![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
erastes"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
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2009-02-13 07:56 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-02-13 08:08 pm (UTC)Edit: I did call and they had a special voicemail set up just for that topic. I hadn't heard any local news about this, but now I will pay a bit more attention.
no subject
Date: 2009-02-13 08:32 pm (UTC)But Columbus also has a big, ACTIVE gay community.... and nobody messes too much with the soaps.
I got one of those emails, too, and answered it: Dear Donny, thanks for tellng me where to thank WSYX... Jesus loves you, but the rest of us think you're a hateful jerk.
Spam the haters... fun!
no subject
Date: 2009-02-13 08:35 pm (UTC)http://www.hrcactioncenter.org/campaign/thankstomi?rk=871xUEEaZX2cE
no subject
Date: 2009-02-13 08:36 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-02-13 08:42 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-02-13 09:06 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-02-13 09:11 pm (UTC)Angie
no subject
Date: 2009-02-13 10:32 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-02-13 10:54 pm (UTC)Also: I'm a big fan of the use of "the gay agenda". So nebulous.
Also also: "do not consider showing two lesbians or two homosexuals kissing…" so, uh lesbians aren't homosexuals, then?
*facepalmsigh*
no subject
Date: 2009-02-13 11:33 pm (UTC)If you believe in freedom of thought and speech for everyone in the world, then you have to allow these people the right to air their views. You may not agree with them, any more than they agree with yours, but they have the right to say it, as you would expect to be allowed to air your views on TV if you had the money to buy the airtime.
If a TV station takes your money to screen your programme/political party broadcast/Christian preaching or gay rights promotion, you have a contract with them and they should not be allowed to then decide that their opinion is more right than yours.
If you don't want to watch it, you have an off button, or you can navigate away from it on t'Interweb. You can comment on it, disagree with it, swear at the TV, enlist your friends to do the same, but if you stop them airing their opinion, you can't complain if they do the same to you.
Mind you, I couldn't stomach more than a few minutes of that video either and had to navigate away from it.
But - freedom of speech? Works both ways, folks.
no subject
Date: 2009-02-13 11:54 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-02-14 01:04 am (UTC)The station offered a 2 PM Saturday slot to replace the Pre-Obama-Speech prime time one, since the station would rather have something to make them some money in that slot, but the AFA never got back to them about it.
WOOD had to lock in the programming and said "If you can't be bothered to let us know, we aren't running it."
no subject
Date: 2009-02-14 04:22 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-02-14 04:41 am (UTC)In Phobespeak, ho-mo-sexshuls are always male. Because the het phobes are terribly turned on by lesbians... even the word makes 'em break out in a sweat.
Pathetic.
no subject
Date: 2009-02-14 04:49 am (UTC)What they produce is nothing less than hate crime propaganda. This film--you can see it over here: www.silencingchristians.com/ is a fabrication of misrepresentation. Airing it would be equivalent to airing a neo-nazi rally on national networks.
TV stations do have the option of refusing to air programs that are blatantly inaccurate or are intended to incite viewers to illegal acts.
YES, freedom of speech works both ways. But -- as another poster has said -- they didn't want some random airspace; they wanted to run their hate show just before Barack Obama's speech, to make it look as though he approved this vile rubbish.
The stations had a right -- and I think a responsibilty -- to avoid misrepresenting President Obama's views on homophobia. While he is not in favor of gay "marriage" -- hey, there is NO politician other than Dennis Kucinich who has the balls to run for Prez on that platform -- Obama does favor equal-rights civil partnership, which the phobe fanatics do not.
If a TV station takes your money to screen your programme/political party broadcast/Christian preaching or gay rights promotion, you have a contract with them and they should not be allowed to then decide that their opinion is more right than yours.
But they didn't; this is yet another lie. They had requested a particular time slot, the station chose not to sell them that time slot. No contract. Just because they wanted something doesn't mean they are entitled to it.
no subject
Date: 2009-02-14 04:53 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-02-14 10:17 am (UTC)I still stand by what I posted - whatever their opinion is, even if they are a minority of extremists, if you're in favour of free speech, it applies to everyone, not just those people whose views accord with yours.
Erastes has kindly brought their rantings to the attention of a lot of people who would otherwise have been totally unaware of them. We've all got the option of commenting on it, which is great. But celebrating that they have been denied airtime? Doesn't work for me.
no subject
Date: 2009-02-14 10:31 am (UTC)Am I glad its been pulled? Yes, I am. I am also uncomfortable that it has though. I don't like what they are saying, and the way they are saying it makes me seethe. At the same time-if they are not allowed to say it, how can alternate views justify their own freedom of speech? How do we judge who can or cannot be heard?
Alas its the trap liberal thinking gets us in (which rather pains me since I'm a liberal thinker)- being open to respecting the views of others because we believe in practising what we preach, in extending the same courtesy's we would like and have fought for to others because if we didn't we would be hypocrites, ends up making us easy targets for the people who unthinkingly wallow in hypocrisy and bigoted ideas. The people who don't respect the opinions of others can use freedom of speech to hit those who do with a big stick.
I agree that they should have a right to be heard, but I disagree with what they are saying about peoples sexual orientation and feel they are also distorting things a lot in how they say it. I mentioned in a reply to the earlier post that I also hate their assumption (which is completely incorrect) that they speak for Christians. They don't-they speak for a particular brand of people who label themselves as Christian and that's it. Just because it is their way of interpreting or applying the Bible doesn't make it correct nor universal. Even if there are a lot of Christians (especially in America) who share their opinions that doesn't give them the right to assume they can speak for all Christians. There are other Christians who find their thinking to be fundamentally flawed.
Maybe the only valid form of freedom of speech is actually debate. One sided polemics from whatever viewpoint can and do end up being problematic because they present views without the ability to also see a critique of those views and so have a better chance of assessing the validity of either view.
So-in the end that's why I'm glad its been pulled. It's one sided and gives no scope for disagreement and debate. Maybe if they showed it alongside a piece with an opposite view, or better yet several pieces expressing a range of views, and then had a debate show about them I would be OK with it. They used to do that in the UK(back in the early days of Channel 4 I seem to recall watching a few), though I haven't noticed it much recently and have no idea if that happens in the USA or not.
no subject
Date: 2009-02-14 10:33 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-02-14 10:37 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-02-14 10:45 am (UTC)However, I still feel that breaking out the champagne because someone - anyone - has been censored, is not in the spirit of allowing freedom of speech to everyone.
no subject
Date: 2009-02-14 01:04 pm (UTC)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.
no subject
Date: 2009-02-14 01:05 pm (UTC)I would love to see Christian stations opening themselves up to a considerate and compassionate dialogue on their own shows with people who they disagree with. I don't think it will happen much (if at all), and that saddens me because I think Christians especially should be open to listening to people and accepting them for who they are (largely because, to me at least, the entire point of Christianity is to do this - to be free from guilt and fear so people can grow and come to accept and respect and care for each other). I also think, as I suggested earlier, that it shows the strengths of ones belief's to open to them to the possibility that they could be in error or flawed in some way. Its actually better 'advertising' to allow dissent and disagreement. You can only do that through dialogue. That openness promotes growth and insight, and even if it doesn't cause actual change in those beliefs, it can engender respect and compassion for those who you disagree with. That respect and compassion is often, alas, lacking.
The problem with advertising is that so often it can become rapidly apparent when it is false or over-inflated in its claims and that they focus on getting people to 'buy' but not on giving them real lasting value. That goes for proselytizing as well. I was once involved with a church that was brilliant in 'converting' people and getting them to join, but was constantly baffled that it couldn't then keep them as members longer than a year or so. Quite simply they had no 'content' on offer other than that focused on getting people to join, so as members started to ask questions and explore what they had joined, they became discontent as nobody had any answers (or any interest in the questions)and left.
no subject
Date: 2009-02-14 01:38 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-02-14 03:38 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-02-14 04:32 pm (UTC)Poor, put-upon fundamentalists.
no subject
Date: 2009-02-14 10:35 pm (UTC)