The Family Channel

Name:	The Family Channel
Date(s):	1990 to 1998 with the name "The Family Channel"
Profit/Nonprofit:	for-profit, baby!
Country based in:	USA
Focus:
External Links:
Click here for related articles on Fanlore.

The Family Channel was a cable channel born out of conservative televangelist Pat Robertson’s Christian Broadcasting Network, and eventually became a part of the Disney empire.

Ironically, it originally marketed itself to fans in a way that encouraged their viewers to define themselves in opposition to the mainstream.

Evolution and History

This network began in 1977 as a religious channel, the "CBN Satellite Service" which was an extension of televangelist Pat Robertson's Christian Broadcasting Network.

In 1981-88, it became a family-focused entertainment network called "CBN Cable Network."

Between 1988-90, it was "The CBN Family Channel."

In 1990, it became "The Family Channel" ("International Family Entertainment" - IFE).

In 1998-2000, "IFE" and "The Family Channel" became "Fox Family Channel."

In 2001-01, it became "Fox Family" after it was sold to Disney which almost immediately changed it's name to "ABC Family."

In 2016, it became "Freeform" and/or "ABC Family" and reports to Disney.

The Family Channel's Mission

"The Family Channel's" goal was to provide family television and redefined the “family audience” in the 1990s.

It promoted “positivity” the nostalgic appeal of older television properties.

The Family Channel normalized an ideologically conservative model of commercial family television in an expanding cable landscape, and capitalized on social and political conservatives’ discontent with mainstream television content.

The network capitalized on the culture wars by cultivating a new audience out of those viewers who felt left behind by the increasing prevalence of “edgy” TV, such as The Simpsons, Married With Children, and more.

Some of the shows that aired on the channel in 1991 were older franchises such as The Scarecrow and Mrs. King, The Waltons, Father Knows Best, Alf, Batman, and religious programming.

While Nick at Nite on Nickelodeon also ran older shows, they did it with a nod to their dated and old-fashioned content. The Family Channel did no such thing; their shows were presented as nostalgic, straightforward, and wholesome entertainment.

Hand in hand with the wholesome programming went The Family Channels promise to advertisers. The channel’s programming would be fundamentally inoffensive and had a set of standards for both the shows aired, and the products advertised. In 1982, CBN Director of Cable Operations Tom Rogeberg explained that the company would “avoid anything that would give an endorsement to homosexuality, adultery, magic as science, illegal drug use, [or] overt violence”

Newsletters

CBN’s loyal donors received additional reassurances that the Family Channel would stay true to its mission of providing wholesome programming in the mid-1990s, after the channel’s successful initial public offering made it an increasingly attractive acquisition for larger media companies. The Family Channel sent out monthly newsletters to CBN donors and shareholders that celebrated the channel’s success, highlighted its new programming, and provided a monthly schedule. These newsletters reveal how the channel worked to keep its devout donors engaged even as the channel broadened its definition of “family-friendly programming” and prepared for a potential sale in the mid 1990s. To that end, Family Channel executives focused on bringing in shows that would attract larger audiences, even if their fit with the brand was somewhat awkward. These newsletters essentially served to justify the channel’s programming choices.

This newsletter appears to premiere in 1990 (spring?). In that issue, Earl Weirich, public relations director included an article in which he referred to Vincent Wells (the beast in Beauty and the Beast (TV) as "frightening." The second issue of this newsletter, dated July 16, 1990 included another article by Weirich in which he walked back that comment. See From The Family Channel to You... Vincent is Beautiful.

It is unclear how long the newsletter ran. From a fan in August 1991:

I haven’t heard or read anything from or about FAM in many USA months. I don't know if they're not doing their FAM n/l anymore or if they’re just not sending me one because I wrote them months ago in Feb to voice my displeasure at their handling of BATB and to ask how they can justify 'Maniac Mansion' which deals with outright manipulation & mutations of God’s Creation, but with the 2 objects of their fooling around a 6 foot 4-yr-old child and a human fly — both having "normal" facial features. So was their objection to Vincent being his face wasn't "normal "by their standards? They kept defeating all the lessons of BATB whereas all ’MM' does is make a joke out of everything. [FAM] always had a reputation of answering their letters (they even answered yours), yet they never answered mine. I sent copies to Mosier and Weirich, so I know they got at least one of them. Maybe they're just not answering their BATB mail anymore. Or maybe just not the negative stuff? I haven't heard or read of anybody getting anything from FAM, have you?

Beauty and the Beast

The Family Channel's involvement with at least one show, Beauty and the Beast (TV), was not without a lot of controversy.

When The Family Channel reran episodes starting in September 1990, they edited, or removed, scenes they considered offensive, non-Christian, and did not portrayal "family values."

Shortly after the re-runs started in 1990, a fan wrote:

Hey, what is everyone's reaction to FAMILY CHANNELs' hatchet job on the syndication? People watching this show for the first time will be amazed to find out there are entire scenes cut out of the episodes. i.e. The scene in the Pilot where Catherine takes a baseball bat to Isaac in his gym...part of a scene with "Carol" in the D.A.'s office, and so on. Do they think we don't notice these things? I can see editing a minute here and there, but not ENTIRE scenes. Well, it happened again.

There was also a proposal to add and/or manipulate original footage in the third season to show Vincent Wells and Catherine Chandler getting married, therefore "legitimizing" the birth of their baby. Another proposal or rumor is that The Family Channel would removed any mention or scene with the baby.

In November 1990, a fan, Beth Blighton, wrote a long letter to the letterzine, Once Upon a Time... Is Now #27, encouraging fans to resist censorship in all forms in the broader world and included comments about "The Family Channel's" involvement with Reverend Wildmon. Throughout the late 1970s, Wildmon, a conservative Christian, actively protested television series that he thought promoted immoral lifestyles. Beauty and the Beast fans were specifically affected by Wildmon's crusade as he was a "consultant" on "The Family Channel's" handling of the series.

And don't think that this sort of intolerance can't touch "Beauty and the Beast" as a work of art or as a fandom. Our little friend Rev. Wildmon] has already labeled B&B as being perverted and dangerous. I mean, after all... Bestiality! Sex between two unmarried persons (and one not even HUMAN)! Violence and the occult! Shocking! Remove it from the airwaves before it indoctrinates any more unsuspecting citizens into its cult!

In March 1991, a BNF fan Lynette Combs, who was vocal opponent of the show's third season described the interview she and fellow fan, Kay Brinkley, had with The Family Channel's public relations guy, Earl Wierich. Combs worked on distancing she and Brinkley from cease and desist letters that Republic Pictures sent fans about fan-crated merchandise, including explicit zines. Combs also stated that she and Brinkley did not influence The Family Channel's decisions regarding the airing of the third season re-runs, but wish they had!:

Lynette Combs:

Certain rumors are making the rounds of our fandom, with regard to the "cease and desist" letters sent by Republic to Kay Brinkley and myself. So, since I know that no B&TB fan would deliberately slander another, I thought I'd take a moment to set the record straight.

One rumor states that Kay and I were held captive at the Family Channel and forced to reveal the contents of X-rated zines. (I'd love to meet whoever thought that one up!)

Another suggests that we revealed such subject matter (and the names and addresses of other fan-artists/authors) willingly, so that the Family Channel could pass that information on to Republic. (Thereby cutting our own throats, and justifying a comfortable "they deserve whatever they get" philosophy.)

A third rumor concerns the Family Channel's refusal to air the third season; and says that our Virginia Beach group, the Dream Seekers, was responsible. I'll tell you honestly, I wish we had been; I was worried about new fans being as hurt as I was by those episodes. Now that kind of wishful thinking may seem, to some people, as reprehensible as the act itself; but, in fact, it simply isn't. In truth, we are less than a dozen members, whatever positive energy (and noise) we're able to generate. We are not a block of religious fanatics intent on censoring B&TB, and most of us wrote to the Family Channel to protest their "editing" of the first two seasons.

Here are the facts: Kay Brinkley and Laurie W. have interviewed Mr. Weirich twice for our fan club publications Until the Night. I've never met the man, or even been on the grounds. Mr. Weirich was interested in the show's following but knew nothing about fan publications (and, frankly, had—and has—other important things to fill up his day). At no time did Kay or Laurie "inform" on other zine writers/artists or pass along copies of fan-fiction. The interviews were aimed at gathering information, not disseminating it.

During their most recent interview with Mr. Weirich, only weeks ago, he answered questions regarding the third season by stating that no decision had "yet" been made about how it was to be promoted; the assumption was that it would indeed by shown, and Kay and Laurie left with that understanding. The reverse-decision (which we heard about from a fan with better connections, in another state) was as much a surprise to us as to everyone else.

We're convinced that the Family Channel had nothing to do with the "cease and desist" letters generated by Republic. We do not choose to speculate on the source of any "anonymous tip" that might have resulted in such letters being sent (so far) only to Kay and me.

Kay Brinkley contacted Mr. Mills, in Republic Pictures Corporation's legal department. He recited chapter-and-verse of RPC's copyright contract with CarolCo, which has had (for three years) licensing rights for "various merchandising articles from the show." The bottom line is that if CarolCo complains of losing profits because of "unlicensed merchandise," then Republic is obligated to enforce that portion of their contract. And that will mean sending out "cease and desist" letters — at least. "Mr. Mills stated that Kay and I were not the only ones who would receive such letters; everyone who came to their attention would be sent them.

Kay mentioned the "reciprocity of fandom" — that in fact the fans are keeping Republic's (and CarolCo's) investment alive, and these very people would be expected to buy movie tickets when the film comes out. She mentioned Paramount's long-time policy of tolerating, even cultivating, its fandom (there have been Star Trek zines around for 25 years). She pointed out that general "cease and desist" mailings could threaten support for B&TB and eventually close down conventions all over the country.

[...]

During their most recent interview with Mr. Weirich, only weeks ago, he answered questions regarding the third season by stating that no decision had it was almost worth receiving that miserable letter, just to be made aware of the support that B&TB friends can offer. [see the rest of this letter in Tunneltalk v.2 n.1]

See more at Beauty and the Beast and The Family Channel Controversies.