Comments about ‘Letter: KSL made a brave decision on TV show’

This was not a brave decision, on the contrary ,it was the easy decision, a cowardly decision.

It was a decision that demonstrated that KSL as the broadcast arm of the LDS church did not want to risk showing that two gay men could be in a warm, loving, humorous and positive relationship while raising a child. Better to ban the show than confuse the faithful.

I agree it was an act of cowardice, not courage. Rather than let us excercise our Free Agency, KSL decided to take away our choice with censorship.

Brave or courageous? No. A business decision? Maybe. One that reflects pressure from their ownership heirarchy? Possibly. There's a lot of ugliness and violence in network programmming they seem comfortable with sending to your home, and we all seem to survive it; I know my remote works. In todays' utah the brave and courageous decision may well have been to air the show.

In the face of the hostile letters above, KSL's decision was indeed a brave one.

The show is too offensive to a high percentage of Americans, not just Utahns.

If there's something offensive on the tv, radio, or computer, what can you do?

There's a thing called a remote control. You can change the channel. You can turn it off.

It's amazing how this lil fact is somehow forgotten by a channel whose ownership preaches personal accountability!!!

To me, what does this lesson teach children? To rely on a company to tell them what they can and cannot watch?

To me, it would be better if the show were aired and families used it as an opportunity for teaching and learning.

Kids won't always have nanny company/government/etc to tell them what to do.

Teach them correct principles and let them act!

How much better off would families be if the show were aired but they decided to watch or do something else instead?

"As a mom, I try to not allow this type of content to infiltrate into my home."

If you are complaining about this show, but still have an internet connection and cable television, I question how much you are "trying" to keep that type of content out of your home.

Censorship is never a courageous decision. This station character would be crying and whining if Government told him he could not air a show.

I can't believe this topic is STILL being discussed.

My hats off to those who are calling out KSL on this act of spinelessness as well as those who think KSL in some strange way showed moral fortitude.

The New Normal was to air on NBC. That's the network that also airs Whitney, a show that airs earlier in the evening, every episode of which involves sexually oriented humor about a single woman and her boyfriend. (In my opinion, it's also unfunny rubbish, but senses of humor vary.) Another new show this fall is Animal Practice, a show which apparently derives humor from the sex lives of veterinarians.
I haven't seen The New Normal. Can't; it hasn't aired yet. Neither has the author of this letter. But from what I can see, it's about a couple in a loving committed married relationship who decide to adopt a child. I can't imagine how it could possibly be more offensive than what KSL already seems fine with.

It's so typical that 2.5% of the public would deign to tell us what our community standards should be; that 2.5% of the public would tell us that we are censoring their ability to broadcast their message to our children; that we are foolish to resist their attempts to redefine what "virtue" means, what "morality" means, what "family" means.

It is exactly because that 2.5% chooses to use the public airwaves to spread their propaganda that courageous affiliates like KSL are targeted by them, that churches like the LDS Church, that teaches correct principles no matter what the 2.5% say, that they are targeted.

Our homes are sacred places where we teach children to know the difference between right and wrong, between good and evil; where we teach children that God gave us bodies for a purpose, a purpose that does not include the conduct being promoted by the 2.5%. Those teachings offend the 2.5% because it stands between them and the innocent who don't yet understand that there are absolutes of personal conduct that a righteous society must accept if that society is to enjoy blessings from our Creator.

Who is big brother anyway? Government officials that monitor our every move or corporations that do the same disguised as marketing?

@Locke

Hostile? a little over dramatic don't you think?

at Mike R 9/2 11:13a...

"like the LDS Church, that teaches correct principles no matter"

It (FranklinCovey founder) Hyrum Smith who said, "Teach them correct principles & let them govern themselves."

p.s. Enlighten me with this 2.5%. Is it anything like the 1% Occupy Wall St had issues with?

There's always the remote control, Lisa. If you don't want it in your home change the channel.

Thanks for helping prevent the rest of us from choosing to watch if we so desire.

Simpson was right. Just because Hollywood produces something, maybe particularly since Hollywood produces something, does not make it fit for airing. KSL's critics are somewhat like the judge who said, you can call it pornography if you want, but I know what I like.

I am deeply incensed by all the nay-sayers condemning KSL for having the courage and good judgement to impose standards of community decency for their viewers. KSL clearly possesses the ability to use community standard as the criterion for their action. Certainly I am a proponent of the principles of agency, choice, channel changer, etc. etc. However, I am quite sick of the agenda of Hollywood with it's clear attempt to brainwash our younger generation to accept homosexuality as an acceptable life-style choice. YOU are the ones who can use your channel-changer to a different channel. You are the ones who can pick up the lib-trib and leave the DN on the news rack.

This argument is ridiculous. KSL should be able to approve or disapprove of any program they want. It is their business. Most people are assuming that television stations can show whatever they want. They can't - they have rules applied by the FCC that they have to uphold or they will have their license taken away. One could argue that that is censorship.

After reading the rules and regulations set by the FCC, it appears that KSL has a good argument. They know their viewers better then anyone else and believe that a majority of the people would be offended by the show. Check out the rules for yourself. If you want to complai,n go to the FCC.

www.fcc.gov
Search guides for obscenity, indecency and profanity

The subject of gays living normal lives is uncomfortable for many.

On the schedule at KSL: Dr. Phil Teen Sex Obsession (HD, New, TV-14)

I'm shocked.

Thank you KSL. Please be brave and stand up for family values.

Re: "Censorship is never a courageous decision."

Nothing KSL did constitutes censorship. But is certainly DID make a courageous decision not to cave in to the inevitable bleating of liberal elements of society that have assumed a quasi-governmental censorship role, asserting they have power to dictate others' actions.

"Censorship" implies an authority or agent of power inflicting opinions on others.

KSL simply made a choice not to air a program it felt was not in keeping with its mission. That's still permitted in the US, even under Obama.

Nothing in law, regulation, or the First Amendment imposes an obligation to air questionable fluff, simply because a tiny cabal of self-important libertines demands it.

Real people applaud KSL's courage and good sense.