TV Stations Ban 'Speechless...Silencing the Christians

[erastes]

HURRAH.  Just had this email from the makers of that vile Christian video. They are whining about this. I emailed back and said "that's wonderful! Hurrah!"

"Two TV stations, WOOD-TV in Grand Rapids, MI and WSYX-TV in Columbus, OH, have banned a television special showing how the media is silencing Christians. The stations bowed down to the demands of a handful of homosexual activists and banned the showing of our TV special "Speechless...Silencing the Christians." The one-hour TV special was scheduled to be shown on the stations, but the stations yanked the program after agreeing to run it. AFA was paying for the time.

Oddly enough, the TV special shows how the media censors Christians, which is exactly what these two stations did!

They said the program was "controversial." The stations do not consider showing two lesbians or two homosexuals kissing or getting into bed with each other controversial. The stations do not consider all the profanity they air controversial. They regularly show network programs advocating the homosexual agenda, but those programs are not considered controversial. However, a special showing of Christians being silenced is controversial!

The manager of the Columbus station told AFA the station would not air the program because telling the truth about homosexuality did not represent "positive Christianity." Are we moving to a time in the near future when local pastors whose services are broadcast will be banned because their sermons call the practice of homosexuality a sin?

Please, forward this critical message to your family and friends today!"

So I am.  So we can all cheer.

Get your own valentinr

Comments

[hybridartifacts.livejournal.com]

That's why I prefer debates and showing opposing views on TV rather than just plugging a single view-but in practice it ends up being wishful thinking most of the time! Actually, its interesting that you mention advertising revenue, because in effect the station just becomes one big advert for its own opinions.
The most responsible approach for a broadcaster to take, to me at least, is to show alternative views (even if they are alternative views to strongly held ones of your own). There does need to be a general sensitivity to people's feelings -though sometimes that can become an excuse to remove unpalatable information from peoples radar - why for instance would most TV news shows not show footage of much of the injury and death in Iraq when they will happily show things equally gory in other contexts?
Its also reasonable to expect that there would be a bit of pandering to the sensibilities of viewers/listeners, especially when it might affect the stations income- but at what point is that problematic, and what about broadcasting outside of advertising income as a source of finance (at one end say, the BBC, at the other broadcasting funded by special interest groups).

I actually feel that any information or views that are presented without parallel critiques are unhelpful. Even news stories are best presented as informed debate where possible rather than point of fact.

Adverts are interesting. At what point does a 'documentary' or even an entertainment become an advert? Is the 'silencing Christians' piece a documentary on the views of these people, or an advert for them? To me, its an advert because its one sided- if its presented alongside a piece critical of it, as a whole its role as an advert is subverted and it becomes one side of a dialogue though. Maybe I just plain don't like adverts? I always want to see under their skin, to see alternatives and to get beyond shallow claims to what something is actually like. That goes for the latest burger meal, diet drinks and wonder foods as much as it goes for beliefs and opinions.

To me, it's a flaw of specialist broadcasting (especially Christian broadcasting, which annoys me) that they tend to only present their own view. Of course its logical to expect it, but it is the refuge of weak thinking. If your views are opened to critique then you allow them to grow, to become defined by there strengths and have their weaknesses exposed and open to reassessment. To do anything less is actually to do ones own views and ideas a disservice. It is like keeping a child locked in a room all their life to keep them safe-in the end the greatest danger is the one locking them in the room.