Alabama public television didn't air gay wedding in 'Arthur'

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

The BBC would like to apologize for the following sause

Alabama Public Television (APT) has refused to broadcast a cartoon which shows a same-sex wedding.

The first episode of the 22nd series of children's programme Arthur features the character Mr Ratburn marrying his partner, Patrick.

But APT instead ran an old episode, and announced it had no plans to show the premiere.

Programming director Mike McKenzie said broadcasting it would break parents' trust in the network.

In a statement, Mr McKenzie said "parents trust that their children can watch APT without their supervision", and that children "younger than the 'target' audience" might watch without parental knowledge.

Show creator WGBH and broadcaster PBS reportedly alerted local stations in April about the episode, and Mr McKenzie said this was when they decided not to air the show.

US cartoon's gay wedding praised
Arthur is a joint Canadian/American series which debuted in 1996 about an eight-year-old anthropomorphic aardvark named Arthur Read and his friends, who live in the fictional Elwood City.

APT previously refused to broadcast a 2005 episode of the series which depicted Buster, a rabbit, visiting a girl who had two mothers.

Substitute teacher Misty Souder told news website AL.com that she and her daughter were disappointed the episode did not run and had contacted the network about it.

"I never thought I'd be going to battle for a gay rat wedding, but here we are," she said.

A 2018 Gallup poll showed 46% of people in Alabama identified as conservative, second only to Mississippi among all 50 states.

Earlier in May, Alabama passed a law banning abortions even in cases of rape and incest, the latest US state to restrict access to abortions.

Really? Alabama really? You had nothing else to do other then not air a gay wedding episode?

Rather a stupid thing to go off on. And an authoritarian ban too.

You would expect this from Russia or China but a state in the US?

Really?

What say you NSG? Should the gay rat wedding be allowed to air in Alabama?

[Diopolis]

Yes, let's go ahead and air something which is going to cause our viewers to boycott us. Especially considering how it happens to be on just about our only popular program.

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

Yes, let's go ahead and air something which is going to cause our viewers to boycott us. Especially considering how it happens to be on just about our only popular program.

Ah yes beacuse Alabama Public Television is so worried about boycotting and it's not at all about beacuse the people at the top think gay people have cooties.

[The Emerald Legion]

I don't see a problem with this. It's not like it was an actual ban on the episode. APT simply chose not to air it because they figured it wouldn't go over well with the viewers.

Also, yes. APT, a television network, has nothing better to do than their job, which is to decide what airs on their channel.

If someone else wants to air the episode they can.

[Diopolis]

Yes, let's go ahead and air something which is going to cause our viewers to boycott us. Especially considering how it happens to be on just about our only popular program.

Ah yes beacuse Alabama Public Television is so worried about boycotting and it's not at all about beacuse the people at the top think gay people have cooties.

That was the reason given.

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

I don't see a problem with this. It's not like it was an actual ban on the episode. APT simply chose not to air it because they figured it wouldn't go over well with the viewers.

Also, yes. APT, a television network, has nothing better to do than their job, which is to decide what airs on their channel.

If someone else wants to air the episode they can.

So should a news network not air a peace of news that wouldn't go over well with there target audience?

[The Emerald Legion]

I don't see a problem with this. It's not like it was an actual ban on the episode. APT simply chose not to air it because they figured it wouldn't go over well with the viewers.

Also, yes. APT, a television network, has nothing better to do than their job, which is to decide what airs on their channel.

If someone else wants to air the episode they can.

So should a news network not air a peace of news that wouldn't go over well with there target audience?

They do that all the time. So yes.

[San Lumen]

This amounts to nothing more than censorship. Its telling LGBT people and kids there is something wrong with same sex relationships. They should have aired it and if parents didnt like it too bad. join the modern world.

[The Emerald Legion]

This amounts to nothing more than censorship. Its telling LGBT people and kids there is something wrong with same sex relationships. They should have aired it and if parents didnt like it too bad. join the modern world.

This is a frankly bigoted viewpoint. APT owes you nothing. The people of Alabama owe you nothing.

Should the people of Alabama protest the decision then sure.

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

So should a news network not air a peace of news that wouldn't go over well with there target audience?

They do that all the time. So yes.

They do it anyway but the question was 'should' they not air a piece of news beacuse it wouldn't go over well with there target audience?

Would it be ethical to deny this information to zed target audience even if they dislike the factual information?

Same goes for art, just beacuse you think that kids below the target audience wouldn't understand the concept of two men getting married does that mean you should deny then that art work?

Censorship of art has long been disliked and this choosing not to air the epsode is suppression of art on the basis that such material is considered objectionable or sensitive.

[San Lumen]

This amounts to nothing more than censorship. Its telling LGBT people and kids there is something wrong with same sex relationships. They should have aired it and if parents didnt like it too bad. join the modern world.

This is a frankly bigoted viewpoint. APT owes you nothing. The people of Alabama owe you nothing.

Should the people of Alabama protest the decision then sure.

How is it bigoted? Air the episode and if parents are upset then that's their right. The tv channel should not be pandering to bigotry.

If the character and his husband feature in later episodes are they going to censor it too?

[The Emerald Legion]

They do that all the time. So yes.

They do it anyway but the question was 'should' they not air a piece of news beacuse it wouldn't go over well with there target audience?

Would it be ethical to deny this information to zed target audience even if they dislike the factual information?

Same goes for art, just beacuse you think that kids below the target audience wouldn't understand the concept of two men getting married does that mean you should deny then that art work?

Censorship of art has long been disliked and this choosing not to air the epsode is suppression of art on the basis that such material is considered objectionable or sensitive.

They aren't suppressing it. They are choosing not to personally share it. They aren't going out and slapping the Arthur DVD from your hand or preventing other channels from showing it. They just aren't showing it themselves.

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

This amounts to nothing more than censorship. Its telling LGBT people and kids there is something wrong with same sex relationships. They should have aired it and if parents didnt like it too bad. join the modern world.

This is a frankly bigoted viewpoint. APT owes you nothing. The people of Alabama owe you nothing.

Should the people of Alabama protest the decision then sure.

APT: I want to give the people of Alabama cheap access to art. But I also don't owe them anything so I shouldn't do anything.

[The Emerald Legion]

This is a frankly bigoted viewpoint. APT owes you nothing. The people of Alabama owe you nothing.

Should the people of Alabama protest the decision then sure.

APT: I want to give the people of Alabama cheap access to art. But I also don't owe them anything so I shouldn't do anything.

San Lumen doesn't live in Alabama.

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

They do it anyway but the question was 'should' they not air a piece of news beacuse it wouldn't go over well with there target audience?

Would it be ethical to deny this information to zed target audience even if they dislike the factual information?

Same goes for art, just beacuse you think that kids below the target audience wouldn't understand the concept of two men getting married does that mean you should deny then that art work?

Censorship of art has long been disliked and this choosing not to air the epsode is suppression of art on the basis that such material is considered objectionable or sensitive.

They aren't suppressing it. They are choosing not to personally share it. They aren't going out and slapping the Arthur DVD from your hand or preventing other channels from showing it. They just aren't showing it themselves.

Just like how the Government of China is choosing not to personally share information of the Tiananmen Square massacre?

[San Lumen]

They do it anyway but the question was 'should' they not air a piece of news beacuse it wouldn't go over well with there target audience?

Would it be ethical to deny this information to zed target audience even if they dislike the factual information?

Same goes for art, just beacuse you think that kids below the target audience wouldn't understand the concept of two men getting married does that mean you should deny then that art work?

Censorship of art has long been disliked and this choosing not to air the epsode is suppression of art on the basis that such material is considered objectionable or sensitive.

They aren't suppressing it. They are choosing not to personally share it. They aren't going out and slapping the Arthur DVD from your hand or preventing other channels from showing it. They just aren't showing it themselves.

Choosing not to share it is a nice way of saying they are censoring it.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

Clickbait title is clickbait

[The Emerald Legion]

They aren't suppressing it. They are choosing not to personally share it. They aren't going out and slapping the Arthur DVD from your hand or preventing other channels from showing it. They just aren't showing it themselves.

Just like how the Government of China is choosing not to personally share information of the Tiananmen Square massacre?

That's a nonsensical comparison and you Know it. Your argument iS basically "It exists and therefore they have an obligation to show it." They don't. If they did, they would have an obligation to show literally everything which makes no sense.

[San Lumen]

Just like how the Government of China is choosing not to personally share information of the Tiananmen Square massacre?

That's a nonsensical comparison and you Know it. Your argument iS basically "It exists and therefore they have an obligation to show it." They don't. If they did, they would have an obligation to show literally everything which makes no sense.

to not show it is pandering to bigotry and homophobia. If a parent doesnt like their kids being shown something that is perfectly normal that is their problem not the the networks and they should not pander to it.

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

APT: I want to give the people of Alabama cheap access to art. But I also don't owe them anything so I shouldn't do anything.

San Lumen doesn't live in Alabama.

Doesn't matter where San Lumen lives, saying that a entertainment entity who provides a service doesn't owe you anything is like saying a ISP should be opened that refuses to provide internet anything to anyone.

You provide a service and then say to the people who subscribe to that service you don't owe them anything.

That goes against the rules of capitalism and the logic there in.

[The Emerald Legion]

That's a nonsensical comparison and you Know it. Your argument iS basically "It exists and therefore they have an obligation to show it." They don't. If they did, they would have an obligation to show literally everything which makes no sense.

to not show it is pandering to bigotry and homophobia. If a parent doesnt like their kids being shown something that is perfectly normal that is their problem not the the networks and they should not pander to it.

Acting like it's not a controversial subject doesn't make it not a controversial subject.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

They aren't suppressing it. They are choosing not to personally share it. They aren't going out and slapping the Arthur DVD from your hand or preventing other channels from showing it. They just aren't showing it themselves.

Just like how the Government of China is choosing not to personally share information of the Tiananmen Square massacre?

No, not at all. I can still go online right now and look for the episode without the Alabamian government cutting my internet. The Chinese Government blocks all attempts to discuss the Tiananmen Square massacre.

This was a decision by a non-government entity not to broadcast an episode, not an attempt by a government to delete an event from history.

[Liriena]

American media bending over backwards to provide an impregnable safe space for evangelical Christians? Sounds about right.

[San Lumen]

to not show it is pandering to bigotry and homophobia. If a parent doesnt like their kids being shown something that is perfectly normal that is their problem not the the networks and they should not pander to it.

Acting like it's not a controversial subject doesn't make it not a controversial subject.

who cares if its controversial. The network should not be censoring it. Why doesn't the state ban Will and Grace too?

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

Just like how the Government of China is choosing not to personally share information of the Tiananmen Square massacre?

That's a nonsensical comparison and you Know it. Your argument iS basically "It exists and therefore they have an obligation to show it." They don't. If they did, they would have an obligation to show literally everything which makes no sense.

They provide a service and showing new episodes of Arthur is part of zed service.

They choose not to air an epsode of a show that they provide viewing too is bad service and censorship by by omission.