What Parents Should Know About Movie Ratings
PG Movies (including those marketed to children) have included the Following Content:

A man stares at a woman's breasts and grabs them.
A woman jokes that a certain drink "will make your testicles fall off."
A woman is shown bathing in a river wearing a white tank top and panties.
The movies "bad guys" talk about "cutting people up" into chunks, getting "whacked," and "carving you up piece by piece."
One character says, "You pansy a-- retards are dead. I’m going to slaughter you like veal."
Profanities such as "d--n", "h-ll", and "piss off."
A man in a bar does shots and patrons place bets on how many he can do.
A teenager uses X-ray sunglasses to look at women's underwear.
A man fondles plastic breasts that he pulled off an anatomy model.
To help a teenager sharpen his skills at "getting the girl," adults give a teenager a lesson that involves a computer animation showing a nude man and women (with little black boxes to cover certain parts).
Three women sneak into a man's home and bedroom, and throw open their overcoats. Underneath the coats, the girls are wearing only lingerie.
Two women get drunk in a hotel room.
Characters use profanities such as, "h-ll," "d--n," and "a--"
The first seven items are from "Kangaroo Jack," the next three are from "Agent Cody Banks," and the last three are from "Chasing Papi."

PG-13 Movies Have Included the Following Content:

Two people are seen in bed implying sex, and the man purposely overturns the woman's wedding photograph with her husband.
A man lies to a woman to make her have sex with him, "You were hot stuff. I would have said anything to get a piece of that."
A woman is hanged onscreen.
Two characters kiss passionately in the rain, which leads them into bed.
The following is left on a telephone answering machine: "Every time we sleep together I wake up alone."
A man is beaten to death in the street.
A man is cut in half by a subway.
A female is murdered by having her throat slit with a playing card and then stabbed with a dagger.
Scenes at a dance club and a strip club feature erotic dancing.
Teenagers drink alcoholic drinks with names such as "Slippery Nipple" and "Screaming Orgasm on the Beach."
A male character details the many places a person can hide drugs - including sexual ones.
A woman, whose boyfriend left her after a week and a half of dating, tells another character that they had sex on the second day of their relationship.
After nine days of dating, two characters have sex the male character's parent's shower.
Profanities including the F-word.
A man is killed while viewing Internet pornography.
An unmarried couple move in together and a sexual relationship is implied.
The first three items are from "Chicago," the next five are from "Daredevil," the next three are from "The Hot Chick," the next two are from "How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days," the next two are from "Willard," and the last one from "View From the Top."

To read a movie review before your child sees it, check out the following links:

Screen-It
Kids In Mind
Parents Television Council Movie Reviews
Focus on the Family Movie Reviews
Dove also has reviews, but isn't usually as accurate or detailed, and allows more before they mention it as compared with the above sites).

For more, visit Yahoo's List of Film Reviews for Parents

You might also be interested in ClearPlay, a DVD player that allows you to select your desired level of violence/sex/language while playing standard DVD movies: http://www.clearplay.com/ and http://www.dove.org/news.asp?ArticleID=54). Please participate in the survey at: http://www.parentstv.org/boone/Pat-Boone-Survey.aspx.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Time Warner to release movie described as 'atheism for kids' during Christmas season, please warn other parents and send your email to Time Warner & Movie Theatres

New Line Cinema (A Time Warner Company) will release the movie titled The Golden Compass just in time for Christmas.  The movie has been described as 'atheism for kids'.

The Golden Compass is based on the first book of a trilogy entitled 'His Dark Materials' written by Phillip Pullman.  Pullman is a militant atheist and secular humanist who despises C. S. Lewis and the 'Chronicles of Narnia.' His motivation for writing this trilogy was specifically to counteract Lewis' symbolisms of Christ portrayed in the Narnia series.

Pullman left little doubt about his intentions when he said in a 2003 interview that "My books are about Killing God....."  In Pullman's final book a boy and girl kill God so they can do as they please.  The movie is a watered down version of the first book entitled 'His Dark Materials'. 

"The problem (with this movie) is that kids may see the film and ask their parents for the books," said Kiera McCaffrey, director of communications for the Catholic League. "The trilogy of books, especially the third volume, promotes atheism and denigrates Christianity. This is central to the plot."

Many church and pro-family organizations are concerned that unsuspecting parents will take their children to see the movie and that the children will want the books for Christmas.
 
Please help to get the word out about this movie by forwarding this email to family and friends.  We believe that it is equally as important to communicate your concerns to Time Warner, New Line Cinema and movie theatre chains regarding movies like this.

We have prepared an email for you to send to Time Warner, New Line Cinema, AMC Theatres, Cinemark Holdings, National Amusement and Regal Theatres regarding this movie.

Please click here (http://www.votervoice.net/Groups/FLFAM/Advocacy/?IssueID=12466&SiteID=-1) to send your email to Time Warner, New Line Cinema and large theatre chains. 

Please forward this information to family and friends (you are free to copy and paste this into an email, or you can give them a link to this webpage).

Click here (http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/compass.asp) to read more about the movie at Snopes.

Floridafamily.org

The Golden Compass
Claim:   The 2007 film The Golden Compass is based on a series of books with anti-religious themes.
Status:   True.

There will be a new Children's movie out in December called THE GOLDEN COMPASS. It is written by Phillip Pullman, a proud athiest who belongs to secular humanist societies. He hates C. S. Lewis's Chronical's of Narnia and has written a trilogy to show the other side. The movie has been dumbed down to fool kids and their parents in the hope that they will buy his trilogy where in the end the children kill God and everyone can do as they please. Nicole Kidman stars in the movie so it will probably be advertised a lot. This is just a friendly warning that you sure won't hear on the regular TV.

Collected via e-mail:

"Hi! I just wanted to inform you what I just learned about a movie that is coming out December 7, during the Christmas season, which is entitled THE GOLDEN COMPASS. It stars Nicole Kidman and it is directed toward children. What is disturbing to me is that this movie is based on the first of a trilogy of books for children called HIS DARK MATERIALS written by Philip Pullman of England.

He's an atheist and his objective is to bash Christianity and promote atheism. I heard that he has made remarks that he wants to kill God in the minds of children, and that's what his books are all about. He despises C.S. Lewis and Narnia, etc. An article written about him said "this is the most dangerous author in Britain" and that Pullman would be the writer "the atheists would be praying for, if atheists prayed." Pullman said he doesn't think it is possible that there is a God and he has great difficulty understanding the words "spiritual" and "spirituality." What I thought was important to communicate is what part of the agenda is for making this picture. This movie is a watered down version of the first book, which is the least offensive of the three books. The second book of the trilogy is THE SUBTLE KNIFE and the third book is THE AMBER SPYGLASS. Each book gets worse and worse regarding Pullman's hatred of God. In the trilogy, a young girl becomes enmeshed in an epic struggle against a nefarious Church known as the Magisterium. Another character, an ex-nun, describes Christianity as "a very powerful and convincing mistake." As I understand it, in the last book, a boy and girl are depicted representing Adam and Eve and they kill God, who at times is called YAHWEH (which is definitely not Allah). Since the movie would seem mild if you viewed it, that's been done on purpose.

They are hoping that unsuspecting parents will take their children to See the movie, that they will enjoy the movie and then the children will want the books for Christmas. That's the hook. Pullman says he wants the children to read the books and decide against God and the kingdom of heaven.

If you decide that you do not want to support something like this, I suggest that you boycott the movie and the books. I googled a synopsis of THE GOLDEN COMPASS. As I skimmed it, I couldn't believe that in a children's book part of the story is about castration and female circumcision. 

Origins:   The Golden Compass, a fantasy film starring Nicole Kidman that is scheduled to be released into theaters on 7 December 2007, has been drawing fire from concerned Christians. The film is based on Northern Lights (released in the U.S. as The Golden Compass), the first offering in Philip Pullman's His Dark Materials trilogy of children's books, a series that follows the adventures of a streetwise girl who travels 
through multiple worlds populated by witches, armor-plated bears, and sinister ecclesiastical assassins to defeat the oppressive forces of a senile God.

Books of the trilogy have sold more than 15 million copies around the world, with Northern Lights winning the Carnegie Medal for Children's Literature in 1995 and in 2007 being awarded the 'Carnegie of Carnegies' for the best children's book of the past 70 years. The Amber Spyglass, the final book of the series, won The Whitbread Prize in 2001, making it the first children's book to do so.

The series' author, Philip Pullman (who has described himself as both an agnostic and an atheist), has averred that "I don't profess any religion; I don't think it's possible that there is a God; I have the greatest difficulty in understanding what is meant by the words 'spiritual' or 'spirituality.'" Critics of Pullman's books (conservative British columnist Peter Hitchens in 2002 labeled Pullman "The Most Dangerous Author in Britain" and described him as the writer "the atheists would have been praying for, if atheists prayed") point to the strong anti-religion and anti-God themes they incorporate, and although literary works are subject to a variety of interpretations, Pullman has left little doubt about his books' intended thrust in discussions of his works, such as noting in a 2003 interview that "My books are about killing God" and in a 2001 interview that he was "trying to undermine the basis of Christian belief."

A Los Angeles Times article on the Golden Compass controversy noted that:
[Pullman]'s never hidden his skepticism about God or his rejection of organized religion. A quick Internet search turns up a 2004 essay he wrote deploring "theocracies" for a newspaper in his native Britain, and his own Web site states that he thinks it "perfectly possible to explain how the universe came about without bringing God into it." "His Dark Materials" features a sympathetic character, an ex-nun, who describes Christianity as "a very powerful and convincing mistake," while "The Amber Spyglass" concludes with the two child heroes participating in the dissolution of "the Authority," a senile, pretender God who has falsely passed himself off as the creator of the universe.
Bill Donohue, president of The Catholic League, has condemned The Golden Compass as a "pernicious" effort to indoctrinate children into anti-Christian beliefs and has produced a 23-page pamphlet titled The Golden Compass: Unmasked in which he maintains that Pullman "sells atheism for kids." Donohoe told interviewer John Gibson on 9 October 2007 why he believes Christians should stay away from the film:
Look, the movie is based on the least offensive of the three books. And they have dumbed down the worst elements in the movie because they don't want to make Christians angry and they want to make money. Our concern is this, unsuspecting Christian parents may want to take their kid to the movie, it opens up December 7th and say, this wasn't troubling, then we'll buy the books. So the movie is the bait for the books which are profoundly anti-Catholic and at the same time selling atheism.
Other reviewers, however, have described Pullman's works as being more generally anti-religion rather than specifically anti-Christian or anti-Catholic:
In "His Dark Materials," Pullman's criticisms of organized religion come across as anti-authoritarian and anti-ascetic rather than anti-doctrinal. (Jesus isn't mentioned in any of the books, although Pullman has hinted that He might figure in a forthcoming sequel, "The Book of Dust.") His fundamental objection is to ideological tyranny and the rejection of this world in favor of an idealized afterlife, regardless of creed. As one of the novel's pagan characters puts it, "Every church is the same: control, destroy, obliterate every good feeling."

The URL for this page is http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/compass.asp
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

An Athesist Children's Fantasy: The Golden Compass Comes to the Big Screen
by Dr. Ted Baehr and Dr. Tom Synder
http://cftvc.org/

On Dec. 7, 2007, the movie THE GOLDEN COMPASS based on the first book in the fantasy trilogy entitled His Dark Materials by atheist Philip Pullman will be released in theaters throughout the world. Pullman wrote his trilogy because he was so upset by the Christian evangelism that C. S. Lewis wove into his wonderful series entitled The Chronicles Of Narnia. Pullman is an avowed atheist who has dedicated his life to undermining Christianity and the Church among young readers. The film's release is another example of a culture deconstructing, a culture where we must declare truth.

Pullman represents God as a decrepit and perverse angel just like Satan in his novels, who captures the dead in a prison camp afterlife. As one fallen angel tells one of the novel' young heroes:

"The Authority, God, the Creator, the Lord, Yahweh, El, Adonai, the King, the Father, the Almighty - those were all names he gave himself. He was never the creator. He was an angel like ourselves - the first angel, true, the most powerful, but he was formed of Dust as we are, and Dust is only a name for what happens when matter begins to understand itself."

When the hero finally finds this god he is ultimately described as a demented and powerless creature that could only weep and mumble in fear and pain and misery. The boy then kills this god by breaking him out of his crystal cell, thereby evaporating him. The only god in this universe is matter.

Meanwhile, the Church is depicted as an organization bent on power, control and the torture of children. One heroine in the story who turns from the Church did so when she realized, there wasn't any God at all and. . . the Christian religion is a very powerful and convincing mistake, that's all. Instead, the church just kept her from finding love, thinking freely, and pursuing bodily pleasures like sex.

There is no heaven in this universe, just a dank and dreary prison camp afterlife. Pullman thought Christians like C.S. Lewis positive view of the afterlife was a celebration of death.

The children in the story ultimately discover that true wisdom is doing what is right in their own eyes, becoming their own gods. The result of this wisdom is a focus on bodily pleasure over eternal truth. Although ambiguous as to what exactly happens, at the end of the novels the two children pleasure each other bodily and finally experience true joy.

The world of Pullman's series mechanically mirrors that of C. S. Lewis. While The Chronicles Of Narnia starts with Lucy going into the wardrobe to get into Narnia, Pullman has Lyra going into a wardrobe, but what Lyra finds is not the supernatural world, nor a world where God rescues His creation, like Narnia, but rather a world that ends in dust, where the highest meaning can be found in pleasuring each other and God is just a sniveling old man who doesn't know what he's doing.

Pullman's world is a sad, animalistic universe. Since this is the only world there is, the trilogy ends in hopelessness. Love is not selfless giving, because that would be useless in a materialistic world. Love instead is the lust of pleasuring each other. In Pullman's world, there's no hope of eternal life where the lame and the blind and the deaf and dumb can walk and see and hear and talk, where the old are made youthful, there's no heavenly banquet, there's no loving God, there's no order, and there's no peace.

The logical consequences of Pullman's atheism can be found in the lives of the leading atheists of the 20th Century - Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot - men who killed millions of their own people and had no respect for justice or love. Ultimately, it is a road that only leads to meaninglessness and murder.

Even though the movie waters down the book, it can only demean, devalue and diminish life. Therefore, we urge people of faith and values not to corrupt their children with this odious atheistic worldview. Instead, there are plenty of good movies this Christmas, such as ENCHANTED; that will build (and not destroy) values.

A society shaped by the materialist and godless ethic promoted by THE GOLDEN COMPASS is a society without hope. If there is no God and no eternity, if all that exists is matter, human life loses all value. Sex becomes the ultimate form of pleasure we can achieve, and unlimited autonomy from other people while being our own gods becomes the goal. A society like this will destroy itself.

Unfortunately, discouraging signs abound that the message of THE GOLDEN COMPASS is impacting our society.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Culture War Heats Up
New Movies Continue Attacks on Traditional Christan, American Values
by Dr. Ted Baehr and Dr. Tom Synder
http://cftvc.org/

Ever since the critical and box office success of movies like Michael Moore's BOWLING FOR COLUMBINE and FAHRENHEIT 9/11 the atheist, left-wing elitists in the mass media have stepped up their attacks on the patriotic, traditional and orthodox values of America and Christianity. Clearly, these people feel threatened by the success of conservative evangelical Christians and other traditionalists in the entertainment industry with such hits like THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST and THE CHRONICLES OF NARNIA not to mention their success in electing George W. Bush in 2000 and 2004.

Not only has there been an increase in the number of explicitly left-wing, anti-American, anti-Christian documentaries in the last two years (such as The Road to Guantanamo, Jesus Camp, Jimmy Carter Man from Plains, and For the Bible Tells Me So, but there has also been an increasing number of anti-Christian, anti-American mainstream movies such as The Da Vinci Code, Brokeback Mountain, and the recent box office bombs In the Valley of Elah and Rendition.

Two upcoming movies will continue these attacks, Robert Redford's already outdated propaganda movie against the War in Iraq, Lions for Lambs, and a new movie, The Golden Compass, based on the first book in secular humanist Philip Pullman's anti-Christian children's trilogy, His Dark Materials.

Redford's new movie, which we have seen already, contains a slew of shallow arguments against the Republican Party, the War in Iraq, the Vietnam War, and the United States military, spiced with a vague secular humanist call to political action, presumably against those "evil" conservatives in the Republican Party and their supporters, the so-called religious right.

Pullman's books not only mock and belittle God, they also attack the Christian Church (labeled "the Church" and "the Magisterium" in the books). In the trilogy, Pullman rejects the orthodox view of God and presents a nebulous, personal and demonic-sounding spirituality with no philosophical roots or ultimate meaning.

Pullman's world is a sad, animalistic universe. Since this is the only world there is, the trilogy ends in hopelessness. Love is not selfless giving, because that would be useless in a materialistic world. Love instead is the lust of pleasuring each other. In Pullman's world, there's no hope of eternal life where the lame and the blind and the deaf and dumb can walk and see and hear and talk, where the old are made youthful, there's no heavenly banquet, there's no loving God, there's no order, and there's no peace.

The logical consequences of Pullman's atheism can be found in the lives of the leading atheists of the 20th Century - Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot - men who killed millions of their own people and had no respect for justice or love. Ultimately, it is a road that only leads to meaninglessness, murder and social chaos.

Reportedly, the new movie based on Pullman's book has toned down some of Pullman's virulent attacks on the Christian religion. Whether or not that is true, however, we do urge people of faith and values not to bother to corrupt their children with this odious atheistic worldview.

Of course, there are other attacks to come next year, including another movie based on one of DaVinci Code author Dan Brown's scurrilous attacks against orthodox Christian teachings and the Bible and perhaps a sequel to Fahrenheit 9/11 from Michael Moore.

Every year, however, we present an Annual Report to the Entertainment Industry, which looks at the content of the Top 250 Movies at the Box office each year. Year in and year out, our statistics show that movies with very strong anti-biblical, anti-Christian, anti-American values don't do well at the box office.

For instance, movies with very strong anti-biblical, anti-Christian content only averaged $23, $22.6 and $21.4 million at the box office in 2004, 2005, and 2006, respectively. Movies with anti-patriotic, anti-American content did even worse on the whole, averaging only $26.8, 10 and 19.6 million, respectively - as much as two to six times worse than movies with very strong biblical, Christian, patriotic, and pro-American content.

Thus, movies in 2007 like In the Valley of Elah, Delta Farce, Home of the Brave, and Rendition have made only $6.6 million, $8 million, $40,000, and $7.8 million in North America, but movies like World Trade Center, Spider-Man 3, Saving Private Ryan, Forrest Gump, Top Gun, Passion of the Christ, and Sergeant York have made $70 million, $336 million, $302 million, $516 million, $315 million, $393 million, and $317 million when adjusted for inflation!!!

Of course, the antidote to all of these attacks on America and Jesus Christ is to teach your neighbors, and your children and grandchildren, to reject the bad and support the good.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PARENTAL ALERT: This weekend your local theater will  be showing a movie aimed at children  that will undermine the values  you are instilling in them.

THE GOLDEN COMPASS points children toward dishonesty, selfishness, rebellion, atheism, and the desire to kill their mothers!

THE GOLDEN COMPASS movie is based on a trilogy of children’s books by British author, Philip Pullman, who is an avowed atheist who has dedicated his life to undermining Christianity and the Church, especially among young readers. One of Pullman’s goals in writing these books is to be the “anti-Narnia” series.

HELP US GET THE WORD OUT.

Please encourage your friends and family members to avoid the movie. Unless they are warned, they may be attracted by the preview for the movie that features a little girl riding a polar bear and fighting what look like bad guys.

There are two reasons to avoid this movie and encourage others to do so as well:

FIRST: The message of the movie, and the books on which it is based, is anti-Christian propaganda. THE GOLDEN COMPASS movie features a dishonest, selfish and stubborn heroine and is the opening to a story that glorifies atheism (primarily in the later two books). We believe in freedom of the press. Anyone can write a book or screenplay that makes Christians look sinister, stupid or wicked. That does NOT mean Christian parents need to buy that message and feed it to their children.

SECOND: In the movie business, the purchase of a ticket, or DVD, is a vote for more of something. If a studio loses money on an expensive anti-Christian adventure it is less likely to make more of the same. In this case, THE GOLDEN COMPASS is the first part of a trilogy that gets worse as it progresses. If THE GOLDEN COMPASS is a monumental flop the second and third book may never get made into movies.

While THE GOLDEN COMPASS movie is not as overtly anti-Christian as the books by looking at some of the excerpts from the novel you can see what the author hopes to teach children:

One fallen angel tells one of the novel’s young heroes, “The Authority, God, the Creator, the Lord, Yahweh, El, Adonai, the King, the Father, the Almighty – those were all names he gave himself. He was never the creator. He was an angel like ourselves – the first angel, true, the most powerful, but he was formed of Dust as we are, and Dust is only a name for what happens when matter begins to understand itself.”

When the heroine finally finds this “god,” he is ultimately described as a “demented and powerless” creature that “could only weep and mumble in fear and pain and misery.” The boy then kills this “god” by breaking him out of his crystal cell, thereby evaporating him. The only “god” in this universe is matter.

In the book, the Church is depicted as an organization bent on power, control and the torture of children by cutting.

The heroine in the story turns from the Church when she realizes, “there wasn’t any God at all and...the Christian religion is a very powerful and convincing mistake, that’s all.”
Children learn scripts of behavior from the movies and entertainment. The role model in this movie is Lyra who is commended for lying, stealing, cheating, and trying to kill her mother.
Even worse, the official website has an area where children can meet their own daemon. It says: “To discover your very own Daemon, look into your heart, and answer the following twenty questions openly and honestly. Your true character and the form of your Daemon will be reveled…”
There are many wicked movies made every year, but THE GOLDEN COMPASS is aimed at family audiences and is made to appear similar to Christian allegory THE CHRONICLES OF NARNIA: THE LION, THE WITCH AND THE WARDROBE. Please help get the word out that this would be a movie to avoid.



How 25 Years of Gay Activism in Hollywood Has Paid Off
Robert Knight
Wednesday, October 08, 2008

If you're noticing your TV screen turning pink, it's not just your imagination.

The new broadcast TV season includes 22 series featuring a total of 35 openly gay characters, according to the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD). GLAAD, which rides herd over all Hollywood scripts dealing with homosexuality, says the number of series with homosexual characters is a record. These series are on ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox and the CW networks. The total figure does not include shows on cable, like The L Word on Showtime, or MTV's all-gay LOGO network.

A new Eye on Culture report from the Culture and Media Institute, "Lavender Propaganda," reveals the depth and breadth of the current media campaign to promote homosexuality to average Americans. But Hollywood became a uniformly pro-gay industry well before Will & Grace or the slew of 2008-9 network shows.

In 1996, the year before Ellen DeGeneres "came out" as a lesbian on Ellen, Los Angeles magazine writer David Ehrenstein boasted in a May cover story, "More than Friends":

"There are openly gay writers on almost every major prime-time situation comedy you can think of … In short, when it comes to sitcoms, gays rule."

Here is an excerpt from my book The Age of Consent: The Rise of Relativism and the Corruption of Popular Culture about the gay influence on TV:

"Ehrenstein, a professed homosexual, cheerfully admits that gay writers are attempting to influence viewers with a homosexual agenda:

'The gay and lesbian writers of today have been pushing the envelope any chance they get. In fact, they're encouraged to do so. Since current comedies are positively obsessed with the intimate sex lives of straight young singles, who better to write them than members of a minority famed for its sexual candor … as a result of the influx of gay writers, even the most heterosexual of sitcoms often possess that most elusive of undertones " the "gay sensibility""'Frasier' being a case in point.'

"The 'gay sensibility consists, according to two homosexual writers, of 'a very urban, very educated, ironic, detached, iconoclastic attitude.' Plus, a deliberate overdose of sexuality."

In her 1989 book Target: Primetime: Advocacy Groups and the Struggle over Entertainment Television, Kathryn Montgomery explains why homosexual activists have been particularly effective in Hollywood:

"Gays had one important advantage over other groups. They referred to it as their 'agents in place.' According to gay activists, there were a substantial number of gay people working in the television industry who were not open about their life-style. Some held high-level positions. While unable to promote the gay cause on the inside, they could be very helpful to advocates on the outside, especially by leaking information. These 'agents in place' became one of the linchpins of gay media strategy."

In January 1973, Ron Gold, the New York-based Gay Activist Alliance's Media Director, wrote to all three networks, requesting meetings. Gold, who had been a reporter for Variety, also helped stage a hostile confrontation at ABC that was strikingly similar to the strong-arm tactics employed at the American Psychiatric Association convention in 1971, when gay activists openly threatened psychiatrists who viewed homosexuality as a treatable disorder.

As Montgomery reports:

"Before a meeting had been scheduled with ABC, GAA members were smuggled a script by one of their agents in place. It was for an upcoming episode of Marcus Welby, M.D., entitled 'The Other Martin Loring' and it concerned a married man who asked Dr. Welby to help him with his homosexual tendencies. Welby assured the man that as long as he suppressed his homosexual desires, he would not fail as a husband and father.

"As Gold remembers, GAA leaders 'blew a cork' when they read the script. ….Instead of waiting for an appointment with ABC executives, the activists " with the help of another network insider " 'took over' the network executive offices. Recalls Gold: 'We knew somebody who worked there who gave us a kind of place of the place and we did a little scouting in advance and we managed to sneak into the offices. The confrontation at ABC headquarters was hostile and explosive."

It ended with the arrests of several activists. Montgomery notes that although the program in question still aired, "it did have an impact on later decisions….ABC executives decided to invite gay activist comments on any new scripts dealing with homosexuality. Since gays had their own ways of getting scripts anyway, this approach was even more essential than with other groups."

The other networks soon followed, and the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation now routinely vets all TV scripts dealing with homosexuality to make sure that the public sees only what the activists want. That means, among other things, no programs showing "ex-gays," people who have overcome homosexual temptations, unless it is to mock them.

Montgomery summarizes: "In time, the gay activists gained a reputation within the industry as the most sophisticated and successful advocacy group operating in network television."

The stakes go far beyond television. A September 2008 fundraising mailer from GLAAD proclaims:

"History proves that social change drives legal and political progress. To succeed as a community, we must transform the way millions of Americans feel about us."

With a record number of homosexual characters on television, and only pro-gay story lines, it's not surprising that polls show that Americans are becoming increasingly accepting of homosexuality.

The activists are well on their way toward their goal of recasting traditional sexual morality as a form of bigotry. The next step will be to bring government muscle down on traditionalists " just like they're doing right now in Canada and Europe.
---

Lavender Propaganda
More Prime Time TV Series Feature Gay Characters than Ever Before
By Colleen Raezler
http://www.cultureandmedia.com/eoc/2008/Lavender_Propaganda.pdf

Hollywood, backed by the news media, is doing its best to "desensitize" Americans to "alternative" sexual preferences. In the new television season, a record 22 series on ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox and CW will feature a total of 35 homosexual, bisexual or transsexual characters. This does not even take into account MTV's all-gay LOGO network or Showtime's The L Word series.

"Desensitization" is one of the principal strategies employed by homosexual activists to advance their political agenda. The idea is to overwhelm the public with images of wholesome homosexual individuals and couples, in order to reduce people's instinctive resistance to homosexuality and overcome the public perception that homosexuality is a distasteful, abnormal lifestyle.

The strategy appears to be working. In a September 28 article, New York Times reporter Mireya Navarro credited Hollywood for increasing cultural acceptance of homosexuality: "Hollywood, with its depictions of cowboy lovers and lesbian neighbors, has done much to make gay men and women part of mainstream American life."

The desensitization strategy was laid out by marketing experts Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen in their book After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 1990s. According to Kirk and Madsen, "In no time, a skillful and clever media campaign could have the gay community looking like the veritable fairy godmother to Western Civilization."

It hasn't taken "no time." More like 10 years. Homosexuality in Hollywood has come a long way since Ellen announced "I'm gay" in 1997, and the networks began to add many homosexual characters to entertainment television.

Over the past few weeks former teen queen Lindsay Lohan announced she was dating Samantha Ronson. American Idol runner-up Clay Aiken proclaimed his homosexuality following the birth of his baby boy. Late in September, the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) released its 13th annual "Where We Are on TV" report, which finds that the 2008-2009 television season contains a record number (22) of broadcast TV series that feature homosexual, bisexual or transgendered characters. GLAAD defines three of these as "lead characters," 13 as "supporting characters" and 19 as "recurring characters."

List of shows by network that feature homosexual, bisexual or transgendered characters:

ABC
Brothers and Sisters, Sunday, 10:00 PM
Desperate Housewives, Sunday, 9:00 PM
Dirty Sexy Money, Wednesday, 10:00 PM
The Goode Family (animated), not yet scheduled
Grey's Anatomy, Thursday, 9:00 PM
Ugly Betty, Thursday, 8:00 PM

CBS
Rules of Engagement, not yet scheduled

The CW
Gossip Girl, Monday, 8:00 PM
Privileged, Tuesday, 9:00 PM

Fox
American Dad! (animated), Sunday, 9:30 PM
Bones, Wednesday, 8:00 PM
Do Not Disturb, Wednesday, 9:30 PM
House, Tuesday, 9:00 PM
The Simpsons (animated), Sunday, 8:00 PM
Sit Down, Shut Up (animated), Sunday, 8:30 PM (in 2009)

NBC
30 Rock, Thursday, 9:30 PM
ER, Thursday, 10:00 PM
Friday Night Lights, Wednesday, 9:00 PM (airing on DirectTV)
Knight Rider, Wednesday, 8:00 PM
Lipstick Jungle, Wednesday, 10:00 PM
My Name is Earl, Thursday, 8:00 PM
The Office, Thursday, 9:00 PM

The news media response to these revelations has been positive, even celebratory.

In a September 25 story about the growing acceptance of homosexuality in Hollywood, Reuters reporter Jill Serjeant noted the GLAAD study, writing "concerns that openly gay and lesbian actors will be turned down for straight romantic screen roles or as action stars are fading, just as the number of gay characters on TV shows is on the rise."

CBS News Correspondent Michelle Gillen framed "coming out" as a smart career move in a September 25 Early Show segment:

Some celebrities whose stars were fading have gotten a career boost after going public about being gay. Clay Aiken rejoined the cast of Spamalot on Broadway. Lance Bass is on this season's Dancing With the Stars. Neal Patrick Harris, who plays a womanizing man-about-town on How I Met Your Mother, remains a high-profile star since he was outed by celebrity blogger Perez Hilton.

People magazine features Aiken on its cover with the headline, "Yes, I'm Gay." Reporter David Caplan asked Aiken questions such as, "Did you ever feel ashamed or confused about being gay?" and "Why do you think some of your fans are resistant to the idea that you're gay?" Caplan also accepted as fact that people are born homosexual, not questioning Aiken when he said of his son, "I have no idea if he'll be gay or straight. It's not something I'll have anything to do with, or that he'll have anything to do with. It's already probably up inside the code there, you know what I mean?"

ABC's Good Morning America aired a two-part interview with Aiken on September 25 and 26. CMI Senior Writer Kristen Fyfe pointed out that host Diane Sawyer "provid[ed] him an unchallenged platform to promote his lifestyle" and concluded that because "Aiken is an extremely sympathetic and unassuming character…he probably advanced the ball considerably down the liberal 'everybody should be ok with homosexuality' field."

"Advancing the ball" is the goal of GLAAD's television study. Neil Giuliano, president of GLAAD stated during a September 26 segment on CNN, "It's important that the visibility leads to conversation and that those conversations can lead to having influence on our public policy so that gays and lesbians can be treated equally and fairly, within our society."

Alec Baldwin on 'Hate': "They want to ban gay marriage because those people are incapable of having a biological family. That's their only argument. You can ban gay marriage, but if you're going to make it fair, then you have to ban marriage for everybody else who won't produce children. But they just single out groups of people that they hate." -- Actor Alec Baldwin in the March 25, 2008, Advocate on conservative Christians' views of same-sex 'marriage.'

In a September 30 report on CNN.com, homosexual actor Brian Batt, who plays a closeted homosexual on AMC's Mad Men, framed Hollywood as a powerful promoter of the homosexual lifestyle: "There is, I think, a little bit of homophobia. I do believe that through education and seeing good, honest, positive gay role models, it will just educate. I think we are producing generations now of youth that do not judge people; they don't judge people on their race or their religion or their sexuality."

Batt's comments about youth are especially noteworthy, as 14 out of 22 of the television series featuring homosexual, bisexual or transgendered characters are scheduled to air between the hours of 8 and 10 o'clock Eastern Time. Nearly a third of the series are scheduled to air during the 8 o'clock hour, which is also known as the "Family Hour."

Hollywood Geneticist:
"I think you're born gay. There is a spectrum and most people are somewhere in the middle. But I do think it's biological." -- Actress Ricki Lake in the November 6, 2007 Advocate

Peter Sprigg, vice president for policy at the conservative Family Research Council, was one of the few voices allowed to take issue with this propaganda blitz on a national television network. He told CNN on September 26 that, "These characters are placed on television for propaganda purposes, in order to persuade the American public to be more accepting of homosexual conduct. In that sense, the result for society is likely to be negative."

Does this season's uptick in gay characters represent a push by Hollywood to influence voters in Arizona, California and Florida on November 4? Constitutional amendments defending traditional marriage as a union only between one man and one woman are on the ballot in those three states.


Sex and the Single Kid
Mona Charen
Tuesday, November 04, 2008

So it's the day before the election that will supposedly sweep away all vestiges of conservatism in American life and what do I find? The Washington Post carries a front-page story about TV contributing to teen pregnancy.

"Teenagers who watch a lot of television featuring flirting, necking, discussion of sex and sex scenes are much more likely than their peers to get pregnant or get a partner pregnant, according to the first study to directly link steamy programming to teen pregnancy."

The study, published in the journal Pediatrics, followed 700 12- to 17-year-olds for three years. Those who viewed the most sex-drenched TV shows were twice as likely as their peers to impregnate someone or get pregnant themselves.

The Post interviewed the usual "experts" for reactions to the research. "We have a highly sexualized culture that glamorizes sex," said Valerie Huber of the National Abstinence Education Association. Well now, there's an understatement!

Look no further than the pages of the Washington Post itself. It features an almost-daily ad on Page Two that touts "Sex for Life" and features imagery of a man and woman with come hither looks. She dangles her bra over his shoulder. Recently, The Post saw fit (as did the New York Times and I'm sure many other "family" newspapers) to publish an obituary for that great cultural icon Jerry Gerard, whose contribution to the world was pornography like "Deep Throat" and "The Devil in Miss Jones." I don't know about you, but I could have let him meet his Maker unheralded. Publishing an obit for a pornographer (remember when that was a dirty word?) is part of the general mainstreaming of pornography. You can order it at most hotels now. And so can your kids if they are in a separate room and you are not very careful. Sometimes the Playboy channel is offered without the necessity to order it by phone. Isn't that grand for the kids who are in the adjoining room to mom and dad?

This sort of thing is not limited to liberal outlets, of course. We have XM radio in our car. The commercials that run on the Fox News channel seem to be about 50 percent for Viagra and other "performance enhancing" drugs. Aside from explicitly Christian and other religious entertainment (which is overly goody two shoes for my taste), inappropriate sexual content is everywhere -- in music and music videos, in magazines (have you been to a supermarket checkout lately?), in video games, in movies, and on television.

Television is our national teacher. American children spend more time in front of the TV screen (an average of four hours daily) than at any other non-school waking activity. The Parents Television Council has reported that in 2005, "Desperate Housewives" was the most popular broadcast TV show among kids aged 9-12. Bill Cosby is so right: It's so easy to use sex and profanity to get a laugh. How much more difficult to strive for genuine wit.

So the kids are utterly bombarded from the youngest ages with sexual messages. And with 54 percent of kids having a TV in their bedroom, most parents are clearly not shielding them. The PTC also reports that "46 (percent) of high school students in the United States have had sexual intercourse. Although sex is common, most sexually active teens (say they) wish they had waited longer to have sex, (suggesting) that sex is occurring before youths are prepared for its consequences. One case of an STD is diagnosed for every 4 sexually active teens."

The same issue of Pediatrics also features an article on the association between violent Internet content and aggressive behavior among teenagers. You guessed it. They found "significantly elevated" odds of violence among those who entertained themselves with violent imagery. The study controlled for factors like alcohol consumption, parental monitoring, and other characteristics. According to the American Psychiatric Association "The debate is over. Over the last three decades, the one overriding finding in research on the mass media is that exposure to media portrayals of violence increases aggressive behavior in children."

So, here we are. For decades the overwhelmingly liberal cultural arbiters in Hollywood and in the music industry have denied that they are having any negative effect at all on children. While degrading our culture and raking in the cash, they've disclaimed all responsibility. Parents can turn it off, they sniff. (Though they are so careful to excise smoking.) The studies accumulate. The sexual invitation that is modern entertainment continues unabated. The violence gets more graphic daily. And the kids get the abortions, and the STDs, and the emergency room visits, and the heartache.

PTC Finds Increase in Harsh Profanity on TV:
http://www.parentstv.org/PTC/news/release/2008/1029.asp

PTC Blasts CBS for Nudity on ‘Survivor’ Premiere:
http://www.parentstv.org/PTC/news/release/2008/0930.asp

Look up a TV show or movie and find shows given PTC awards for being family-oriented:
http://www.parentstv.org/PTC/awards/main.asp

PTC Take Action:
http://www.parentstv.org/PTC/takeaction/welcome.asp


TV Sex = Teen Pregnancy

A new study by the RAND Corporation (http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB9398/index1.html) found that teens with "frequent exposure to TV sexual content" were twice as likely to be involved in a pregnancy in the following three years as teens who did not.

Published in the November 2008 issue of the medical journal Pediatrics, the study surveyed over 2,000 12- to 17-year-olds in 2001, asking them about their TV-viewing habits, with a special focus on 23 shows that were popular with teens -- including Sex and the City, That '70s Show and Friends. The survey also asked teens about their sexual attitudes, knowledge and behavior, then interviewed the teens again in 2002 and 2004. Even after adjusting for other possible factors like grades, family structure and parents' education level, the study showed that exposure to sexual content on TV was linked to teen pregnancy.

Sadly, the contents of this report came as no surprise to the PTC. In our own study of TV's portrayal of sex and marriage, Happily Never After: How Hollywood Favors Adultery and Promiscuity Over Marital Intimacy on Prime Time Broadcast Television (http://www.parentstv.org/PTC/publications/reports/sexontv/main.asp), we pointed out that "television influences behavior by altering a teen's perception of how many of their peers are sexually active and how much sexual experience they themselves are expected to have...[TV creates] a perception among teens that everyone their age is sexually active, and that there is something wrong with them if they aren't."

TV Sex, Teens and Pregnancy: Scientific Proof of What We Already Knew - By Rod Gustafson: http://www.parentstv.org/PTC/publications/rgcolumns/2008/1106.asp
---

TV Sex, Teens and Pregnancy: Scientific Proof of What We Already Knew

Usually at least once a month a new media effects study makes news in the popular press, but this month's "Big News" is additionally significant.

What most of these studies revolve around the effects of violence, advertising or sleeping with a cell phone under your pillow on young people, the latest big study (http://www.rand.org/health/abstracts/2008/11/chandra.html) tells us that we have learned that teens who watch lots of sexually charged television shows are more likely to be involved in a teen pregnancy.

The study's lead author, Anita Chandra, who is also a behavioral scientist at RAND -- the research organization that spearheaded this and many other important media effects studies -- says on MSNBC (http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/27506234/) that she was "surprised to find this link."

I suspect scientists have to say those things otherwise they would be deemed as being too subjective, but personally I'm not the least bit surprised. However, lest you think I may be dismissing this effort, which is noted as "the first of its kind" to find a link between sex on TV and teen pregnancy rates, as irrelevant news, let me assure you I appreciate the work behind it and the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development for funding it. No matter how obvious we may think the cause and effect relationship is, the nature of science demands proof, and now we have it.

Lets take a moment to see what exactly has been discovered...

Starting in the spring of 2001, researchers gathered data from a national sample of 2,003 youth aged 12 to 17 years old, with follow-up interviews in 2002 and 2004. During the sessions, the respondents were asked about how frequently they viewed certain TV programs that ranged across the spectrum of live-action and animated shows found on both broadcast and cable channels.

When they called back in 2004, an unfortunate number had spent the past few years doing more than watching TV. 744 of the kids said they had experienced sexual intercourse. 91 -- 58 girls and 33 boys -- admitted they had been pregnant or were responsible for getting a girl pregnant. After correlating these sexual behaviors with the types of television programs viewed, it was determined those teens who watched the most sexual content on television were twice more likely to have been involved in a pregnancy when compared to those with the least amount of sex-on-TV exposure.

Chandra says other factors were considered, including how well the teen was doing in school, what type of family they lived in and what their parents' education level was. The impact of these variables was accounted for in the final results.

As with all studies, and especially one that presents a new relationship between popular media and viewers, there is bound to be those who refute Chandra's claims. On the medical journal Pediatrics web site (http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/eletters/122/5/1047#39009), where the full study can be read (for a fee), Frederick E. Pratter, Associate Professor in the Computer Science Program at Eastern Oregon University wonders if researchers considered the "possibility that teens who are sexually active might be more likely to watch programming that reflects their interests?"

On MSNBC's web site, Elizabeth Schroeder, who directs a teen sex-ed program at Rutgers University, says things like income and family values were external variables the "study didn't adequately address."

Far be it for me to contend with such knowledgeable academics, but I will anyway...

The authors of this study note that teen pregnancy rates have declined since 1991, but tell us that nearly one million American girls become pregnant each year, and most of these are unplanned. While I agree there are many factors aside from media (a point heavily noted within this study) that may influence young people to become sexually active, a previous 2004 RAND study (also funded by the same institute, http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB9068/) showed a link between sexual content on TV and earlier involvement in sexual activity. But, as logical as it may seem, this earlier study did not investigate whether early sexual behavior lead to teen pregnancies.

Perhaps an even better comparison seems deceptively simple: If the porn industry makes its monster profits by affecting the hormones of mature, intelligent adults who have supposedly mastered self-control, how could we possibly think teenagers would react differently when watching sexually laced television programs?

Yes, perhaps some "naturally" promiscuous teens seek tantalizing television, but it appears very scientifically possible that for those who are reasonably neutral to such activities watching large amounts of sex on TV could influence them to experiment.

What can parents do to help the situation? Chandra suggests that in today's sexually saturated culture, it's nearly impossible to have kids insulated from messages about sex that don't carry potential consequences for depicted actions (she notes consequences for sexual actions are missing from many TV programs). Instead, she suggests the same time-tested strategy of having parents take the time to watch television together with their children and help interpret the frank sexual portrayals on the screen.

Of course, that's getting tougher to do, thanks to the myriad of ways young people can now access entertainment. When the National Association of Broadcasters was asked what they thought of the study, they said they hadn't read it, but encouraged parents to "use the V-chip."

Thus far, I haven't found a V-chip inside a portable video player, cell phone, iPhone or iPod...

Nevertheless, no matter how difficult, it is imperative that parents consider the material their children and teens are choosing to watch. Portrayals of fun and recreational sexual pastimes without any negative outcomes continue to fill our television screens, making this topic one of the biggest lies propagated by popular culture and mass media.

Rod Gustafson
---

Happily Never After: How Hollywood Favors Adultery and Promiscuity Over Marital Intimacy on Prime Time Broadcast Television

Today's prime-time television programming is not merely indifferent to the institution of marriage and the stabilizing role it plays in our society, it seems to be actively seeking to undermine marriage by consistently painting it in a negative light. Nowhere is this more readily apparent than in the treatment of sex on television. Sex in the context of marriage is either non-existent on prime-time broadcast television, or is depicted as a burdensome rather than as an expression of love and commitment. By contrast, extra-marital or adulterous sexual relationships are depicted with greater frequency and overwhelmingly, as a positive experience. Across the broadcast networks, verbal references to non-marital sex outnumbered references to sex in the context of marriage by nearly 3 to 1; and scenes depicting or implying sex between non-married partners outnumbered scenes depicting or implying sex between married partners by a ratio of nearly 4 to 1.

Even more troubling than the marginalization of marriage and glorification of non-marital sex on television is TV's recent obsession with outré sexual expression. Today more than ever teens are exposed to a host of once-taboo sexual behaviors including threesomes, partner swapping, pedophilia, necrophilia, bestiality, and sex with prostitutes, to say nothing of the now-common depictions of strippers, references to masturbation, pornography, sex toys, and kinky or fetishistic behaviors. Behaviors that were once seen as fringe, immoral, or socially destructive have been given the imprimatur of acceptability by the television industry  --  and children are absorbing those messages and in many cases, imitating that behavior. PTC analysts examined all scripted prime-time entertainment programs on the major broadcast television networks (ABC, CBS, CW, Fox, and NBC) during four weeks at the beginning of the 2007-2008 television season (September 23-October 22, 2007) for a total of 207.5 programming hours, recording all manner of sexual content including not only on-screen depictions of obviously sexual behavior (couples depicted during coitus), but implied sex, discussions of sex and sexuality, innuendo, visual references to strippers, pornography, and the like.

MAJOR FINDINGS:

 Across the broadcast networks, references to adultery outnumbered references to marital sex 2:1.

Although the networks shied away from talking about sex in the context of marriage, they did not shy away from discussions of masturbation, oral sex, anal sex, manual stimulation, sex toys, bondage or kinky or fetishistic sex - there were 74 such references during the study period.

The Family Hour  --  the time slot with the largest audience of young viewers, where one might reasonably expect broadcasters to be more careful with the messages they are communicating to impressionable youngsters  --  contained the highest frequency of references to non-married sex as opposed to references to sex in marriage, by a ratio of 3.9:1. During the 9:00 and 10:00 hours, the references to non-marital versus marital sex averaged 2.5:1.

Visual references to voyeurism (a third party present, watching or taping while sex takes place), transvestites/transsexuals, threesomes, kinky sex, bondage and sado-masochism, and prostitution outnumbered visual references to sex in marriage by a ratio of 2.7:1.

Content descriptors, which are intended to alert parents to inappropriate content and work in conjunction with the V-Chip to block such content as parents may find unsuitable for their children were often lacking or inadequate. Every network had problems with the consistent and accurate application of the "S" and "D" descriptors.

Of all the networks, ABC had the most references to marital sex, but many of the references were negative. References to non-marital sex, by contrast, were almost universally positive or neutral.

In 46 hours of programming, NBC contained only one reference to marital sex, but 11 references to non-marital sex and one reference to adultery.

References to incest, pedophilia, partner swapping, prostitution, threesomes, transsexuals/ transvestites, bestiality, and necrophilia combined outnumbered references to sex in marriage on NBC by a ratio of 27:1.

On NBC, there were as many depictions of adults having sex with minors as there were scenes implying or depicting sex between married partners (a 1:1 ratio).

Fox broadcast only one reference to marital sex in 24.5 hours of programming, but 18 references to non-marital sex and five references to adultery.

Throughout much of the history of broadcast television, the networks adhered to a voluntary code of conduct which stipulated that respect should be maintained for the sanctity of marriage and the value of the home; that divorce should not be treated casually or justified as a solution for marital problems; that illicit sex relations should not be treated as commendable; and sex crimes and abnormalities should be viewed as unacceptable program material. Even with the limitations of the NAB Code of Conduct, television writers were able to tell relevant, meaningful stories that explored the vast expanse of human experience.

Today's television programming is squarely on the opposite end of that spectrum. Sexual content on television is predominantly extra-marital; the institution of marriage is regularly mocked and denigrated; adulterous relationships are treated sympathetically; and criminal sexual behavior such as sex with minors or prostitutes fuel story lines on many popular series.

Broadcasters, knowing television's ability to influence behavior, could be more careful in their treatment of sexual situations during prime-time hours when impressionable children are in the viewing audience, opting for less graphic visual content, and favoring storylines that don't celebrate promiscuity, glamorize criminality, or denigrate monogamy. The American people should hold the networks and their local broadcast affiliates accountable for pushing questionable content into their homes over the publicly-owned broadcast airwaves.

Advertisers, too, must be held accountable for the messages they underwrite with their advertising dollars, and the social cost of supporting those messages. Sponsors unquestionably do have a say in broadcast content. When all is said and done, the broadcasters' audience is not the American television viewing public  --  it is corporate America, and the networks' success as a business depends upon their ability to sell their product to advertisers. As long as advertisers are willing to associate their brand names and corporate image with salacious sexual content, networks will continue to produce it. Only when corporate sponsors band together in the name of responsible entertainment can we expect to see meaningful change from the broadcast industry.

Television can and must do better… because our children are watching.
---

PTC Demands Accountability from CW and Advertisers after Oral Sex Scene on '90210'

LOS ANGELES (September 4, 2008)  --  The Parents Television Council™ condemned the CW Network for the premiere episode of "90210" that contained an implied scene of high school children engaged in oral sex. The program also glamorized underage drinking, pornography and profanity. The PTC is contacting each of the advertisers that sponsored the program to make sure they are aware of the specific content that they underwrote. The oral sex scene appeared during the opening segment of the show, which aired during the family hour of 8:00 p.m. EDT/PDT (7:00 p.m. CDT and MDT).

"The CW Network has openly, wantonly and eagerly violated every business tenet of the broadcast industry. They shocked viewers during the family hour by depicting high school children engaged in oral sex in their car; they sucker-punched their ultimate customers  --  the program's sponsors, by not adequately disclosing the nature of this scene in the program; and they directly and intentionally marketed this adult fare to children," said PTC President Tim Winter.

"Executives at the CW Network publicly stated their intention not to allow advertisers a chance to screen the show and now we know why. The corporations who sponsored this episode include some of the most socially responsible advertisers in the country with strict program content guidelines that are diligently adhered to. Each and every sponsor who was not told of this graphic content should demand  --  and receive  --  a full and complete refund of their media purchase.

"When I began my career at NBC in the early '80s, there was a screening room literally across the hall from my office where advertisers were afforded the opportunity to view every episode of every program they were to sponsor. The advertisers understood how critical it was to know what type of content they were underwriting, and the network understood how critical it was to deliver a high level of customer satisfaction to the advertisers who pay the network's bills.

"But according to media reports, after keeping advertisers as in the dark as possible, the network edited the script at the last minute to include the oral sex scene. In reviewing the list of advertisers that sponsored the '90210' premiere, PTC is confident that many of them were blindsided by the misguided addition  --  especially on a program geared towards teenagers and pre-teens.

"No socially responsible advertiser would sponsor the clear sexual gratification of a high school boy, sitting in his car with a pretty brunette girl's head in his lap  --  all during the family hour, no less. And CW's decision to put this on the public airwaves at 8:00 p.m. is an affront to the public interest requirements of a broadcast licensee.

"The CW Network has made its intentions clear: ratings and target demographics are more important than business integrity. Therefore, we are encouraging advertisers who were duped not only to pull media buys from '90210,' but from every CW Network show. And for those advertisers who knew about the scene and decided to sponsor it anyway, the public will soon know who they are," Winter concluded.
---

For PTC TV Picks: http://www.parentstv.org/PTC/parentsguide/main.asp

Family Guide to TV: http://www.parentstv.org/PTC/familyguide/main.asp

For PTC Movie Picks: http://www.parentstv.org/PTC/publications/moviereviews/main.asp

PTC Seal of Approval Awards: http://www.parentstv.org/PTC/awards/main.asp


 

 
 
  Site Map