merchant@dartvax.UUCP (Peter Merchant) (12/14/84)
{ Take 2 }
Wait a second!
You're planning on doing nasty things to MTV because they aren't showing
your favourite video? Oh come on now!
Okay, let's say that MTV is specifically saying that "No, we won't show this
video because it has gays in it." So? It's THEIR network. Their music
director (or video director) had to make a decision. Why did she make this
decision? Well, let's see...
Last I saw, MTV's audience was made up primarily of middle-to-upper class
teenagers. This is why you see so much Duran Duran and Billy Idol and
the like. Possibly, MTV feels that the subject matter of the song is one
that their audience might not like. Now, I admit, the fact that they might
not like homosexuality but have no qualms about women in chains might be
considered by many a sad state of affairs, it none-the-less exists. MTV,
therefore, doesn't show them because they do not wish to alienate their
audience.
By the way, the idea of contacting the ACLU about this is rather silly.
Watching Videos of Your Choice is not one of the rights granted to everyone
by the bill of rights.
'nuff said about this. Does anyone know whether MTV is showing the video
for "I Believe in Father Christmas"?
--
"Santa Claus is Computer Literate!" Peter Merchantlo@harvard.ARPA (Bert S.F. Lo) (12/16/84)
> You're planning on doing nasty things to MTV because they aren't showing > your favourite video? Oh come on now! > > Okay, let's say that MTV is specifically saying that "No, we won't show this > video because it has gays in it." So? It's THEIR network. Their music > director (or video director) had to make a decision. Didn't it used to be the case that MTV would not show black music videos? I think they said that it didn't appeal to their audience even though most of their audience hadn't had much exposure to black music. Now, they put on quite a bit of it because the music began to sell, without the aid of MTV. I'm not sure it's quite the same story here since we're talking about the content of the video, not the music. But the point is that a lot of black groups made a big noise about it and they didn't get anywhere. Instead, little local video shows played the videos and got the audiences interested to the point that MTV was "forced" to take notice and play the black music videos. So what's the point? If the black groups couldn't get MTV to change their minds, neither can the gay groups. I don't think it really matters if MTV plays it or not. I doubt an audience that likes to see women in bondage would like to see gays portrayed as "regular" human beings. Now, if the video were filled with "fag bashing" ... _________________________Bert S.F. Lo (lo@harvard.ARPA)_________________________ "Contempt in your eyes as I turn to kiss his lips Broken I lie all my feelings denied blood on your fist Can you tell me why You in your false securities Tear up my life condemning me Call me an illness call me a sin Never feel guilty never give in Tell me why You and me together fighting for our love" - "Why" by Bronski Beat
ag5@pucc-k (Henry C. Mensch) (12/17/84)
>You're planning on doing nasty things to MTV because they aren't showing >your favourite video? Oh come on now! >Okay, let's say that MTV is specifically saying that "No, we won't show this >video because it has gays in it." So? It's THEIR network. Their music >director (or video director) had to make a decision. Why did she make this >decision? Well, let's see... It seems to me that MTV ought to realize that gay people are also part of their audience and that, although it might offend some people, they *do* have an obligation to serve that portion of their audience. They show all kinds of sexist videos (where man is supreme, and woman is not much of anything; where you find women in chains and all kinds of other goodies); I am sure that this offends others in their audience. If the feminists were to get upset about this, those videos would surely go by the wayside quickly. The point: LET THE AUDIENCE DECIDE WHAT THEY WANT TO SEE/HEAR! If there are those in the audience who, after seeing the Bronski Beat and listening to their stuff, don't want them on MTV because they advocate alternative lifestyles, then they can express their opinion to the MTV management, which can then decide (based on these viewer opinions whether or not this video is appropriate for their audience. BTW, this sort of censorship is the problem with network (ABC|CBS|NBC) TV . . . they assume that their audience cannot think for themselves. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------- Henry C. Mensch | User Confuser | Purdue University User Services {ihnp4|decvax|ucbvax|seismo|allegra|cbosgd|harpo}!pur-ee!pucc-i!ag5 ------------------------------------------------------------------- "Ah, the sweet song of the morning grouch!"
strock@fortune.UUCP (Gregory Strockbine) (12/17/84)
>> >> Okay, let's say that MTV is specifically saying that "No, we won't show this >> video because it has gays in it." So? It's THEIR network. Their music >> director (or video director) had to make a decision. While I was spinning through the channels on my cable out here in SF, I came across a program on channel 6 called gay tv. I caught their version of a music video. 3 guys in leather astride motorcycles blocking the entrance to an alley, in the alley in a doorway was a guy with a leather hood mask on, leather g-string, hands tied up over his head, bare butt facing out, another guy in leather dances around to some really crummy instrumental disco music, strips down to a leather g-string, all the while he is flexing and going over to the guy in the doorway, rubbing his legs and getting his face close to the strung-up guy's bare behind .... ooh ooh ooh nasty nasty
elf@utcsrgv.UUCP (Eugene Fiume) (12/18/84)
[] > So what's the point? If the black groups couldn't get MTV to change their > minds, neither can the gay groups. I don't think it really matters if MTV > plays it or not. I doubt an audience that likes to see women in bondage > would like to see gays portrayed as "regular" human beings. Now, if the > video were filled with "fag bashing" ... > > _________________________Bert S.F. Lo (lo@harvard.ARPA)_________________________ Wellllll, Bronski Beat's "Smalltown Boy" is concerned with "fag bashing" to some degree. By the way, is it true that the Eurythmics' "Sex Crime" has been pulled from many U.S. radio stations? Apparently, many swift-minded radio programmers have completely misunderstood the lyrics. Eugene Fiume {decvax|allegra}!utcsrgv!elf
merchant@dartvax.UUCP (12/19/84)
> > The point: LET THE AUDIENCE DECIDE WHAT THEY WANT TO SEE/HEAR! > If there are those in the audience who, after seeing the Bronski Beat > and listening to their stuff, don't want them on MTV because they > advocate alternative lifestyles, then they can express their opinion to > the MTV management, which can then decide (based on these viewer opinions > whether or not this video is appropriate for their audience. > > BTW, this sort of censorship is the problem with network > (ABC|CBS|NBC) TV . . . they assume that their audience cannot think > for themselves. > -- > > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > Henry C. Mensch | User Confuser | Purdue University User Services > {ihnp4|decvax|ucbvax|seismo|allegra|cbosgd|harpo}!pur-ee!pucc-i!ag5 > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > "Ah, the sweet song of the morning grouch!" Everyone misinterprets the networks. I always hear the same thing: "They assume you can't think for yourself." You see, the audience DOES decide what they want to see for videos on MTV. They decide with a marvelous device called 'the channel selector.' If MTV gets exceedingly grim, they'll change over to VH-1 (or, even worse, NBC!). The problem is, once you have lost your audience, it is hard to get them back. If I get disgusted by a video on MTV, I may suddenly discover that NBC shows some really funny sitcoms at that time. I'll start watching NBC instead of MTV. And that, my friend, means money lost. For MTV (or any other major network) to make money, they have to hit a good cross section of Americana. They have to appeal to more than just a (dare I say it) minority group of Americans. If they don't, they don't make money. That is the bottom line: M-O-N-E-Y. Now, I think the reason that MTV doesn't play their video often (4:30AM isn't what I'd call a peak viewing time) is just due to a lack of popularity. But let's say that this video that you think is good but deals with the touchy subject of homosexuality comes across your desk. You are chief music director for MTV. Do you run it or don't you? You say "Yes!" MTV runs it. People love it. It is released as a single and jumps to #1 in two days. And, you / MTV get another feather in your cap. You say "Yes!" MTV runs it. People hate it. People tune away. Money sinks. The boss confiscates your key to the executive wash- room. You say "No." And nothing happens. MTV isn't in the business for their health. They're not in it to be a service to the millions of huddled masses yearning to be free. It's all part of our marvelous capitalist system. We all feel a bit put upon when things don't go our way because we aren't in the majority. But before you run around screaming that "This is not right!" and trying to drag in the ACLU, stop for a moment and look at it from THEIR SIDE. -- "And on that note..." Peter Merchant
mjc@cmu-cs-cad.ARPA (Monica Cellio) (12/21/84)
Any privately-owned company has the obligation to cater to the wishes of the majority of their customers, and NO ONE ELSE (government agencies aside). The management of MTV probably guessed (I'd say correctly) that the majority of their audience is not gay. Companies tend to be conservative because they don't want to lose customers; while I haven't seen the video in question, I get the impression from the net that they would run the risk of losing more customers than they would gain by showing it. If you want them to change this opinion, write to them. And if you are offended by something they currently show, let them know. But don't expect them to cater to the whims of every minority out there if doing so would hurt their business. (And because videos cost money to buy/rent/whatever, "hurt" probably means "fail to gain customers" as well as "lose customers".) They don't owe anyone anything. Look at things from the monetary point of view; it's the way capitalist society works. [I do not necessarily agree with this view; I'm just pointing it out.] -Dragon -- UUCP: ...seismo!ut-sally!ut-ngp!lll-crg!dragon ARPA: monica.cellio@cmu-cs-cad or dragon@lll-crg
robert@nmtvax.UUCP (01/16/85)
You have to remember one thing about MTV, it is a BUSINESS.
Businesses must make money to survive. Entertainment services
(such as MTV, ABC, CBS, NBC and any other rinky-dink station you
can think of) make money by selling advertising time to other
businesses. If a lot of people watch a station and it reaches
some people that would not be reached otherwise, the owner can
charge more for that time. If a station alienates its viewers
/listeners by playing/showing things that upsets or displeases
them, that station looses part of its current viewer base and
consequently, part of its money and sellabilty.
Public television is capable of putting on the most bizzare
(and I might add, best) stuff because its viewers are paying for
it, not the advertisers. If you pay for it, you control it (Or
at least should...). Blame the advertisers for the crap that is
on television or radio today. Let them know that you are not
watching the garbage that they get put on TV and radio with their
money and refuse to patronize them. There are plenty of people
that are willing to give you what you want. You just have to pay
for it.
I hope that radio stations will consider the consequences of
program changes very carefully. Since when does an area need three
top 40 stations in the same area (One can be found in the Modesto/
Stockton area of California...)? Whatever happened to a good old
ROCK (Boy George is not what I consider ROCK!) stations like WKRP?
I just wish that the services would look not only to profits (though
they are important), but to the type of viewer/listener that they
currently have.
I'm probably going to catch heck for this, but what the heck...
Robert Kenyon
...lanl!nmtvax!robert
Are you listening HOT (Ha Ha) ROCK (Ha Ha Ha...) 102??????merchant@dartvax.UUCP (Peter Merchant) (01/22/85)
> > I hope that radio stations will consider the consequences of > program changes very carefully. Since when does an area need three > top 40 stations in the same area (One can be found in the Modesto/ > Stockton area of California...)? Whatever happened to a good old > ROCK (Boy George is not what I consider ROCK!) stations like WKRP? > > > Robert Kenyon > ...lanl!nmtvax!robert > > Since when? Well, New York has LOTS of top-40 stations. Why? Because, in theory, top-40 music catches the broadest cross-section of the audience. More people listen to a top-40 station than might listen to an AOR or new music station. This is not ALWAYS true. Once again, it depends on who your audience is and how many of them there are. Now, let's take your big city. It has one million people. Of these one million people, let's say 75% of them listen to top-40. Let's say 25% listen to AOR. Now, then, you own a radio station. You have to decide on a format. There are two other radio stations in your market. One of them is AOR. The other is Top-40. Now, if you decided to become an AOR station, the best you could do is 25% of the market. If you became a top-40 station, the best you could do is 75%! And even if you just split the makret evenly, you'd still have 37% of the market, which is better than you could do with the AOR station! So, you'd have two top-40 stations and one AOR station. Simple, no? -- "Your mouth says no, no, no Peter Merchant but your eyes say Yes, yes, yes!"
rcook@uiucuxc.UUCP (01/23/85)
I understand all you are saying and you are exactly right. Why don't people do something about it instead of complain. They say they don't have the time, well then they probably don't have the time to watch MTV then and shouldn't be paying attention to this note. Rob
gregbo@houxm.UUCP (Greg Skinner) (01/27/85)
From: robert@nmtvax.UUCP > I hope that radio stations will consider the consequences of > program changes very carefully. Since when does an area need three > top 40 stations in the same area (One can be found in the Modesto/ > Stockton area of California...)? Whatever happened to a good old > ROCK (Boy George is not what I consider ROCK!) stations like WKRP? > I just wish that the services would look not only to profits (though > they are important), but to the type of viewer/listener that they > currently have. For one, the personalities of the DJ's of the three top 40 stations may be totally different, resulting in differing listening audiences. For example, the Z-100 (WHTZ) Morning Zoo is one of the most controversial radio shows -- it has caught a lot of flak from the media for some of the things they say, however there are a large number of people in the NYC area who like to hear what they have to say, so they listen. For those who do not want to hear silly, sometimes obscene things, but still enjoy top 40 music, there are WPLJ and WAPP. For another, different top 40 stations may have differing playlists. WHTZ plays a normal rotation of about 30-35 popular songs, plus they feature some album cuts (both old and new), and some humorous songs besides. WPLJ has less variety, and WAPP even less. WHTZ tends to get the newer songs earlier. There are other reasons, but what it boils down to is that top 40 stations are not all alike, so it is reasonable for different levels of appreciation among fans warranting different stations is the same area. -- Baby tie your hair back in a long white bow ... Meet me in the field, behind the dynamo ... Greg Skinner (gregbo) {allegra,cbosgd,ihnp4}!houxm!gregbo
dsi@unccvax.UUCP (Dataspan Inc) (02/04/85)
Despite the fact that MTV is in 20 m+ homes, how is it that the wield sooo
much power with a 1.3 rating (500,000 average homes in their universe) according
to A.C. Nielsen & Co? Seems that any good major market radio station can
compete with that share.
Sounds like monopoly / restraint of trade to me?
dya
.