-
In a story Beverly posted on TVgameshows.net (http://\"http://www.tvgameshows.net/\") about Ronald Reagan's WML? segment appearing on Game Show Moments Gone Bananas 4, he makes this mention:
Reagan's famous I've Got a Secret episode may not air again on GSN. The network is in the process of extracting all of its Goodson-Todman shows with cigarette logos and signage on the sets.
I hope you happened to record some of those. Personally, I find this ridiculous. It's a part of TV history. I'd hate to think 50-year-old shows would inspire anybody to start smoking. Did someone complain? Does that mean we won't see Two for the Money or Judge for Yourself?
-
[quote name=\'ilb4ever2000\' date=\'Jun 12 2005, 01:09 AM\']Did someone complain? Does that mean we won't see Two for the Money or Judge for Yourself?
[/quote]
Probably a group of right-wing liberals or some idiotic group of conservatives. The same special interest groups that whined when the Batman/Robin "queer" question comes up.
Anything related to smoking or the "family" is deemed offensive these days-while other crap like 2 lesbians making out on a talk show is OK.
Anyone have a spare pack of Winston Light 100s?
-
[quote name=\'Modor\' date=\'Jun 12 2005, 01:19 AM\']Probably a group of right-wing liberals or some idiotic group of conservatives. The same special interest groups that whined when the Batman/Robin "queer" question comes up.
[snapback]88729[/snapback]
[/quote]
I think you mean left-wing liberals, don't you?
Anywho, here's a quote from this article (http://\"http://www.winkmartindale.com/media/page6.html\") from April 25, 2005 at Wink Martindale's site about game show parodies in ads:
Brand and product names and logos were so interwoven into the fabric of the shows, Mr. Cronin said, that GSN is unable to rerun series like "I've Got a Secret" that were sponsored by cigarette brands, because it would break the rules barring tobacco advertising from TV.
Did they just discover these rules?
-
[quote name=\'ilb4ever2000\' date=\'Jun 12 2005, 01:26 AM\']Did they just discover these rules?
[/quote]
In the past, they got around these rules by airing anti-smoking messages. I haven't seen those for quite some time.
That doesn't explain how on an episode of Home Improvement, they get away with smoking pipes around the poker table; or on Match Game, they smoke...I suppose they aren't technically advertising for the tobacco companies, but they are still promoting it.
And thanks for the political correction.
-
If it was worth the trouble, the technology to eliminate the offending sponsor probably exists. After all, they put superimposed ads in TV coverage of live sporting events these days.
-
[quote name=\'Jimmy Owen\' date=\'Jun 12 2005, 12:59 PM\']If it was worth the trouble, the technology to eliminate the offending sponsor probably exists. After all, they put superimposed ads in TV coverage of live sporting events these days.
[snapback]88745[/snapback]
[/quote]
Don't give 'em any ideas. They might actually try to promote another show that way. ;)
-
[quote name=\'Modor\' date=\'Jun 12 2005, 01:19 AM\'][quote name=\'ilb4ever2000\' date=\'Jun 12 2005, 01:09 AM\']Did someone complain? Does that mean we won't see Two for the Money or Judge for Yourself?
[/quote]
Probably a group of right-wing liberals [snapback]88729[/snapback]
[/quote]
Now I know why so many members sat out the recent post about political leanings of g.s. personalities.
I will agree that the thing about old cigarette sponsors is ridicolous.
-
I hope you happened to record some of those.
I already did when they aired some years before. I guess this means they'll be skipping over some of the To Tell the Truth episodes sponsored by Marboro and Salem, as well as some Password episodes also brought to us by Salem.
Does that mean we won't see Two for the Money or Judge for Yourself?
In the words of Hal March, "YOU'RE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT!" And besides, there could be a tinge of "political in-correctness" in Herb Shriner's jokes, as well.
Cordially,
Tammy Warner--the 'Edie McClurg of the Big Board!'
-
[quote name=\'PaulD\' date=\'Jun 12 2005, 03:59 PM\'][quote name=\'Modor\' date=\'Jun 12 2005, 01:19 AM\'][quote name=\'ilb4ever2000\' date=\'Jun 12 2005, 01:09 AM\']Did someone complain? Does that mean we won't see Two for the Money or Judge for Yourself?
[/quote]
Probably a group of right-wing liberals [snapback]88729[/snapback]
[/quote]
Now I know why so many members sat out the recent posy about political leanings of g.s. personalities.
[snapback]88753[/snapback]
[/quote]
Was that supposed to be funny? 'Cause it wasn't.
-
[quote name=\'PaulD\' date=\'Jun 12 2005, 02:59 PM\']Now I know why so many members sat out the recent post about political leanings of g.s. personalities.
[snapback]88753[/snapback]
[/quote]
I sat out because I didn't know the answer. How Larry Blyden and Blake Emmons voted is their business and theirs alone. Speaking of smoking, how about the way our genial host started lighting up and sucking away as soon as each episode of What's Going On ended? He's not waiting 'till the camera's off, he's draggin' away NOW!!
-
Whether it says Marlboro in color or in black and white, the brand names are the same now as they were then, and it is advertising and it breaks the law. I'm not surprised that GSN is doing this.
What I am surprised about is how they got away with doing it for this long without being heavily fined.
There is no law against smoking on camera. That is why it's ok for the MG panel to do it.
Anyway it's kind of funny because who is really up at 2am or whenever B&W airs to see this anyway? No kids are up this time of night. I think they're just doing it out of legality reasons.
-
[quote name=\'xibit777\' date=\'Jun 12 2005, 03:11 PM\']What I am surprised about is how they got away with doing it for this long without being heavily fined.
[/quote]
Look back through the thread.
-
I do hate these days of supposed political correctness. If anything, what it is doing is trying to discriminate against actual beliefs in general. But, I'm not going to get into idealistics of politics, since that's not the topic.
Comedy Central seems to do a "secret stash" on Sunday mornings at 1AM ET, where they show unedited versions of movies, and put a disclaimer before going back to air that this is going on and parental discretion is advised. Couldn't they do something similar with the Black & White Overnight's, especially since the show is being done at 3AM ET?
If that isn't going to suffice, then how bout getting out the picture scrambling machine? Wherever it says Winston or Salem or such, just scramble the picture over it. Then, if they say Winston or Salem or such, get out the bleeper. Unless of course that would mean totally changing the tapes. I wouldn't want that to happen, since black and white television is always a work of art, and not just something dumb to fool with.
-
[quote name=\'wschmrdr\' date=\'Jun 12 2005, 06:07 PM\']If that isn't going to suffice, then how bout getting out the picture scrambling machine? Wherever it says Winston or Salem or such, just scramble the picture over it. Then, if they say Winston or Salem or such, get out the bleeper. Unless of course that would mean totally changing the tapes. I wouldn't want that to happen, since black and white television is always a work of art, and not just something dumb to fool with.
[snapback]88782[/snapback]
[/quote]
GSN used to blur the Cavalier Cigarette signs on IGAS. Maybe they could try doing that again?
It seems GSN had a lapse in judgment (or memory) since they decided to air those Winston IGAS episodes (with no blurring or 30-year-old anti-smoking PSAs, BTW). I guess someone finally called them on it.
-
Why is it ok to air them if they air anti-smoking messages? Cigarette companies can't make commercials for their product then at the end say "oh by the way, no one should smoke". Seems odd to me that GSN was ever allowed to air them.
I think it would be too much work for them to blur out every cigarette company name and bleep every mention of it. They would never go through all of that just to air some shows during B&W when probably very few viewers watch.
-
Password is less of a problem. The cigarette plugs can be easily edited from them since there's no sponsor logo on the set.
-
If they can't be on GSN anymore, Fremantle could always put out uncut DVD's with parental lock capabilities. They could give them away with the purchase of cartons of Marlboros and Old Golds.
-
[quote name=\'Terry K\' date=\'Jun 12 2005, 09:17 PM\']Password is less of a problem. The cigarette plugs can be easily edited from them since there's no sponsor logo on the set.
[snapback]88799[/snapback]
[/quote]
Yes...in fact, that's exactly what they've been doing. That explains the abrupt cuts.
-
[quote name=\'FeudDude\' date=\'Jun 12 2005, 09:57 PM\']Yes...in fact, that's exactly what they've been doing. That explains the abrupt cuts.
[snapback]88808[/snapback]
[/quote]
If they go to break after the opening, then it was sponsored by Salem (or Dutch Masters Cigars). These shouldn't be a problem.
Now a couple questions:
Cavalier isn't around anymore. Could they still air episode sponsored by them (probably not, since I mentioned they used to blur the signs on IGAS)?
Just what shows had prominent cigarette sponsorship (signs, host pitches, etc.)? We've covered Two for the Money, Judge for Yourself, many 1950s episodes of IGAS, and some TTTTs. Anything else?
-
"Take a Good Look" with Ernie Kovacs, Dutch Masters. "Penny to a Million," was Raleigh. "Go Lucky" was sponsored by Lucky Strikes.
-
[quote name=\'Jimmy Owen\' date=\'Jun 12 2005, 11:41 PM\']"Take a Good Look" with Ernie Kovacs, Dutch Masters. "Penny to a Million," was Raleigh. "Go Lucky" was sponsored by Lucky Strikes.
[snapback]88817[/snapback]
[/quote]
I meant stuff that GSN has. Sorry for not clarifying that...
-
There may have been a game of the week sponsored by cigarette commercials, but I think we covered them all.
I think putting out DVDs of the episodes would be VERY expensive, considering there were probably a couple hundred episodes.
I know there was a comment about "right-wing liberals" or conservatives trying to take these off the air. It usually isn't the conservatives that try to make everything in this country "politically correct". I have a feeling it's the same people that try to take statues of the Ten Commandments down, or those that favor affirmative action, etc.
I see these old 1950's game shows as works of art, because that's really what television was back then. They're historical artifacts. Think about it: you don't immediately think Venus DeMilo needs to have a shirt on because her boobs are showing, do you?
-
[quote name=\'wschmrdr\' date=\'Jun 13 2005, 10:38 AM\']I see these old 1950's game shows as works of art, because that's really what television was back then. [/quote] You keep beating this drum, but no one's listening anymore. TV was an art form back then? What is it now, pray tell? TV is TV. They're all there to make money, not for a greater good to society.
They're historical artifacts. Think about it: you don't immediately think Venus DeMilo needs to have a shirt on because her boobs are showing, do you?
[snapback]88865[/snapback]
If someone can't figure out the difference between a tobacco ad being improper on television, and the representation of a nude woman as opposed to a real form nude, then I can't help them. This analogy makes no sense.
-
Maybe not a shirt but she could use a couple arms.
-
[quote name=\'wschmrdr\' date=\'Jun 13 2005, 01:38 PM\']I have a feeling it's the same people that try to take statues of the Ten Commandments down
[snapback]88865[/snapback]
[/quote]
And you think they do belong in a government building of a country that supposedly represents people of all religions equally?
(Which is not to say that the people who try to get them taken down don't have far too much time on their hands...)
-
(BLOWS LOUD WHISTLE THAT MARKED THE END OF PLAY ON "G.E. COLLEGE BOWL.")
OK, let's not get into a political debate here ...
-
I have to question why they'd even need to cut them? Cable isn't under the FCC regulations in terms of content. The only thing I can think of the settlement with big tobacco.
-
[quote name=\'Terry K\' date=\'Jun 14 2005, 10:51 AM\']I have to question why they'd even need to cut them? Cable isn't under the FCC regulations in terms of content. The only thing I can think of the settlement with big tobacco.[/quote]This isn't a cable vs broadcast issue. The Cigarette Smoking Act of 1969 wasn't an FCC policy or guideline, it was a law passed by Congress.
-
[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' date=\'Jun 14 2005, 11:38 AM\'][quote name=\'Terry K\' date=\'Jun 14 2005, 10:51 AM\']I have to question why they'd even need to cut them? Cable isn't under the FCC regulations in terms of content. The only thing I can think of the settlement with big tobacco.[/quote]This isn't a cable vs broadcast issue. The Cigarette Smoking Act of 1969 wasn't an FCC policy or guideline, it was a law passed by Congress.
[snapback]88992[/snapback]
[/quote]
You're absolutely right Matt, the law as passed by congress used the terms "television" and "radio" in general, it did not apply to any specific method of transmission in any way shape or form, just to the mediums in general terms.
Please clarify this for me Matt, I'm assuming the act was written in 1969, but did not go into law until 1971, correct?
-
This will show you how long ago that law was passed: it didn't go into effect until midnight of Jan. 1, instead of, say, midnight Dec. 31. Why? So the networks could get revenue from ciggybutt ads on the New Year's bowl games. Today, they'd probably ask for a holdoff until after the Super Bowl.
Of course, types of advertising that were forbidden then are now on air including hard liquor, condoms, and bra ads with live models. What a world, what a world.
-
[quote name=\'DrBear\' date=\'Jun 14 2005, 04:48 PM\']Of course, types of advertising that were forbidden then are now on air including hard liquor, condoms, and bra ads with live models. What a world, what a world.
[snapback]89043[/snapback]
[/quote]
Hard liquor, condoms, and models...Sounds like a night out with [insert wild celebrity here]!
-
[quote name=\'DrBear\' date=\'Jun 14 2005, 05:48 PM\']
Of course, types of advertising that were forbidden then are now on air including hard liquor, condoms, and bra ads with live models. What a world, what a world.
[/quote]
About hard liquor... it never was really forbidden, broadcasters chose to be cautious about hard liquor ads back in those days, there never was any law or edict saying it was forbidden.
-
[quote name=\'NicholasM79\' date=\'Jun 14 2005, 12:57 PM\']You're absolutely right Matt, the law as passed by congress used the terms "television" and "radio" in general, it did not apply to any specific method of transmission in any way shape or form, just to the mediums in general terms.
[snapback]89005[/snapback]
[/quote]
Title 15, Section 1335 of the United States Code: "After January 1, 1971, it shall be unlawful to advertise cigarettes and little cigars on any medium of electronic communication subject to the jurisdiction of the Federal Communications Commission."
Section 4402(f) added smokeless tobacco to the ban as of August 27, 1986.
Strange - there doesn't seem to be a ban on cigar or pipe tobacco advertising (anybody else remember Billy Martin shilling Borkum Riff?) anywhere. (A "cigar" is defined as tobacco wrapped in tobacco leaf (tobacco wrapped in anything else is a cigarette) that weighs more than 0.003 pounds.)
The question remains, however: what is considered "advertising"? There was a time when cigarette companies placed signs on baseball stadium scoreboards pretty much for the sole purpose of getting TV exposure (at least one ballpark had a sign that would be displayed on TV whenever a batter was shown stopping at first base).
If worse comes to worse, they managed to remove the announcer's plugs for Winston in the IGAS openings; perhaps they can find a way to cover the podium signs as well, even if it takes a while?
-- Don
-
[quote name=\'That Don Guy\' date=\'Jun 14 2005, 09:14 PM\']
Strange - there doesn't seem to be a ban on cigar or pipe tobacco advertising (anybody else remember Billy Martin shilling Borkum Riff?) anywhere. (A "cigar" is defined as tobacco wrapped in tobacco leaf (tobacco wrapped in anything else is a cigarette) that weighs more than 0.003 pounds.)
[snapback]89076[/snapback]
[/quote]
I seem to remember Garcia Vega cigars advertised well after 1971, even into the early 80s.
-
I know this isn't GSN, but it's a very similar topic.
Did something similar happen with NASCAR and the "Winston Cup Series"? Also, I've seen a couple times in recent history the cigarette companies putting their logo on the NASCAR's. Is this the same thing?
BTW, I do know someone who remembers when they stopped with cigarette ads. The person says that the very next day there were many Anti-smoking Public Service Announcements during the breaks where there were cigarette ads.
-
[quote name=\'wschmrdr\' date=\'Jun 15 2005, 01:13 AM\']
BTW, I do know someone who remembers when they stopped with cigarette ads. The person says that the very next day there were many Anti-smoking Public Service Announcements during the breaks where there were cigarette ads.
[snapback]89092[/snapback]
[/quote]
I wonder how many people actually QUIT smoking once the ads stopped on TV...I believe my father was one of 'em..
-
[quote name=\'wschmrdr\' date=\'Jun 15 2005, 01:13 AM\']
Did something similar happen with NASCAR and the "Winston Cup Series"? Also, I've seen a couple times in recent history the cigarette companies putting their logo on the NASCAR's. Is this the same thing?
[/quote]
How much did Henke pay you to say that? Honestly?
-
The sort of "stealth advertising" allowed as sponsor of, say, Winston Cup was allowed, but limited. Winston had to limit it to one form of racing. Marlboro, on the other hand, chose to sponsor an Indy team. They couldn't have paired that with a team in NASCAR or sponsored a "Marlboro Cup" series. In fact, IIRC, Marlboro had to drop sponsorship of the Indy cars when the U.S. Grand Prix started up again because they also sponsored Formula One cars.
And I think the loophole that allowed, say, a big Marlboro sign behind the catcher or behind the goalposts at a football game has been closed. At least, you don't see as much of it.
-
[quote name=\'That Don Guy\' date=\'Jun 14 2005, 10:14 PM\']If worse comes to worse, they managed to remove the announcer's plugs for Winston in the IGAS openings; perhaps they can find a way to cover the podium signs as well, even if it takes a while?[/quote]
But that's just it. GSN has no interest whatsoever in going to any extra trouble when it comes to those shows. As it is, they're not making any money for the channel and they're taking up two spots that would logically go to infomercials otherwise.
A previous regime DID have such an interest and did what they thought they could do in order to let us see some gems, including lesser-known shows that were completely cigarette-sponsored. That's just no longer the case. I doubt the rules have changed, and if the FCC put any specific heat on GSN the first time GSN ran them, it seems as though we'd have heard about it. For whatever reason they have, Cronin & company don't want to air them, and that's that.
-
[quote name=\'wschmrdr\' date=\'Jun 15 2005, 12:13 AM\']Did something similar happen with NASCAR and the "Winston Cup Series"? Also, I've seen a couple times in recent history the cigarette companies putting their logo on the NASCAR's. Is this the same thing?
[/quote]
Allow me to devert my knowledge here...
The company in question, "Victory" brand cigarettes was not part of the lawsuit, and therefore, are not part of the restrictions laid down by the Feds.
As Dr. Bear (sorry, I don't know your name) alluded; companies had to drop multiple sponsorships, such as Skoal (they stuck with pool) and Copehengan (Rodeo).
-
[quote name=\'wschmrdr\' date=\'Jun 15 2005, 12:13 AM\']I know this isn't GSN, but it's a very similar topic.
Did something similar happen with NASCAR and the "Winston Cup Series"? Also, I've seen a couple times in recent history the cigarette companies putting their logo on the NASCAR's. Is this the same thing?
[snapback]89092[/snapback]
[/quote]
Not quite. Winston could have continued to sponsor the top-level NASCAR series, as tobacco companies could sponsor sporting events where the participants are 18 or older, but they wanted to sponsor some of the lower levels of NASCAR as well, where the only requirement is that you have a driver's license, and either a new law or part of the "big tobacco settlement" prevented them from advertising at those races.
I stumbled across what appears to be an FDA "final rule" from August, 1996, that says that tobacco brands could no longer be advertised on race cars, but I am not certain when, or even if, it actually took effect. It seems strange that tobacco can't advertise on cars but Jack Daniels can.
-- Don
-
[quote name=\'That Don Guy\' date=\'Jun 16 2005, 08:51 PM\']It seems strange that tobacco can't advertise on cars but Jack Daniels can.
[snapback]89310[/snapback]
[/quote]
Smoking kills and nothing goes better together than drinking and driving.
-
[quote name=\'ilb4ever2000\' date=\'Jun 16 2005, 09:55 PM\'][quote name=\'That Don Guy\' date=\'Jun 16 2005, 08:51 PM\']It seems strange that tobacco can't advertise on cars but Jack Daniels can.
[snapback]89310[/snapback]
[/quote]
Smoking kills and nothing goes better together than drinking and drinking.
[snapback]89312[/snapback]
[/quote]
Don't you mean drinking and driving? I know some people would be MADD about that.
-
[quote name=\'sshuffield70\' date=\'Jun 16 2005, 11:28 PM\']Don't you mean drinking and driving? I know some people would be MADD about that.
[snapback]89326[/snapback]
[/quote]
Fixed it. Boy, did I screw that one up...
-
I think that this should definitely have us stopping to think about the values of American society, "the Land of the Free". You can say some of the "7 dirty words" now as much as you want on the TV, but the second something like the Batman and Robin MG question goes out, everyone gets in a big whoop. You can show all the killing and violence you want on TV, but once you see a woman's boob, once again, big whoop. You can have all the Budweiser and drinking and carrying on you want, but the second a cigarette comes out, well, you get the idea.
I realize GSN doesn't want to take the time out to fix something in order to make it politically correct, and honestly, I don't blame them. I think it's merely a question of our society.
-
[quote name=\'sshuffield70\' date=\'Jun 12 2005, 01:04 PM\'][quote name=\'Jimmy Owen\' date=\'Jun 12 2005, 12:59 PM\']If it was worth the trouble, the technology to eliminate the offending sponsor probably exists. After all, they put superimposed ads in TV coverage of live sporting events these days.
[snapback]88745[/snapback]
[/quote]
Don't give 'em any ideas. They might actually try to promote another show that way. ;)
[snapback]88746[/snapback]
[/quote]
Paste Lingo and Poker Royale advertizing decals over the Winston decals.
That would just make it so annoying... forget that idea. I don't want to give GSN any ideas. Sex, violence and nudity are allowed on TV and yet smoking is taboo.
When someone is showing a sex scene on TV, does it get worse because she's holding a Winston :)
-
saussage, though I very much hate to say it, that promotion advertising is a thoughtful idea! You then have to figure though, how often are they doing promotions at 3AM? Not very.
-
[quote name=\'wschmrdr\' date=\'Jun 18 2005, 09:17 PM\']saussage, though I very much hate to say it, that promotion advertising is a thoughtful idea! You then have to figure though, how often are they doing promotions at 3AM? Not very.
[snapback]89434[/snapback]
[/quote]
CLemon is right. You two are made for each other.
-
[quote name=\'saussage\' date=\'Jun 18 2005, 07:21 PM\']When someone is showing a sex scene on TV, does it get worse because she's holding a Winston :)
[snapback]89425[/snapback]
[/quote]
Interesting euphemism.
-
[quote name=\'tvwxman\' date=\'Jun 19 2005, 07:17 AM\'][quote name=\'wschmrdr\' date=\'Jun 18 2005, 09:17 PM\']saussage, though I very much hate to say it, that promotion advertising is a thoughtful idea! You then have to figure though, how often are they doing promotions at 3AM? Not very.
[snapback]89434[/snapback]
[/quote]
CLemon is right. You two are made for each other.
[snapback]89445[/snapback]
[/quote]
Not to be a total jack-youknowwhat, but could someone explain this to me?
-
[quote name=\'wschmrdr\' date=\'Jun 19 2005, 04:47 PM\']Not to be a total jack-youknowwhat, but could someone explain this to me?
[/quote]
You're being redundant.
(I'll let someone else handle this one. :))