UPN is parting ways with its Salt Lake City affiliate after KJZZ management insisted on the option of cancelling their relationship should UPN increase the series with minority casts on its prime time slate.
UPN cheif operating officer Adam Ware called the station’s demand to limit “urban/ethnic programming” both outrageous and offensive.
But KJZZ General Manager Randy Rigby said the station’sd stance had nothing to do with race, just ratings.
So is it discriminating to not want shows on that won’t get ratings (and do they know that for sure) or just economic neccesity?
If it’s not good business for a local station to carry UPN’s programming, then it’s not discrimination - it’s business.
A business cannot be expected to operate without a profit. It’s a business decision. Of course, it’s okay to be skeptical. Sure, UPN should be confident that the real reason the local station gave up on them was lack of profit and not discriination against the types of shows. On the surface, I’m not surprised that UPN doesn’t go over well in Salt Lake City.
Look at the programming (and subsequent advertising) as the product. The product is not making money. UPN pushes even more of the same product, and the local station gives up trying to sell something that people aren’t buying. That’s fine.
UPN is limiting it’s market by the narrow type of programming they are running. That’s a business decision by UPN as well. Many businesses recognize that their product does not have universal appeal to all ethinic groups, or even all men and women. That’s ok!
If the shows were getting good ratings and turning a profit for the local station, the station wouldn’t cut them off. I’m sure there might be a flaming racist out there who might do it, but in this case, it seems like a solid business decision…and there is nothing wrong with that, because all products don’t have universal appeal and…drum roll… That’s OK!! 
It has been and as far as I know, continues to be standard practice that a network affiliate carries network programming. If the station does not want to carry network programming, than the network has every right to dump it.
In St. Louis UPN lost its affiliate station, then they struck a deal with a local religious station. The local station agreed to carry its programming, but also reserved the right to drop any program it didn’t feel appropriate. Ethnicity wasn’t the issue – the station cartried programs like “Moesha” – but it drew the line at the WWF.
It really doesn’t matter. UPN will probably be out of business in a few months anyway.
It’s worth noting that in the AP story, they do mention that neither UPN’s Tuesday lineup nor Thursday’s WWF Smackdown were drawing a competitive rating for KJZZ.
Welcome to the wonderful world of narrow-casting.
I’m not sure that I understand your comment, so I apologize if I got it wrong.
If the network supplies it’s affiliates with programming, advertising news and specials, they are bound to honor the obligation to show the network’s programs. Maybe I relte too much to the days when there were only NBC CBS and ABC.
Narrow-casting is, of course, the opposite of broad casting.
I suppose I could have said:
‘Welcome to the wonderful era of 68,000 cable channels transmitting to every single special intrest. Good luck, mr. or ms. network programmer, trying to find a combination of shows that appeals to enough of an audience that you can actually make any money on advertising, let alone affiliate stations.’
Or I could have just shortened it to ‘Now you know what CBS has felt like for the last 10 years.’