Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

FREEP CBS for False "Gay Marriage" Claims on Amazing Race
Self & Worldnetdaily | 6/4/2003 | Andrew Ainsworth & Joe Kovacs

Posted on 06/04/2003 1:51:53 PM PDT by Vitamin A

Friends,

The Amazing Race is one of the most popular TV shows. Unfortunately, CBS has chosen to use the term "married" to describe the relationship of two males from California who are featured on that show. As such, CBS is effectively broadcasting to the nation that "marriage" between two men is valid and exists, despite the fact that NO state in the U.S. recognizes two men as being "married" to each other. At most, Vermont has recognized a "civil union" between two males, but that law was expressly designed not to use the term "marriage" or "married." California and Hawaii have given rights to "domestic partners," but likewise have expressly NOT used the word "marriage" or "married" to describe them.

CBS's intentional use of the term "married" to describe two males from California is an outright misrepresentation--i.e., a lie--for political purposes. I have friends whose children have been confused and questioned their parents when they see the "married" word come up under the male couple as they appear on the TV screen (not to mention the male couple's kiss in the show's intro). My friends, and I, certainly do not appreciate CBS's decision to turn marriage on its head during primetime viewing just to push a political agenda.

Below, I've posted an article which details CBS's lamest of lame non-excuses for using the "married" term.

I am writing to encourage you to take just a minute to express your opinion on this matter to CBS. You can do so by going to www.cbs.com. Go to the bottom of the homepage and click the "Feedback" button. An email frame will pop up on your screen and allow you to provide a comment.

Please pass this along to friends if you feel so inclined.

-Andrew

Culture: CBS Married Gays in Race?

WorldNetDaily May 29, 2003 Source: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=32814

MEDIA MATTERS CBS television thrusting 'married gays' on public Network's 'Amazing Race' promotes real-life men as joined in matrimony Posted: May 29, 2003 1:00 a.m. Eastern By Joe Kovacs © 2003 WorldNetDaily.com

CBS Television is promoting tonight's debut of "The Amazing Race 4" by proudly proclaiming a male homosexual couple on the show to be married to each other.

The primetime reality show features 12 teams of two people with a pre-existing relationship racing around the world in a quest for a million-dollar prize.

'Married' male couple on CBS

In current promotional ads on the air, the network touts one of the teams - consisting of two men - as ''The Married Couple.''

"Yes, they are a married, gay couple," a CBS spokeswoman tells WorldNetDaily. "They're married and they're gay. Is there an issue?"

On the show's website, viewers are encouraged to click on biographical links for the teams, to learn more about their personal lives. The write-up on the "married" male couple includes the following:

Twenty-eight-year-old Reichen is a pilot and teaches at a flight school in Los Angeles. A former U.S. Air Force officer and a graduate of the U.S. Air Force academy, he is married to his teammate Chip. He loves skiing and flying and is very into being physically fit. He describes himself as "detail-oriented, caring and thrill-seeking." He speaks French and has traveled internationally quite a bit. Reichen's views on relationships are much more liberal than Chip's - He enjoys flirting with other guys, but that makes Chip upset. Owned by Viacom, CBS says "Amazing Race" has previously featured "gay" contestants, but this is the first time it's trumpeting homosexuals as actually being married to each other.

"They bring a tremendous amount of enthusiasm into the show. They're great!" says the network.

When WorldNetDaily pressed CBS to find out more about the alleged matrimony of its contestants, the network explained that's what Reichen and Chip had written in their application to be on the program.

"Why can't they say they're married? What's the difference?" said the CBS spokeswoman. She went on to state she "believe[d] it's legal in certain states," though she did not specify where the Californians had any binding ceremony, if in fact they had one at all.

Family advocates are blasting CBS's marketing move, saying there's no such thing as legal homosexual marriage in the U.S.

Robert Knight

"Two men is not a marriage. It's pretend marriage," says Robert Knight, a former news editor at the Los Angeles Times who is now director of the Culture and Family Institute.

"This is profoundly dishonest and is intended to persuade Americans that so-called 'gay marriage' is already a reality, when no jurisdiction in America has legalized it."

While there's no government sanction for homosexual marriages, the state of Vermont has approved what it calls civil unions, the legal equivalent to marriage in everything but name. Two other states - California and Hawaii - have approved laws regarding benefits of domestic partners.

But many other states are passing legislation to resist the status of homosexual marriages.

On Tuesday, Texas became the 37th state to approve a law preventing the legal recognition of same-sex unions that have been sanctified by a government elsewhere.

"Like the vast majority of Texans, I believe that marriage represents a sacred union between a man and a woman," Gov. Rick Perry said in a statement.

For broadcast television, homosexuality is not a new concept.

Sean Hayes portrays homosexual on 'Will & Grace' (NBC)

Sitcoms like ABC's "Ellen" and NBC's "Will and Grace" have been among the first programs to put "gays" and lesbians in the limelight, and just this week, the cable channel Bravo - owned by the NBC division of General Electric - announced its summer launch of TV's first homosexual dating series, "Boy Meets Boy."

"As bad as 'Ellen' and 'Will and Grace' have been, ['The Amazing Race' married-homosexual promotion] is an outright lie," said Knight. "This is the worst we have seen from the broadcast networks. ... It's another reason why the big networks are losing viewers, and people are gravitating toward alternative news sources such as WorldNetDaily and the Fox News Channel."

Knight suggests people objecting to this and other programs log onto websites like OneMillionMoms.com and OneMillionDads.com, which provide links for viewers to contact broadcasters and advertisers.

American Express is one of the advertisers to have had high-profile tie-ins with "The Amazing Race," and while the company no longer has its "Moment of the Week" promotion, it says its current slate of commercials will continue to appear on CBS.

"We are a global company and advertise on a wide variety of programs through a number of different media to reach a diverse audience - current as well as potential customers," American Express spokeswoman Monica Beaupre told WorldNetDaily.

Other large companies which have had special advertising segments on previous "Amazing Race" series include Royal Caribbean Cruises, T-Mobile and Kodak.

As WorldNetDaily reported in October, Kodak is proud of its commitment to diversity, which includes homosexuality, even firing a 23-year Kodak veteran after he objected to a pro-homosexual memo circulated in the company's e-mail.

Leslie Moonves, president and CEO of CBS-TV says the network is committed to displaying diversity in the shows it airs:

As broadcasters, we aim to ensure that our national viewing audience is reflected in our programming and our people. We recognize that a workforce comprised of a wide variety of perspectives, viewpoints and backgrounds is integral to our continued success.

This is not a campaign, but rather a fundamental way of doing business at CBS, and we continue to be steadfast in our goal to become more diverse and more representative of the public we serve.

Tonight's season premiere of "The Amazing Race" airs at 8 p.m. Eastern Time, in what's considered to be the family portion of primetime. Officials say previous episodes have drawn an estimated audience of 9 million viewers.

"There's a buzz about the show, but we have not received any calls one way or another about the participants," said Joe Barnes, director of marketing at KOIN-TV, the CBS affiliate in Portland, Ore.

In San Francisco, a market with a large homosexual population, the CBS owned-and-operated station KPIX-TV speculates more people will be talking about the "gay marriage" angle once the program is broadcast.

"We've heard nothing from gays saying 'Thanks,'" said KPIX spokeswoman Akilah Monifah. "We've also heard nothing from homophobic types saying, 'How could you?' either."

* * * * * * * * *


TOPICS: Activism/Chapters; Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: adamandeve; dontbendover; gaytrolldolls; hollyweird; homosexualagenda; idolatry; mediabias; notadamandsteve; overreaction; seebs
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-97 next last

1 posted on 06/04/2003 1:51:54 PM PDT by Vitamin A
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Vitamin A
You think that's bad? Check this out.
2 posted on 06/04/2003 1:59:35 PM PDT by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Vitamin A
CBS = Communist Bull Sh...
3 posted on 06/04/2003 1:59:41 PM PDT by Darksheare (Nox aeternus en pax.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jriemer
Ping.
4 posted on 06/04/2003 2:00:50 PM PDT by 4mycountry (One taquila, two taquila, three taquila, floor.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

(We've also heard nothing from homophobic types saying, 'How could you?' either." ) Media Bias? NAAAAAAAH!!!
5 posted on 06/04/2003 2:01:02 PM PDT by ibheath
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Vitamin A
I don't care if two homosexuals want to live together, and if CBS wants to put a gay couple on TV it's their business (I don't watch "reality" crap anyway). But to tout them as "married" and then to have statements like that ("Why can't they say they're married?" "It's allowed in some states, I think.") from some airhead promo spokeswoman is absurd. Not to say misleading and unprofessional. Marriage is a legal term as well as a description of a social condition, and if you tell people that A and B are married, then you should know what they're talking about. And for anyone of any age to not know that no state in the U.S.A. establishes or recognizes a state of marriage for homosexual couples; do you have to have any kind of brain to work in CBS's public relations department? Or at least read something other than People or Variety?
6 posted on 06/04/2003 2:02:33 PM PDT by RonF
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Vitamin A
>>>On Tuesday, Texas became the 37th state to approve a law preventing the legal recognition of same-sex unions that have been sanctified by a government elsewhere.
>>>"Like the vast majority of Texans, I believe that marriage represents a sacred union between a man and a woman," Gov. Rick Perry said in a statement.

God I love Texas.

7 posted on 06/04/2003 2:02:46 PM PDT by 4mycountry (One taquila, two taquila, three taquila, floor.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 4mycountry
What is a CBS??? I must be boycotting that station too.
8 posted on 06/04/2003 2:05:56 PM PDT by Dutch Boy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: RonF
Damn, Ron, couldn't have said it better myself.
9 posted on 06/04/2003 2:06:26 PM PDT by Vitamin A
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Vitamin A
The best way to combat this is to not watch the show.

When the ratings tank, they will understand.

10 posted on 06/04/2003 2:10:57 PM PDT by Houmatt (Real conservatives don't defend kiddy porn!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Vitamin A
I just left a feedback message at www.cbs.com.

"I have three questions regarding the gay married couple in The Amazing Race. What state issued their marriage license? What state or other authorized agency issued their marriage certificate? And if the answer to those two questions, as I suspect, is 'none', then do your legal and news divisions have the same standards as your entertainment division?"

You know, misleading advertising is a crime. There's a lawsuit here. It's not like CBS could claim that they didn't know there's no such thing as homosexual marriage.
11 posted on 06/04/2003 2:13:21 PM PDT by RonF
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Houmatt
Actually, I think the best way to deal with it is to contact the show's corporate sponsors: American Express, Carribean Cruises, T-Mobile, and others.
12 posted on 06/04/2003 2:13:25 PM PDT by Vitamin A
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: RonF
I agree there is a potential lawsuit here. I am a lawyer, and I practice false advertising law, though on the defense side. There is a law in California that prohibits any "unlawful, unfair, or deceptive" business practice. I would argue that selling advertising for a show that misleadingly represents two male participants as being "married" is at least "unfair"--i.e., a violation of California's stated public policy against gay marriage, and definitely "deceptive." The law is California Business & Professions Code section 17200 et seq.
13 posted on 06/04/2003 2:16:22 PM PDT by Vitamin A
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Vitamin A
AMEX won't give a darn...Guarantee YA!
14 posted on 06/04/2003 2:16:30 PM PDT by litehaus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: RonF
You know, misleading advertising is a crime. There's a lawsuit here.

Were you really damaged by this? Why so quick to suggest a lawsuit? This is part of the problem with American culture; everyone's so ready to sue for any perceived slight. If you're offended, talk about it on FR, don't watch CBS, or don't patronize the show's sponsors. Don't immediately try to drum up a lawsuit. Or maybe you're just a tort lawyer trolling for business.
15 posted on 06/04/2003 2:17:51 PM PDT by Dilly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Vitamin A
SeeBS didn't produce the show. They purchased it - complete - from a production company. All the shows have been in the can since the race was actually run, which is many months ago. They'd PLANNED to air it in the Spring, but they didn't want it to go up against Fox's "American Idol." It would involve a lot of re-editing just to remove the Chyron graphic that says "married." A LOT of re-editing.

Frankly, I don't give a rat's patooey - I watch the show for the comedic content of the players and the great footage of their travels all over the world. The presence of this pair on the show is something I cannot do anything about, so I refuse to get all wound up over it. There is a limit to what I consider worth getting steamed about, and that line is usually whether or not I have the power to change it. Or whether or not it really makes a difference in my life. Those two guys, frankly, don't make one ounce of difference in my life, so I just ignore them.

Michael

16 posted on 06/04/2003 2:19:18 PM PDT by Wright is right! (Have a profitable day!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Vitamin A
The Amazing Race is one of the most popular TV shows.

Is it really?

I’ve never even heard of it. What kind of ratings does it pull?

17 posted on 06/04/2003 2:20:35 PM PDT by dead
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Wright is right!
More power to ya, then brutha. If you're not concerned, that's cool. Just inviting people who are concerned to take 1 minute to shoot off an email to CBS. You've gotta draw the line somewhere for what you will and won't tolerate on primetime TV. For me, CBS has crossed that line here.
18 posted on 06/04/2003 2:25:43 PM PDT by Vitamin A
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: dead
check drudgereport for ratings--he does them sometimes. It usually seems to pull pretty good ratings for its time slot.
19 posted on 06/04/2003 2:26:24 PM PDT by Vitamin A
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Dilly
Nah, I'm not a lawyer. I just don't like being lied to, and I think that people who deliberately lie in order to make money should be held legally accountable. Maybe I'm wrong. I myself have not been financially injured, true enough.
20 posted on 06/04/2003 2:26:44 PM PDT by RonF
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: RonF
There is more than just monetary or physical injury. The nation was founded on the defense of intangible "rights." Here, an overwhelming majority of voters have said across the country that two men cannot be "married." Under the Constitution, the citizens of each state have the right to determine matters like marital status. Here, CBS is effectively depriving citizens of that right by saying marriage between two men exists regardless of what the voting citizens have said.
21 posted on 06/04/2003 2:29:51 PM PDT by Vitamin A
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Vitamin A
You mean somebody actually watches this?
22 posted on 06/04/2003 2:30:10 PM PDT by day10 (Homeschool Rocks! Spare your children the misery of the public school system.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Vitamin A
As broadcasters, we aim to ensure that our national viewing audience is reflected in our programming and our people. We recognize that a workforce comprised of a wide variety of perspectives, viewpoints and backgrounds is integral to our continued success.

Except that is, for coservative, Christians, orthodox Jews ... Who are they kidding? They permit only one perspective -- pc.

23 posted on 06/04/2003 2:39:51 PM PDT by mrustow (no tag)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Vitamin A
Well, I went and FReeped it on general priniciples, but all FReeping polls does is discredit the concept of web polls (including our own).

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

24 posted on 06/04/2003 2:40:03 PM PDT by Salman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Salman
It wasn't a poll, Salman, it's a complaint form to CBS.
25 posted on 06/04/2003 2:41:19 PM PDT by Vitamin A
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Vitamin A
"Here, CBS is effectively depriving citizens of that right by saying marriage between two men exists regardless of what the voting citizens have said."

Pure victimology. An argument worthy of a liberal. They aren't 'depriving' anyone of any right. Don't like what they have to say? Don't listen. That's what 'free speech' is all about. They can call it what they like, and you are free to have your own opinion.
26 posted on 06/04/2003 2:42:38 PM PDT by ChicagoGuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Vitamin A
Funny I did register some irritation when I noticed they were being referred to as "married." I think I commented, "Well, where's their marriage license?" But other than that I didn't get too bent out of shape about it. Now that I think about it some more, though, it is a deliberate deception and quite misleading.

But I was even more irritated about the Bible-believing young couple who have dated for some years but have decided to hold off on sex until after they take their vows. The little descriptor that pops up almost every time they appear on screen is "VIRGINS." Now who wants to have their sexual history displayed as the prime descriptor of their status as human beings? I think it's offensive and unnecessary. It's almost like a taunt, or a Scarlet Letter. Like "Ooooh -- look at the virgins. The virgins are weird. Very weird. Go on - go up and talk to them. They won't bite."

Now I know CBS will deny that the desgination "virgin" is a taunt. They will say that it's just the opposite, a championing of virgin status, or some other such nonsense. I don't believe it. It's a put-down. It's makes a mockery of the couple to continually refer to them as virgins, as if that is the one interesting and noteworthy trait about them.

27 posted on 06/04/2003 2:42:43 PM PDT by beckett
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ChicagoGuy
I guess if you voted for Bush and he got elected as president, but CBS went around broadcasting that Gore was president, you wouldn't mind that?

Pure victimology? Nah, just don't appreciate lies, distortions, and intentional ignorance of reality.
28 posted on 06/04/2003 2:44:39 PM PDT by Vitamin A
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: ChicagoGuy
As a follow up, are you arguing, ChicagoGuy, that CBS has the "free speech" right to disseminate intentional misrepresentations to the public? Brush up on your constitution, buddy, First Amendment does not protect fraudulent speech. Otherwise, false advertisers everywhere would enjoy constitutional protection under "free speech."
29 posted on 06/04/2003 2:48:17 PM PDT by Vitamin A
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Vitamin A
If CBS went around saying Gore was president, I'd say they were wrong, and they would lose credibility with me (to the extent they ever had any), but I wouldn't whine that they were 'depriving me of my right' to have them call Bush the president.
30 posted on 06/04/2003 2:49:32 PM PDT by ChicagoGuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: ChicagoGuy
Sounds like you're a very unique individual then, ChicagoGuy. Most people I know don't appreciate it when major broadcasters make intentional misrepresentations, and expect them to honor the law by representing it accurately.
31 posted on 06/04/2003 2:52:21 PM PDT by Vitamin A
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: RonF
I just don't like being lied to...

But whose to say they're lying? The men's relationship may not meet your definition of marriage or even the state of California's definition of marriage, but maybe they had some sort of ceremony and they consider themsleves married. CBS is not claiming the men are entitled to state or federal benefits incident to a state-sanctioned marriage. They're just using the word married in a way you or I may not approve of. How about a woman who affectionately calls her best friend her "sister" even though the two may not be children of the same parents. Do you want the government to punish them? I just don't like people crying to nanny government everytime someone does something they don't like.
32 posted on 06/04/2003 2:52:35 PM PDT by Dilly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Wright is right!
I watch the show for the comedic content of the players and the great footage of their travels all over the world.

Agreed. There's nothing funnier than watching an excessively emotional, fat, middle aged couple roll down a snowy hillside.

33 posted on 06/04/2003 2:53:24 PM PDT by Stentor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Dilly
Who's to say they're lying? I guess you'd have no problem with CBS putting an incestuous mother-son team on the Amazing Race and calling them "married"--because who's to say they're not? Or how about two 14 year olds? Any problem with calling them "married" on TV as long as that's what they call themselves? Do you have children? Aren't you concerned that children will be at least confused by it? Maybe your kids are ok, but many many others may not be.
34 posted on 06/04/2003 2:56:52 PM PDT by Vitamin A
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Vitamin A
As Dilly points out, just because these guys don't use 'marriage' in the same way you do doesn't rise to the level of 'fraud' that would be outside the First Amendment's protections. (And skip the 'brush up on your constitution, buddy' crapola. I was valedictorian of my law school class, so I've read it a time or two.)
35 posted on 06/04/2003 2:57:14 PM PDT by ChicagoGuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Houmatt
The ratings don't actually tank unless you have a nielsen's rating box in your home.
36 posted on 06/04/2003 2:57:41 PM PDT by Tempest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Tempest
Yes, thanks for pointing that out Houmatt. Hollywood isn't connected to your personal TV at home, folks, hence the need to write in and tell them about what you think.
37 posted on 06/04/2003 2:59:43 PM PDT by Vitamin A
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Dilly
The point is that "marriage" is not a term whose definition is mutable. If their relationship doesn't meet some state's definition of marriage, they're not married. It's that simple. When people hear the word "married", it's a universal presumption that somewhere there's a legal document with the names of both parties and a legally authorized third party defining the two as married. The CBS spokesperson certainly seemed to think so. Of course, by her own words she reveals her own brain to be hermetically sealed.

To compare this to a woman calling her best friend "sister" fails on two counts. For one thing, there's no multi-billion company trying to get publicity for and consumption of their product on the basis of that statement. And there's also a tradition of the use of the words "brother" and "sister" to sometimes symbolize a relationship based on shared experiences of a highly emotional nature rather than blood that cuts across cultures back into antiquity. And when such a thing comes up, if the people involved are not actually blood related, it's made clear. There is no such tradition for the word "married". Anyone seeing the word "married" presumes a legal relationship as well as a social one.

Fine, forget the lawsuit. Perhaps the government shouldn't be involved. I accept the criticism. But this is still deliberately devious and misleading on the part of CBS, and they should be ashamed on that basis, regardless of how you feel about gays and marriage.
38 posted on 06/04/2003 3:02:24 PM PDT by RonF
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: ChicagoGuy
This "using the word marriage the same way you do" crap pretends as if there is no established definition for the term--as if it can mean whatever anyone wants it to mean. That is pure B.S. It has a legal definition. It is a legal designation. Its validity depends upon legal sanction. Just like a corporation. Am I a corporation just by saying I am? Can I be married to my boss's wife by just saying I am?

I expect more from a law school valedictorian. Which law school by the way?
39 posted on 06/04/2003 3:02:53 PM PDT by Vitamin A
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Vitamin A
Your "think of the children" argument falls on deaf ears because a parent who doesn't want their children "confused" by this should not let their children watch the show. People who expect television to raise their children for them get what they deserve: screwed up kids.

And, frankly, any child who is old enough to notice and question why two men are captioned as "married" is old enough to have a discussion about the issue with their parents. A parent should welcome the opportunity to discuss how they feel about the issue with their children.
40 posted on 06/04/2003 3:03:24 PM PDT by Dilly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: RonF
Well said, RonF. Thank you for pointing out the obvious, which unfortunately needs to be done more often than it should be these days. Sounds like a couple guys in here are prime candidates for the CBS spokesPERSON.
41 posted on 06/04/2003 3:05:04 PM PDT by Vitamin A
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Dilly
Sure, it provides a teaching moment, and any parent can turn off the show. No argument whatsoever.

But is that any reason why people should not speak up and express their opinion that intentional misrepresentation on primetime TV for political motives is something they disapprove of? I can turn off porno too. But does that mean I should sit silently when CBS throws "Debbie Does Dallas" onto the tube at 8 pm?
42 posted on 06/04/2003 3:07:57 PM PDT by Vitamin A
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: RonF
In post No. 6, you said:

And for anyone of any age to not know that no state in the U.S.A. establishes or recognizes a state of marriage for homosexual couples; do you have to have any kind of brain to work in CBS's public relations department? Or at least read something other than People or Variety?

and in post no. 38 you said:

When people hear the word "married", it's a universal presumption that somewhere there's a legal document with the names of both parties and a legally authorized third party defining the two as married.

Which is it? I don't think you can have it both ways here.
43 posted on 06/04/2003 3:11:28 PM PDT by Dilly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Dilly
As a follow up, Dilly, we are consumers. We have tastes and preferences. We have every right to voice our tastes and preferences to people who are trying to get us to give them (or their sponsors) money.

My personal taste and preference is that I should be able to watch a primetime TV show about a race around the world without having to shoo my kids out of the room, or without having to resolve their confusion about two men kissing on camera with the "married" designation on screen.

As a consumer, I have every right to voice a preference for clean, wholesome primetime entertainment. They can agree and get my money, or disagree and not get my money.

Any problem with that?
44 posted on 06/04/2003 3:11:43 PM PDT by Vitamin A
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Dilly
The point is that "marriage" is not a term whose definition is mutable. If their relationship doesn't meet some state's definition of marriage, they're not married. It's that simple. When people hear the word "married", it's a universal presumption that somewhere there's a legal document with the names of both parties and a legally authorized third party defining the two as married. The CBS spokesperson certainly seemed to think so. Of course, by her own words she reveals her own brain to be hermetically sealed.

CBS can't change this. The fact that they seem to be trying to do so for financial gain is outrageous.

To compare this to a woman calling her best friend "sister" fails on two counts. For one thing, there's no multi-billion company trying to get publicity for and consumption of their product on the basis of that statement. Secondly, there's also a tradition of the use of the words "brother" and "sister" to sometimes symbolize a relationship based on shared experiences of a highly emotional nature rather than blood that cuts across cultures back into antiquity. And when such a thing comes up, if the people involved are not actually blood related, it's made clear. There is no such tradition for the word "married". Anyone seeing the word "married" presumes a legal relationship as well as a social one.

Fine, forget the lawsuit. Perhaps the government shouldn't be involved. I accept the criticism. But this is still deliberately devious and misleading on the part of CBS, and they should be ashamed on that basis, regardless of how you feel about gays and marriage. But shame is not an emotion that is much in vogue, these days. So many people seem to think that shame is old-fashioned and an imposition on their right to blame everyone else for their problems; an impediment to doing as you please to get whatever you want.
45 posted on 06/04/2003 3:11:55 PM PDT by RonF
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

Comment #46 Removed by Moderator

To: Vitamin A
Hey, I didn't say you couldn't (or shouldn't) speak up or complain to CBS if you're offended by this. What I said is, I don't think this is a matter that it appropriate to take to the courts. I didn't instruct you to sit silently by. Please don't put words into my mouth.
47 posted on 06/04/2003 3:13:07 PM PDT by Dilly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Vitamin A
SPOTREP
48 posted on 06/04/2003 3:15:06 PM PDT by LiteKeeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dilly
Whoops. Sorry about the double post.

There's no conflict. The woman at CBS apparently did presume that there was a legal state of marriage between the two men, thus fufilling my term of "universal" in post 38. The fact that she was ignorant of the truth was what I was deploring in post 6.

Of course, it appears that somewhere in that spokeswoman's brain there is a perfect vacumn. Since a perfect vacumn doesn't exist in this universe, she might well be excludable from the term "universal" ;-)
49 posted on 06/04/2003 3:16:02 PM PDT by RonF
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Dilly
Dilly, fair enough. But I stand by my belief that CBS has potential legal problems here. They are engaging in misrepresentations while selling advertising. It's arguably prohibited in CA. The libs use the courts to get what they want, why shouldn't we?
50 posted on 06/04/2003 3:16:09 PM PDT by Vitamin A
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-97 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson