Parents TV Council

The Parents Television Council has issued a whinge in response to MTV's Video Music Awards. PTC Director of Public Policy Dan Isett enthused:

MTV has once again succeeded in marketing sexually charged messages to young children using former child stars and condom commercials -- while falsely rating this program as appropriate for kids as young as 14. This is unacceptable.

This much is absolutely clear: MTV marketed adults-only material to children while falsely manipulating the content rating to make parents think the content was safe for their children.

MTV continues to sexually exploit young women by promoting acts that incorporate 'twerking' in a nude-colored bikini. How is this image of former child star Miley Cyrus appropriate for 14-year-olds?

How is it appropriate for children to watch Lady Gaga strip down to a bikini in the opening act?

How is it appropriate for 14-year-olds to see a condom commercial and a promo for an R-rated movie during the first commercial break?

PTC Advisory Board Member and former BET Executive Paul Porter said:

The Miley Cyrus/Robin Thicke performance simply substituted talent with sex. Viacom has a set of corporate broadcast standards that were obviously broken in this case for financial gain. While the performance was shocking to the audience, MTV approved it during the show run prior to the broadcast. Heads should roll at MTV.

Offsite Comment: Daily Mail Outrage

28th August   2013. See article from mediasnoops2.wordpress.com . Thanks to Dan

Mail Hack Outraged Over Miley Cyrus' Display Complete With Pics In All Their Raunchy Innocent Children Corrupting Glory

...See the full article

...And if you want to see the naughtiness in all its glory, the Daily Mail is more than happy to oblige, see article from dailymail.co.uk

The Parents Television Council has released its annual Best TV Advertisers List which focuses on companies that sponsor the least family-friendly TV programming.

PTC President Tim Winter explained:

This year's analysis should provide greater clarity for those members of the public who wish to 'vote with their wallets'.

We base this list purely on the sponsorship behavior we see from these companies.

We encourage the public to use this list when they're shopping.

The list is based on each company's prime time broadcast television ad buys during the 2012-2013 television season. Using the PTC's trademarked traffic light ratings system, each company was assigned a point value based on the number of green, yellow and red light shows it sponsored.

And the best advertisers of 2013 are:

Automotive Honda BANKS Wells Fargo Bank of America Restaurants McDonalds Subway Taco Bell TGI Friday's Red Robin BEVERAGES Welch's Lipton Tea Nespresso Diet Pepsi Dr. Pepper

General Retail JC Penney Kohl's Macy's Target Old Navy/Gap Burlington Coat Factory PERSONAL ITEMS/GROCERIES Quilted Northern Brawny Aquafresh Listerine Maybelline L'Oreal WIRELESS PROVIDER AT&T Verizon

The Parents Television Council is calling on its members to file indecency complaints over an episode of Fox Broadcasting's Dads , which featured an implied depiction of and references to semen, and references to masturbation. The episode was rated TV-14 and aired at 8 pm Eastern/7:00 pm Central on January 14.

The following are the sexual scenes that were featured in this episode:

• Veronica: You don't have a caring bone in your body.
  Eli: Yes, I do. My bone cared for her twice last night. And a bendy third time.
   
• Warner uses a UV light to disinfect Veronica's desk.
  Warner: These things are amazing. It even lights up semen.
  Warner's dad enters, waving "Hi" to everyone. The UV light picks up traces of semen, presumably, on his hand.
   
• Camila tries to watch television with David and Crawford nearby.
  Camila: What about that show "Girls"?
  David: Hey, I'm trying to get erections, not lose them.

PTC President Tim Winter said:

We are urging members of the public to file a formal FCC indecency complaint over this episode of 'Dads.

Parents who have been told repeatedly by the entertainment industry to rely on the TV content ratings system have been fooled once again given this episode's very low TV-14 rating. How is a semen scene appropriate for 14-year-old children?

If parents can't rely on the television ratings system to give them accurate and consistent information about the programs their families might be watching, then the system is worthless -- serving only to give the networks cover as they continue to push the limits of what is deemed acceptable for the broadcast medium.

We urge the FCC to investigate this 'Dads' episode on behalf of families across the nation.

The clean up TV moralist group, The Parents Television Council whinged on their website about a US TV series, Reign :

The Parents Television Council condemned the CW Network for its plans to give children online access to a more sexually explicit version of tonight's episode of Reign by adding in scenes that the network's own standards department cut and then posting the episode on the channel's web site tomorrow, without age verification mechanisms.

Dan Isett, PTC director of communications and policy said:

The CW Network is doing parents no favors by allowing children unfettered access to sexual content from this young adult and teen-targeted show online. It's appalling that a broadcast network would flaunt broadcast standards in this manner and the network should be condemned for this action.

This is nothing more than a network ploy to increase attention for its show, but it comes at the expense of children. Anyone with common sense should realize that online standards for broadcast networks should be the same as they are on television. There's a reason that the CW Network's own standards department cut the two sex scenes from the broadcast version -- they weren't appropriate for television. So what makes them appropriate to post online where presumably children will be able to watch them with no rating or blocking capability? Nothing. The CW Network should be ashamed.

The Parents TV Council writes:

The Parents Television Council is calling on Fox Broadcasting to immediately remove the explicit video, Easter Bunny's Coming, from its YouTube Channel for its Animation Domination High-Def (ADHD) programming block.

The video short, which is produced and copyrighted by Fox Broadcasting Network, contains graphic cartoon images of fornicating rabbits, multiple unbleeped f-words, harsh references to male sexual anatomy and vulgar slang for ejaculation.

PTC President Tim Winter said:

Nine months ago we issued an urgent warning to parents, as well as a harsh condemnation to Fox Broadcasting and potential sponsors, regarding the network's new 'ADHD' programming block. Fox has now validated our concerns by creating the most explicit material we've ever seen produced by a broadcast television network. Though still being distributed by Fox only via the Internet, the network is using its weekly broadcast to promote the website, and children are clearly in the cross hairs. And the recently tarnished retailer, Target, appears to be underwriting explicit material on the 'ADHD' website.

We thought we had seen the worst of 'ADHD' when Fox aired a segment several months ago with high school characters gleefully taking cell phone pictures of their genitals and texting the photos to other students. That content pales in comparison to the material in this new video.

The animated Easter Bunny clip, which runs 2 minutes and 19 seconds in duration, features over a dozen unbleeped 'f-words;' depictions of dozens of fornicating rabbits; more than a dozen instances of a vulgar slang term for ejaculation; a depiction of a male character eating rabbit feces; and music lyrics that are grotesquely sexualizing and misogynistic. An overt reference to Christians and Jews only adds to the offensive nature of a video being promoted during Holy Week and Passover.

The 'ADHD' Easter Bunny segment isn't some random Internet video, it's easily X-rated material that directly targets, and appeals to, children. The content is produced and copyrighted by one of the major commercial broadcast television networks and they're using the publicly-owned airwaves as a promotional vehicle to drive traffic to the 'ADHD' website. The suits at Fox will need to explain how such a use of their broadcast licenses fulfills their statutory public interest obligation.

Update: A day later, the nutters win

20th April 2014. See  article from  w2.parentstv.org

The Parents Television Council welcomed the news that Fox Broadcasting has decided to cancel its Animation Domination High-Def (ADHD) programming block, and praised the efforts of parents and families across the country for raising their voices.

According to Broadcasting & Cable: Some [Fox affiliates] had tired of fielding calls from upset viewers.

PTC President Tim Winter said:

Parents and families across the country rose up and called on their local Fox affiliates not to air 'ADHD' because of the violent and sexually explicit content, which routinely used familiar and beloved children's characters as tropes. We congratulate our members on their activism which has led Fox Broadcasting to make this wise decision.

The Parents Television Council is denouncing the FX network for airing the most sexually explicit content the PTC has ever documented on basic cable. The November 11th episode of Sons of Anarchy opened with approximately two and one-half minutes of graphically depicted sex among several couples. The explicit content, of the type previously available only on a la carte premium networks or pay-per-view, aired as early as 9 pm in half of the country.

Media Post described this scene like this :

This sequence ... featured seven couples in the act of intense lovemaking. ... For the record, this sequence left nothing to the imagination. It was probably the rawest sex I have ever seen depicted on TV outside of HBO and Showtime -- and that's saying a lot.

PTC President Tim Winter spouted:

Last week's episode of 'Sons of Anarchy' opened with the most sexually explicit content we've ever seen on basic cable, content normally found on premium subscription networks like HBO or Showtime.

The Parents Television Council has released its annual list of Best TV Advertisers , which catalogues companies based on the television content they chose to underwrite with their media dollars over the past year.  PTC President Tim Winter explained:

As we approach the Christmas and holiday shopping season, we present this list of 'Best and Worst TV Advertisers' so that consumers can vote with their wallet and reward those companies that have clearly demonstrated a commitment to responsible sponsorship practices. Our list also identifies those companies that have shown little or no regard for the explicit content that their media dollars helped to underwrite.

What people see on TV is influential. TV advertisers certainly know it to be true, otherwise they would not have spent $86 billion last year just on U.S. television. The sole purchase of spending each dollar was to convince Americans to buy their goods and services. The ability to influence children does not stop once the commercial break is over and the program begins.

We applaud those companies that are on our 'best' list, as they have shown a willingness to evaluate and adjust their ad buys in order to take into consideration the concerns of parents about the quality and content of programming that's accessible to children.

At the same time, we urge those companies on our 'worst' list to re-evaluate their ad buys on TV shows that routinely feature graphic sex, violence, and profanity, and that have the potential to permanently lower standards for TV content across the board. It's time for companies to consider the impact on children and families that comes from their day-to-day business decision-making.

So congratulations to the advertisers that have most wound up the PTC:
 

CATEGORY	Worst Advertisers
Fast Food Restaurants	Burger King Yum! Brands: KFC, Taco Bell
Beverages	Red Bull
Clothing Retail	Gap, Inc.: The Gap, Old Navy
General Retail	Target
Personal Items	Johnson & Johnson: Aveeno, Visine, Splenda, Listerine, Clean & Clear Unilever: Dove, Axe, Lipton, Suave, Vaseline, Hellmann's
Grocery	Mondelez International, Inc.: Trident, Wheat Thins, Sour Patch Kids, Tang, Ritz, Oreo, Nabisco Kellogg's: PopTarts, Eggo, Nestlé: Gerber, Coffee Mate, Friskies, Purina, Hot Pockets, Stouffer's
Computer Hardware/Software	Microsoft
Financial Services/Software	H&R Block

The Parents Television Council has enjoyed a good whinge about Miley Cyrus being sexy at the MTV Video Music Awards (VMAs). PTC President Tim Winter spouted:

MTV had an opportunity to use its powerful VMA platform to stir a young audience to aspire to something positive and uplifting. Instead they chose to perpetuate blatant sexualization -- much of it self-inflicted by the artists -- and to celebrate the use of illegal drugs. MTV rated the content of the program as appropriate for a child as young as 14, though most parents of teens that age would find such a content rating preposterous. In the end, the network succeeded in what it wanted to do: stir up controversy without regard to its impact on an entertainment environment that is increasingly toxic for children.

Are we surprised that Miley Cyrus exposed herself to millions of viewers, and to more people who will inevitably see the news in the mainstream media? About as surprised as we'll be if the sun rises in the east tomorrow morning. We had hoped she would have proven us wrong and demonstrate her considerable talent as a performer, rather than rely on her own sexuality to entertain the audience.??

It's also unfortunate that the VMAs were underwritten by the vast majority of Americans who were forced to pay for MTV on their cable bills, but who don't give a damn about the VMAs.??

MTV and Cyrus could both be forces for something positive, but tonight's VMA partners relied on exposing millions of children to graphic, inappropriate and far-too-frequently offensive content.

The Daily Mail reported the PTC statement and added a little about Miley's nipple:

MTV had promoted the probability of outrageous goings on at the VMAs ahead of time by letting it be known there would be a delay and a dump button if necessary.

Despite that, much of the bad language managed to make it through and Miley was briefly exposed while changing backstage partially concealed behind a curtain.

The camera cut away, but not before she was heard saying, Oh, what's happening? Oh sorry, my tit's out?

Following the show, the 22-year-old went backstage where she lit up a joint as she talked to the media.

She then offered to pass it around the press corps and according to TMZ , some of the reporters and photographers indulged.

And of course the Daily Mail printed all the best and sexiest pictures (except Miley's nipple which was pixellated). See  article .

The US morality campaign group, The Parents Television Council, writes:

The Parents Television Council (PTC) is urging McDonald's to reconsider sponsoring Fox Broadcasting's new series, Scream Queens , which has featured graphic gore and sexual content that would typically be seen in R-rated movies, and that airs as early as 7 pm in half of the country. McDonald's ads have appeared on the first four episodes of the new TV show.

The PTC's review of Scream Queens said, Parents are warned: mean-spirited, sexualized, gory horror show is unsafe for children of any age. Content in the show has included a character's face being fried in hot cooking fat; another character is sprayed with hydrochloric acid, with close-ups showing her bloody skin burning and melting off; several young sorority pledges are buried in the ground up to their necks while the Devil drives over their heads on a riding mower. The episode that aired on October 6 th featured a discussion about necrophilia.

PTC President Tim Winter said:

The Golden Arches brand now stands for sexual fantasies with dead people and with decapitating college coeds. No wonder McDonald's is having problems attracting families, when millions of the company's media dollars underwrite such content on Scream Queens early in the evening on primetime broadcast TV.

Not only is McDonald's financing a toxic media culture, they are hurting their own pocketbooks. We urge McDonald's to do well and to do good at the same time, by changing course and recognizing what scientific research has already proven to be true -- that advertising on TV shows with explicit content can truly be bad for business.

One such study is from the Department of Psychology at Iowa State University and suggests that programs with high levels of violent or sexual content can actually repress the viewers' ability to recall advertised brands. By contrast, subjects who watched 'neutral' programming were better able to recall the ads the following day.

Nevertheless, and amid falling sales, McDonald's corporate marketing team has continued to compromise its image and reputation as a family-friendly fast-food destination with poor sponsorship decisions; and those sponsorship decisions are hurting the McDonald's brand, hurting McDonald's reputation with families, and hurting their franchisees.

It's time for McDonald's to stop sponsoring offensive and harmful TV content, especially early in primetime when the content is so easily accessible to kids.

The Parents Television Council announced the companies that it chose for its annual Best/Worst Advertisers List. The Best companies on this list have demonstrated willingness to support positive TV programming including TV shows that routinely feature sex, violence, and profanity, and have not responded to moralist calls to reevaluate their sponsorship behavior.

Some of those shows include: Family Guy , which over the past year has featured 'jokes' about sexually assaulting children; Wicked City , a serial killer-focused drama that routinely shows graphic violence and sex; Scream Queens , which shows graphic gore akin to R-rated horror movies.

PTC asks Americans to use this list as they begin their holiday shopping, to reward the good ones and avoid the bad ones.

INDUSTRY	Worst miserable gits	Best fun filled sponsors
Computers/Software	Google	Microsoft
Candy	Nestle; Mondelez International (Trident, Dentyne, Bubblicious, Toblerone)	Mars; Wrigley
Pharmaceutical	Sanofi; Johnson & Johnson	Bayer; Merck
Consumer Brands	P&G (Cover Girl, Luvs, Swiffer, Bounty, Tide, Crest, Pampers, Olay, Duracell, Gillette, Always, NyQuil)	Unilever (Dove, Axe, Lipton, Suave, Vaseline, Hellmann's)
Beverages	Coca Cola	Red Bull
Fast Food	Wendy's; Dunkin' Brands	McDonald's; Burger King; Yum!
Insurance	Prudential	Nationwide
Office Supply	Office Depot	Staples
Jewelry/Retail	Helzberg Diamonds	Kay Jewelers
Clothing/Retail	TJX (Marshalls, Home Goods, TJ Maxx)	L Brands (Victoria's Secret, Bath & Body Works, La Senza)
General Retail	Sears; Walmart	Target; Best Buy

The Parents Television Council, a US morality campaign group is warning families about the violent content in a new TV miniseries, Of Kings and Prophets airing on ABC.

The PTC's review indicated that the first episode contains a number of battles with swords, knives, spears, and other graphically violent content that ranges between the type of violent content found in The Lord of the Rings movies and 300 . There is some mild sexual content in the first episode. As such, the PTC cannot recommend this show for children. PTC President Tim Winter said:

Despite the fact that the miniseries is based on a book that most families in America have at home -- that book being the Bible -- parents should be forewarned that Of Kings and Prophets will not be appropriate for family viewing. While we are grateful that the show runner, Chris Brancato, personally invited us to preview the first episode, it remains difficult for us to recommend this show to families given the graphic content. And given Mr. Brancato said that he'll be ' fighting with broadcast standards and practices ' and that ' we're going to go as far as we can' throughout the series, there's likely to be even more explicit content in upcoming episodes

The real question here is, why wouldn't ABC and the show's producers want to reach the largest audience possible by making a series, based on the Bible, able to be viewed by families? Instead it appears that their primary objective was to be edgy and explicit, rather than to entertain with a biblical story. And in so doing, they're carving away a large percentage of their potential market. This further demonstrates a disconnect between what the entertainment industry wants to produce and what family audiences want to consume.

We hope that families will be forewarned about the content of this show and not mistakenly watch with their children. No doubt the network will rate the program TV-14, suggesting to parents that the material is appropriate for children as young as fourteen.

Update: Cancelled

21st March 2016. See  article from w2.parentstv.org

The Parents Television Council responded to the news that ABC cancelled Of Kings and Prophets after only two episodes aired:

The only reason networks cancel a show without burning off the remaining episodes is that there is no advertiser support. The dollars simply aren't there, and it is more economical for them to air something else entirely -- despite the fact that they've paid for those unaired episodes. And based on the conversations we've had over the past few days with several of the most premiere sponsors in the country -- during which we questioned their underwriting such over-the-top graphic violence in 'Of Kings and Prophets,' it was clear that advertiser support for the show was quickly evaporating. While we applaud ABC's cancellation of the show, we can't help but wonder why they would choose to air it in the first place.