What's Wrong With this Ad? - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

maleficent · 11-17-2004, 08:03 PM

ABC apologizes for tease in Eagles locker room

By DAVID BARRON
Copyright 2004 Houston Chronicle
Desperate Housewives?

Try desperate programmers.

ABC apologized Tuesday for beginning this week's Monday Night Football telecast with a tease sequence in which Nicolette Sheridan, star of ABC's top-rated domestic drama, attempted to seduce Philadelphia Eagles receiver Terrell Owens into skipping the Eagles-Cowboys game.

The sequence, taped Friday by ABC at the Eagles locker room, ended with Sheridan, clad only in a towel, dropping the towel. Owens replied, "Aw, hell. The team's going to have to win this one without me" as Sheridan jumped into his arms.

In real life, Owens caught three touchdowns as the Eagles beat the Cowboys 49-21. On Tuesday, the NFL said the league and its fans were the real losers.

"ABC's opening was inappropriate and unsuitable for our Monday Night Football audience," the league said in a statement. "While ABC may have gained attention for one of its other shows, the NFL and its fans lost.

Today, the nation's chief media regulator expressed disappointment over the segment.

"I wonder if Walt Disney would be proud," said Michael Powell, chairman of the Federal Communications Commission. ABC is owned by The Walt Disney Co.

Powell questioned the judgment of those who decided to air the scene.

"It would seem to me that while we get a lot of broadcasting companies complaining about indecency enforcement, they seem to be continuing to be willing to keep the issue at the forefront, keep it hot and steamy in order to get financial gains and the free advertising it provides," Powell said during an interview on CNBC.

An FCC spokeswoman said the agency has received a number of complaints about the ABC broadcast, though she declined to say how many.

The complaints will be reviewed and the commission will decide whether or not to open an investigation that could result in a fine against the network. The maximum indecency fine is $32,500 per incident.

ABC, which along with corporate sibling ESPN is in the midst of contract negotiations to extend its billion-dollar agreement for Sunday night and Monday night NFL games, said in a statement: "We have heard from many of our viewers about last night's MNF opening segment and we agree that the placement was inappropriate. We apologize."

The Eagles added in a statement: "It is normal for teams to cooperate with ABC in the development of an opening for its broadcast. After seeing the final piece, we wish it hadn't aired."

If ABC was hoping that a dollop of sex would spice up its Nielsen ratings, it was disappointed. The 11.6 household rating and 19 share was down 7 percent from the Week 10 game in 2003. The season-long ratings for Monday Night Football are down 5 percent, although it still ranks eighth in the Nielsen Top 10 for the 2004-2005 TV season.

Desperate Housewives, meanwhile, is tied for second with a 13.4 Nielsen average to Monday Night Football's 11.0.

Reaction to the pre-game spoof was mixed in Dallas and Philadelphia. As of late Tuesday, more than 3,000 people had voted in an online poll at www.philly.com, the Web site of the Philadelphia Inquirer and Philadelphia Daily News, with 51 percent saying the scene was "entirely inappropriate." More than 500 readers posted comments at www.dallasnews.com, the Web site of the Dallas Morning News.

Several Dallas readers noted that a handful of ABC affiliates, including Dallas' WFAA-TV, refused to show the movie Saving Private Ryan on Veterans Day, citing concerns about graphic violence and language that could result in sanctions by the Federal Communications Commission.

The FCC fined CBS more than a half-million dollars because of Janet Jackson's "wardrobe malfunction" during the Super Bowl halftime show at Reliant Stadium.

The Associated Press contributed to this story.

<hr>

This story has been all over the news today, it was a stupid commercial but is it "racist", "sexist". and as awful as the press are saying?

djtestudo · 11-17-2004, 08:35 PM

Simply put...NO.

I think it's a great promo. Very amusing, especially the goofy grin Owens has when she drops her towel for him.

As Tony Realli said on Around the Horn this afternoon, people are crying about how this shouldn't be shown at that time, when by making the fuss it is being shown repeatedly everywhere at all hours.

And Colin Powell needs to take Mikey with him when he leaves.

guthmund · 11-17-2004, 08:36 PM

Nope.

From what I understand it was a stupid commercial, but hardly in the realm of "racist" and "sexist."

I think now with the election over the media needs something to cover and how better to appease our new "moral" overlords than by starting a witchhunt against an incredibly "unpopular" player.

MSD · 11-17-2004, 08:40 PM

Is this going to be like the fine Fox is getting based on 29 complaints, 27 of which were identical, unsigned form letters? I'm sure they're going to try to fine them for it.

OFKU0 · 11-17-2004, 08:45 PM

A few thoughts, first.

If she were wearing a crucifix or any other christian symbol in America at the time of taping , then that is her God given right by law to do as she did. Besides she didn't show a boob and she isn't black so she is in the clear.

She has in the past been afflicted with Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (CFS) so she can't be criticized for her effort to maximize t.v ratings. Maybe she can be the poster girl for CFS. She can't be a Tammy cuz that's used for Jerry Lewis' telethon but maybe we can call her Betty or something. That has a nice ring to it. " This years CFS Betty is CFS survivor, Nicolette Sheridan, put your hands together."

ABC NEWS and it's affiliates present news which contain death, murder, rape, war..etc everyday 'Live At Five,' have talk shows showing hoochie mamas and pimps, soap operas with bedroom scenes daily, etc,...etc,...etc,... yet a play on a player (pun intended) arouses the meaning of the devil in so many God fearing moral folks that a network that permeates worse on a daily basis, has to apologize. WOW.

Am I the only one thinking of James Brown singing "Living In America" right now?

spectre · 11-17-2004, 10:55 PM

This cracks me up. I didn't think it was that bad, but the funniest part of it is it is getting blasted by various news and sports shows. What's funny about it is that the shows, on during the daytime, has the hosts saying, "it's horrible that ABC would put this on during an hour when children could be watching, and in case you haven't seen it yet...[cues the tape]"

Paradise Lost · 11-17-2004, 11:24 PM

Man, I haven't seen it yet.

Anyway, it is totally ridiculous. The Eagles seemed fine with a naked woman standing in front of Terrell Owens, and him uttering that phrase, but right after it's played and everybody starts complaining, they said they wish they hadn't done it. And the news media is even worse for it. Something that was going to be shown on TV, most likely, only one time, is now being showed over and over again, and talked about many many times, complaining that it's horrible and they should all be shot for producing this piece of sludge, but it's really the news that makes it out to be something it's not.

guthmund · 11-18-2004, 12:04 AM

Fark happened to have a link to it. Thought I'd post it for those who hadn't seen it and would like to...

It's at IFlims, for those who dare.....muhhaaaaaaw (or something....shit)

ARTelevision · 11-18-2004, 12:06 AM

Yes, IMO, it's garbage and I'm fine with it being ruled out of line. Pumping content into people's homes under a public broadcasting system requires a license. That license can be revoked. I have no problem with enforcing a "G" rating on general mass-media broadcasting over the public airwaves if that is what it comes to.

macmanmike6100 · 11-18-2004, 12:13 AM

it was a fine commercial. i think that people have a more negative attitude to advertising because it's intent is somewhat "unethical" in that ads try to "make" you buy something that you might not otherwise want or need. there are plenty of shows that are far worse than the ads we disgrace, but we give them more leeway because it's entertainment, not "trickery"

hulk · 11-18-2004, 03:05 AM

I sure am glad I don't live there, that's all I can really say.

tecoyah · 11-18-2004, 03:13 AM

It was entertainment....WTF

I thought it was pretty funny, But, then again, I am not part of the Christian Majority...lol

Destrox · 11-18-2004, 04:37 AM

Once again a case where the foolish and idiotic American's who have nothing better to do then complain about such petty things as TV commercials win the upper hand due to coorporate fear of losing money.

ABC, and etc need to grow some balls and stand up against idiots who feel their morals stand higher then all. Then again that goes for many upon many things in our system.

Drider_it · 11-18-2004, 04:58 AM

people still watch abc and the like.. and football is still around? sorry never liked american football and i live in the usa.. somehow muscled up slabs of beef having to put on pads and helms for protection is just stupid to me. try real football, uk style now that is fun to watch.

alhtough the networks allow more and more each year i still find it hard to find quality "family" shows to watch with my kids. my tv is mostly used for dvd's and vhs movies more than the norm on local and stations watching.

you get to show the flesh and swear here and there.. next year pornos galore.. sorry i want my kids raised a little better than that and the ability to watch tv on the big 3 with out having to baby sit them all the time when they are infront of it.

you want splash and dash.. thats what cable is for or the local vid store. Fineing them wont do anything.

yeah you can see it as a "stupid comercial" but i just see it as another step downwards in the media's attempt at grasping at straws and testing the limits of what is right and wrong.

and yeah i do have the right to turn off my tv.. but i also expect to watch tv with out my finger on the off button all the time too

avhg1 · 11-18-2004, 05:12 AM

I think it's ridiculous! If you don't like what's on TV don't watch it. I think these people who are so intent on censoring media for everyone else, should spend a bit more time with their kids and less time in front of the idiot box and complaining about what is on. Perhaps if they are so worried about what is on TV, they should get rid of the TV completely and their kids could just read books.

Personally, I have no problem talking to my children about things that I don't think are appropriate for them to see and why I feel that way. If I don't think something is okay for them to watch, my kids don't watch it. I also will not fool myself into thinking that my kids are not going to be exposed to the reality of human sexuality in so many other places, that I would rather focus on them understanding about love and relationships than trying to force censorship on everyone.

braisler · 11-18-2004, 05:16 AM

How many people are really watching Monday Night Football with their kids? Is that what passes for "family" entertainment today?

The media and the so-called Christian moralists are running this nation into the ground. I don't have children of my own, but I agree with other posters on this thread that the nightly news showing beheadings and war scenes is likely more damaging than a "funny" commercial. I say "funny" because that would probably be what most children would see it as. They might not grasp the full intent of what was being said, but they hear their parents chuckle, so they think that it is supposed to be funny.

In any case, if you don't like the commercials get yourself a ReplayTV and set it to record your shows with commercial advance. Like magic all of those objectionable commercials will be gone!

memements · 11-18-2004, 08:35 AM

I would be interesting in seeing what effects they think that this may have on children.

They are so uptight about regulating nudity, yet have no problems with violence.

What exactly do they think will happen to kids if they see a pair of breasts? Will the kids short circuit and go on a killing spree when they're older? Nope. So why all the fuss to begin with?

THGL · 11-18-2004, 08:47 AM

I hope the producters of MNF poke fun at themselves next Monday. All the cheerleaders dressed in 1800's garb (long skirts down to their shoes, collared blouses buttoned all the way up, etc.).

StephenSa · 11-18-2004, 08:50 AM

I don't wastch football so I didn't see it in the context of the program but did view it on-line. It didn't seem particularly racey to me. I've seen racier ads for Viagra or STD drugs or even car ads. I think the complaints were multilplied because she was a Caucasion and he was African American. Possibly also because she appeared older and than the football guy. Wrong though it may be that still pushes a lot of buttons in America and I think that combined with the (oh horrors I can see her BACK!) towel drop set a lot of people off.

Cynthetiq · 11-18-2004, 08:51 AM

If this is to be fined then they should fine the Kim Catrall ad where she does the same thing but it was on Superbowl one year during the Sex in the City heyday....

I have not qualms about edgy ads, just have to be at appropriate times as governed by the current laws

Shirtninja · 11-18-2004, 09:00 AM

People need to get over their self and move on. Yes it was sexual to a degree, but so is half of whats on TV after 7pm these days. I wish public television had less sexual content like I remember from shows I watched as a kid, but times have changed. People need to deal with it, or find something else to do with their time.

the_marq · 11-18-2004, 09:06 AM

I wish I could remember where I saw this quote, but suffice to say it's not orginally by me:

"The purpose of a Television in your home is not to entertain (or inform you) but rather to sell you products."

Once you realize this it's a lot easier to unplug from your TV and ignore this sort of sensationalist pop culture flotsam.

Now I have finished my "Kill your TV" rant, do I think that this ad was wrong? I went and watched it on iFilm just see what all the hubub was about and no, I don't think it was appropirate for prime time broadcast TV.

Why? Because broadcasters are constantly testing and pushing the boundries that the various organizations place them under. It's in hopes that eventually they will convince the FCC (or whoever it is) that boobies are OK on 7-10pm TV. Once that happens the floodgates will be opened and from there on out it'll be "all boobies all the time." American media has a very difficult time with self-regulation, they are like kids in an candy store and with out regulation they'll be constantly trying to one-up each other: "Topless Survivor" "Who wants to Marry a Topless Millionaire?" "Topless Fear Factor."

I joke, but mark my words, once boobs are on broadcast TV you won't see anything else, and quite frankly there is precious little to watch as there is today. If I want to see boobies (and I often do) I can find them easy enough, let's try to keep one medium boobie free.

Janey · 11-18-2004, 09:20 AM

I thought it was funny. I liked it. I think that there are professional complainers out there. Too much time, too little to do.

punx1325 · 11-18-2004, 09:36 AM

There is nothing wrong with it, but there are some certain people (people with NO LIVES) that have nothing better to do but bitch until all media is free from any suggestive content. For christs sake, these people need to get a fucking job!

Redlemon · 11-18-2004, 10:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by THGL

I hope the producters of MNF poke fun at themselves next Monday. All the cheerleaders dressed in 1800's garb (long skirts down to their shoes, collared blouses buttoned all the way up, etc.).

Very nice. I don't think it'll happen, but that would be awesome.

maleficent · 11-18-2004, 10:37 AM

Cheerleaders bring up an interesting dilemma....
Why was the commercial deemed inappropriate by some, when you have the Dallas Cowboys Cheerleaders, not exactly dressing like nuns, and there's tons of boobie and butt cleavage there, why is that not inappropriate?

kutulu · 11-18-2004, 10:59 AM

It's all a big sham put on the public. ABC knew a few people would get their panties in a bunch over it. ABC knew that the sensationalist media would fawn over the story for hours and hours. ABC knew that while the media ran with the story they'd be playing the clip over and over again. Viewers and listeners would hear "desperate housewives" and "Monday Night Football" (both of which are on ABC) over and over again. The negative publicity (if you can call it that) generates so much interest in the show that a lot of people will watch it this sunday. They might even tune in to watch MNF as well to see if they do something again. They generated millions of dollars in free advertising and nothing they did violates FCC standards. The FCC cannot fine them for this because nudity was never shown. Foul language was never used. Now they can apologize and say "it won't happen again" while they attempt to hide the dollar signs in their eyes and think "they bought it"

The owner of the Dallas Mavericks runs a blog. He made some excellent commentary on it, calling it an "apologevent." It's kind of long but it is an insightful opinion by someone "in the loop."

Another thing. I was watching ESPN news last night and that story got looped quite often. They showed the whole clip each time. Guess who owns ESPN? That's right, ABC. I think it was a well thought scheme and I applaud them for making a mockery out of the FCC and all the pissed off puritans.

http://www.blogmaverick.com/entry/1234000897020769/

Quote:

Ok newspapers, radio stations and shows, cable networks, any and all entertainment related news shows, listen up. Im with the PR department of the broadcast network. We all know that the FCC is getting persnickety (bet you havent used that word in a sentence recently), about nudity and language. Let us first say, we cant thank them enough.

The environment is perfect for both of us. We want as much media coverage of our programming as we can possibly get. You need things to cover. So here is the deal. From our end, we are going to create “Apologevents”.

An Apologevent is where we plan an event that we know we will have to apologize for. The Apologevent will be designed to entice all the “Im shocked by anything” viewers to call their local stations, their newspapers and of course Inside Edition, The Insider, etc to remind them of how inappropriate the Apologevent was and how shocked they are.

In exchange for the story we ask that TV outlets stick to the follow guidelines and schedules .

First, you are going to tease the Apologevent in promotions for your show. Then you will report that you got calls and emails about the Apologevent. If you have extra time to kill, you will have a poll about the Apologevent on your website and you will report the results. Then you will show the Apologevent.

Then you will ask some people on camera what they thought of it. Then you will show the Apologevent again. Of course, we will gladly make the participants available to comment on the Apologevent. Then you will end the coverage of the Apologevent by saying that our network has officially apologized for the Apologevent. We dont know how it happened, but we are looking into it. Then you will add that we are working hard to insure it doesnt happen again.

Then you will be required to do a followup story the next day. The story behind the Apologevent. We will provide you with whatever video and access that you need.

Then 5 days later, or the following Monday, whichever comes first, you will do the aftermath story. This one is completely up to you. If we can help with any of our other celebrities to comment on how it turned out to be no big deal, we are glad to.

Of course , we promise not to do this too often. Even we at the network cant get away with this more than 1x a quarter.

My goodness. Can we (and you “we’s know exactly who we are) get any more hypocritical ?

We create media standards that probably 1 pct of the population can actually live up to. I dont know anyone who has melted or exploded from saying or hearing a curse word. In my group of friends I know fewer who have never cursed or honestly think they will never curse again. Heck, I mean hell, even curse words from when I was a kid arent curse words on TV anymore. You can say Hell all you want. When i was a kid, it was H-E-Double Hockey Sticks or out comes the soap. Damn was very, very naughty and disrespectful. Not any more.

Whats even crazier and more hypocritical is that we can use a derivative of any curse word and not have a problem at all. Frickin’... Go for it. F’in. No F’in way.. No problem. You are full of Shinola. Let er rip. FUBAR…Make em figure out what it means. My fave is MOFO…Acronyms are a blast !

Of course you can also say “He used the F word” or “The S word slipped in an interview”. Its kind of a protected and accepted abbreviation. No one has to explain what either means to anyone over 10. Its ok to conjure about 250 ways to make someone think exactly what we want them to think without saying what the FCC and other watchdogs say we arent allowed to say ! Which leads to the very deep question:

If someone makes you think a curse word in your mind without physically saying a curse word, did either one of you curse ?

How long will it take for a college to come up with a class about that.

You can also conjure up almost naked images. Show a woman from behind. Her head and a naked back only. Hair down to cover the suit tied behind her neck. Untie the back so it hangs down. Slide over to give us a glimpse of her from the side. You know what happens next ? We all will pretend that she is naked.

We know she isnt . Doesnt matter. If you show a woman who is pretend naked at the wrong time on tv, it creates a firestorm. The media goes nuts. Thanks once again to the FCC. Isnt the FCC wonderful ? Everyone reports that a network showed a woman pretend naked when we were expecting to see football. We have an Apologevent. Just what networks love to drive publicity. Its a dream come true.

But what about all the kids that saw the woman pretend naked ? Of course they had no idea that this was so big a deal until we told them. Which made them all go on the internet and download pictures of the pretend naked scene.

Not understanding what the big deal was, they realized they have to share all of this with their friends. Kids love to talk about meaningless things their parents make a big deal over.

The kids have a problem. Their friends will consider them lame if they send pretend naked video., so they find a real naked image and combine it with the fake naked and now they are cool.

Why do we let the FCC be so hypocritical. Is there some secret National Association of Broadcasters lobby asking them to do it because they know the fines they pay or might pay are miniscule relative to the value of advertising, marketing and promotion they get from an Apologevent ?

Or is it that we as a nation like to think we are more sophisticated than say the Canadians. In Canada real naked on TV is ok. In Canada curse words on TV arent so bad. In the US, fake naked is bad, fake cursewords are ok.

What makes this funny is that as a country we LOVE the bizarreness of it all. We listen to Howard Stern to see just how he is going to get around all the restrictions on potty, flatulence and sexual humor. We listen and watch conservative commentators to see just how indignant they are going to pretend to be about the fake naked and curse words. Whats more fun then to listen to Bill O Reilly or Rush Limbaugh to hear how many different ways they can restate the unforgiveable cursewords using fake cursewors. laughing at the fact they are making us think of the curseword in our head.

How excited in anticipation do we get wondering what Jay Leno, David Letterman, Jimmy Kimmel, Conan OBrien, Carson Daly , The Craig Kilborn Show, Dennis Miller and John McEnroe will do every night to make fun of the fake naked or cursewords.

We tune into all the Tabloid shows like Inside Edition to crack up over how many times they show the fake naked and replay the cursewords, with beeps on the audio. We all know that beeped audio is ok because we can lipread the real curseword easily since we have heard the fake curseword version so many times in other reports. These shows are the best because they ask celebrities what they think about fake naked and cursewords, and we get to hear big time celebs use fake cursewords to replace the real cursewords.

Then we buy Star, People and US Magazines because we know one of them will have uncovered pictures of the fake naked that proves it was fake, or a picture of them uttering the cursewords, hopefully with a hand gesture to go with it. If we are really lucky, one of them has found a picture , unearthed by a close friend, of the first time the person used the curseword and the friend talking about how they were young , stupid and drunk at the time. If the magazine really hits the big time and happens to uncover a picture of when they were first fake naked, or heaven forbid real naked (but with the real parts blurred to make it fake naked) and not yet a celebrity, then the friend who unearthed the picture will comment about how they were young, stupid, drunk and also poor at the time.

Isnt this all fun !

Some celebs are really smart. They make themselves available for commentary about the fake naked or cursewords and then put out hints that they too might someday do fake naked or real cursewords. This alerts the media to follow them all the time , just in case they do fake naked or utter real cursewords at a time they can catch them on video.

This would mean the celeb has created an Apologevent and the whole cycle starts again to play out unless a bigger celebrity creates an Apologevent and bumps the lesser celeb from the airwaves

How much is an Apologevent of fake naked or cursewords worth ? A whole lot of marketing worth a whole lot of money

Thanks FCC. You are a wonderful marketing partner

If you made it this far you should check out some other entrys on his blog. He has some great opinions on file sharing and attacks the RIAA.

archer2371 · 11-18-2004, 11:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maleficent

Cheerleaders bring up an interesting dilemma....
Why was the commercial deemed inappropriate by some, when you have the Dallas Cowboys Cheerleaders, not exactly dressing like nuns, and there's tons of boobie and butt cleavage there, why is that not inappropriate?

Yeah, which is why I'm pissed off at the NFL for taking the "high road" on this, when they show numerous shots of all the cheerleaders AND they have Cialis, Viagra, Enzyte, etc. etc. streaming in all the damn time! As if those aren't at all suggestive

Did I like the commercial, no, I thought it was cheesy, but no more suggestive than what I have talked about above. Besides, people know what the show "Desperate Housewives" is about, it's Sex in the City transferred to the suburbs, if kids were sitting there, why not just change the channel, grumble grumble.....

kutulu · 11-18-2004, 11:14 AM

The funniest thing is that media and advertisers are only responding to the voices of the majority here. I think it's safe to say that the majority don't have a problem with what is on tv. I thought people like to live by "majority rules" If people didn't want to see sex, violence, and swearing then uncensored shows on HBO wouldn't be kicking network tv' asses on a regular basis. Network tv is trying to compete because the majority of the viewers want blood, boobies, and gratuitus use of 'fuck'.

Redlemon · 11-18-2004, 11:26 AM

kutulu, thanks for quoting that long blog post. I found it fascinating, and I expect entirely accurate as to what actually happened.

ARTelevision · 11-18-2004, 11:27 AM

Always fascinating to read the emotional reactions to things like this and how upset some people can be with the notion that not every single channel of communication needs to carry every type of content. In any event, I know what trash is. And I know that broadcasters are required to operate responsibly. I'm in favor of much more socially and culturally responsible broadcasting than we experience today.

kutulu · 11-18-2004, 11:58 AM

redlemon:
I'm glad you enjoyed it. The opinions on that blog show that his team (The Mavericks) is aptly named. There is even an entry (10/31, I think) that the NBA fined him for and a great response from him about it. If I was a basketball fan I'd totally switch allegiances to the Mavs.

Art:
I'm glad you know what trash is when you see it. However, can you tell me what I think is trash? Can we also trust you to make that decision for your neighbor?

The reality is that TV reflects what the audience wants to see. There are ratings systems in place and technology available to block programming by ratings. If people don't like it nobody is forcing them to watch it.

Do we want the standards to be set by a group of people that are out of touch with the majority or one that reflects the views of the majority? I'll take the latter. If people wanted broadcasting based on puritan decency standards that would be all the networks would show.

How about this for a different way to enforce decency:

Instead of designating time slots that are ok for this but not (based on vague standards) that we devise a strong rating system that is clear and definite. Production studios and parents know exactly what is acceptable and what is not. Every show rates themselves and may change the rating based on the content of that particular show (this way the govt doesn't need to step in). When a particular show recieves a complaint, the FCC reviews the show (not the complaint) and decides if that show was playing material appropriate for that specific rating. If the content is inappropriate, then HUGE fines are levied. The fines have to be large enough so that the show cannot use the media as a method of free advertising and they also have to cover the expenses incurred by the FCC during the investigation (billed at an hourly rate for all employees involved in the investigation). All people need to do is buy the technology needed to control the accesibility of programming, it would not be mandated for everyone to buy as people who don't care shouldn't have to buy it.

This way, everyone wins. Parents will know exactly what is to be expected on the show and people who want racier programming can get it without destroying our moral fiber. As a bonus, it would not be profitable for studios to use the FCC as a marketting tool.

ARTelevision · 11-18-2004, 12:11 PM

kutulu, I don't make public policy. I am interested in public policy being made and enforced by the individuals - both elected and hired, processes, offices, and agencies that already exist. I'm satisfied with the existing structure and interested in continuing and increasing enforcement.

kutulu · 11-18-2004, 12:18 PM

I'm fine with whatever the policy is as long as it reflects the majority opinion. I dont' think that is the case right now.

Blackthorn · 11-18-2004, 12:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maleficent

Cheerleaders bring up an interesting dilemma....
Why was the commercial deemed inappropriate by some, when you have the Dallas Cowboys Cheerleaders, not exactly dressing like nuns, and there's tons of boobie and butt cleavage there, why is that not inappropriate?

Interesting tie in...the Cheeleaders are definitely eye candy and there simply for titilation.

I heard one account made by a radio broadcaster who made a good point. She claimed that at her house the start of the Monday Night football game was something that they as a family tradition had made a habit of watching together. Together means herself, husband and two young children. The six year old girls apparently said "MOM! WHY DID SHE TAKE HER CLOTHES OFF IN FRONT OF THAT MAN?" **shrug**

I saw the ad after the fact and didn't think much of it. It was cute and a little dumb just like the show they were advertising. Having it on for kids who watch MNF was really not a good call for ABC to make. In my opinion I think they got what they were looking for. We are all talking about it.

Hey ABC -- can I make a suggestion for next week!?? Please use HER --->

pan6467 · 11-18-2004, 12:29 PM

Personally, having not seen the ad but hearing people's reactions at school, the radio and other areas.... I think the "it's totally tasteless" and morality complaints are more based on the racial aspect than anything.

Which is sad.

Bill O'Rights · 11-18-2004, 12:30 PM

animosity · 11-18-2004, 12:46 PM

I dont see a problem with it, and the eagles saying, "It is normal for teams to cooperate with ABC in the development of an opening for its broadcast. After seeing the final piece, we wish it hadn't aired." is complete bullshit. They knew exactly what they were filming and what it was for. The Eagles, like everone else in life are just trying to cover their asses.

Never take credit.
Blame everyone else.....

Averett · 11-18-2004, 12:49 PM

I don't get how it was so horrible. Or how it was racist. I've seen more skin on All My Children, which airs at 1PM. And since when is Monday Night Football a "family" show? Please. I don't know any family that gathers around their TV to watch it.

The racist thing I don't get. Simply because it was a white woman and black man?

This country is stuck in 1950.

Averett · 11-18-2004, 12:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kjroh

I heard one account made by a radio broadcaster who made a good point. She claimed that at her house the start of the Monday Night football game was something that they as a family tradition had made a habit of watching together. Together means herself, husband and two young children. The six year old girls apparently said "MOM! WHY DID SHE TAKE HER CLOTHES OFF IN FRONT OF THAT MAN?" **shrug**

I saw the ad after the fact and didn't think much of it. It was cute and a little dumb just like the show they were advertising. Having it on for kids who watch MNF was really not a good call for ABC to make. In my opinion I think they got what they were looking for. We are all talking about it.

So, why couldn't the mother and father in this story sit their children down adn EXPLAIN it to them? God forbid parents should have to actually communicate with their children and discuss potentially difficult things.

"Well Sally, it's an advertisement. ABC is trying to get people to watch the TV show Desperate Housewives. They used one of the actresses to come onto the player in the locker room. ABC figures by doing this they can reach people who wouldn't normally watch that TV show. And why did she take her clothes off? She most likely didn't, really. TV and movies typically do things like this, but the actors and actresses are very rarely naked. Besides, there is nothing at all wrong with the naked body. Now, lets discuss this later, football is on. And you know what that means. Half naked cheerleaders flaunting their breasts and butts. And bone crushing on the field hits"

11-17-2004, 08:03 PM	#1 (permalink)
maleficent Junkie Moderator Emeritus Location: Chicago	What's Wrong With this Ad? ABC apologizes for tease in Eagles locker room By DAVID BARRON Copyright 2004 Houston Chronicle Desperate Housewives? Try desperate programmers. ABC apologized Tuesday for beginning this week's Monday Night Football telecast with a tease sequence in which Nicolette Sheridan, star of ABC's top-rated domestic drama, attempted to seduce Philadelphia Eagles receiver Terrell Owens into skipping the Eagles-Cowboys game. The sequence, taped Friday by ABC at the Eagles locker room, ended with Sheridan, clad only in a towel, dropping the towel. Owens replied, "Aw, hell. The team's going to have to win this one without me" as Sheridan jumped into his arms. In real life, Owens caught three touchdowns as the Eagles beat the Cowboys 49-21. On Tuesday, the NFL said the league and its fans were the real losers. "ABC's opening was inappropriate and unsuitable for our Monday Night Football audience," the league said in a statement. "While ABC may have gained attention for one of its other shows, the NFL and its fans lost. Today, the nation's chief media regulator expressed disappointment over the segment. "I wonder if Walt Disney would be proud," said Michael Powell, chairman of the Federal Communications Commission. ABC is owned by The Walt Disney Co. Powell questioned the judgment of those who decided to air the scene. "It would seem to me that while we get a lot of broadcasting companies complaining about indecency enforcement, they seem to be continuing to be willing to keep the issue at the forefront, keep it hot and steamy in order to get financial gains and the free advertising it provides," Powell said during an interview on CNBC. An FCC spokeswoman said the agency has received a number of complaints about the ABC broadcast, though she declined to say how many. The complaints will be reviewed and the commission will decide whether or not to open an investigation that could result in a fine against the network. The maximum indecency fine is $32,500 per incident. ABC, which along with corporate sibling ESPN is in the midst of contract negotiations to extend its billion-dollar agreement for Sunday night and Monday night NFL games, said in a statement: "We have heard from many of our viewers about last night's MNF opening segment and we agree that the placement was inappropriate. We apologize." The Eagles added in a statement: "It is normal for teams to cooperate with ABC in the development of an opening for its broadcast. After seeing the final piece, we wish it hadn't aired." If ABC was hoping that a dollop of sex would spice up its Nielsen ratings, it was disappointed. The 11.6 household rating and 19 share was down 7 percent from the Week 10 game in 2003. The season-long ratings for Monday Night Football are down 5 percent, although it still ranks eighth in the Nielsen Top 10 for the 2004-2005 TV season. Desperate Housewives, meanwhile, is tied for second with a 13.4 Nielsen average to Monday Night Football's 11.0. Reaction to the pre-game spoof was mixed in Dallas and Philadelphia. As of late Tuesday, more than 3,000 people had voted in an online poll at www.philly.com, the Web site of the Philadelphia Inquirer and Philadelphia Daily News, with 51 percent saying the scene was "entirely inappropriate." More than 500 readers posted comments at www.dallasnews.com, the Web site of the Dallas Morning News. Several Dallas readers noted that a handful of ABC affiliates, including Dallas' WFAA-TV, refused to show the movie Saving Private Ryan on Veterans Day, citing concerns about graphic violence and language that could result in sanctions by the Federal Communications Commission. The FCC fined CBS more than a half-million dollars because of Janet Jackson's "wardrobe malfunction" during the Super Bowl halftime show at Reliant Stadium. The Associated Press contributed to this story. <hr> This story has been all over the news today, it was a stupid commercial but is it "racist", "sexist". and as awful as the press are saying? __________________ Free your heart from hatred. Free your mind from worries. Live simply. Give more. Expect less.

11-17-2004, 08:35 PM	#2 (permalink)
djtestudo Baltimoron Location: Beeeeeautiful Bel Air, MD	Simply put...NO. I think it's a great promo. Very amusing, especially the goofy grin Owens has when she drops her towel for him. As Tony Realli said on Around the Horn this afternoon, people are crying about how this shouldn't be shown at that time, when by making the fuss it is being shown repeatedly everywhere at all hours. And Colin Powell needs to take Mikey with him when he leaves. __________________ "Final thought: I just rented Michael Moore's Bowling for Columbine. Frankly, it was the worst sports movie I've ever seen." --Peter Schmuck, The (Baltimore) Sun

11-17-2004, 08:36 PM	#3 (permalink)
guthmund big damn hero	Nope. From what I understand it was a stupid commercial, but hardly in the realm of "racist" and "sexist." I think now with the election over the media needs something to cover and how better to appease our new "moral" overlords than by starting a witchhunt against an incredibly "unpopular" player. __________________ No signature. None. Seriously.

11-17-2004, 08:45 PM	#5 (permalink)
OFKU0 Junk	A few thoughts, first. If she were wearing a crucifix or any other christian symbol in America at the time of taping , then that is her God given right by law to do as she did. Besides she didn't show a boob and she isn't black so she is in the clear. She has in the past been afflicted with Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (CFS) so she can't be criticized for her effort to maximize t.v ratings. Maybe she can be the poster girl for CFS. She can't be a Tammy cuz that's used for Jerry Lewis' telethon but maybe we can call her Betty or something. That has a nice ring to it. " This years CFS Betty is CFS survivor, Nicolette Sheridan, put your hands together." ABC NEWS and it's affiliates present news which contain death, murder, rape, war..etc everyday 'Live At Five,' have talk shows showing hoochie mamas and pimps, soap operas with bedroom scenes daily, etc,...etc,...etc,... yet a play on a player (pun intended) arouses the meaning of the devil in so many God fearing moral folks that a network that permeates worse on a daily basis, has to apologize. WOW. Am I the only one thinking of James Brown singing "Living In America" right now? __________________ " In Canada, you can tell the most blatant lie in a calm voice, and people will believe you over someone who's a little passionate about the truth." David Warren, Western Standard.

11-17-2004, 10:55 PM	#6 (permalink)
spectre Junkie	This cracks me up. I didn't think it was that bad, but the funniest part of it is it is getting blasted by various news and sports shows. What's funny about it is that the shows, on during the daytime, has the hosts saying, "it's horrible that ABC would put this on during an hour when children could be watching, and in case you haven't seen it yet...[cues the tape]" __________________ "Fuck these chains No goddamn slave I will be different" ~ Machine Head

11-17-2004, 08:40 PM	#4 (permalink)
MSD The sky calls to us ... Super Moderator Location: CT	Is this going to be like the fine Fox is getting based on 29 complaints, 27 of which were identical, unsigned form letters? I'm sure they're going to try to fine them for it.

11-17-2004, 11:24 PM	#7 (permalink)
Paradise Lost "Afternoon everybody." "NORM!" Location: Poland, Ohio // Clarion University of PA.	Man, I haven't seen it yet. Anyway, it is totally ridiculous. The Eagles seemed fine with a naked woman standing in front of Terrell Owens, and him uttering that phrase, but right after it's played and everybody starts complaining, they said they wish they hadn't done it. And the news media is even worse for it. Something that was going to be shown on TV, most likely, only one time, is now being showed over and over again, and talked about many many times, complaining that it's horrible and they should all be shot for producing this piece of sludge, but it's really the news that makes it out to be something it's not. __________________ "Marino could do it."

11-18-2004, 12:04 AM	#8 (permalink)
guthmund big damn hero	Fark happened to have a link to it. Thought I'd post it for those who hadn't seen it and would like to... It's at IFlims, for those who dare.....muhhaaaaaaw (or something....shit) __________________ No signature. None. Seriously.

11-18-2004, 12:06 AM	#9 (permalink)
ARTelevision I change Location: USA	Yes, IMO, it's garbage and I'm fine with it being ruled out of line. Pumping content into people's homes under a public broadcasting system requires a license. That license can be revoked. I have no problem with enforcing a "G" rating on general mass-media broadcasting over the public airwaves if that is what it comes to. __________________ create evolution

11-18-2004, 12:13 AM	#10 (permalink)
macmanmike6100 High Honorary Junkie Location: Tri-state.	it was a fine commercial. i think that people have a more negative attitude to advertising because it's intent is somewhat "unethical" in that ads try to "make" you buy something that you might not otherwise want or need. there are plenty of shows that are far worse than the ads we disgrace, but we give them more leeway because it's entertainment, not "trickery"

11-18-2004, 03:05 AM	#11 (permalink)
hulk C'mon, just blow it. Location: Perth, Australia	I sure am glad I don't live there, that's all I can really say. __________________ "'There's a tendency among the press to attribute the creation of a game to a single person,' says Warren Spector, creator of Thief and Deus Ex." -- From an IGN game review.

11-18-2004, 03:13 AM	#12 (permalink)
tecoyah Illusionary	It was entertainment....WTF I thought it was pretty funny, But, then again, I am not part of the Christian Majority...lol __________________ Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

11-18-2004, 04:37 AM	#13 (permalink)
Destrox Metal and Rock 4 Life Location: Phoenix	Once again a case where the foolish and idiotic American's who have nothing better to do then complain about such petty things as TV commercials win the upper hand due to coorporate fear of losing money. ABC, and etc need to grow some balls and stand up against idiots who feel their morals stand higher then all. Then again that goes for many upon many things in our system. __________________ You bore me.... next.

11-18-2004, 04:58 AM	#14 (permalink)
Drider_it Junkie Location: Louisiana	people still watch abc and the like.. and football is still around? sorry never liked american football and i live in the usa.. somehow muscled up slabs of beef having to put on pads and helms for protection is just stupid to me. try real football, uk style now that is fun to watch. alhtough the networks allow more and more each year i still find it hard to find quality "family" shows to watch with my kids. my tv is mostly used for dvd's and vhs movies more than the norm on local and stations watching. you get to show the flesh and swear here and there.. next year pornos galore.. sorry i want my kids raised a little better than that and the ability to watch tv on the big 3 with out having to baby sit them all the time when they are infront of it. you want splash and dash.. thats what cable is for or the local vid store. Fineing them wont do anything. yeah you can see it as a "stupid comercial" but i just see it as another step downwards in the media's attempt at grasping at straws and testing the limits of what is right and wrong. and yeah i do have the right to turn off my tv.. but i also expect to watch tv with out my finger on the off button all the time too __________________ It means only one thing, and everything: Cut. Once committed to fight, Cut. Everything else is secondary. Cut. That is your duty, your purpose, your hunger. There is no rule more important, no commitment that overrides that one. Cut. The lines are a portrayal of the dance. Cut from the void, not from bewilderment. Cut the enemy as quickly and directly as possible. Cut with certainty. Cut decisively, resoultely. Cut into his strength. Flow through the gaps in his guard. Cut him. Cut him down utterly. Don't allow him a breath. Crush him. Cut him without mercy to the depth of his spirit. It is the balance to life: death. It is the dance with death. It is the law a war wizard lives by, or he dies.

11-18-2004, 05:12 AM	#15 (permalink)
avhg1 Insane Location: MD	I think it's ridiculous! If you don't like what's on TV don't watch it. I think these people who are so intent on censoring media for everyone else, should spend a bit more time with their kids and less time in front of the idiot box and complaining about what is on. Perhaps if they are so worried about what is on TV, they should get rid of the TV completely and their kids could just read books. Personally, I have no problem talking to my children about things that I don't think are appropriate for them to see and why I feel that way. If I don't think something is okay for them to watch, my kids don't watch it. I also will not fool myself into thinking that my kids are not going to be exposed to the reality of human sexuality in so many other places, that I would rather focus on them understanding about love and relationships than trying to force censorship on everyone. __________________ I shake the devil's hand daily... I'd do it hourly, but my hand gets tired.

11-18-2004, 05:16 AM	#16 (permalink)
braisler Addict Location: Midway, KY	How many people are really watching Monday Night Football with their kids? Is that what passes for "family" entertainment today? The media and the so-called Christian moralists are running this nation into the ground. I don't have children of my own, but I agree with other posters on this thread that the nightly news showing beheadings and war scenes is likely more damaging than a "funny" commercial. I say "funny" because that would probably be what most children would see it as. They might not grasp the full intent of what was being said, but they hear their parents chuckle, so they think that it is supposed to be funny. In any case, if you don't like the commercials get yourself a ReplayTV and set it to record your shows with commercial advance. Like magic all of those objectionable commercials will be gone! __________________ --- You do not really understand something unless you can explain it to your grandmother. - Albert Einstein ---

11-18-2004, 08:35 AM	#17 (permalink)
memements Upright	I would be interesting in seeing what effects they think that this may have on children. They are so uptight about regulating nudity, yet have no problems with violence. What exactly do they think will happen to kids if they see a pair of breasts? Will the kids short circuit and go on a killing spree when they're older? Nope. So why all the fuss to begin with?

11-18-2004, 08:47 AM	#18 (permalink)
THGL Psycho Location: Louisville, KY	I hope the producters of MNF poke fun at themselves next Monday. All the cheerleaders dressed in 1800's garb (long skirts down to their shoes, collared blouses buttoned all the way up, etc.).

11-18-2004, 08:50 AM	#19 (permalink)
StephenSa Psycho Location: Dallas, Texas	I don't wastch football so I didn't see it in the context of the program but did view it on-line. It didn't seem particularly racey to me. I've seen racier ads for Viagra or STD drugs or even car ads. I think the complaints were multilplied because she was a Caucasion and he was African American. Possibly also because she appeared older and than the football guy. Wrong though it may be that still pushes a lot of buttons in America and I think that combined with the (oh horrors I can see her BACK!) towel drop set a lot of people off.

11-18-2004, 08:51 AM	#20 (permalink)
Cynthetiq Tilted Cat Head Administrator Location: Manhattan, NY	If this is to be fined then they should fine the Kim Catrall ad where she does the same thing but it was on Superbowl one year during the Sex in the City heyday.... I have not qualms about edgy ads, just have to be at appropriate times as governed by the current laws __________________ I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not. What's the best nation in the world? DO-NATION!

11-18-2004, 09:00 AM	#21 (permalink)
Shirtninja Tilted Location: Texas	People need to get over their self and move on. Yes it was sexual to a degree, but so is half of whats on TV after 7pm these days. I wish public television had less sexual content like I remember from shows I watched as a kid, but times have changed. People need to deal with it, or find something else to do with their time.

11-18-2004, 09:06 AM	#22 (permalink)
the_marq All hail the Mountain King Location: Black Mesa	I wish I could remember where I saw this quote, but suffice to say it's not orginally by me: "The purpose of a Television in your home is not to entertain (or inform you) but rather to sell you products." Once you realize this it's a lot easier to unplug from your TV and ignore this sort of sensationalist pop culture flotsam. Now I have finished my "Kill your TV" rant, do I think that this ad was wrong? I went and watched it on iFilm just see what all the hubub was about and no, I don't think it was appropirate for prime time broadcast TV. Why? Because broadcasters are constantly testing and pushing the boundries that the various organizations place them under. It's in hopes that eventually they will convince the FCC (or whoever it is) that boobies are OK on 7-10pm TV. Once that happens the floodgates will be opened and from there on out it'll be "all boobies all the time." American media has a very difficult time with self-regulation, they are like kids in an candy store and with out regulation they'll be constantly trying to one-up each other: "Topless Survivor" "Who wants to Marry a Topless Millionaire?" "Topless Fear Factor." I joke, but mark my words, once boobs are on broadcast TV you won't see anything else, and quite frankly there is precious little to watch as there is today. If I want to see boobies (and I often do) I can find them easy enough, let's try to keep one medium boobie free. __________________ The Truth: Johnny Cash could have kicked Bruce Lee's ass if he wanted to. #3 in a series

11-18-2004, 09:20 AM	#23 (permalink)
Janey Junkie Location: Toronto	I thought it was funny. I liked it. I think that there are professional complainers out there. Too much time, too little to do.

11-18-2004, 09:36 AM	#24 (permalink)
punx1325 Junkie Location: San Diego	There is nothing wrong with it, but there are some certain people (people with NO LIVES) that have nothing better to do but bitch until all media is free from any suggestive content. For christs sake, these people need to get a fucking job! __________________ If something seems too good to be true, then it probably is....

11-18-2004, 10:37 AM	#26 (permalink)
maleficent Junkie Moderator Emeritus Location: Chicago	Cheerleaders bring up an interesting dilemma.... Why was the commercial deemed inappropriate by some, when you have the Dallas Cowboys Cheerleaders, not exactly dressing like nuns, and there's tons of boobie and butt cleavage there, why is that not inappropriate? __________________ Free your heart from hatred. Free your mind from worries. Live simply. Give more. Expect less.

11-18-2004, 11:14 AM	#29 (permalink)
kutulu Junkie	The funniest thing is that media and advertisers are only responding to the voices of the majority here. I think it's safe to say that the majority don't have a problem with what is on tv. I thought people like to live by "majority rules" If people didn't want to see sex, violence, and swearing then uncensored shows on HBO wouldn't be kicking network tv' asses on a regular basis. Network tv is trying to compete because the majority of the viewers want blood, boobies, and gratuitus use of 'fuck'.

11-18-2004, 11:26 AM	#30 (permalink)
Redlemon Devoted Donor Location: New England	kutulu, thanks for quoting that long blog post. I found it fascinating, and I expect entirely accurate as to what actually happened.

11-18-2004, 11:27 AM	#31 (permalink)
ARTelevision I change Location: USA	Always fascinating to read the emotional reactions to things like this and how upset some people can be with the notion that not every single channel of communication needs to carry every type of content. In any event, I know what trash is. And I know that broadcasters are required to operate responsibly. I'm in favor of much more socially and culturally responsible broadcasting than we experience today. __________________ create evolution

11-18-2004, 11:58 AM	#32 (permalink)
kutulu Junkie	redlemon: I'm glad you enjoyed it. The opinions on that blog show that his team (The Mavericks) is aptly named. There is even an entry (10/31, I think) that the NBA fined him for and a great response from him about it. If I was a basketball fan I'd totally switch allegiances to the Mavs. Art: I'm glad you know what trash is when you see it. However, can you tell me what I think is trash? Can we also trust you to make that decision for your neighbor? The reality is that TV reflects what the audience wants to see. There are ratings systems in place and technology available to block programming by ratings. If people don't like it nobody is forcing them to watch it. Do we want the standards to be set by a group of people that are out of touch with the majority or one that reflects the views of the majority? I'll take the latter. If people wanted broadcasting based on puritan decency standards that would be all the networks would show. How about this for a different way to enforce decency: Instead of designating time slots that are ok for this but not (based on vague standards) that we devise a strong rating system that is clear and definite. Production studios and parents know exactly what is acceptable and what is not. Every show rates themselves and may change the rating based on the content of that particular show (this way the govt doesn't need to step in). When a particular show recieves a complaint, the FCC reviews the show (not the complaint) and decides if that show was playing material appropriate for that specific rating. If the content is inappropriate, then HUGE fines are levied. The fines have to be large enough so that the show cannot use the media as a method of free advertising and they also have to cover the expenses incurred by the FCC during the investigation (billed at an hourly rate for all employees involved in the investigation). All people need to do is buy the technology needed to control the accesibility of programming, it would not be mandated for everyone to buy as people who don't care shouldn't have to buy it. This way, everyone wins. Parents will know exactly what is to be expected on the show and people who want racier programming can get it without destroying our moral fiber. As a bonus, it would not be profitable for studios to use the FCC as a marketting tool.

11-18-2004, 12:11 PM	#33 (permalink)
ARTelevision I change Location: USA	kutulu, I don't make public policy. I am interested in public policy being made and enforced by the individuals - both elected and hired, processes, offices, and agencies that already exist. I'm satisfied with the existing structure and interested in continuing and increasing enforcement. __________________ create evolution

11-18-2004, 12:18 PM	#34 (permalink)
kutulu Junkie	I'm fine with whatever the policy is as long as it reflects the majority opinion. I dont' think that is the case right now.

11-18-2004, 12:29 PM	#36 (permalink)
pan6467 Lennonite Priest Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA	Personally, having not seen the ad but hearing people's reactions at school, the radio and other areas.... I think the "it's totally tasteless" and morality complaints are more based on the racial aspect than anything. Which is sad. __________________ I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

11-18-2004, 12:30 PM	#37 (permalink)
Bill O'Rights will always be an Alyson Hanniganite Location: In the dust of the archives	__________________ "I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires." - Susan B. Anthony "Hedonism with rules isn't hedonism at all, it's the Republican party." - JumpinJesus It is indisputable that true beauty lies within...but a nice rack sure doesn't hurt.

11-18-2004, 12:46 PM	#38 (permalink)
animosity on fire Location: Atlanta, GA	I dont see a problem with it, and the eagles saying, "It is normal for teams to cooperate with ABC in the development of an opening for its broadcast. After seeing the final piece, we wish it hadn't aired." is complete bullshit. They knew exactly what they were filming and what it was for. The Eagles, like everone else in life are just trying to cover their asses. Never take credit. Blame everyone else.....

11-18-2004, 12:49 PM	#39 (permalink)
Averett Is In Love Location: I'm workin' on it	I don't get how it was so horrible. Or how it was racist. I've seen more skin on All My Children, which airs at 1PM. And since when is Monday Night Football a "family" show? Please. I don't know any family that gathers around their TV to watch it. The racist thing I don't get. Simply because it was a white woman and black man? This country is stuck in 1950. __________________ Absence is to love what wind is to fire. It extinguishes the small, it enkindles the great.