Did ABC cancel show because gay family won?

[Balta1701]

The NYT has taken a look at the ABC Show "Welcome to the Neighborhood" which was supposed to air last fall...a reality show where a bunch of non-traditional families and people move into a predominantly white, Conservative neighborhood. That show was canceled about 10 days before it was supposed to air, with ABC/Disney eating the production costs.

 

Today, the NYT is alleging that ABC canceled the show because Disney was worried about evangelical groups boycotting "The Chronicles of Narnia" because the gay couple in the show appeared normal, healthy, and well, American. In fact...the show actually convinced a man to begin to accept his estranged, homosexual son.

 

Meanwhile, the neighbor who was the Wrights' earliest on-camera antagonist - Jim Stewart, 53, who is heard in an early episode saying, "I would not tolerate a homosexual couple moving into this neighborhood" - has confided to the producers that the series changed him far more than even they were aware.

 

No one involved in the show, Mr. Stewart said, knew he had a 25-year-old gay son. Only after participating in the series, Mr. Stewart said, was he able to broach his son's sexuality with him for the first time.

 

"I'd say to ABC, 'Start showing this right now,' " Mr. Stewart said in an interview at his oak kitchen table. "It has a message that needs to be heard by everyone." (Mr. Stewart first discussed his son publicly with The Austin American-Statesman.)

It's worth reading the whole article...lots of details that would just be too insanely long to excerpt.

[FlaSoxxJim]

But, but, but. . . Disney/ABC is the biggest media giant in the universe and it's a clearly proven fact that the media has been hijacked by the leftists, so how could this ever happen?!?

 

:rolly

[sox4lifeinPA]

But, but, but. . . Disney/ABC is the biggest media giant in the universe and it's a clearly proven fact that the media has been hijacked by the leftists, so how could this ever happen?!?

 

:rolly

 

 

because the show probably sucked?

 

 

but that's the answer a "righty" is supposed to say... :rolly

[FlaSoxxJim]

because the show probably sucked?

but that's the answer a "righty" is supposed to say... :rolly

No, I'm sure the show sucked as well. But that is coming from a person who has never watched a single entire episode of ANY "reality show" ever, because they all suck by definition.

 

At the same time, ABC has never been one to decide not to air something just because it sucked. If they did that there would be a lot of dead air on ABC.

[sox4lifeinPA]

No, I'm sure the show sucked as well.  But that is coming from a person who has never watched a single entire episode of ANY "reality show" ever, because they all suck by definition.

 

At the same time, ABC has never been one to decide not to air something just because it sucked.  If they did that there would be a lot of dead air on ABC.

 

 

Touché

[samclemens]

No, I'm sure the show sucked as well.  But that is coming from a person who has never watched a single entire episode of ANY "reality show" ever, because they all suck by definition.

 

At the same time, ABC has never been one to decide not to air something just because it sucked.  If they did that there would be a lot of dead air on ABC.

networks reject pilots all the time. just because there happened to be gays in it does not mean that it should have been on the air. this is typical, oversensitive liberal-style complaining. after that show will and grace, how many gay sitcoms do you think were pitched to every network? and they all got rejected, cause i never see them on.

 

in conclusion, honestly, who cares?

[sox4lifeinPA]

networks reject pilots all the time. just because there happened to be gays in it does not mean that it should have been on the air. this is typical, oversensitive liberal-style complaining. after that show will and grace, how many gay sitcoms do you think were pitched to every network? and they all got rejected, cause i never see them on.

 

in conclusion, honestly, who cares?

 

we all should

[Texsox]

we all should

 

Nice PA.

 

I too think most reality shows suck. Wanted Ted or Alive or Cowboy U, for pure comedic value are the exception for me. But three or four episodes are about my limit.

 

Is it possible the show just sucked? Yes. Is it possible that possible public outcry, was at the root? Yes. Did it all come down to money? Of Course YES. They figured they could make more money for the corporation by not airing the show. They do not have a legal responsibility to air a show or to help any group. They do have a legal responsibility to make money for their shareholders.

[FlaSoxxJim]

networks reject pilots all the time. just because there happened to be gays in it does not mean that it should have been on the air. this is typical, oversensitive liberal-style complaining. after that show will and grace, how many gay sitcoms do you think were pitched to every network? and they all got rejected, cause i never see them on.

 

in conclusion, honestly, who cares?

 

I'm not lamenting the loss of yet another crappy reality show, but this decision is more than rejecting a sit-com pilot episode. The whole season was in the can in this case as far as I understand, and it was the fact that in the end the gay couple won that may be at the heart of the controversy.

 

Disney, despite being pretty gay friendly as far as extending employee benefits to domestic partners, has a history of caving to the religious right in situations like this. I'd not be surprised to learn that they did it again here.

Edited January 22, 2006 by FlaSoxxJim

[samclemens]

I'm not lamenting the loss of yet another crappy reality show, but this decision is more than rejecting a sit-com pilot episode.  The whole season was in the can in this case as far as I understand, and it was the fact that in the end the gay couple won that may be at the heart of the controversy.

 

Disney, despite being pretty gay friendly as far as extending employee benefits to domestic partners, has a history of caving to the religious right in situations like this.  I'd not be surprised to learn that they did it again here.

 

if by "religious right" you mean the average american family that has a husband, wife, and at least one child, then yes, Disney panders to the "religious right" a.k.a. average american families, most of who do not favor homosexuality being taught and/or promoted to their children (and you cannot deny that this is a majority). Just like ESPN targets 18-40 males. Just like the Oxygen channal targets women. Same thing.

[Texsox]

if by "religious right" you mean the average american family that has a husband, wife, and at least one child, then yes, Disney panders to the "religious right" a.k.a. average american families, most of who do not favor homosexuality being taught and/or promoted to their children (and you cannot deny that this is a majority). Just like ESPN targets 18-40 males. Just like the Oxygen channal targets women. Same thing.

 

Well almost. The average American family did not boycott Disney when religious groups demanded it.

 

AFA ends Disney boycott

Positive signs, ‘crowded cultural battlefield’ led to decision

 

After initiating a boycott against the Walt Disney Company in 1996, AFA has decided to end the campaign, citing new challenges in the culture wars and some positive signs at Disney, including the resignation of CEO Michael Eisner, effective this September.

 

"We feel after nine years of boycotting Disney we have made our point," AFA President Tim Wildmon said. "Boycotts have always been a last resort for us at AFA, and Disney’s attitude, arrogance and embrace of the homosexual lifestyle gave us no choice but to advocate a boycott of the company these last few years." 

 

The average American family doesn't send thousands of emails in an orchestrated demonstration and attempt to blackmail a company if they show a homosexual couple in a positive light.

[Rex Kickass]

if by "religious right" you mean the average american family that has a husband, wife, and at least one child, then yes, Disney panders to the "religious right" a.k.a. average american families, most of who do not favor homosexuality being taught and/or promoted to their children (and you cannot deny that this is a majority). Just like ESPN targets 18-40 males. Just like the Oxygen channal targets women. Same thing.

So gay people winning a contest is promotion of homosexuality? Wow.

[samclemens]

So gay people winning a contest is promotion of homosexuality? Wow.

 

that isnt what i meant, but hey man, your perception is your reality.

 

what can i do? if you want to see homophobia, you'll see it.

[Rex Kickass]

I'm sorry, what?

[Texsox]

I don't think on a corporate level it is homophobia or "fundamentalist"phobia, it's boycott and negative publicity phobia. Obviously this show would have been fine on Bravo, they have done well with programs that would not necessarily be on Focus on the Families list of great TV, (re: Queer Eye). Other networks would be worried about a potential backlash. But it is just like Spike TV wouldn't want to air the same programming as Oxygen or Lifetime.

 

Rex, we'll disagree on this on in that a homosexual couple winning does "promote" homosexuality, in fact any positive stories do. Sam, we'll disagree, because I don't care that it does.

[Rex Kickass]

I don't think on a corporate level it is homophobia or "fundamentalist"phobia, it's boycott and negative publicity phobia. Obviously this show would have been fine on Bravo, they have done well with programs that would not necessarily be on Focus on the Families list of great TV, (re: Queer Eye). Other networks would be worried about a potential backlash. But it is just like Spike TV wouldn't want to air the same programming as Oxygen or Lifetime.

 

Rex, we'll disagree on this on in that a homosexual couple winning does "promote" homosexuality, in fact any positive stories do. Sam, we'll disagree, because I don't care that it does.

 

Something tells me your definition of "promoting" homosexuality is different than the people who accuse folks of "promoting" homosexuality.

 

But I'm sick of people who seem to think that there's some form of PR war going on waged on behalf of the gay community. Yes, gay people have a community but they're also people first and foremost.

 

And before anyone throws a gay pride parade up as a counterpoint - does that mean that the Irish are just as bad for a St. Patrick's Day parade, or the Poles on Casimir Pulaski Day?

[Texsox]

Do I think there is an evil marketing program designed to recruit homosexuals and expand the numbers? No. Do I think that these programs show homosexuals in a positve light, perhaps even show them as humans like everybody else? Yes. By showing homosexuals in a non sexual way, people won't be so freaked out by having a gay neighbor. That promotes people getting along.

[samclemens]

Something tells me your definition of "promoting" homosexuality is different than the people who accuse folks of "promoting" homosexuality.

 

But I'm sick of people who seem to think that there's some form of PR war going on waged on behalf of the gay community. Yes, gay people have a community but they're also people first and foremost.

 

And before anyone throws a gay pride parade up as a counterpoint - does that mean that the Irish are just as bad for a St. Patrick's Day parade, or the Poles on Casimir Pulaski Day?

 

so what is your suggestion as to a solution? let anything go on tv regarless of what market a network is targeting, or censor the hell out of everything? or is your solution somewhere in between? im just wondering what you propose, cause it bothers me when people complain when they have no constructive advice

[Texsox]

so what is your suggestion as to a solution? let anything go on tv regarless of what market a network is targeting, or censor the hell out of everything? or is your solution somewhere in between? im just wondering what you propose, cause it bothers me when people complain when they have no constructive advice

 

The solution that Rex is talking about is for people to stop thinking there is a vast conspiracy, that all homosexuals are in on, to undermine America, and turn everyone ghay. To understand gay men and women are people like everyone else.

 

What I find funny is we don't seem to care about the sex lives of of heterosexual friends or else we'd hear, Sally, Bob, are you to having sex regularly? I only have friends that have "traditional American values" and I need to know you are having sex 2.1 times per week in the missionary position. You two aren't into anything kinky like anal, bondage, autoerotic, etc.? Who cares what your friends do in the bed room?

[CanOfCorn]

I'm coming into this conversation late, so I have a couple of responses.

 

IF ABC yanked the show BECAUSE of the homosexual couple...then that is a problem.

 

IF ABC yanked the show because it sucked, then kudos to them, and they need to keep hacking away at that schedule...in fact, all of the networks, cable included, need to keep hacking.

 

I think the average American family is indifferent. At the end of the day, most people go to bed worrying about themselves and their own lot in life...not the gay couple down the street or on TV. But there is definitely a vocal group saying the opposite.

 

And FINALLY (finally), I think there is a bigger problem going on here. There is an hypocrisy within the religious communities (notice I pluralized it to not call out any one religion). The whole idea of most religions, at least I thought, was to live a good life and let the chips fall where they may. What you do on Earth decides where you go in the next life, whether you're in Heaven or reincarnated or whatever. And all of this worrying about what other people do and where they are going to go when all is said and done is hypocritical. I have a Christian friend who is homophobic and I present my argument as this, "Hating on someone that you think is a sinner isn't very Christian, is it? If you want to pray for that person, fine. But can't you accept him/her for what he/she is and let them worry about it themselves? Aren't you supposed to let God judge him/her?"

 

In the words of a great philosopher, "Can't we all just get along." I think as the years go by, this ironic turn of phrase should become more and more important and people should start using it as a mantra.

 

 

I have the same problem with PETA, as well.