Shame on WTWO Terre Haute, WTVA Tupelo, KARK Little Rock, and WGBC Meridian (MS).

Simply because you refuse to air one F***ing program. Does that give you the right to keep your affiliation with NBC?

I don't think so. You have other options. What you did was not one of them. You could have aired the episode after your local news instead of pre empting thd G** D*** series.

I hope that NBC does not renew your affiliation contract.

Sorry for the double-post, but the first one was garbled by a cut-and-paste and lost the updated edits...

I'm from Indiana and I find this appalling. Not only are people like this making those of us who live in the Midwest and actually want to give anything on TV a fair shake a bad name, but they should not let their personal beliefs interfere with programming.

I remember this happening a few years back with "God, The Devil, and Bob" and "Coupling" - in those cases WNDU (South Bend, IN, but owned by Notre Dame) and KSL (Salt Lake City) refused to air the shows...All I have to say is that I'm thankful that I CAN watch this show and decide for myself on either the NBC-owned/operated WMAQ or large-market powerhouse WTHR...to hell (no pun intended) with the small stations who go on personal vendettas...

I'm from Indiana and I find this appalling. Not only are guys like
this making those of us who live in the Midwest and actually want to
give anything on TV a fair shake a bad name, but they should not let
their personal beliefs interfere with programming.nnI
remember this happening a few years back with "God, The Devil, and
Bob" and "Coupling" - in those cases WNDU (South Bend, IN, but
owned by Notre Dame) and KSL (Salt Lake City) refused to air the
shows...nnAll I have to say is that I'm thankful that I
CAN watch this show and decide for myself on either the
NBC-controlled WMAQ or large-market powerhouse WTHR...to hell with
the small stations...

ha ha, Doc! You kill me. I like the idea of at least giving the people of Terre Haute a chance to decide whether they like Daniel. I also just like to bitch and moan about things without coming up with any solutions.

Stephen, since Anna is making decisions for one person, and Duane Lammers is making decisions for 60,000 people, I'm going to side with Anna on this one. :D
Seriously though, I think Sam hit the nail on the head. I have yet to see any reasonable argument as to why people shouldn't have the option to view the show. Maybe it doesn't show our man of god Daniel in the best light. Here's the thing though, men of god are not infallible.
Looking at it another way, those that oppose the banning of the show are not saying that anyone has to watch it. Those that are for the banning are saying that no one can watch the show.
The cynic in me thinks that much of the hot air and outrage has more to do with getting some pub for whatever organization is making noise than it does for any actual content of the show. Because...the vast majority of the people have yet to see it. And I give people in general a lot more credit than Duane does, it would seem.
Assuming that most stations don't bend to the protests, this might actually backfire on the protesters and help the show. There are a lot of people that wouldn't have even noticed that Book of Daniel was on the schedule that have now been made aware.

He does have the right to do what he wants, and as his statement indicated, his station's relationship with NBC does give him the right to pre-empt programming. However, that does not mean it is the right decision to make.

The right thing to have done would be to let the first episode air and gauge the Terre Haute community's response. If there was a backlash against the show, he would then have sufficient cause to pre-empt the show from his station. Instead, he unilaterally decided to censor a show before one viewer had a chance to decide for his or herself whether or not it was appropriate viewing.

Oh, and one more thing: If enough people are turned off by the show, they will change the channel. Ratings will go down, and the show will get canceled. Funny why no one ever brings that up.

I would say being the General Manager of the station gives him the right to decide what he wants to show on his station or not. I'm sure it's not a government subsidized station so the viewers have no rights. And frankly, what gives you the right to question how he wants to run his station.
Amazing how those who defend rights are so quick to try and eliminate them.

People who are in favor of censorship only support it when they are the ones who choose what gets censored. I would like to see the following conversation take place:
Official: You all want censorship?
Masses: YES, WE DO!
Official: Are you sure?
Masses: YES, WE REALLY DO!
Official: OK, then I've just appointed Howard Stern to oversee all censorship.
Masses: OH CRAP!

Really, I agree that standards have to be set and adhered to to prevent exposure, but those cannot be set by a single person.