The Osbourne clan’s new variety show “Osbournes: Reloaded” hasn’t aired yet, but it’s already causing a dust up in Florida.
Panama City Fox affiliate WPGX has opted not to air Ozzy and company’s primetime experiment, according to the city’s News Herald. Why? You’re not going to believe this, but:
In an e-mail to The News Herald, management called the program “unsuitable and contrary to public interest.”
“I just felt it was not keeping with community standards,” said David Cavileer, the general manager of WPGX Fox 28.
“This is more of an MTV thing,” Cavileer said. “They are reporting it to be a variety show. There is worse stuff out there. This show in my market does not serve my public in Panama City. I did not feel it was appropriate.”
“Unsuitable” for Panama City. Really? I’ve been to Panama City. More than once. And let me tell you, there’s very little that’s considered “unsuitable” there. Especially during spring break. And that goes for the rest of the Sunshine State too.
I’ll grant there’s every possibility the Osbournes’ attempt at updating the classic family variety show for the 21st century is going to be a colossal train wreck. (In fact, I’ll bet I’m not the only one waiting to watch for just that reason.) But raunchy enough to be pulled off the air? Please. Apparently this guy didn’t see Fox’s “Paradise Hotel” or “The Moment of Truth.” Ewww. But I guess he knows this isn’t “appropriate” because he thoroughly reviewed it, right? Wrong.
Cavileer has not viewed a full episode of the program but made the decision after watching a six-minute preview.
Six minutes. How on earth can you make an informed decision about something after only watching one tenth of it? You could take six minutes of anything out of context and make it seem horrible enough to be banned. Ever see those hilarious YouTube clips of “Mary Poppins” and “Chitty Chitty Bang Bang” recut to make them look like horror movies?
Although Fox executives defended the Osbournes’ show, they also stuck up for the station’s rights.
“‘Osbournes: Reloaded’ was thoroughly vetted by our Standards and Practices department to ensure it was appropriate for broadcast during the scheduled time period,” said Todd Adair, director of publicity for Fox Broadcasting Co. “If any network affiliate feels the programming may be inappropriate for its individual market, however, it has the right to pre-empt the program.”
So what will the folks in Panama City be watching instead of the Osbournes? A rerun of “The Simpsons.” Potato. Potatoe.
The best part of this whole thing though is the heated debate the decision has created on the Daily Herald’s web site and at Rollingstone.com, which covered the story.
Here are a few fun opinions from the Daily Herald:
Edwolfe (who is apparently a disgruntled smoker without spell check) wrote:
Many of you say that the freedom that one has to smoke ends when they smoke in your vacinity. I say the freedom to watch soft porn, hard porn, and television filled with vulgarity and filth ends when it is shown on public channels, especially when it’s in prime time where kids can watch.
You tell ‘em Ed! Because we all know kids only watch television between the hours of 8 p.m. and 10 p.m. And what is this “hard porn” you speak of?
Clc32405 wrote (rather confusingly):
Though I cannot speak for ALL “religious right” as you so eloquently put it, I can speak for myself and say that I have absolutely no interest whatsoever in controlling your behaviour, period.
Secondly, I would like to say that while I in no way agree with the content of this program, I would like to see our local FOX affiliates give the public our God given right to FREEDOM OF CHOICE. It is a constitutional violation, what you are doing by not airing this show, and in my humble opinion, your attempted censorship will do far more harm than good in this country.
Can I get an “Amen!”? Although I’m a little confused Clc; Is this a question of religious freedom or freedom of speech?
Great stuff though, right? And there are pages and pages of these things!
Over at RollingStone.com, the comment threads are a little more cerebral:
Mike writes:
It’s their equipment, their station etc… but they are broadcasting on public frequencies that they license from the US Government. They can not broadcast anything the want. Example: They can not broadcast full frontal nudity or the 7 dirty words.
I don’t think it’s as black and white as you’re stating it. By the way, depending on the city and what laws they have on the books, THEY can tell you what colors you can paint your house.
Nice use of the old “evil government” argument there Mike.
But I’m going to give the grand prize to G Money, who not only hits the nail on the head in this debate, but offers some sage advice:
This isn’t a free speech issue. This is a contract issue between Fox and the local affiliate.
Some of you should actually, you know, read the constitution.
Wise words indeed.
If you don’t live in Panama City, you can decide if this whole kerfuffle is even worth it by tuning in to Fox tonight after "American Idol."
Read The Daily Herald’s coverage here and RollingStone.com’s here.