Bringing Satan To Heel

By DON WINBUSH and Donald E. Wildmon

Q. What is it about television that you find objectionable?

A. Primarily the value system that undergirds so much of television. Specifically, the excessive, gratuitous sex, violence, profanity, the negative stereotyping of Christians.

Q. What is the evidence of anti-Christian attitudes by the networks?

A. I could probably count on one hand, or certainly two hands, the number of programs in which a Christian depicted in a modern-day setting is shown in a positive manner. They're usually depicted as con men, rip-off artists, adulterers, murderers, rapists, thieves, liars.

A person who is wearing a cross, carrying a Bible or standing behind a pulpit is usually mentally deranged, at best incompetent.

Q. Can you give some examples?

A. On ABC, March 19-20, The Women of Brewster Place: a preacher propositions a woman after his sermon. The next scene features them in a sex act. On an NBC program titled UNSUB, April 7: Bishop Grace murders two teenage girls in his congregation. On NBC's Quantum Leap, April 7: a scene in which the series' hero is preparing for sex with his live-in lover has Amazing Grace playing in the background. On NBC, In the Heat of the Night, Jan. 31: Rev. Haskell, who dies, had been having an adulterous affair with one of his parishioners.

Q. Why do you think the portrayal of gratuitous sex and violence is increasing?

A. I have a theory, obviously: the networks are in a game of exploitation. And when you exploit, you always have to go one degree further and one degree further. The people who are responsible call themselves the creative community. From time to time they do have something that's creative. But it's less work and a lot easier to exploit than to create.

Q. Are you just protesting, or do you have goals you're trying to accomplish?

A. Obviously I think we have goals. In our minds, television has the potential to be the most constructive medium man has ever devised. The goal we would like to see is that television reach that potential instead of being used in a destructive manner as it currently is.

Q. Why not approach the networks?

A. Oh, we have. Early on, when I started by myself, I did it several times. Back in '86, a group of seven or eight executive members of Christian Leaders for Responsible Television spent a day and a half visiting with all three networks and expressing our concerns. In essence, their response was "Thank you for coming; we're doing a good job. We'll talk to you anytime you want to talk with us."

I talked about decency and the concern for society and the children and these other things. And they used the same words that I used. But we certainly didn't mean the same thing by them.

Q. So your response has been?

A. We don't do business with the networks. We do business with advertisers. Advertisers don't give you a cold shoulder. They want to be your friend.

Q. Is that approach fair to the advertisers?

A. My response would be "Why not?" I think it's helpful to the advertisers. They're putting their money into a program to get you to buy their products. If putting money into that program is going to cost them money instead of make them money, it seems only fair to let the advertiser know this.

Q. You asked your supporters to boycott PepsiCo because of their Madonna promotion.

A. For one year, unless they pulled the Madonna commercial.

Q. But it wasn't the commercial itself that you found offensive. It was the video, correct? Like a Prayer.

A. It was not only the video, but we did indeed find the video offensive.

Q. So isn't it unfair to link Pepsi and Madonna?

A. I didn't link Pepsi and Madonna. Pepsi linked Pepsi and Madonna.

Q. But why not boycott Madonna concerts? Why not boycott the video instead of the sponsor?

A. Why? Because Pepsi said to our young people in this country, "Here is the role model we think worthy of $10 million in support." Here is a pop singer who makes a video that's sacrilegious to the core. Here's a pop star that made a low-budget porn film. Here's a pop star who goes around in her concerts with sex oozing out, wearing a cross. Now Pepsi is saying to all the young people of the new generation, "Here is the person we want you to emulate and imitate." They can do that. They've got every right to give Madonna $10 million, put it on television every night if they want to. All I'm saying is "Don't ask me to buy Pepsi if you do it. You've got the right to spend your money where you want to; I've got the right to spend my money where I want to . . . " and obviously, evidently, I was somewhat right in that because Pepsi agreed. They canceled their commercial and their world tour.

Q. Well, did they agree or were they frightened away from it?

A. Having talked with them, I know they agreed with my interpretation.

Q. What you're doing has been referred to as economic terrorism. How do you respond?

A. I respond very simply: the networks can show what they want to show. The advertiser can sponsor what he wants to sponsor. And the consumer can spend his money where he wants to. What the implication is there is that I must spend my money with these companies to help support these programs that I find offensive. I don't believe that.

Q. What led you down this path?

A. I sat down one night to watch television with my family. All I wanted to do was be entertained. Very shortly into the program, somebody was jumping into bed with somebody else's wife, a scene of adultery. Of course it was normal, approved -- you know, there was no kind of condemnation or showing it as being wrong. I asked the children to change the channel. I got into another program, which we watched for five minutes or so, and the first thing I know, somebody has called somebody else an s.o.b., but they didn't use the initials. And I asked my children to change the channel again. This was in 1976, and we had three networks plus PBS. I got involved in a pretty good mystery, and all of a sudden the scene changed and one man has another man tied down and is working him over with a hammer. I asked the children to get up and turn the set off. That's all I'd ever been told to do: If you don't like what's on television, turn it off. Then I realized that I'm a part of a whole, larger social group, and what goes on in society, especially in the television industry, is going to affect me and my family and my children -- they were small at that point. And I then realized that I should try to do something about this.

Q. Isn't it hard to draw the line as to what percentage of sex and violence is acceptable? Are you comfortable drawing that line?

A. The networks draw that line.

Q. Well, they're drawing a line that says to you that this is too much.

A. They're saying that to me. Now they are obviously saying the same thing to a lot of other people.

Q. Do you realize there's a chance you're infringing on others' rights?

A. I'm not infringing on anybody's rights. I have as much right as any other individual in this society to try to shape society. I have as much right to try to influence people. I have as much right to create what I consider to be a decent, good, clean, wholesome, moral society. I'm very cognizant of other people's rights. All I'm asking is for them to be cognizant of mine.

Q. Are you concerned about being self-righteous?

A. You know, that's the least concern. The last thing I want to be considered is a super-Christian. I'm not even a good Christian. The last thing I want to do is manipulate somebody. When you talk about my being self-righteous, I'm a sinner. I know what I am. I'm a sinner saved by grace.

Q. As your support grows, isn't there also the chance that you'll go too far and have a chilling effect on creativity?

A. I don't think so. If I go too far, number one, the networks will let me have it, and you better bet your bottom dollar they can. Number two -- more critical -- my supporters will back off. They'll no longer support me. And they shouldn't, and I hope they won't. But I don't think they're ever going to have to make that decision.