojima’s fame, however, exceeds normal limits and adoring staff have worked out who their guest is. He stops mid-sentence and points up towards the speakers, delighted. The soft jazz that had been playing discreetly across the restaurant’s dark, hardwood interior has suddenly been replaced with the theme music from some of Kojima’s hit games. Harry Gregson-Williams’ music is sublime in its context but ‘Metal Gear Solid 4: Guns of the Patriots’ is not, Kojima acknowledges, terribly restauranty. He pauses, adjusting a pair of large, blue-framed glasses of his own design, and returns to the way in which games have not only influenced films, but have also changed the way in which people watch them. “There are stories being told [in cinema] that my generation may find surprising but which the gamer generation doesn’t find weird at all,” he says.
~ Hideo Kojima