[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' post=\'127336\' date=\'Aug 14 2006, 10:09 AM\']
That particular point is easily dismissed. DVDs are different than a network airing things on television. Heck, you can buy DVDs of nothing BUT cigarette commercials.[/quote]
...Only because the DVD full of cigarette ads is going to a target audience, and won't pop up out of the blue to some unsuspecting, easily offended soul. Otherwise there's really not that much difference in this unique case. RJ Reynolds surely didn't pay GSN to leave those logos in, they just happen to be there. On the other hand, DVD releases apparently run into occasional trouble putting cigarette ads on DVD. Some of the ones on the "Ed Sullivan Show" DVDs (the ones with the Beatles) supposedly had to be replaced because of a different attorney's interpretation. I'm sure if the Beatles appeared in any of those ads the production company would've fought to keep them in, and I think that's more or less the reason they got by with it on the Bilko DVD.
Look, this would be a bigger deal for GSN if there were signs for cigarettes on the set of Match Game, or Family Feud. The black and white shows are virtually meaningless to them. If it's going to cause ANY extra trouble or ANY extra effort for them to air the cigarette-sponsored shows, there's no reason for them to bother.
And I think that's what this is
really about, it's not that they can't, it's that they won't. I still think a disclaimer ("The cigarette references are presented strictly in their historic context, GSN does not advocate smoking" or something like that) would work here if they wanted it badly enough.
For the record, I'm a non-smoker if that matters. I'm just irritated that this whiner got his way.