scouts-l Mail Archive for July of 2000: Re: Bush Commercial
Cheryl Singhal (csinghal@CAPACCESS.ORG
Wed Jul 26 1972 - 12:35:11 CDT
On Thu, 27 Jul 2000, steve wrote:
> > > didn't think that they would eventually add to the bottom line.
> > around -- production values say GO WITH THE WAVERS. Why? Because
> ok maybe the bean counters aren't impressed by a penny a second but it adds
> up with time. The reason you cited above support my point. Advertisers
> aren't going to pay the big $$ if the network is offending the viewers are
> they? No they won't and that directly effects the bottom line.
Advertisers who pony up for prime-time TV ads are much harder to offend
What offends the pastors in town will delight the ditch diggers; what
offends the Ladies of the Soladarity won't phase WICI members. Producers
walk that line every minute of every live broadcast, bless 'em, and I
wouldn't do that on a bet. Everything on the air offends someone,
somewhere. (I remember when NBC nearly cancelled Star Trek because Capt.
Kirk kissed Uhura; I remember a show called MAMA which was deeply
offensive to some; The Jeffersons' upstairs neighbor gave some folks
a heart attack; and Freddy and the Man got a lot of people uptight as
well --not to mention It Takes A Thief!, or Sanford & Son and Amen
--which offended a lot of black church-goers I knew).
> > > I wonder how many people on this list opposed to the use of
> > BSA images use
> > > unlicensed software or music?
> > That is an unwarranted conclusion based on a faulty premise, sir. You
> > confuse ethics, philosophy, and marketing. The three are not directly
> > inter-connected, although they are certainly related.
> Hmmmmm, I thought that was a question not a statement of conclusion. It is
> on topic though since we are discussing copyright infringments.
> > And I must say I find the implied accusation to be seriously
> > UNScoutlike.e
> Great personal attacks on the Scouts-L!