Why ABC is stuck with Robertson

August 24, 2005

When TV preacher Pat Robertson goes on national television every day to spew nonsense, he does so on a network owned and operated by ABC/Disney. In light of this week’s events, some are beginning to suggest that arrangement end. If only it were that simple.

“Robertson’s vitriol is not appropriate for children, or for anyone else, for that matter. His calls for the killing of a foreign leader certainly do not belong on a television channel that purports to offer family-friendly programming,” said Media Matters for America President and CEO David Brock.

I couldn’t agree more, but I’m afraid ABC/Disney is kind of stuck.

In 1990, Robertson created a cable network, which he called The Family Channel, which ultimately reached tens of millions of homes. In 1997, Robertson went from being wealthy to being extremely wealthy when he sold the channel to Fox for almost $2 billion as part of Rupert Murdoch’s drive to build a mini-cable empire (Fox News, Fox Sports, and Fox Kids, on top of regular ol’ Fox).

Robertson’s contract with Fox, however, included a catch — his 700 Club program would have to remain on the network, aired three times a day, until Robertson decided he didn’t want to do the show anymore. Fox grudgingly agreed, but ended up hating this part of the deal.

Fox executives complained bitterly that Robertson’s show kept them from creating a coherent strategy for the network.

“Fox Family was doomed from the start because it’s very hard to be [programmed for] kids all day and have The 700 Club in the middle of your daytime lineup, and then in prime time at 11 p.m.,” a former executive said. Robertson’s show would break up whatever programming momentum the network managed to build, with ratings for the hour of religious programming sliding to nearly zeros and attracting a different audience from the one they sought at other times of the day.

Frustrated, Fox dumped the network to ABC/Disney. Unfortunately, though, Robertson remained part of the deal. The ABC Family Channel is contractually obligated to broadcast a crazed TV preacher for the indefinite future.

Brock is right to call on ABC to discontinue Robertson’s broadcasts, and as it turns out, ABC would love nothing more. But there’s that pesky contract to deal with.

ABC could, in theory, try to buy Robertson out. Fox tried that, but it didn’t work.

The former executive says Fox Family Worldwide chairman/CEO Saban “did everything he possibly could to buy Pat out of that commitment,” eventually offering hundreds of millions of dollars. But Robertson turned down the money and insisted on keeping the show on the network.

“The word I hear on the street is Disney would have to pay a billion dollars to get them out of the deal,” he said.

For Robertson, having 700 Club on the air keeps the checks rolling in. Throughout his broadcast, Robertson insists that God wants viewers to donate to him, even if they can’t afford it. If the show isn’t on, the suckers don’t hear the pitch.

For ABC/Disney, not only can they not afford Robertson’s buy-out demands, they’re also afraid that Robertson’s followers could make it difficult on the ABC Family Channel if they start complaining to cable operators.

In the meantime, all the network can do is kvetch and wait for Robertson to get too-old to bother with the show.

The ABC Family Channel, one of the outlets for “The 700 Club,” distanced itself from Robertson, saying in a statement that it was contractually obligated to carry the program and had “no editorial control over views expressed by the hosts or guests.”

“ABC Family strongly rejects the views expressed by Pat Robertson in the Aug. 22 telecast of the program,” the statement said.

I’m going to repeat part of a comment I made earlier, because it’s appropriate here:

Since Robertson’s call for Chavez’ assassination amounted to an assault with intent to cause great bodily harm, in violation of our laws (regardin assault and assassination of foreign leaders), a call to crime carried over public airwaves regulated by the FCC, tshouldn’t the administration take at least as much interest in this as they did over Janet Jackson’s nipple?

  • I find it hard to believe that there is absolutely no clause or subclause in the underlying contract which would provide an out due to certain disqualifying conduct. Making crazy statements is one thing, but to call for an assassination, possibly in violation of various laws (see Ed’s comment above) is another.

  • What’s to prevent ABC from running a banner at the bottom of the 700 Club broadcast, during the entire show, saying “The Family Channel is contractually obligated to air this program, and does not necessicarily endorse its views”?

  • A gift for the dems. Staring them in the face, and they
    refuse to accept it. This could be hung around the
    repukes necks till hell freezes over. The repukes can’t
    get away from Robertson unless he wishes to leave. What
    an opportunity! Sadly, it may be just another opportunity
    the dems will ignore.

  • I’m with Ed here–I can’t imagine that Disney is in a bind over this one.

    The over-the-air stations that air him, however, are another matter. The ones that air it live might have an out, since they can claim they had no clue he was going to pull this. But the ones that air it taped … couldn’t they have viewed it in advance?

  • Ah, but Jim–you never shoot someone who is in the process of hanging himself. And Robertson’s doing a good job of it–according to the NYT, he’s not doing any press conferences or making any comments in the near future about this–let alone an apology.

  • Actually, CB, the Family Channel is much older than that. It was started in the 80s as CBN Cable, but after it grew too profitable for Robertson to keep it under the CBN umbrella without endangering CBN’s nonprofit status, he organized International Family Entertainment to own the network and renamed it the Family Channel.

  • Actually, CB, the Family Channel is much older than that.

    That’s a good point, Darrell. I was referring in the post to the Family Channel as purchased by Fox, but Robertson’s network developed slowly over a long period of time.

  • Fascinating. I never understood why that damn show wouldn’t just die.

    Can’t Disney just get rid of the channel? If the alternative is giving Robertson a BILLION dollars, I can see why they’d rather just put up with 700 Club (what does that mean, anyway? 700 what?) but if worse comes to worst, why can’t they just toss the whole station out with the rest of the garbage and wash their hands of it?

  • Building on what Ed said (#1 above), I have a lengthy reply (I know, I know, what’s new about that).

    say that this is more B.S. from ABC. IF they were so unhappy, then they would bite the bullet and fire Robertson, and justify it on one of several grounds. First is that Robertson has committed “moral turpitude;” second, that the purposes for which the contract was created have been frustrated, and therefore must be terminated; or third, that Robertson’s repeated acts of outrageous conduct jeopardizes ABC’s FCC license, and he must go. Then, it would be just a matter of measuring the amount of damages/dollars, IF ANY, that ABC might owe to Robertson. ABC’s refusal to fire him – or at least seriously threaten to do so in a way that forces some editorial control over Robertson, and instead merely wring its corporate hands and say “it’s not our fault,” is just so much mendacity or an admission that they are bunch of pussies, or both.

    Every contract has at least an implied if not an explicit “moral turpitude” component built into it. The contract is voidable by wronged/injured party when another party to the contract commits a wrong that harms another party to the contract. A couple of definitions of “turpitude” and “moral turpitude”:

    “turpitude” : inherent baseness : DEPRAVITY ; also, : a base act
    — WEBSTER’S Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary ©1988

    “moral turpitude” : An act of baseness, vileness, or depravity in the private and social duties which a man owes to his fellow men, or to society in general, contrary to the accepted and customary rule of right and duty between man and man (Jordan v De George, 341 U.S. 223, 71 S.Ct. 703, 706). Conduct contrary to justice, honesty, modesty, or good morals (marsh v State Bar of California, 210 Cal. 303, 291 P. 583, 584).
    — BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY, 4th Edition, Revised ©1968

    The bottom line is that Robertson’s history on on-air inflammatory statements, all devoid of any social let alone religious decency, ought to provide the perfect launching for ABC to mount EITHER an effective PR campaign to force changes in the existing contract (entertainers, actors, athletes, CEO’s do it all the time) OR to terminate the contract along the lines noted above, and likely not have to pay nearly as much in damages as they would if they tried to negotiate a buy-out directly with Robertson.

    Of course, we won’t see that happen. Think about it: why should Disney spend money – i.e., “harm” its bottom line – when just a little bit of “public” AND perfunctory (i.e., meaningless) hand-wringing will satisfy its shareholders, sufficiently distance itself from Roberson so as to not actually upset the Rethug-controlled F.C.C. enough to actually sanction Disney for Robertson’s antics, not upset Robertson’s batshit crazy fans, and not upset the rest of the RightWingNoiseMachine? It’s a win-win-win-win for Disney to just spend a few dollars on PR but NOT really attempt any effective measures to muzzle Robertson. In other words, continue to allow the RightWingNoiseMachine to function without limits, while our national security continues to be degraded by the Rethugs and the American Taliban.

    Two things to remember: IOKIYAR … and … Lying.Fucking.Bastards

  • Good stuff, A.L.

    As a recently retired university professor I’m well aware of what “moral turpitude” means contractually (it’s one of the three bases for firing a tenured professor; the other two are financial exigency and professional incompetence). When I began teaching that could mean dating a student (or, in very conservative places, expressing unpopular views). I think now requires proof that you’ve buggered the entire basketball team against their will, then burnt down the gym. In the realm of the FCC, however, nipple exposure seems to qualify. George Carlin’s funny remarks seem to qualify. So why not Robertson’s call for assassination.

    Speaking of whic h, I suggested yesterday that by afternoon he’d say he was misquoted. I was off by twelve hours. I just heard on CBC that he now says he was misquoted by the AP, that he really only meant that we could kidnap Chavez. They immediately played the taped comment calling for assassination. Great fun.

  • Ed,

    Can you provide some justification for your conclusion that Robertson’s statement “amounted to an assault with intent to cause great bodily harm, in violation of our laws (regardin assault and assassination of foreign leaders)”? What criminal law are you applying? Under the law of New York, which I believe is similar to that of most states in that it is based largely on the American Law Institute’s Model Penal Code, a conviction for criminal assault requrires that the defendant have intentionally created, *other than by mere words*, a reasonable apprehension in the mind of the victim of *imminent* bodily harm. First of all, Robertson’s statement was obviously nothing more than “mere words.” Moreover, Robertson was encouraging the United States to assassinate Chavez at some unspecified point in the near future. Notwithstanding the fact that verbal threats alone can never rise to the level of criminal assault, nothing in Robertson’s statement would have created a reasonable belief in Chavez that an assassination attempt was imminent– i.e., likely to occur within moments of the statement.

    In addition, regardless its moral repugnance, Robertson’s statement is policital speech undeniably protected under the First Amendment. Even speech urging a clearly criminal behavior is generally immune from prosecution under the Constitution. “[T]he constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.” Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S.444, 447 (1969). As noted above, the lawless action encouraged by Robertson’s statement was hardly imminent in the legal sense; moreover, as the responses of the White House and the State Department have made clear, his words were certainly not “likely” to produce the imminent assassination of Chavez.

    Don’t mistake this reply for an endorsement or justification of Robertson’s vile and reprehensible (and, as others have pointed out, markedly un-Christian) suggestion. However, as I have noted in other posts, hasty overstatements and distortions of the facts only undermine the credibility of our opposition. We should settle for legitimate and justified condemnations of Robertson’s suggestion on political and moral levels, without needlessly invoking overreaching legal conclusions.

  • I don’t understand the repeated references to Janet Jackson’s nipple – in FCC oversight terms you are really talking apples and oranges – one has to do with obscenity/indecency in over-the-air broadcasting, which is clearly regulated by the FCC, and one has to do with political commentary on a cable network, which isn’t.

    This issue is, though, a good argument in favor of “ala carte” cable – one reason why ABC Family (and Pat Robertson) enjoy the access and platform that it has is because networks like ABC require cable operators to carry their ancillary networks in order to gain access to the main network – which removes outrages like this one from the power and discipline of the marketplace. Cable operators can’t drop ABC Family and Pat Robertson even if they wanted, regardless of how many viewers it may or may not attract, without losing all ABC related channels. The fact that ABC has absolutely no control over Pat Roberston, while at the same time requiring cable operators around the country to give him this exposure by requiring that his channel be carried is something that should be addressed. The only way to discipline is to go “ala carte” and break the linkage whereby the major networks exert their uncompetitive influence over what Americans get to watch.

  • FiatLex and Andy (and everyone else for that matter),

    I’m not a lawyer and have no legal background. It does seem to me that Robertson is at least guilty of what I’ve heard referred to as “angry words” – speech which can lead to physical harm. Robertson isn’t just someone expressing his private political belief: he’s calling on our government (the head of which is his “best friend” George Bush) to assassinate a foreign head of state who was elected with 80% support and who has never represented a threat to us (he’s even said he wished he knew how to share his $2 tanks of gas with our poor).

    Maybe it’s just that I live too close to Canada (20 miles, just south of Vancouver) where hate speech is a federal crime (and Janet Jackson’s nipple isn’t). I often make the mistake of assuming that my own countrymen are civilized, too.

  • Notwithstanding the fact that verbal threats alone can never rise to the level of criminal assault

    Except in the sense of domestic “violence”, wherein the simple threat is enough, if it is intentional and convincing, and immanent. Your more general point, that PR didn’t violate the lays referred to, seems quite correct.

    About the “apples and oranges,” the 700 club doesn’t just run on cable. I have no cable, and occasionally it’s on my TV. They do a momentarily convincing “faux news” thing in the morning, which reveals itself when they link violence to abortion, and then you realize they’re NOT talking about the protesters. In fact, this seems like maybe where Bu$hCo got the whole “faux news” idea . . .

    Either way, no one should ever believe that ABC can’t get out of this in a heartbeat. While the ratings might plunge, these are viewers that would pass a brick and then promptly mail it in, toilet paper and all, if they actually pulled it off the air. So I go with the “they’re all pussies” theory.

  • “……..with ratings for the hour of religious programming sliding to nearly zeros and attracting a different audience from the one they sought at other times of the day.”

    “…..they’re also afraid that Robertson’s followers could make it difficult on the ABC Family Channel if they start complaining to cable operators.”

    Pat Robertson’s a hypocritical prick. But I don’t have any sympathy for ABC or Disney or the Family Channel or any of it. If he was bringing in the bucks they’d be happy to have him saying whatever he wanted. As it is, the ratings are apparently crap and they’re still not doing much of anything to really distance themselves. Pat’s the brick, ABC’s the toilet paper. Screw ’em all.

    “The ABC Family Channel” is “contractually obligated to carry the program and had “no editorial control over views expressed by the hosts or guests.”

    Waaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh……………………..They deserve each other, Screw ’em all

  • Pat Robertson IS a BIG HYPOCRITE!!

    Isn’t it IRONIC that, back in 1998, when President Clinton was under impeachment, and that call for impeachment was led by Illinois Congressman Henry Hyde, that when actor Alec Baldwin (or was it William Baldwin) said on either Conan O’Brien (or David Letterman) that “We should stone Henry Hyde to death!”, that these religious conservatives all but advocated that Mr. Baldwin should be visited by officials from the FBI, but yet, when one of their own, Pat Robertson, spouts off HIS mouth and says that “The US should assissinate Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez”, that they simply SHRUG IT OFF?

    It isn’t just Pat Robertson, but the VAST MAJORITY of HIS ILK who call themselves “evangelical Christians” who are UTTER HYPOCRITES!!

    There is a GOOD reason why the Repugnicans in the Bush Administration will call for TV stations’ licenses to be fined when Janet Jackson exposes her breast on the Super Bowl, but won’t call for TV stations’ licenses to be fined for Pat Robertson’s remarks… Because BushCo happens to be IN THE POCKETS OF these “evangelical Christians” and “religious conservative extremists”!! They’re IN KAHOOTS with each other!!

    • Comments are closed.