Another question, as long as I'm asking questions...

Why is it that they never show repeats of "The Puerto Rican Day"? I didn't see it when it was on initially, and it sounds hilarious. I've seen every other episode in reruns--why not this one?

In article , [email] says...

Because of the Puerton Rican flag burning incident.

because they're idiots

it was an accident, it's not like they were burning the flag out of hatred for Puerto Ricans .

banning the episode forever, that is so stupid.

Hmm, looks like it's time to cut 'n' paste my standard response to this...

"The Puerto Rican Day" episode was pulled from rotation, not "banned". There was no intervention by the government/FCC, no censorship of any kind. NBC simply responded to the (somewhat-overblown) concerns of the Puerto Rican community over their flag being burned, and pulled the episode to avoid a bad public relations incident. While I disagree with their decision to no longer air this episode (at least in the U.S.), they control the rights to the show and can choose to air or not air any episode they want. Ultimately it's a case of pure capitalism, where NBC/CTTD thought their profits would be hurt more by repeated showing of the episode than by any resulting backlash due to their decision to not run it again.

when I said banned, I didn't mean it that way. "pulled from rotation by NBC" is what I meant when i said banned. guess it's a bad choice of words. i still think it was stupid and the same goes for the episode when Susan dies.

OT, I know, but "they" have also pulled the Simpsons episode where Homer parks his car at the World Trade Center.

Come to think of it, I don't know of a Seinfeld episode involving or mentioning the WTC.

[email] wrote:

that's not true, I saw that Simpsons episode not long ago on the Vermont ABC station.

[email] wrote:

that's not true, I saw that Simpsons episode not long ago on the Vermont ABC station.

On Sat, 9 Mar 2002, Zed wrote:

WVNY?

If I'm not mistaken, The Simpsons is one of those shows where a station can opt to have all of the episodes on tape in house and can show them in any order they please. Some stations may choose to show it or not to show it.

For example, I've seen the episode involving the World Trade Center in syndication on my local channel, but never on the NYC channel I get off the dish.

Yes.

That's right. In Canada (here), The Comedy Network will not be showing that episode, but WVNY in the USA showed it. It is not like the Puerto Rican Seinfeld episode where no station can show it. The decision to show or not show the WTC Simpsons episode is left to the individual networks.

"John Twernbold" wrote in message news:[email]...

kind.

That's an interesting choice of words, because there is an argument (you can find it in Naomi Klein's No Logo for example), that what has happened to the PR Day, just like what happens to Marilyn Manson and rap records is evidence of a *new kind* of censorship. These days power is shifting from the hands of govts into those of corporations who do not of course have the power to pass laws, but whose influence has become so strong that they exert a de facto "corporate censorship". If a film maker, music maker, TV programmer knows that their product will be refused by Blockbuster, Wal-Mart, NBC/CTTD etc. if it has "controversial" content then they are forced - if they want to finance their art, and to have it reach an audience - to tailor it to what is judged to be acceptable by those corporations.

It's a bit like the old saw - "Freedom of the press exists - for anyone who owns one". We can't say just because "censorship" traditionally entailed govt intervention that the word must always have that meaning and when the outcome of "corporate censorship" is so similar - the only art available being stripped of its rough edges - who's to say that the traditional definition of "censorship" isn't fast becoming out of date?

-TF

TF said: "......... when the outcome of "corporate censorship" is so similar - the only art available being stripped of its rough edges - who's to say that the traditional definition of "censorship" isn't fast becoming out of date?"

If you substitute "the only art available" with "broadcast television" your argument makes sense. I, however, see plenty of "rough edges" in non-mainstream films (and movies), cable outlets like Sundance, the Independent Film Channel, live performances, DVDs, college radio, public access, etc. If you want corporations to pay for your art (which is what free TV is), don't be surprised when the artist tailors his art to please the sponsor (be surprised when he doesn't).

^^^^^^ "Art is often hailed as the grandest expression of human spirit, but we know now ... that the grandest expression of human spirit is whatever it takes for a man or woman to rush back into a burning building to save more people."

What's the alternative? No, really--that's not a rhetorical question--what is the alternative? The government forcing Wal-Mart to carry every CD published?

For literally *thousands* of years there have been complaints about art being dumbed-down for the masses, or sanitized for popular consumption. It's a given that edgy, controversial art may face a more difficult distribution path. That hasn't changed at all. If anything, today the consumer interested in such art (and those who create it) have many more options due to technology. Too edgy for broadcast TV? Air it on HBO. Too explicit for Wal-Mart? Sell it online. Too complex for the modern cinema audience? Show it in an arthouse.

If you truly believe "the only art available" is that found in Wal-Mart, then you need to broaden your horizons. :-) And if an artist isn't concerned with their own artistic integrity but instead merely wants the fame and fortune which comes from hawking one's wares at Wal-Mart, then they should concentrate on serving the mainstream public. There will always be a market (albeit smaller and less profitable) for those interested in the alternatives.

On Fri, 8 Mar 2002 20:15:20 -0000, "Tod Friendly" wrote:

Great book! . . . .

"The News Guy(Mike)" wrote in message news:[email]...

can

Yes it is. I bought it expecting to disagree with practically everything she said. And found the opposite to be the case.

-TF