10
Mar
Free Speech Impediment
David E. Kelley – the Emmy Award-winning creator of such memorable series’ as Picket Fences, Doogie Howser M.D., Ally McBeal, Boston Public, The Practice, and its current spin-off, Boston Legal – is probably the most prolific and successful writer/producer now working in television. Coupled with the fact that he is married to film star Michelle Pfeiffer, Kelley’s talent makes him one of the most influential people in the entertainment world. But apparently even Kelley’s power pales before the might of Disney and the MausHaus.
Case in point: the next episode of Boston Legal, to be broadcast Sunday March 13 on the Disney-owned ABC network. I have acquired both the original and the revised script for this episode from a source who prefers to remain anonymous. The original penned by Kelley focused in large measure on Fox News and its loofah-loving star Bill O’Reilly. The script also featured substantial excerpts from the independent film Outfoxed, which documents how the allegedly “fair and balanced” cable channel acts as a propaganda arm for the Republican Party and other conservative interest groups.
But the final script – the one that was actually shot for the show that will appear on Sunday – has been thoroughly scrubbed on orders from top ABC network executives, and all mention of Fox News and O’Reilly has been sent down the Memory Hole.
Why was the original script, which ironically centered on issues of free speech, censored?
Kelley won’t say why the changes were made – and no one at his production company, his producing partner 20th Century Fox, ABC or even Fox News is talking.
But a comparison of the original script and the censored script speaks for itself. In the original, Chi McBride (principal of the high school featured in Kelley’s previous hit Boston Public) installs a “Fox Blocker” on every television set in his school, on the entirely reasonable grounds that what appears on Fox News is not news but in fact “hate speech.” One of his students, Stuart Milch, believes McBride’s decision to be censorship, and takes his case to the attorneys of Boston Legal.
Here’s a taste of what millions of viewers will now miss next Sunday:
Stuart: “It’s called a Fox Blocker. Sold off the internet. You attach it to the coaxial cable on your television and it basically blocks out all Fox News transmissions… My high school principal attached these liberal, left-wing devices to all the televisions in the building. Meanwhile, the kids are free to watch CBS, CNN, NBC, even ABC, But not Fox. It’s censorship.”
It’s called censorship, all right – just not on Boston Legal anymore. Here’s what the final, scrubbed-and-censored script says instead:
Stuart: “It’s called a news blocker. Sold off the internet. You attach it to the coaxial cable on your television and it basically blocks out news transmission…. My high school principal attached these devices to all the televisions in the building. The problem is… turns out it only blocks out one network, the most fair and balanced one. All the others, kids can watch.”
Here’s another example, this time of an interchange between two Boston Legal characters – attorney Chelina Hall and Catherine Piper, secretary to attorney Alan Shore (played by Boston Legal star, James Spader.) Again, original script first:
Chelina: If you had to watch the news, Mrs. Piper, which network would you go to?
Catherine (simply): Fox, of course.
Chelina: Can you tell us why?
Catherine: Well. For starters, we’re winning the war on Fox. The economy’s better there. And Brit Hume. Sometimes I close my eyes and…go to him.
And now, the censored version:
Chelina: If you had to watch the news, Mrs. Piper, which network would you go to?
Catherine (simply): I don’t know. I’d probably seek out the station where we’re most likely to be winning the war. Where I can find a better economy. Maybe some weapons of mass destruction.
And so it continues, page after expurgated page. No Fox. No Bill O’Reilly. No Brit Hume. … And no free speech?
No way to know – because no one will speak, not even the articulate, prolific and powerful Mr. Kelley.
Speaking of free speech, there’s another, related issue to consider as well – the unexplained fact that Robert Greenwald, creator of the Outfoxed documentary (which curiously is still excerpted and mentioned by name in Sunday’s episode) was unable to purchase time on the ABC network to advertise his film.
According to Greenwald’s distributor Gary Baddeley, a representative of the Broadcast Standards and Practices Department at ABC named Joel Resnicow indicated that ABC would not accept an ad for Outfoxed to run adjacent to Boston Legal, “although he was reluctant to come out and say so directly, I suspect for political reasons,” says Baddeley.
“I really pushed him hard to say what we would have to do to edit the ad to make it acceptable and he said he ‘can’t think of anything,’” Baddeley says. “He also said that ‘it seems like there are insurmountable issues’ and [he] ‘wouldn’t want us to invest time’ in re-editing. So although he wouldn’t actually say ‘we will not approve an ad for this film no matter what’ - that is the practical effect of what he is saying. The door has been closed in our face.”
In keeping with the overall vow of silence accompanying the Boston Legal “free speech” episode, neither Joel Resnicow nor indeed anyone at ABC’s Broadcast Standards and Practices Department was willing to comment. When pressed for an explanation of why the ad was refused, ABC’s media relations rep Susan Sewell said only “No comment.” The non-answer answer was the same even when she was asked for an explanation – or indeed any articulation whatsoever – of ABC’s “Broadcast Standards and Practices.”
And Fox News Chairman Roger Ailes – usually good for at least a quip, if not an actual quote – also declined comment.
To see the ad that ABC censored, click here.
And while you’re at it, why not ask David E. Kelley what pressure was brought to bear on him to censor an episode of his series – one supposedly devoted to the issue of free speech. The telephone number for David E. Kelley Productions is 650.853.9100.
In the interest of free speech, maybe he’ll even talk to you.
From what I read, the second version is better. Stuart’s original statement is positioned as a positive for Fox in a number of subtle ways. Plus, all of the other media outlets are inaccurately positioned as left wing and liberal (clearly positioned as a bad thing).
March 10th, 2005 at 9:42 amIf the writer really wanted to attack the issue he would have taken all of the news off the school’s TV’s (and may be even taken the TV’s out of the schools) and let the students get back to learning. I wonder how the networks and advertisers would react to that?
If we want real change we have to focus on the core issues, not get lost in the minutia.
The change is for the better. With an outright mention of their “hallowed” name, you know Fox News (through their right-winging minions) would nail ABC and the so-called Liberal Media to the wall for their obvious anti-patriotic muckraking. “See, see, the liberals are responsible for censorship, not us.” I’m sure the oh, so subtle mention of “fair and balanced” will clue the viewing public into what newschannel is under discussion. So, I don’t believe Fox had any cloaks and daggers involved in this.
What does bother me is the expurgation of the Outfoxed ad.
On both counts, it appears that ABC is attempting to mitigate the potential loss of viewership that may be delivered by a 1-2 punch against Fox News and O’Reilly.
March 10th, 2005 at 9:58 amMaybe you should try talking to William Shatner; He’s unstoppable and can pretty much get away with pissing anyone off at this stage in his career - he’s bankable no matter what he says at this point.
And for the people(Obvious right-wing schills) posting above me, the change is NOT for the better. The subtext of the quote is a subtle dig at Fox, and in any case, supporting free speech is not suspended because of one viewpoint or another; whether or not the first version slams or supports Fox, a writer should not have their work expurgated or edited to serve a political agenda…which the above commenters would know, if they were not tools of the establishment.
March 10th, 2005 at 11:56 amHere’s my letter to ABC-
From: saundra
Subject: Boston Legal and abc political censorship
Date: March 10, 2005 9:38:52 AM CST
To: netaudr@abc.com
Dear ABC-
Congratulations. You’ve managed to ruin my favorite television show. Most of the junk on television isn’t worth watching, and usually I have something better to do anyway. The ABC lineup of hysterical realism-like extreme makeovers and wife swapping, and sitcoms that have become the same old thing, and dramas that seem more like soap operas are generally not worth watching. Boston Legal, however, was funny, quirky, and rightously irreverant. But now I’ll never be able to watch it the same way knowing the following:
According to Rory O’Connor, ABC is politcally censoring it’s entertainment. (http://www.roryoconnor.org/blog/)
“Here’s a taste of what millions of viewers will now miss next Sunday:
Stuart: “It’s called a Fox Blocker. Sold off the internet. You attach it to the coaxial cable on your television and it basically blocks out all Fox News transmissions… My high school principal attached these liberal, left-wing devices to all the televisions in the building. Meanwhile, the kids are free to watch CBS, CNN, NBC, even ABC, But not Fox. It’s censorship.”
It’s called censorship, all right – just not on Boston Legal anymore. Here’s what the final, scrubbed-and-censored script says instead:
Stuart: “It’s called a news blocker. Sold off the internet. You attach it to the coaxial cable on your television and it basically blocks out news transmission…. My high school principal attached these devices to all the televisions in the building. The problem is… turns out it only blocks out one network, the most fair and balanced one. All the others, kids can watch.”
Well, I guess I have more time now to spend with the kids playing a nice game of Sorry………….
March 10th, 2005 at 12:18 pmTo sum up the article, “Boston Legal” wanted to air an episode focusing on the legality of a school principal blocking the Fox news networks from all school TVs. The episode that will air has seemingly purged all references to Fox. This is considered censorship by Rory O’Connor.
1. Why would ABC want to give free publicity to another network, especially when it would cost them? Granted, it’s funny to bash Fox (even if the joke’s gotten a little stale, a rather peculiar trademark of everything Kelley has done since {i}Picket Fences{/i} and the first season of {i}Ally McBeal{/i}). The simple truth is, whenever one company bashes another, the resulting publicity always focuses on how uncalled for the insults were and how the victimized company is so courageous for taking the high road. Fox News is full of shit; forgive me if I think ABC is wise for not giving them martyrdom status to boot.
2. In what imaginary universe does this constitute censorship? If I’m paying you for a service (in this case, to provide a television show), and I don’t want you to say something, that’s not censorship. You have the freedom to say whatever you want, just not on my dime. Pretending a network cutting references to another network in a television show is comparable to people saying all copies of the Harry Potter books should be completely destroyed not only makes the speaker look ridiculous, it seriously lessens the impact of true censorship. If everything is censorship, then nothing is.
3. Marriage to Michelle Pfeiffer helps make someone “one of the most influential people in the entertainment world”? My God, imagine the power someone that married Chris O’Donnell would wield!
4. “The entirely reasonable grounds that what appears on Fox News is not news but in fact ‘hate speech.’” This is where I really started to get angry. Does Rory O-Conner have any idea what hate speech is? Yes, Fox News is a very conservative network that gives an extremely biased view of the world. But that’s not hate speech. Hate speech is saying fags deserve to die because they like to suck dick. Hate speech is saying niggers are inferior, spicks are greasy, women are cunts on life support. When people use words like “hate speech” to define a news network that caters to a right-wing market, what they’re saying is that hate speech is nothing more than Bill O’Reilly saying we should support our President. No wonder some people find it so easy to dismiss us “liberals”. If hate speech encompasses everything from Ku Klux Klan rallies to Bush bumper stickers, then I guess we deserve to be ignored.
What a stupid article. Does Fox News deserve to be belittled? Hell yeah! Personally, I think ABC erred on the side of caution by eliminating the “Well. For starters, we’re winning the war on Fox. The economy’s better there.” line. That is hilarious, not because it makes fun of Fox, but because it’s absolutely true.
But if this is a major point of contention, a battle that must be won at any costs, then I guess the people who really need help are totally fucked. ABC didn’t censor Kelley. They told him to make changes, just like they do with every show (and just like Fox and the other networks do, too). That’s not censorship, and defining it as such only serves to diminish the true evil of being censored.
And why does the author of the article keep mentioning how ironic it is that the episode revolved around censorship when it is blatantly obvious to anyone, regardless of their views, that choosing to block out one network while allowing all others PURELY ON THE BASIS THAT YOU DON’T AGREE WITH THEIR VIEWS is something that most liberal and social-minded people would find appalling?
But then again, it’s an easy target. No sacrifice involved if you go after a television show that cuts any mention of the evil empire that Murdoch created. You can be righteously upset, and yet you don’t have to do a damn thing but express your outrage.
In different times, they would have called that pathetic.
Now it’s called revolution.
March 11th, 2005 at 12:01 amI found your comments so annoying and ridiculous I just had to blog about it.
Read them here: 1971films.com (March 10 entry)
Best,
March 11th, 2005 at 3:00 amJamie
I’m shocked to hear the corporate state allows little criticism of its brethren! Shocked I say! When you take money from the corps you tow the line. Don’t concern yourself with fights among whores, Rory. ABC, FOX, CBS, they’re all the same. If Hannity were bitch slapping O’Reilly, would anyone really care? Other the rest of the closeted boys from the seminaries?
March 11th, 2005 at 11:14 amHi Rory:
As a result of reading your article on the TV show “Boston Legal”, and the last minute change in the script, apparently as a result of network pressure, I phoned the office of David Kelley, asked to speak to Mr. Kelley, was told he wasn’t in, so I told the nice young man on the phone that as a longtime fan of the show, I was upset about the apparent cave-in. His response was “no comment”. I asked if he’d received other calls about this matter; he stated that he couldn’t respond to that……
Thanks again,
Bruce
March 11th, 2005 at 12:37 pmExactly flyerfortheairforce, ABC/Disney are no better than Fox. Maybe a little sneakier and not as loud but their all from the same right-wing mold. Remember the Fahrenheit 911 scandal, remember Rush Limbaugh is a WABC star, John Stossel is another peach from ABC.
Basically the time has come for people to stop bitching about the media. They need to stop supporting it. People don’t realize that by paying their cable/satellite bill each week they are funding these media organizations. STOP, get your news from the independent media on the internet. Send the money you would spend on cable/satellite or other mainstream media and donate it to Pacific Radio, Truthout, Salon, AlterNet, etc. etc.
If all the people who continually whine about the media actually used their wallet, these media empires would be in serious trouble. All it would take is 10% to 20% loss of subscribers to make a difference. Maybe even less.
March 11th, 2005 at 12:46 pmThe reworked version is a pale imitation of the original script. It backed away from the real issue - Fox News. It’s a subject that provokes strong opinions - both pro and con. In a free society we should be able to examine and discuss the topic without being censored by corporate America.
March 12th, 2005 at 12:10 amI actually like the revised script more than the original, a bit snarkier and there’s no way any one is going to miss those references to Fox News. Anyway, this looks like it part of story-arc so we’ll just have to wait and see where it goes from here. The refusal to air ads for ‘Outfoxed’ however are suspect. But what else do you expect from a major media corporation?
March 12th, 2005 at 4:17 amI for one, welcome our new, mouse ears wearing, overlords.
March 12th, 2005 at 12:25 pmWhile I personally detest Fox News, I don’t believe the changes made to BOSTON LEGAL really count as censorship. So the corporation that owns the show didn’t like what was being said and made them change it; big surprise. Really, that’s the company exercising its free-speech, since it owns the show and pays to have it made. If this really bothered Kelley, then he’d quit and go make something he could really control.
March 12th, 2005 at 3:12 pmFunny thing is that you really can purchase a FoxBlocker at www.foxblocker.com…I think it costs $8.95 and this company will contact Faux advertisers every time a blocker is purchased…I just “deleted” Faux from my viewing choices and called Faux to let them know.
March 12th, 2005 at 7:14 pmFirst keep in mind that many ABC stations refused to show private ryan for fear of the FCC
http://www.cwfa.org/articles/6769/CFI/pornography/
Second I consider it censorship because ABC changed the script not based on artistic merit or realism( how many boston PUBLIC schools have cable tv?) but they changed it because either they fear a lawsuit or Fox is their freind. Also a note for censorship is they didn’t ASK Kelly if he wouldn’t mind changing things, sounds like they ordered him.
And tommy marx I consider the following quotes from Fox people ‘hate speech’
Bill O’Reilly to Jewish caller: “[I]f you are really offended, you gotta go to Israel.”
Ann Coulter:
If John Kerry would promise to fire Norman Mineta and start racial profiling at the airports, I would campaign for him. Unfortunately, like George Bush, Kerry doesn’t travel commercial air with the little people.
I think both of those quotes are hate speech.
March 13th, 2005 at 12:06 pmIf I recall correctly, censorship only applies to the government censoring speach, not private citizens. Perhaps ABC was worried about libelous or slanderous speach against Fox News. Bill O’Reilly has one of the largest audiences on cable talk and he would surely bring up slander against the network.
March 14th, 2005 at 1:06 pmIt’s funny, but just a few episodes back Boston Legal dialog contained a humorous exchange between the Shatner and Spader characters on the answers to the eternal questions being found by
” first turning to God…
“…and then Fox News”
“You damned Democrats”
“You damned Republicans”
It’s not the mention of Fox News that’s banned, it’s any critical comments about Fox News. ABC just wussed out, that’s all.
March 15th, 2005 at 10:30 amI about fell out of my chair when the character arguing the case looked straight into the camera and said something to the effect of “and now even broadcast networks are editing the scripts of drama shows”.
March 15th, 2005 at 10:59 amA pro organization like Kelley’s knows what will be aired and what will not be aired. Congratulations on participating in another tedious publicity stunt.
March 15th, 2005 at 1:40 pmyo flyer, apt comment– how easily our energies are coopted, even by design.
March 15th, 2005 at 2:57 pmI thought the most ironic thing about the episode was that the school principal (who we are supposed to sympathize with) was upset about the “intolerance” shown by Fox News, so he decided to block all Fox broadcasts. In other words, David E. Kelley is saying that it’s okay to censor something that you disagree with. Since that is the underlying theme of the episode, it seems that he would have little grounds to complain about ABC making him change his script. Aren’t they just doing the same thing that the principal in the episode did? It sounds like Kelley was hoist on his own petard.
March 16th, 2005 at 2:18 pmNice blog.I like this.
October 5th, 2005 at 2:57 amNick
http://www.yahoo.com
November 3rd, 2005 at 1:35 am
Yeah! That was really something to take a look back.
December 8th, 2005 at 6:40 amVery rightly written article, it arrests the attention of the reader.
December 8th, 2005 at 6:45 amGreat! u have undertaken lots of effort to write this. This is simply great mate, keep the good work going!!
December 8th, 2005 at 6:55 amI’m impressed with your article. I’m looking forward to your next blog.
January 5th, 2006 at 2:36 amThat’s quite interesting. You can visit this blog for a wonderful experience.
January 16th, 2006 at 8:31 amVery well written. I enoyed reading the whole of it.
January 16th, 2006 at 8:36 amGreat work mate. Check out this awesome blog here.
January 16th, 2006 at 8:41 amThe situation is quite interesting.
January 28th, 2006 at 1:58 amplease visit my blog.
Thanks for explaining the whole thing….got to know much about it from your blog.
March 20th, 2006 at 6:17 amI just wanna say that the book has fabulous content and I would suggest all to read it at least once.
May 19th, 2006 at 8:04 amTruly, a nice piece of writing. You’ve done a terrific job.
June 15th, 2006 at 7:28 amGreat to see your post after such a long time.
July 24th, 2006 at 6:29 amThe scripts aren’t there any more! I’m really interested in comparing the two, but cannot seem to view the files. Is there anywhere else that these scripts can be found?
March 16th, 2007 at 1:22 pm