Raleigh N.C. area Fox Station removes Temptation Island from it's programing.
January 13, 2001 1:11 PM   Subscribe

Raleigh N.C. area Fox Station removes Temptation Island from it's programing. Here is the stations reason why "We're not going to support a program that could break up a family," said Tommy Schenck, WRAZ's general manager. What makes this funny is this same man allows Riki Lake, with it's cheating couples and dysfunctional families to be shown 5 times a week. Needless to say, it has caused quite a stir here. What's everyones take on this?
posted by remo (26 comments total)
Regarding the comparison to Ricki Lake, it's a bit different to have a show that includes stories of cheating couples and screwed up families and one that the sole purpose to try and break up a relationship (and possibly a family) for the enjoyment of the masses.

Maybe Fox should use Google to do all their background checking. Sounds like they'd come up with more thorough results.
posted by crushed at 1:23 PM on January 13, 2001

Is this guy running for political office in the future? Its either that or he is looking for free publicity at the expense of ratings.

I wonder what will payoff more, running the show or making a big statement about pulling the show?
posted by Brilliantcrank at 2:46 PM on January 13, 2001

Personally I HATE the show concept, it's so low. It's refreshing to see the station manager putting his/the station's/the city's ideas before what the higher-ups want him to do. (Regardless of wether or not he has ulterior motives.) Ricki Lake and the bunch are shows that are about cases of break up as stated by crushed. And many times the shows are trying to fix cases of cheating, etc.
posted by thirdball at 4:11 PM on January 13, 2001

I thought the couples on "Temptation Island" were all unmarried anyway. I don't see how them voluntarily testing their relationships constitutes "breaking up a family."
posted by kindall at 4:12 PM on January 13, 2001

kindall: rumour has it one of the couples has a kid. Though having children supposedly invalided couples as being "contestants" on the show, they managed to sneak through the background checks.
posted by cCranium at 4:49 PM on January 13, 2001

Oh, I fogot, an unmarried couple with a kid is just the kind of "family values" the religious right is always defending, isn't it? No wonder they're so dead set against this show...

Ah well. If the Raleigh Fox affiliate thinks it will make more money by not airing the show than by airing it, then they shouldn't air it. It says more about Raleigh, NC than about the station or the program.
posted by kindall at 5:07 PM on January 13, 2001

my take: television rots the mind.
posted by lagado at 5:19 PM on January 13, 2001

After the Who wants to marry a multimillionaire fiasco, I thought Fox had promised they were going to be more prudent in their use of "reality programming".

So why in heck are they doing this stupid show? It's just as exploitative, if not more so, than the other was. (And while I'm at it, I have no more sympathy for the participants in this show than I did for those who participated in the other one. Any harm this does to them they'll deserve.)
posted by Steven Den Beste at 5:22 PM on January 13, 2001

Excuse me, I'm English: Temptation Island? What? What is this program?
posted by davidgentle at 5:48 PM on January 13, 2001

Fox Television is standing in the middle of the room with a lampshade on its head, laboring under the delusion that it is the life of the party. Laugh at it. Mock it. Pity it a little. Then ignore it.

Kill Your Television.
posted by Optamystic at 5:53 PM on January 13, 2001

Oh, well. Lynn Cheney would have had it pulled a few months down the pike
posted by Postroad at 5:56 PM on January 13, 2001

David, it's another "people in a glass bottle" show; an attempt to milk the popularity of a couple of other shows like that from last year which scored big ratings. In this case they've put several unmarried couples onto an island in the Caribbean in hopes that everyone will cheat on their partners and it'll all be captured on camera, so that the public can go oooh! aaah! and feel righteous indignation about the sinners.

They're pandering to the voyeur they think is in each of us. The supposed attraction is that 1. it's real, 2. it's unplanned, and 3. Something Naughty might happen and we'll all get to watch.

In a sense, they're ripping off Jennifer Ringley. I wonder if she could sue for plagiarism.
posted by Steven Den Beste at 6:05 PM on January 13, 2001

How is Temptation Island "breaking up a family"? I thought the point of the show was to "test their relationships" or whatever, so the couples can decide if they should START a family.

Why is everyone so pissed at FOX anyways, it's just all in good fun. It's not like they forced anyone to go on that show. The contestants are just like actors, watch them and laugh. That's the point.
posted by swank6 at 6:22 PM on January 13, 2001

Is it possible to get UK TV in the US? I don't just mean some of the programs I mean whole channels.
posted by davidgentle at 6:32 PM on January 13, 2001

No UK channel is present on the cable system I use. I don't watch much TV, but when I do I watch things like Discovery or History or Cartoon Network or Travel; I think the last thing I watched on one of the five major networks was the 1999 World Series.

I've lived in several places and travelled to others, and I've never seen a UK channel offered on any cable system anywhere I've ever been in the US. I think the answer to your question is "no".
posted by Steven Den Beste at 6:48 PM on January 13, 2001

David, naturally much BBC programming has long been recycled either directly on PBS or via facsimile transmission on other networks.

Nowadays, though, there's actually a BBC America cable channel (with its own programming).

I think if you want to watch actual BBC 1 or 2 or TV4 you'll have to get a satellite dish.
posted by dhartung at 6:59 PM on January 13, 2001

Oh. I was thinking of moving to the US at some point (from the UK where I am now). But if I have to go without the beauty of UK TV then I'm not sure I will.
posted by davidgentle at 8:37 PM on January 13, 2001

here in the States you can enjoy british programs on many different cable and satalite networks. Comedy Central and A&E frequently pick up shows from ITV and Channel 4. BBC America is also available and generally has good programming, we refer to it as the Beeba. Right now my wife is watching a Changing Rooms marathon.
posted by DragonBoy at 8:53 PM on January 13, 2001

A lot of other material from the BBC ends up on PBS. The PBS series Nova is actually a collaboration between PBS and the BBC, where it's called something like "Horizon" (only I don't think that's it). The show is a science series. PBS also runs "Masterpiece Theater" and "Mystery" which are simply reruns of BBC programming. And I wouldn't be surprised if the PBS series "Nature" got some of its material from the BBC, or sent some of its material to the BBC.
posted by Steven Den Beste at 10:07 PM on January 13, 2001

BBC America is a horrible channel, mindbogglingly less that it could be. Yes, it has a lot of good BBC programs, but not nearly as many as it should have. It also has a lot of bad BBC programs. Thirteen-year-old EastEnders episodes. Ab Fab twice (sometimes three times! the same episode!) per day every day ad infinitum, even though there were only 18 episodes ever made, and even though everyone in the US that wanted to see them saw them over and over for years on Comedy Central. News that airs at the exact same times as the local news in the US, so you're forced to watch one or the other. And they tend to repeat the same schedule of programs several times during the day and night. Didn't see Antiques Roadshow at 10 am? That's okay, it'll be on again at 3 pm. And at 2 in the morning. The same damn episode. Where they could be airing other things. You look at a daily schedule for BBC1 and BBC2, and then look at BBC America's schedule and you just want to weep.

Worse, many of the shows are chopped up to make room for commercials. And we get very very little new programming. Most of what's on is at least two years old.

According to what I've read, the BBC has carte blanche to put almost any of its programs on BBC America any time it wants to, without any red tape about rights clearances and all that. So to not be doing so is pathetic.
posted by aaron at 11:51 PM on January 13, 2001

That said, my girlfriend said that she'd learned more about world affairs in the month's trial she had of BBC America than the past few years of US network news. (The rebroadcast thing, I think, is the World Service principle: I don't know how much overlap there is between BBC America and BBC Prime, but I'd imagine there's a fair bit.)

But yeah, there's no reason for them not to provide the kind of service that would ensure expats never need to change channels every again.
posted by holgate at 3:05 AM on January 14, 2001

Steven: "Horizon" is the blanket name for the BBC's science documentary output. Lots of the programmes are co-productions with local stations (particularly WGBH) and other worldwide public broadcasters.

It's a smart move: these programmes cost a lot to make, and by pooling the cost, they're guaranteed a global audience. The only downside is that it may lead to the decline of the presenter-led science/nature show, epitomised by David Attenborough, because of its "parochialism".
posted by holgate at 7:46 AM on January 14, 2001

Actually, several of Sir David Attenborough's series have been shown here (and video tapes of them are sold in certain stores). I enjoyed them immensely. Also, several of the series done by James Burke were shown here.

I wasn't sure the extent to which the US-produced science shows from Nova were crossing the ocean. I do know that shows originally broadcast by the BBC have their narration redone by someone with an American accent before they're broadcast here in most cases.

Tell me, does the BBC broadcast "Scientific American Frontiers"? It's a very good series, with first-person hosting by Alan Alda, who presumably is well known in the UK.

(We seem to have strayed quite a ways from the original subject of this thread.)
posted by Steven Den Beste at 8:08 AM on January 14, 2001

PBS is more a distributor/broadcaster than a producer of programming, it should be noted. There are several individual PBS stations (WGBH-Boston, WNET-New York, WETA-Washington among the most prolific) that produce programs which PBS "buys" and then resells to other local stations as desired.

Nova's home page says it's produced by WGBH; doesn't say a peep about the Beeb. But it's clear they do exchange individually-produced episodes.
posted by dhartung at 6:34 PM on January 14, 2001

Steven, no we don't get Scientific American Frontiers. I don't know about the content, but Alan Alda in the UK is still the bloke from MASH and that's about it. I can't think of any first-person science or documentary programmes we do get (discounting those sensationalist 'Wnen Insects Attack' and 'Worlds Most Repeated Car-Chases' fronted by a retired sheriff with expensive dental work).
I have though, noticed more and more UK/US co-productions on terrestrial TV, invariably the narration is in UK English.
One trend my girlfriend and I have noticed recently is US scripted shows narrated by a Brit - hearing an English person using American words and coloquialisms is quite distracting when trying to follow the content.

Changing Rooms Marathon.....[shudder]
posted by Markb at 5:10 AM on January 15, 2001

Changing Rooms marathon. Red Dwarf marathon (though it is the only way for us to see the 8th season here). Castaway marathon.

We're getting 5-year-old Cant Cook, Won't Cook shows as well.
posted by aaron at 1:28 PM on January 15, 2001

« Older The IDEO identity card project.   |   "You must be the author of your own life." Newer »

This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments