Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Fox TV's 'Who's Your Daddy?' Draws Low Ratings
ABC News ^ | 01-05-2005 | Steve Gorman

Posted on 01/05/2005 8:51:23 AM PST by lindor

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Amid a chorus of protests from child-adoption advocates and sneers from critics, the general reaction of viewers to the controversial Fox special "Who's Your Daddy?" seemed to be "Who Cares?"

The tear-soaked 90-minute special, featuring an attractive young woman picking her biological father from a lineup filled out with impostors, proved to be a ratings flop, according to preliminary figures on Tuesday from Nielsen Media Research.

The Fox show drew a mere 6.3 million viewers, ranking fourth in its Monday night time slot against competing broadcasts on CBS, ABC and NBC. "Daddy" also trailed its Big Three rivals in ratings for its target audience of viewers aged 18 to 49, the group most prized by advertisers.

Critics roundly panned the show as tasteless and exploitative.

It opened with a young woman named T.J., who had been adopted as an infant, being introduced to a panel of eight older men, including her real father. Through three elimination rounds of questioning, the seven pretenders did their best to fool the contestant into thinking they were her true dads.

Some reviews noted the staging in a lavish mansion with lots of candles bore a creepy resemblance to such reality dating shows as "The Bachelor" and "Joe Millionaire."

In the end, however, T.J. prevailed. Weeping through much of the program and dressed for the occasion in a slinky black halter gown, she zeroed in on her real birth father. After granting him forgiveness and a warm embrace, she walked away with a cash prize of $100,000.

And in a final twist at show's end, Daddy presented T.J. with her real birth mother, along with three younger daughters he fathered by his marriage to another woman.

Word of the show before it aired sparked a deluge of letters and e-mail correspondence from adoptees, parents and national adoption organizations branding the program's concept offensive and urging Fox to cancel it. They said the show makes light of the sensitive emotions surrounding adoption.

But producers defended their work, saying all involved were willing and informed participants and they had taken care to conduct the program in a tasteful manner. A Fox spokesman, Scott Grogin, said the network also heard from numerous adoptees "who found the show useful and empowering."

"The past 24 hours, on our Web site, we've gotten dozens of requests from adoptees saying if we do decide to do another show they'd love to be a part of it," Grogin said.



TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: foxtv
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-34 last
To: dangus

"People need food. So there's no point in advertising beef, milk, potatoes, vegetables. Television is paid for by people trying to make sure you buy what rational Christians would not buy. Sure, Beef and Milk have a few memorable ads, but ointments for vaginal yeast infections vastly outnumber both of them.

If you're a responsible father of teenagers, it's worse than that they simply don't care whether you watch their shows. They want to make sure you don't! They want you to be so turned off by their idiocy that you don't see what they are trying to sell to your children."

First, the networks are concerned about ratings and revenue. That's why even immoral shows that don't do well get cancelled. If the networks were only about promoting a worldview, then a show like Whoopi Goldberg's show that mocked conservatives, religious people, and Bush wouldn't have been pulled after only a short time. If no one watches trash, they air something else. But people do watch trash (at least some of it) and that's why a lot stays on. If people don't watch, like they didn't for this WHo's Your Daddy thing, then it doesn't last.

Second, I don't get why vaginal yeast infection cream is an example of something no Christian should buy. It's not an STD and it's something women need so there's a market for such stuff that has nothing to do with religious beliefs. It also seems like most tv ads are for cars, stores, toys, etc.-things that are not, in and of themselves, unchristian.


21 posted on 01/05/2005 9:42:40 AM PST by VRWCisme
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: dmz

Ah, I don't think you can draw an absolute line. But I think Murdoch uses sleaze to make money and cares less about corrupting people than his liberal confreres. No doubt they want to make money too, but they seem willing sometimes to risk losing money in order to promote their agendas.

It's a mistake to think that Hollywood makes sleaze ONLY to make money. They have moral and political agendas as well. Money is only one motive.

Murdoch is conservative as long as he has no economic reasons to be otherwise. He supported Al Gore for president, for instance, because he feared more regulatory interference with his satellite transmission plans. And he won't speak ill about China because he has investments there.

But I haven't seen any signs that he uses sex in his publications for political reasons. It's purely economics.


22 posted on 01/05/2005 10:10:35 AM PST by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: lindor

I saw the show and I think it was set up. I dont think reality tv is as real as most people think.


23 posted on 01/05/2005 10:12:07 AM PST by CaptainAwesome2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: VRWCisme

My point is not that networks don't care about revenue. It's to remind you that they don't get revenue by having people watch and enjoy their programs. They get revenue by providing a platform for the promotion of hedonistic comsumerist items, and the cremes needed to cure the resultant rashes.


24 posted on 01/05/2005 10:12:32 AM PST by dangus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: VRWCisme

The problem with "Whoopi" was that it was promoting sexual abstinence: No-one wanted to have sex for weeks after seeing Whoopi.


25 posted on 01/05/2005 10:16:58 AM PST by dangus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: lindor

What is the big friggin deal about this show? The title of the show was dumb but the idea behind the show was kinda neat. I didnt watch it but some people out there are making it out like it was the worst thing since 9-11. Sure the show tanked and it wasnt as interesting as the execs who financed it thought it was but it was FAR from immoral or lowest denominator like Fear Factor is.


26 posted on 01/05/2005 10:18:07 AM PST by smith288 (I have posted over 10,000 times. The more I post, the more intelligent you become!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheBigB

I take it that Petra Nemcova will not be judging the SI Swimsuit model search this evening?


27 posted on 01/05/2005 10:18:27 AM PST by gopwinsin04
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: lindor

Anyone who thought "Joe Millionaire" was a reality show, instead of a scripted mini-series needs to get their head examined.


28 posted on 01/05/2005 10:20:57 AM PST by dfwgator (It's sad that the news media treats Michael Jackson better than our military.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cicero

You are a lot more comfortable, apparently, with speaking of their motives than am I.



29 posted on 01/05/2005 10:50:35 AM PST by dmz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: lindor

Stupid show.....my husband was actually watching it the other night. Sigh.


30 posted on 01/05/2005 10:51:38 AM PST by diamond6 (Everyone who is for abortion has already been born. Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lindor

Fock Snooze -- Oak Hay !!!

Fock Steve E -- Sucks !!! ;-))

.

31 posted on 01/05/2005 10:56:52 AM PST by GeekDejure ( LOL = Liberals Obey Lucifer !!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dangus

True, Whoopi's show was stupid in ways that went beyond its leftist points. I'm still a little confused about the link between consumerism and yeast infections, but oh well!


32 posted on 01/05/2005 12:58:42 PM PST by VRWCisme
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: VRWCisme

>>I'm still a little confused about the link between consumerism and yeast infections, but oh well!<<

Yeast infections are just one ailment associated with the sex-saturated nature of our advertising. True, not all yeast infections are socially transmitted, but I think there's a little purposeful desensitization behind the ads. Maybe I should have picked on Herpecin rather than Monistat-7.

It's the de-flowering of the feminine sexual mystique. I mean, even though guys are much more blunt, can you picture this ad?:

"Hey, Bob. Does your crotch ever itch?" "Why, yes, Phil, that's called crotch rot, or jock itch. Here try this!" "Saniscrotum?" "That's right; when my crotch burns, Saniscrotum gives me confidence I need... and in just seven days!"


33 posted on 01/05/2005 1:17:32 PM PST by dangus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: lindor
Fox TV's 'Who's Your Daddy?' Draws Low Ratings

The answer was sll too obvious.

34 posted on 01/05/2005 7:42:36 PM PST by martin_fierro (</pith>)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-34 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson