Katy Perry pulled from Sesame Street

Loved those tiggles on SNL

you mean these ones :biggthump:

http://www.wwtdd.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/katy_perry_snl_gif.gif

I bet most of those immature comments are from teens and non-parents.


I don't know Buster, you're not a teen and are a parent yet here you are making immature posts all the time.

you mean these ones :biggthump:

http://www.wwtdd.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/katy_perry_snl_gif.gif

Elmo in 3D with that double d technology:cheeky-sm

I don't know Buster, you're not a teen and are a parent yet here you are making immature posts all the time.

ultimate pwnage right there

Ratings mean almost nothing to Sesame Street and PBS. Ratings only matter for ad-supported TV and customer-subscription TV. Unless SS was about to get shut down for a complete lack of interest they can't be even remotely mistaken for doing something for ratings. In fact doing something like this can be reasonably construed as bone-headed since they are supported by charitable funds which they put at serious risk by casting a questionable shadow over the content. In other words, nobody is sending more donations to PBS for being on the show but there are probably people who aren't sending in donations because of this. What they try to be is "relevant".

That's not true at all. Sesame Street IS more privately funded than what they were when they started out in the sixties. In fact, their format change (to Elmo's World) was the result of low ratings. CTW isn't funded solely on charitable contributions. In fact, I'd argue that the CTW relies more on a commercial based market than what they did twenty years ago.

That's not true at all. Sesame Street IS more privately funded than what they were when they started out in the sixties. In fact, their format change (to Elmo's World) was the result of low ratings. CTW isn't funded solely on charitable contributions. In fact, I'd argue that the CTW relies more on a commercial based market than what they did twenty years ago.

Perhaps I didn't communicate my point very well at all. I am assuming you believe ratings mean something to PBS and SS in the same way they mean something to for profit networks and shows. They simply do not. The ratings are a measurement used to set ad rates. Since PBS doesn't have ad rates the ratings are useless to them in that way. They do use the ratings in an evaluative manner to measure the impact of their content and help them make changes to stay relevant (stay on air essentially). They certainly do not put Katy Perry on their show in skimpy clothes to increase ratings since increasing the ratings in such a manner is useless to them. It provides them no value or insight. They don't get more money from advertisers because of high ratings. All ratings do for them is help measure whether what they are doing is popular. They're smart enough to know a bump in ratings because of the Katy Perry flap doesn't give them any data to make decisions on content.

Anyone else see the irony with a "Woody" coming with a choking hazard??

Thats funny. I remember when my nephew got one for Christmas everyone was saying he got his first woody and he was running around asking people if they wanted to see his woody. I'm sure that was no accident when they named that toy.

ultimate pwnage right there

Not really, just his typical obsession with me.



Nice...missed the memo about the migration to War-Chan. :cheeky-sm

ultimate pwnage right there

saden speaks the truth

Why the hell do we even still have PBS and NPR? Its not like we have a void in childrens programing or bad programs. If the show or program is not good enough to stand on its own then it should fail. Why should my tax dollars be used for this when there is plenty of free TV and other programs on TV and radio.