Since the last censorship thread has gotten so much traffic, I’d like to point out this article from Mediaweek about those who’d like the FCC to clamp down on what you can see and hear on TV and radio…
Activists Dominate Content Complaints
In an appearance before Congress in February, when the controversy over Janet Jackson’s Super Bowl moment was at its height, Federal Communications Commission chairman Michael Powell laid some startling statistics on U.S. senators.
The number of indecency complaints had soared dramatically to more than 240,000 in the previous year, Powell said. The figure was up from roughly 14,000 in 2002, and from fewer than 350 in each of the two previous years. There was, Powell said, “a dramatic rise in public concern and outrage about what is being broadcast into their homes.”
What Powell did not reveal — apparently because he was unaware — was the source of the complaints. According to a new FCC estimate obtained by Mediaweek, nearly all indecency complaints in 2003 — 99.8 percent — were filed by the Parents Television Council, an activist group.
This year, the trend has continued, and perhaps intensified.
Through early October, 99.9 percent of indecency complaints — aside from those concerning the Janet Jackson “wardrobe malfunction” during the Super Bowl halftime show broadcast on CBS — were brought by the PTC, according to the FCC analysis dated Oct. 1. (The agency last week estimated it had received 1,068,767 complaints about broadcast indecency so far this year; the Super Bowl broadcast accounted for over 540,000, according to commissioners’ statements.)
The prominent role played by the PTC has raised concerns among critics of the FCC’s crackdown on indecency. “It means that really a tiny minority with a very focused political agenda is trying to censor American television and radio,” said Jonathan Rintels, president and executive director of the Center for Creative Voices in Media, an artists’ advocacy group.
The article goes on to highlight how a $1.2 million fine was levied by complaints from less than one in a million viewers of a given show.
• 
Because commercial TV is a business and businesses should be entitled to put on whatever product satisfies their target market. I’d wager that the majority of people in this country don’t like broccoli. Does that mean that we should put all of the broccoli growers out of business?
Whether you or I agree with the logic, way back when TV and radio was started, they faced a choice: how to regulate the frequencies so that you had clear channels to tune into, etc. The thing had to be standardized. In addition, the thought, then, was that the airwaves belonged to everyone, not to just whatever company could broadcast the strongest signal, etc. As a result, your example is comparing apples to oranges. You can call for dismantling the system. You can say it was stupid in the first place. But at least understand that you are dealing with a system established many moons ago. You are dealing with an attempt, that in many ways has worked for the good of everyone, to allow us the ability to watch TV for free.
Because of those early technological issues, decisions were made and principles were established. Based on those principles, the airwaves are considered similar to the public square, a public park, etc. The thought (whether you agree or not) is that what is on TV should be “decent” for anyone who happens to watch. This is not a perfect system, it is very different from a movie theater, a book store, a newspaper, cable, etc., where you have a direct choice and are paying directly for the service.
Bottom line, “free” TV and radio are NOT a traditional business. So they are different animals than the examples you give.
Let me give one example that is very blatant: The constant commercials for “Girls Gone Wild.” I tend to not fall asleep at night, so sometimes I will be up flipping channels. I am amazed at how much they show for these commericals (both the 30 second and the 30 minute variety). I am far more concerned about these “commericals” than the “F” word being used in Private Ryan. It is easy to say, “you have the off button.” But why should I be forced to not even flip channels late at night and have to deal with this trash? (It is not just because I am a “prude.” I have dealt with people who come to regret these stunts years later. I consider most of it to be crass exploitation of women.) Obviously they are making money if they are advertising this much on late night TV.
I must have read a different Constitution. Mine says “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;” I don’t see any clause that says, “Unless the forum is one that Congress has arbitrarily decided belongs to the public.”
I am not a constitutional expert. You may have a point. But the courts have not changed these rules. I would be curious to know the case history for the FCC and for the defining the airwaves as “public.”
Jim in Iowa
BTW, “Touch By an Angel” aired on CBS, not ABC, so putting “Desperate Housewives” on ABC did not deprive you of that show.
The problem is, the FCC changes the rules, often without prior notice and makes the changes retroactive, so you can’t just claim, “they knew the rules.” What is considered “indecent” is subjective not defined anywhere in federal law. Usually it amounts to whatever the current political whims of the appointed members of the FCC panel have.
For all the good it will evidently do me to say this, that sir, is just NOT true. First of all, we’re talking about the federal government here. It rarely moves that quietly or stealthily . Second, the FCC must BY LAW, give notice when it considers a rules change. Every station in the country is represented before the Commission by groups like the NAB (National Assocciation of Broadcasters), and individual communications lawyers who represent some station groups with specific interests, such as Clear Channel, or Radio One, to lobby the FCC either in favor of or against any proposed rule change. In fact, the general public is often the least represented group there.
The FCC is required BY LAW to give each broadcast station or network a chance to defend itself against any specific or serious complaint in an open public hearing. If you check, you will see that most of the fines the FCC has issued over the last few years have been months and in some cases, years after the hearing took place.
Recently, and again this was after a hearing on the idea AND the FCC had to go to Congress to get their PERMISSION, to do so, the FCC raised the amount of fines to reflect the times. Many stations WERE being fined, like the stations that play Howard Stearn. the problem is that many of them were making millions of dollars in revenue while paying a few paltry thousand dollars here and there . You do the math. You pocket a a million for every thousand you pay out in fines, and you complain just enough to make a noise.
Finally, every broadcast station has to keep a public affairs file and provide it for inspection during normal business hours to both the FCC and the public for inspection. This file supposedly determines whether a station gets to keep it’s broadcast license for another three (or is it five?) years. In most cases the FCC will simply rubber stamp the stations broadcast license for another term. If it doesn’t usually it is because some serious complaint has come up, in which case the FCC will notify all interest parties as to when and where a public hearing will be held.
Here’s an interesting thing you can do. Tomorrow, during normal business hours, 9 to 5, ( don’t go during lunch hours though, trust me) you can go to any Televsion or radio station, large or small and ask to see their public inspection file. Most stations will fall all over themselves to produce that file for you.
BTW, “Touch By an Angel” aired on CBS, not ABC, so putting “Desperate Housewives” on ABC did not deprive you of that show.
They also are not on the air at the same time. Touched left the air a few years ago. I was simply stating the obvious: If one program is on, it is keeping another one off the air. And the fact that a more “sexual” show such as DH gets great ratings does not mean a show like “Touched by an Angel” will not. There can be two different demographics reached by the respective shows. So it is not necessarily a case of the highest ratings, but of how good of a show it is and which one a network picks.
Incidentally, “R” rated movies rarely make as much money as “PG.” Look at the biggest money making movies of all time, and most are not full of sex, graphic violence, and swearing. There is a market for well made shows that do not press the envelope in the areas of sex and violence and swearing. Doesn’t mean ABC can’t do NYPD Blue, just noting that there is a market for shows that are not as out there.
Jim in Iowa
eclark1849: “What we have here is a case of thieves breaking into houses while the guard dog is asleep, and one day he wakes up and starts attacking them. Now the thieves are complaining that the dog is being mean. Then they discover that the reason the dog woke up is because a neighbor has been throwing rocks at the dog to wake it up, and now they’re crying foul.”
That may well be the worst metaphor ever.
Want to expound upon that? Otherwise, I’ll just take it as you don’t know what you’re talking about.
For what it’s worth, the station I work for keeps a copy of the FCC PI file up front ready to go and always has. After the flap over “Queer Eye” I described above, a few bold would-be legal eagles thought it’d be funny to watch us fall all over ourselves by asking to see our file. When it was promptly handed over to them, they stared at it in confused silence. I guess we deprived them of their ‘a-ha!’ moment.
Yes, to a great degree the FCC rubber-stamps most renewals, because most stations don’t do anything too terribly stupid. If they’ve been fined, nine times out of ten it’s been over something the network broadcast, and the network will usually absorb the fine for the affiliate station (a la the Viacom ‘Nipplegate’ fines). The remainder are usually fines levied over copyright infringement or improper usage of a competitor’s material… instances which usually have more to do with not realizing a mistake has been made than some kind of brazen defiance of the law. Indecency fines are a relatively new development to the broadcasting industry, which are very clearly having a chilling effect on the major networks; ask anyone in the industry and they’ll tell you so. The jury is still out on whether or not that chilling effect is a good or a bad thing, but it most definately exists.
Whoa> Hëll must be freezing over. Tim Lynch and I agree.
Uh, Jim, you appear to have missed the context of the “Saving Private Ryan” fiasco.
Because the FCC gave ABC that non-answer, ABC (or atleast a great many of its affiliates … I don’t recall whether it happened on a national level) chose not to air the film on Veterans’ Day last month. This despite the fact that previous Vets’ Day airings of the film were met with no criticism and much praise.
The FCC isn’t going to fine ABC, because ABC decided to cave in the face of a mixed threat. Real brave.
Although the FCC did give ABC an answer:
An FCC spokeswoman said Wednesday that the agency does not monitor television broadcasts, but responds to complaints. The agency did receive a complaint after the 2001 broadcast of “Saving Private Ryan,” but it was denied, she said.
And despite what you’re saying about ABC’s bravery, they DID run “Saving Private Ryan” and offered to cover the fines for any affiliate showing the film. Most affiliates declined because ABC would not cover any other FCC fines that came up.
“ABC has told its affiliates it would cover any fines, but Cole, of Citadel, said the network could not protect its affiliates against other FCC sanctions.”
http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/wireStory?id=244801
ABC was not fined because ABC does not have an FCC license, its afiliates do. The FCC does not fine networks, they fine the affiliates. ABC has, however, offered to pay any fines against its affiliates that aired the movie might have to pay.
Actually, the FCC can and does fine some networks because they hold FCC licenses for stations that they own outright. ABC, for example, owns WABC radio and TV in New York, KABC in Los Angeles, and several other TV stations around the nation. The same goes for NBC and CBS.
ABC did air “Saving Private Ryan” in its unedited form on Veteran’s Day. As for the stations who opted not to run it, I don’t have a complete listing, but the numbers work out so that a third of the people nationally who watch television (who could have conceivably watched “SPR”) were not able to see it. That works out to between 50 and 75 of the 200-odd markets in the country, depending on population size of the cities that didn’t air the film. I can tell you that ABC affils in Atlanta and New Orleans chose NOT to air it.
As for expounding on your metaphor, eclark, here goes:
First, comparing the networks, the producers of the shows they air and their advertisers cumulatively to ‘theives breaking into houses’ is unfair. The networks are not actively trying to commit a crime… at least, not so far as I know. Working for an NBC affiliate, I certainly haven’t gotten any memos to that effect. They’re selling a product, or an advertiser’s product.
Secondly, the FCC as a sleeping guard dog doesn’t cut it. The FCC has by no means been asleep at the switch: they’ve fined indecent langauge on several networks in the past (Oscar broadcasts, Bono using the F-word at the Grammys almost a decade ago, and IIRC a more than few episodes of Saturday Night Live over the series’ run, just to name an obvious few). To metaphorically claim that they haven’t been doing their jobs is a bit disingenuous.
Third, if the PTC is playing the part of a ‘neighbor,’ then it’s most certainly the nosy one up the street that everyone steers clear of. (And metaphorically speaking, why would they be throwing rocks? Couldn’t they call the metaphorical police instead? I mean, that’s what I would do if I saw people breaking into a neighbor’s house… not dicking around with some metaphorically narcoleptic canine.)
Now, maybe if they were door-to-door salesmen (who weren’t trying to break into the home, of course) instead of theives, the metaphor might work. But an off-the-cuff equation of the networks to theives paints them far worse then necessary for purposes of getting your point across.
“Incidentally, “R” rated movies rarely make as much money as “PG.” Look at the biggest money making movies of all time, and most are not full of sex, graphic violence, and swearing. There is a market for well made shows that do not press the envelope in the areas of sex and violence and swearing. Doesn’t mean ABC can’t do NYPD Blue, just noting that there is a market for shows that are not as out there.”
According to http://www.boxofficemojo.com the ten biggest domestic (US) money-makers in unadjusted dollars are:
Titanic (PG-13), Star Wars (PG), Shrek 2 (PG), ET (PG), Star Wars: Episode 1 (PG), Spider-man (PG-13), Lord of the Rings: Return of the King (PG-13), Spider-man 2 (PG-13), The Passion of the Christ (R), Jurassic Park (PG-13).
This, along with various articles, indicates to me that the ideal rating for a movie is PG-13, where your typical teenager, a significant portion of the movie-going audience can still get in without parental accompanyment. An R-rated action or comedy cuts itself off from a significant portion of its typical audience. Look at how most serious dramas are R-rated – movies that would not attract a teenager anyways – while a “Blockbuster” is usually PG-13, and the people behind the film are often contractually obligated to deliver a PG-13 rated film (Chronicles of Riddick is one such example). If everybody was allowed to go to every movie (which is NOT something I’m advocating), then your example is a much more valid one. Unfortunately, here there are too many other big, confounding variables.
Does that mean these movies wouldn’t have made money anyways? Certainly not. They are mostly genuinely good movies, and OF COURSE there is an audience for middle of the road movies and TV shows.
The major problems with the FCC process is that it is too open to be influenced by a very small group of people (or even one person who is moderately technically savvy in sending e-mail).
I’m going to chime in here and point out that the fact that a movie made a shitload of money is no indication that it’s a good movie. While there are many phenomenal films rated PG or lower, there are also phenomenal films rated R. Box office numbers are not a good way to determine a movie’s quality.
First, comparing the networks, the producers of the shows they air and their advertisers cumulatively to ‘theives breaking into houses’ is unfair. The networks are not actively trying to commit a crime… at least, not so far as I know. Working for an NBC affiliate, I certainly haven’t gotten any memos to that effect. They’re selling a product, or an advertiser’s product.
Please, the networks in particular, but also advertisers and down to the independents have been making out like thieves. For a good while, particularly back in the late 80s and early 90s, People were buying stations at a cost of like a million dollars and within one or two years, selling that station for up to six or ten million dollars thus putting many stations out of the reach of ownership by many groups. It was easy then to convince the FCC to scrap the ownership rules.
Advertisers are happy. they don’t have to go to every 500 watt station in the area to buy time when they can go to one or two groups and make media buys for the region.
But the comparison with thieves wasn’t indicative of the crime, just the stealth they were using to get past the dog.
Secondly, the FCC as a sleeping guard dog doesn’t cut it. The FCC has by no means been asleep at the switch: they’ve fined indecent langauge on several networks in the past (Oscar broadcasts, Bono using the F-word at the Grammys almost a decade ago, and IIRC a more than few episodes of Saturday Night Live over the series’ run, just to name an obvious few). To metaphorically claim that they haven’t been doing their jobs is a bit disingenuous.
They haven’t. Sure they’ve fined people, but those same people have continued to push the envelope. They ‘ve had deeper pockets to absorb the cost of the fines as just “business costs” thanks to my first point above. So when the FCC asked Congress for permission to raise the cost of the fines, those groups squawked and started calling it an attack on the “freedom of speech” when that’s not what it is and never was.
Third, if the PTC is playing the part of a ‘neighbor,’ then it’s most certainly the nosy one up the street that everyone steers clear of.
I live in one of the safest houses on my street because my “nosy” neighbors are good friends of mine. We watch out for each other and our property. Granted, I live in the south, but I think that speaks more you in particular than just to go around tar and feathering all your neighbors.
(And metaphorically speaking, why would they be throwing rocks? Couldn’t they call the metaphorical police instead? I mean, that’s what I would do if I saw people breaking into a neighbor’s house… not dicking around with some metaphorically narcoleptic canine.)
Now, maybe if they were door-to-door salesmen (who weren’t trying to break into the home, of course) instead of theives, the metaphor might work. But an off-the-cuff equation of the networks to theives paints them far worse then necessary for purposes of getting your point across.
Well, I didn’t want to compare the police to Barney Fife or Fish from Barney Miller. And I still like the thieves comparison.
Well, I didn’t want to compare the police to Barney Fife
…which seems as opportune a time as any to mention this link, which a friend pointed out to me a few days ago…
(Trust me, there’s a connection.)
http://www.dubyamovie.com/
TWL
So, the FCC is essentially saying that the number of complaints should not be a concern as long as you are obeying the rules.
Yet when these incidents happened Powell and the FCC used the number of complaints to demonstrate how severe the outrage against these incidents were… with this statement they’re moving the goalpoast now that their previous stance has been shown to be based in bad information.
For all the good it will evidently do me to say this, that sir, is just NOT true. First of all, we’re talking about the federal government here. It rarely moves that quietly or stealthily . Second, the FCC must BY LAW, give notice when it considers a rules change.
Except we’re not talking about a rule change, simply changing the interpretation of what “indecent” means.
Here’s the thing: There is no definition in law or regulation for what is “indecent.” Aside from George Carlin’s seven dirty words, there’s no handbook that states when you’ve crossed the line from being just suggestive to indecent. It is entirely a matter of individual interpretation. What one FCC judge may let slide, another finds highly offensive. So yes, the FCC has changed the rules without any notice.
And I’m sure the “Saving Private Ryan” fiasco of a couple of weeks has already been noted in another thread, wherein ABC asked the FCC if they would be fined if they showed the film unedited (they didn’t have the option to edit it per contract with Spielberg) and the FCC responded that they COULDN’T SAY WHETHER OR NOT ABC WOULD BE FINED FOR AIRING THE FILM. I feel that, if nothing else, is effing ridiculous. If you present a finished prodct to the FCC and say, “Is it okay to air this?” you should be given a yes or no answer.
Actually, it would be illegal for the FCC to do answer that question — that would be “prior censorship”, which the FCC may not engage in.
All that they can do is issue guidelines and then wait to see what happens after the material in question is aired; if there are complaints, then they act. (If something has been busted before, then it is assumed to be non-airable)
I have heard at least some of George Carlin’s “Seven Words” spoken or sung on college FM stations (limited coverage/audience demographic) with no apparent reaction from the FCC, in the same market where considerably milder material might have gotten a network teevee station busted.
It all depends on who listens and who complains. (WREK, the Georgia Tech station, had to stop playing Jaime Brockett’s “Legend of the USS Titanic”, which had been in some level of rotation on the station for almost twenty years, because a Jewish group objected to one tongue-in-cheek line.)
eclark, I don’t know how familiar you are with the world of broadcast television, but a significant percentage of affiliates are part of small, often family-run organizations and corporations. Very, very few corporations own a lot of stations, and VERY few of those own two (or more) stations in the same market. And we have the FCC rules against monopolies to thank for this; for the past forty years or so, FCC regulation has allowed a level enough playing field for those mom-and-pop outfits to exist without fear of being bought out or run into the ground by industry giants like Viacom. Obviously, instances of buyout and resale with a markup like you described occurred, but not nearly as many as would have occured had the FCC been as asleep at the switch, as you claim.
Granted, these anti-monopoly rules have begun to relax (just last weekend, Viacom bought a second station in the Sacramento, CA market… this was a BIG DEAL in the television world, not because of the company or the size of the market, but because it was actually being allowed to happen. This is the fifth or sixth ‘duopoly’ Viacom has established this year, and the fact that they continue to be able to buy up stations is raising quite a few eyebrows), but then again, the FCC has started fining people a lot more often than before. We’re seeing a major shift in how the FCC operates, and for me, if only in terms of job security, I prefer the old days, when I didn’t have to worry about losing my job in a corporate buy-out.
eclark: “Sure they’ve [the FCC] fined people, but those same people have continued to push the envelope. They ‘ve had deeper pockets to absorb the cost of the fines as just “business costs” thanks to my first point above. So when the FCC asked Congress for permission to raise the cost of the fines, those groups squawked and started calling it an attack on the “freedom of speech” when that’s not what it is and never was.”
So because the fines the levied weren’t hefty enough, they weren’t doing their job? So, by that rationale, an ambulance driver who doesn’t get a dying patient to the hospital fast enough isn’t doing their job, either, right? (See what I mean about over the top metaphors?)
eclark: “I live in one of the safest houses on my street because my “nosy” neighbors are good friends of mine. We watch out for each other and our property. Granted, I live in the south, but I think that speaks more you in particular than just to go around tar and feathering all your neighbors.”
I think you’re missing a few words in your last sentence, but for what it’s worth, I live in the (deep) South, too, and I haven’t tarred or feathered anyone, literally or metaphorically, ever. But what I gather from your above statement, I think your definition of ‘nosy’ and mine differ wildly enough to make further argument over the point impractical.
As for the metaphor itself, I still think comparing the networks to thieves in the night is a dire overstatement of the situation, even an incendary one. That one is ‘making out like a thief’ does not necessarily mean that one is a thief, and you seem very comfortable calling the networks thieves. I don’t think that’s fair or cogent to the argument at hand.
What of censoring things that happened in the past? Such as what Stern is claiming is being done to him? How does that fall into the ability of the FCC? while my knowledge maybe limited on the subject, what he’s claiming is they are fining shows years old now because they can. If that is whats happening how is that fair?
Another question about censorship… How does any of this affect anybody unless they are lazy? Use the V-Chip to “protect” your kids… turn the TV/Radio off or change the channel, It doesn’t need to be on. Use it or not, but don’t deny others their voices because they are in the minority. Thats totally unAmerican, everyone here gets a voice. Its whether you choose to listen/watch to it or not that should decide whether it sticks around on the mainstream airwaves or is relagated away to other mediums. Either help its ratings to keep it around or Don’t help its rating to drop it. Capitalism. Government oversite on what is or isn’t decent should have no bearing on this. All the FCC should be doing is keeping the airwaves public, structured (keeping interfearance to a minimum is what i mean here) and unmonopolized so that multiple voices can be heard/watched (every channel owned/affiliated with the same one or two voices), not deciding whether “sucking a hotdog” or “tossing a salad” are indecent.
This all seemed to start back at that superbowl… Why is everyone so up in arms over a women’s single breast being shown on TV? I’ve seen larger breasts on TV belonging to men with no public outrage following them! No one seems to complain about breasts being shown on PBS, and that station belongs to the public even more so.
Chiming in again
The FCC has fined stations that aired Stern’s show over material that he did in previous years.This is major B.S what they didnt know it was wrong at the time and after further review they decide its bad??It seemed like the Stern heat got worse after he began campaigning against
Bush and JJ and the bare breast.So draw any conclusions you want.
Dont know about DH but Stern ratings books tend to be consistently high among the 18 to 34 demographic.His audience also tends to skew across various economic and social lines.My point being someone is listening out there and as long as he is making money he will stay on until this contract expires.
Jim made the point about the top grossing movies not being rated R.While that may be true I dont think this is as a result of the rating as much as them being good movies.I have seen very good movies rated R and very crappy G rated movies.
As far as SAVING PVT RYAN,locally in Philly they played it F-Bomb and all ,I was under the impression the combo of violence and language was the issue.Personally i think we should show the movie and all that goes with it.Maybe seeing war and violence in all its nastiness will make some
young future leader think twice before sending someone else to war,and have more respect for the sacrifices that people made for their freedoms.
From CSO:
“No one seems to complain about breasts being shown on PBS, and that station belongs to the public even more so.
When a program on PBS shows any kind of nudity or harsh language, there is a disclaimer at the start of the show from the network, and often from the member station, saying such. There’s also the ratings bug that shows up on every show (except for news and sports) in the upper left hand side of the screen every half hour (or close to) with the TV-__ rating. The problem with the Superbowl was that there was no way to warn the audience that Janet and Justin were going to play “show the bøøbìë”.
I am amazed at how much they show for these commericals (both the 30 second and the 30 minute variety).
They generally air on cable though, not network tv, correct?
The FCC apparently only has oversight of network tv (NBC, CBS, etc). I’m not sure how cable is handled, to be honest.
Aside from George Carlin’s seven dirty words
Carlin was on Inside the Actor’s Studio on Bravo a few weeks back, and he chimed out those famous seven words. Amusingly, “piss” and another which I can’t pin down atm are no longer being censored on cable tv.
Of course, I’m thinking Powell would love to replace those two words with, say, “gay” and “liberal”. 😉
In regards to NYPD Blue- still a great show but very noticably toned down now. It’s disturbing that the creative folks behind these shows have to be concerned about confirming to censorship.
Secondly, about the Desperate Housewives skit,
would this have ever been such an issue had the
piece not featured Ms Sheridan jumping into the arms of a black man? Of course not. Does anyone remember a Pepsi ad featuring Kim Catrall slinking about in a locker room bath? There wasn’t any controversy there.
So, where can we organize to lobby the FCC to put MORE violence and sex on television?
I keep hearing mewling cries for less, but who speaks for what I want: sex-in-the-death-hole violence and pørņ-quality-sex during the Dinner Hour?
Why should I suffer because some áššhølëš can’t control their stupid kids?
Travis wrote: In edmond, OK, where I live, a church was having a fight with the town government about putting up a thirty foot cross on its own land.
And the ACLU helped them win the case.
It didn’t change my brother’s mind, and I doubt it will change yours. But I will ask the question: Does that go against your platform?
This reminds me of an old joke: Conservatives love the NRA because it defends the Constitution. Conservatives hate the ACLU because it defends the Constitution.
Phinn
Craig, the FCC has no authority over cable, only broadcasting. The airwaves are “free”, but you have to pay to receive cable (or else steal it…but you get my point). Just to prove this, Comedy Central has aired the movie “South Park: Bigger, Longer, Uncut” in it’s entirety. It is aired late at night (1am), but has still aired it. I think that this movie has more offensive language than George Carlin has ever tried to use at one time.
I am amazed at how much they show for these commericals (both the 30 second and the 30 minute variety).
They generally air on cable though, not network tv, correct?
No. I don’t have cable. This is on broadcast TV on one of the “independent” local stations. Granted, it is after 11:00 pm at night, which is probably why they get away with it. But I was up late (1 am) watching a video (While You Were Sleeping) with my wife, her sister, and a friend. When the movie ended, I hit “stop” on the remote. What comes on when it switched to a TV channel? A picture of naked ladies writhing all over each other with their private parts barely blocked out (part of the “Girls Gone Wild” 30 minute informercial). Needless to say, my wife was NOT amused. I should not have to be embarrassed by such a graphic display of gratuitous sexuality on network TV, even at 1 am in the morning.
Jim in Iowa
By the way, it was on channel “20” which is the local WB affliliate. My VCR switched to that station when the video stopped because it had taped Smallville the night before.
Jim in Iowa
All I can say is that after reading all of this is that I remain absolutely dumbfounded by all of the fuss and the fear and the bullying.
Amazing.
Yours,
Dwight
Just to prove this, Comedy Central has aired the movie “South Park: Bigger, Longer, Uncut” in it’s entirety.
Yeah. I think the members of the FCC should watch the movie in its entirety some time, along with a few other episodes of South Park.
Maybe they’d get some insight on cursing vs nudity vs violence.
Granted, it is after 11:00 pm at night
Well, there you. FCC doesn’t care as much after 10-11pm.
So, not only do network stations have to show only things you approve of during the day, but overnight as well.
I guess we all can’t have what we want.
Hey Jimmy, if you don’t like what’s on Channel 20… CHANGE THE STATION!!!!!
Don’t try to get the FCC to take out the broadcaster. That’s what pìššëš me off so much about you people. Turn off the TV/Radio, or change the station, that all it takes. Don’ you DARE try getting it banned though. People like you are evil for America
Hey Jimmy, if you don’t like what’s on Channel 20… CHANGE THE STATION!!!!!
I did. Doesn’t change the fact that it was there and in my face for the 60 seconds it took to find the remote to the TV to turn it off. Doesn’t change the fact that my sister-in-law and her friend and my wife were all understandably offended by it.
Don’t try to get the FCC to take out the broadcaster. That’s what pìššëš me off so much about you people. Turn off the TV/Radio, or change the station, that all it takes. Don’ you DARE try getting it banned though. People like you are evil for America
And where, exactly, did I say I was going to work on getting it officially “banned.” That is what is frustrating with people like you. I have an equal right to voice my disgust about something as you do. I can complain to the station if I want to. I never said, nor do I intend, to send a complaint to the FCC. I am not sending out an email to 200 friends asking them to swamp the station or FCC email with complaints.
Apparently you don’t get that it is valid for everyone to speak up and state their views. It is up to the station to respond. I suspect that while it was exploitative and far more sexual than I think should be on TV, it probably did not violate any FCC rules. I have no desire to get the station fined. I will simply voice my concern and let them decide how they want to respond. That is how it should work in this country.
Jim in Iowa
Some television creators are very concerned about the FCC’s actions of late. Here is an email from the folks at FAMILY GUY, that posted a few weeks ago at http://www.planet-familyguy.com –
“To Everyone:
The FCC has called an emergency session to discuss the recent
Rich,
I love this message. Thanks for posting it.
Fred
I could definitely see Family Guy being a show to get cancelled as a result of the newfound paranoia among the networks.
What an ending that would be for a series that’s just getting back onto its feet…
Be nice, yeah, but that’s not the way it works,
A bunch of you bible-thumping whiners cry about it to the government and try to get them to rain down hellfire…
You’re probably a proud, dues-paying member of the PTC…
You’re probably a proud, dues-paying member of the PTC…
Nope. You guessed wrong. Only learned about them this week. Do you want me to start supporting them? 😉
Jim in Iowa
You’re probably a proud, dues-paying member of the PTC…
Bladestar, you’re really not helping your argument when you start smearing people. Saying someone is a “proud, dues-paying member of the PTC” is exactly as helpful as calling someone a “card-carrying member of the ACLU” (which, for the record, I am). I didn’t care for the latter when Bush pere tried to use it as a campaign issue against Dukakis in ’88, and I don’t think it’s an acceptable attempt to smear Jim now.
I don’t care for the PTC’s goals or tactics much of the time, but belonging to such an organization is not an automatic negative. It’s not like belonging to the KKK, for instance.
A lot of people here are generally on your side of the television fence. I humbly suggest that you not work quite so hard to alienate them.
TWL
Tim Lynch wrote…
I humbly suggest that you Bladestar not work quite so hard to alienate them.
He passed that point long ago from my point of view. As I mentioned a few days ago, it makes me ashamed to agree with him in principle.
I’m glad to hear that. If you are ashamed of freedom, then you are one sad individual…
Yeah, belonging to the PTC IS a major negative. It
s means you let a fictional book and the ignorant member of the church do your thinking for you.
Gutcheck time. I dislike the religious right. I am still in agony over Kerry’s defeat. I have a major fear for this country with the NeoCons and the like in power for four more years. But, come on, the people on this siter are not the enemy. If they are smart enough to appreciate the writings of Peter David, they are not all bad. Give it a break with the hostile name calling.
I’m glad to hear that. If you are ashamed of freedom, then you are one sad individual…
No, he’s ashamed of YOU (and your tactics). There’s a difference between that and freedom, you know. If you don’t see the difference…well, that’s sad.
Nothing worng with what I do, expressing my freedom of speech, you don’t like it, DON’T LISTEN!
Just because you don’t like what someone is saying or how they’re saying it means SQUAT!
Freedom of speech means FREEDOM of speech, there are no “degrtees” just because you don’t like how someone says something. Sounds like you’re the one with problem Rog
Freedom of speech means FREEDOM of speech, there are no “degrtees” just because you don’t like how someone says something.
Any freedom extends only so far. You have the right to make an ášš of yourself, but not necessarily the right to make an ášš out of somebody else.
It’s why we have laws for things such as slander. Freedom of Speech is not all inclusive. Remember that.
Still stupid, eh Craigy?
No one can make an ášš of you BUT you!
Just because I think someone is ášš doesn’t mean everyone else does.
But your comprehension never was that great…
Still stupid, eh Craigy?
Yet so more intelligent than you, Bladestar. I’m sure if you look in the mirror, you’ll find “Ðûmbášš” written there somewhere in the reflection.
And see, I still don’t have to resort to pathetically making fun of someone’s name.
You’re making such a wonderful name for yourself here. Thankfully, this is the last time I will ever reply you to.
Took you long enough
Wow, that’s sad. 500 people complain, and the FCC holds an emergency meeting? what a waste of taxpayer funds.
There’s more than 180 million adults in the US. Maybe 2, 3 times that in the under 18 crowd? Just taking the adults, 500 complaints means…well, it’s such a small percentage that my calculator can’t put it into decimal terms.
If that’s not a prime example of the vocal minority getting a controlling hand in the government, I don’t know what is.
Makes me wonder why some 49 MILLION people making a statement against our current president is seen as a major victory for Bush. Something smells funny to me….
Very tiny percentage kingbobb, also, did you notice in the “Family Guy” Team letter, they mention that while it’s easy to file a complaintin in the FCC system, there no option for the other way around, to praise or support something?
Windows Calculator reports 500 out of 180,000,000 as:
2.7777777777777777777777777777778e-6
or .0002777~ %. (less than 1/1000 of a percent)
This reminds me of an old joke: Conservatives love the NRA because it defends the Constitution. Conservatives hate the ACLU because it defends the Constitution.
Isn’t it interesting how many liberals are willing to stand up to protect their Freedom of Speech, but are quite willing, even eager to curtail and even re-interpret the freedoms that guarantee the right to bear arms and practice religion.
As for the ACLU, well you know what they say, even a broken clock is right at least twice a day.
While I don’t agree with liberals on their Interpretation of the Second Amendment, I can at least picture HOW they made that mistake…
ACLU’s problem is that they’ve got themselves painted into a corner, they kinda have to defend everyone’s rights or they end u- looking like christians…
Jeff Lawson,
“I could definitely see ‘Family Guy’ being a show to get cancelled as a result of the newfound paranoia among the networks.”
“What an ending that would be for a series that’s just getting back on its feet.”
Possibly, but I doubt it.
Ironically enough, when “Family Guy” first started, it was liberals who were up in arms, protesting, for example, the scene in the first episode where the newscaster is caught on the air saying, “I just don’t like black people, okay.”
That was taken by some to be a “shot” at African-Americans. The “some” obviously being oversensitive zealots who could not appreciate the satire.
Like I’ve said, BOTH sides of the political spectrum are capable of overreacting and trying to shut the other up.