FCC Wary of Greeks Baring Gifts at Games (washingtonpost.com)
In response to one or more indecency complaints, the Federal Communications Commission has asked NBC to send it tapes of its coverage of the Summer Olympics Opening Ceremonies in Athens, the network confirmed late yesterday.
Ironically, the night before, NBC’s Summer Games coverage was named the family-friendliest special of 2004 during WB’s broadcast of the sixth annual Family Television Awards. The awards are given by the Family Friendly Programming Forum, a group of 46 major national advertisers working to encourage networks to produce more family-friendly prime-time fare…
Yet another example of how open we Americans are to free expression and ideas from other lands nowadays…
• 
Last night I stopped by the house of my best friend’s widow. She and I have certainly changed over the years, as well as have grown apart from one another. In the course of the conversation during my brief visit, she casually mentioed her disdain for Desperate Housewives and stated that she had never been a member of a converative values group, but after reading a recent Newsweek article on the program, she was considering joining to support “the cause”. I responded by ststating that DH was one of my favorite programs on television. She was aghast and responded with a litany of criticisms and questions including a statement about her being gravely concerned with the oversexualization of the wives and the lack of morals. She wrapped up her comments by saying that she is a desperate housewife and they are unrelatable.
Her answer to my first question troubled me more than I can tell you. She is intellegent. She tends to educate herself on issues before forming an opinion. She is typically an independent thinker.
Her answer: No.
….. my question? Have you ever watched an epsiode?
I explained my fondness and enthusiasm for the show. I talked of only 1 wife that I truly found unlikeable and immoral (Any guesses? It’s not Edie.). I pointed out the there are consequenses for all of the questionable decisions made (Citing, in detail, Lynette’s initial horror of hearing a woman suggest she drop her kids off out of the car when they misbehave and then actually attempting it when overwhelmed.). I even pointed out that my interpretation of the majority of the overt sexuality is either a witnessing of the intimacy or lack thereof between characters or simply satirical in nature.
She paused. States that she could understand why I would like it, based on how I described it. Never did say that she would try and catch an episode though.
Fred
So tell me …
Being a Scotsman myself I am unsure how things go in America so in light of all this controversy
(1) where do you stand on the art gallery question ? I took my wee son to the gallery the other day, and what should I see but sculptures of Greek goddesses blatantly displaying their brazen nudity. One brazen hussy, by the name of ” Aphrodite ” was thrusting, thrusting I say, her devils dumplings in the direction of the general public. Is it not time that art galleries started to exercise some judgement in this, I ask ?
Some people even paint this sort of thing !!! If I wanted my son to see painted Jezebelle’s exposing themselves I, well, I – I – I wouldn’t want it, that’s all I’m saying – but IF I did I would take him to Madam Blintsky’s Painted Jezebelle Emporium for Adventurous Gentlemen. And NOT to a public gallery.
(2) I also notice that it has become quite the custom among young ladies these days to display rather more of their anatomy than was the case when I was their age.
I refer to the disgraceful practice of exposing their ankles. This is clearly designed to inflame the passions of young, easily corrupted men who risk falling into the solitary vices through continued exposure to such wanton licentiousness, giving rise to torpor and derangement of the mind.
If the good Lord had meant us to expose our ankles he wouldn’t have given us thigh length leather riding boots, b’gad.
This sort of display should not be made public, but restricted to the privacy of our own homes where we can observe projected daguerrotypes of such things behind closed doors .
Ban the filthy stuff
I reamin sir, your obedient servant
Lt Col Moran ( Indian Army ret’d) VC, DSO, MM and bah…
“I talked of only 1 wife that I truly found unlikeable and immoral (Any guesses? It’s not Edie.).”
Is it Gabrielle? She’s the only one doing something destructive that doesn’t seem to feel she was wrong to do it.
And I am really perplexed by the phenomenon of forming an ironclad opinion on something that you have never seen, read or listened to that seems to pervade our culture.
Derek!:
>>”I talked of only 1 wife that I truly found unlikeable and immoral (Any guesses? It’s not Edie.).”
>Is it Gabrielle? She’s the only one doing something destructive that doesn’t seem to feel she was wrong to do it.
ding ding ding, we have a winnah! Gabrielle is one of the most unlikable characters that I’ve watched on television in some time. No sense of responsibility. No sense of commitment. No focus other than her own desires. The only reason that she took the action she did at the end of Sunday’s episode is due to being confronted by a friend and feeling extremely uncomfortable.
>And I am really perplexed by the phenomenon of forming an ironclad opinion on something that you have never seen, read or listened to that seems to pervade our culture.
You are perplexed. I’m scared out of my mind.
Such as, you can’t shout fire in a crowded theater when there is no fire. Or you can’t stand on a street corner and shout obscenities to people passing by. Or you can’t collect child pornography, even in the privacy of your own home.
This is why I always shout “SHARK!” in crowded elevators. It just confuses the hëll out of people.
“Sometimes I get really embarrassed by the people in this country. The fact that the FCC is asking for tapes is ridiculous and the fact that so many people here are cheerleading for the FCC in this instance is ludicrous. I am a lot more concerned about the fact that the FCC seems to not give a rats ášš about the consolidation of the so-called public airwaves by a handful of companies than I am about whether a child sees the naked human form.”
“Then why complain here?”
Why do YOU?
Boy, PAD’s really gunning for me. I don’t know whether to feel flattered or endangered.
Oh, and I’m rarely complaining about government when I post here. When I do have a complaint about what government is doing, I usually do go elsewhere. In fact, most of my “complaints” aren’t complaints, but responses to questions or issues brought up by PAD, Glenn, or others.
Leviathan, not to be snide, but if you’re going to speak about what the framers of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights intended, don’t look at the texts. They are intentionally broad and vague so that they may serve whatever ends are needed and allowed by the society in which they exist. Which is a really convoluted way of saying that they are meant to be living documents that grow and change as our country grows and changes.
If you really want to get into orginal intent (called a Constructionist view by some) look to the transcripts and texts of the Constitutional Convention. Here’s an article and site it.
[URL]http://www.archives.gov/national_archives_experience/charters/constitution_history.html[/URL]
This argument isn’t new. It predates the Constitution. The main body, and the Bill of Rights, present a compromise between those that wanted a broad Consitution granting the government powers, and a narrow one that limited those powers to specific areas.
Then, thanks to our courts, there are all the rights that exist in the *penumbra* of the Constituion, like privacy. It’s not once mentioned in the Constitution, yet I’d be willing to bet that most people would list it about the right to free speech, which actually is included.
No right is absolute. They can’t be. Nor is any right ireevocable. If you start with that premise, then it certainly is more than possible that one clause of the Constitution can trump another.
Censorship, in and of itself, is not bad.
*GASP!*
TRUE censorship, as practiced by the government, (and we’ve been seeing some of that lately 🙁 ) is bad. That is the complete blockage of something from the people.
A private group or individual who is NOT allowed to “censor” is under tyranny. If, as a publisher, I am forced to print something I don’t want to print, where is my freedom?
The government in the form of the FCC blocking something from public television is not censorship unless they block it from everything else.
I am extremely careful about what my young children see because they are forming opinions and thought-patterns based on what they see and the often faulty conclusions they draw from what they see. Ideally I’m sounding them out on those thoughts, but many are pre-articulation, so getting at them is difficult. It’s a big deal for me because of the way I grew up and viewed women (not to mention how I treated them) in negative ways because of the faulty conclusions I drew from what I saw and read. I’m not trying to abdicate as my parents did, but full coverage is difficult.
FWIW, my family doesn’t watch TV. It wasn’t so much a conscious decision, but my wife and I never watched it before kids, and we don’t now with kids. I don’t think we’re missing anything (but then, I wouldn’t know). IMO, commercials are worse than most programming…
Robbnn:
“IMO, commercials are worse than most programming…”
Speaking as someone that watches 8+ hours of TV a day (and gets paid to do it), a lot of the time commericals are much better than the programming.
I’m enjoying the Play Beer series, sponsored by Bud and Miller. Can you program TiVo to record certain commercials?
It’s almost like Spy vs. Spy, or rather, Beer vs. Beer.
This led to my child asking where babies come from. I was so embarressed.
Well, heaven forbid you ever have another child and the mother, being 8 months along, forces your child to ask that question again.
Then you can be embarassed all over again over nothing. It sounds like you need to be a parent.
Cause if your kid doesn’t get an answer from you, they’ll get it from somebody else, and you probably won’t like that either.
“ding ding ding, we have a winnah! Gabrielle is one of the most unlikable characters that I’ve watched on television in some time. No sense of responsibility. No sense of commitment. No focus other than her own desires. The only reason that she took the action she did at the end of Sunday’s episode is due to being confronted by a friend and feeling extremely uncomfortable.”
Yes, but she didn’t HAVE to, nevertheless. She could have left Susan out to dry. After all, if Susan had tried to say, “It wasn’t me, it was Gabrielle,” do you think the boy’s mother would have believed her? Unlikely. The point is that Gabrielle, faced with the consequences of her actions being hurtful to Susan, found the line she would not cross. That is, by me, intereesting. The notion that she had rationalized her behavior thus far, but could not find anything within her to rationalize allowing Susan to have her reputation trashed. (Not that Susan isn’t perfectly capable of doing it to herself.)
Best line of the episode, though, had to be Lynette: “Where can I score me some high-grade Nanny?”
PAD
PAD, it was an interesting response, but didn’t surprise me. She had a choice and truly was upset with Susan’s confrontation with her, but we’ll have to see if there was anything more than her wanting to avoid a continuance of her friend’s response and possibly the ire of the rest of the group. Is she evil incarnate? Nope. She still strikes me as the most unlikable, self-centered and destructive of the the wives.
>Best line of the episode, though, had to be Lynette: “Where can I score me some high-grade Nanny?”
>PAD
Most disturbing line was the narrative that spoke of others getting what they deserved while the audience viewed Ms. whassername being buried. This appeared out of place and overly harsh, actually distracting me momentarily. Some people may say such a thing in the heat of emotion, but our frinedly, ghostly narrator hd, up until then, appeared to have gained some otherworldly insight and peace. Did it strike anyone else as a bit odd?
Fred
“This led to my child asking where babies come from. I was so embarressed.”
Why?
I mean it. My God, why?
I really don’t get this. I don’t understand how people can get so worked up about things that have such commonality.
How can people get worked up about the human body? Don’t all humans HAVE bodies? What kind of self-loathing must it take to be ashamed of something that everybody possesses? (Although I am reminded of the “Seinfeld” line in which George, I think, tells Jerry that he would have thought Jerry–when it comes to women–would be a leg man. And Jerry responds, “Why would I be a leg man? I *have* legs.”)
How can people be embarrassed about human reproduction? Show of hands: Anyone reading this arrive on this planet by some means other than human reproduction?
Why do people freak out over the most fundamental common grounds we have?
PAD
“She still strikes me as the most unlikable, self-centered and destructive of the the wives.”
More than Edie? Well, I disagree with that. In any event, I see where you’re coming from, but to me that just means that she’s got the most intriguing, and difficult, journey to undergo. But she IS undergoing it.
“Most disturbing line was the narrative that spoke of others getting what they deserved while the audience viewed Ms. whassername being buried. This appeared out of place and overly harsh, actually distracting me momentarily. Some people may say such a thing in the heat of emotion, but our frinedly, ghostly narrator hd, up until then, appeared to have gained some otherworldly insight and peace. Did it strike anyone else as a bit odd?”
I can’t speak for anyone else, but considering she was commenting on the death of the woman who was directly responsible for her decision to commit suicide–and was utterly unrepentent about doing so–I can see Mary Alice carrying a grudge even into the next life.
PAD
Since the conversation has moved to Desparate Houswives, does anyone know when they’re going into reruns?
I missed the first five or so episodes before I even heard good things about it (my friends aren’t into evening soaps) so I decided to wait until they started replaying it and start from the beginning.
It’s not the question generating issues of nudity and such on broadcast TV that would concern me. It’s explicit gratuitious sex, graphic and real violence (say, Faces of Death), things like that that I would want to shield my young children from accidentally stumbling across while flipping through channels. If I want to see that, or if I want to expose my kids to that, I’ll go somewhere that offers it. I don’t want it coming into my home unbidden on airwaves that I can’t stop.
As to being embarrased by a question your child asks, forgive me if this seems harsh, but I think that’s just avoiding your responsibilities as a parent. You are your child’s primary teacher. Don’t shy away from the chance to educate them because *you* are uncomfortable with the answers.
Maybe it is just me, but I took Russ’s comment about asking where babies come from to be sarcasm and meant to be an parody on those who support the FCC’s actions.
You don’t have to have a TV in your house Kingbobb, or, you could actually spend time with your children and monitor what they watch.
Most cable and satellite systems group types of channels together that intelligent channel surfing allows you to avoid. Try being a parent instead of expecting the rest of the world to do it for you.
Further, new tvs have chips installed in order for parents to lock out channels and certain programs from kids.
And for cable and satellite users, the boxes seem to universally have those functions as well.
Remember the V-chip you “parents” screamed for? Try using it.
“You don’t have to have a TV in your house Kingbobb, or, you could actually spend time with your children and monitor what they watch.
Most cable and satellite systems group types of channels together that intelligent channel surfing allows you to avoid. Try being a parent instead of expecting the rest of the world to do it for you.”
Bladestar, that position is plainly unrealistic and borderline idiotic. We’re not talking about cable, we’re talking about broadcast network TV. Tell me what’s so irresponsible about wanting the free TV product that comes into your house from the simple act of owning a TV to be at some minimum level of decency? Perhaps I *AM* being a good parent by recognizing that I can’t monitor my child 100% of the time, and for those times when I can’t, they choose to watch TV, I know that I can be fairly certain that what they are going to see isn’t going to be something I don’t want them exposed to.
Let me put this another way. I can’t control what comes over broadcast television. I can change channels, but the signal is still there. I just have to change channels again to get to it.
If the TV signal were a person, I could physically keep them from entering upon my property. I could erect a fence, refuse to open the door, tell them to get lost. If they were in my house, I can kick them out, or call the police and have them arrested.
With a TV signal, you can’t do any of that. The only way to make sure you can’t access it is to noy use/have a receiver (TV or radio). That’s like the equilivent of building a house with no doors or windows, to prevent someone from entering your house. Effective, yes, but practical?
I’d rather lose some freedom of expression over public airwaves in order to protect my right to educate my children in the manner I choose to, rather than having to deal with all the garbage that a totally free broadcasting system would result in.
Funny, I tried to explain to people last week that TVs have off buttons and nobody listened then either.
Fred, I quite agree that commercials are often better than the programming in the sense of quality, but not necessarily of purity, if you get my meaning (which you probably did from the beginning).
Ultimately, what is appropriate and inappropriate for broadcast TV is going to change from person to person. You either program for the lowest reasonable common denominator or not at all. Ultimately, it will be the sponsor’s call. Unfiltered TV might drive away large segments of the marketplace (then again, it might not…) so free market may be the best choice. Dunno. Doesn’t apply to me other than unparented little boys who know more about sex than their bodies are ready for might try to figure it out with my girls, in which case you’ll all see me on the news…
Kingbobb, why should my free tv viewing habbits have to be curtailed. I do not have children. So why should I have to pay extra for cable to be able to watch adult-oriented entertainment? Wouldn’t it be easier for you to just program your tv so that your children can not watch certain shows and channels? If not, wouldn’t it be less intrusive for you to get rid of your television or simply use it as a monitor for dvds and videos?
Robnn, I believe you meant “Jeff”.
Sorry, Jeff. You are wrong. It’s censorship.
Closing a show because you dislike a piece in the exhibit is censorship. The show organizer is the chain of distribution in this case.
Again, threatening to arrest the artist is ludicrous, and completely unfounded and again I ask the question, on what grounds would such an arrest be made…what law was violated?
This Bucky Turco character seems to like the idea of “promoting art”. What a pity he doesn’t have a handle on understanding what art actually is.
This case isn’t even obscenity, it is a question of taste and of point of view. A democracy must offer a plurality of points of view or else its claim that it IS a democracy is fictitious.
,,,and to all, please accept my apologies for the double post earlier. It was my first one here, so I was still attempting to figure out what the heck I was doing.
J Alexander,
Because it’s not just me. It’s a lot of people. Why should anyone be able to force anyone else to have to endure risking being exposed to what they would consider trash (while admitedly others would consider it art) in the privacy of their own home.
But you raise a point that will make a good deal of this discussion moot: programable TVs. I don’t know exactly how the V chip works, but I think it relies on coding attached to the signal. Much as the in the case of Wal Mart selling CDs that contain explicit lyrics, if those CDs don’t come with the voluntary parental warning, Wal Mart is going to sell them. The V chip can’t do anything unless the signal is coded correctly.
But as TVs become better able to work as filters, this is in fact going to be less of an issue.
If it were just me, and the whole world wanted to have 40 channels of Girls Gone Wild running 24 hours a day, I’d just not have a TV. But I’m guessing that, like many things, there’s a split. I honestly don’t know where the majority is at, but in my opinion, if we’re talking about a publically available signal that you cannot keep out of your house, and a significant percentage of people want that type of broadcast relegated to Cable, then it should be.
Maybe you’ve got it right: maybe those who want to exercise control over their TVs should be the ones relegated to paying for shows that are held to some minimum level of decency.
Let me ask this, then for those who think public TV airwaves should be unregulated: How do you feel about lewd/raunchy/disruptive behaviour in public? Would seeing people copulating openly in the park while you were strolling with your family upset you?
Let me ask this, then for those who think public TV airwaves should be unregulated: How do you feel about lewd/raunchy/disruptive behaviour in public? Would seeing people copulating openly in the park while you were strolling with your family upset you?
When people start breaking into your home and forcing you to watch them having sex, then your analogy would work. The bottom line is, no one is forced to own a TV. No one is forced to watch certain programs.
It is YOUR responsibility as a parent to monitor what your kids are watching, not mine and not the networks. Trying to force the networks to conform to some kind of standard is a waste because there will always be something that somebody doesn’t like. You can’t get nine supreme court justices to agree on what is indecent, how are you going to get 280 million Americans to agree?
“It’s explicit gratuitious sex, graphic and real violence (say, Faces of Death),”
How many people here realise that the majority of Faces of Death was faked?
or did you think that scary host in the first one was actually a Dr.?
Den, that’s my point, exactly. TV’s don’t (yet) have a reliable ability to control what signals they do and don’t recieve. Until they do, allowing shows with explicit sex and violence is exactly like someone breaking down your door and using your couch. You can’t control what comes into your home over TV airwaves.
And saying people don’t have to own a TV is stupid. I could just as easily say that no one has to take walks in the park. Don’t like what goes on there? Don’t go there. Broadcast TV is more like a public park. People go there to enjoy a public good. They don’t have to, but when they do, they do so with the expectation that they aren’t going to see someone drop trou and go at it with their hunnie.
To a certain extent, the public airwaves are just that, public. They aren’t private, and so whatever goes out over the public airwaves has to some extent be mindful of not encroaching too much onto people’s right to privacy.
When TVs can reliably control what signals they display, we can stop worrying about this. Until then, “you can turn it off” isn’t a totally viable argument. I *can* turn it off, but just as easily, by 7 year old can turn it back on when I’m out of the room.
Bah, I keep getting caught up in this…
And forgetting to add that it’s all rather moot, anyway. FCC really doesn’t need to regulate. Network TV is advertisor driven. If we didn’t have the FCC, we’d have to lean on the corporate sponsors to get the shows we don’t like off the air. And as long as Coke and Pepsi are behind TV shows, most of what we see is going to be pretty tame anyway.
I find it interesting when people say that I should worry more about being a good parent by monitoring what my kids watch. As if, by trying to make sure that children don’t get exposed to the worst, most potentially harmful images on public broadcast TV somehow isn’t the act of a concerned parent.
I’ve never said anything about wanting to stop other people from seeing this type of material. Just not in a public forum. Is Playboy kept out on the shelf at Barnes and Noble? No, they keep it behind the counter and covered up. Or it’s shipped in a wrapper. Heck, even Heavy Metal is now shipped to B&N shrinkwrapped. Why? No one is going to make kids look at those things. or pick them up and open them. And covering them only means that you have to wait till you actually buy it and get to your car or home before you can *read* it.
Same for broadcast TV. Which for many of us isn’t free anyway, and someday won’t be free for anyone. Once we’re all paying for cable, won’t it be interesting to see how the FCC rationalizes it’s continued existence?
“If the TV signal were a person, I could physically keep them from entering upon my property. I could erect a fence, refuse to open the door, tell them to get lost. If they were in my house, I can kick them out, or call the police and have them arrested.
With a TV signal, you can’t do any of that. The only way to make sure you can’t access it is to noy use/have a receiver (TV or radio). That’s like the equilivent of building a house with no doors or windows, to prevent someone from entering your house. Effective, yes, but practical?
I’d rather lose some freedom of expression over public airwaves in order to protect my right to educate my children in the manner I choose to, rather than having to deal with all the garbage that a totally free broadcasting system would result in.”
Now My TV is a sony vega, and it doesn’t have a built in antenna, tus the evil indecent free brocasts are not in my home. Forgive my spelling by the way, i’m running a fever again. Now I could get an antenna, and thus have the glory of free tv with all it’s imagined indecency. Really lets put this in perspective how many apperances of full nudity, or utter gory blood and guts happen on network TV between 5 am, and 9 pm? I’d really like to know. And if you feel the time doesn’t matter because your protecting the children, why arn’t your kids in bed after nine, or at 9 the tv could go off. ok so we saw janets nipple, lets deal with that, hmmmmm a few seconds of nipple exposeing the kids to “hardcore pørņ”, hmmmmmm destroy them!!!! Endless seeming coverage of sept 11, horror and all. 2 planes hit the trade center, but if you were watching the news it was 3 days of plane after plane explodeing. But a nipple…AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!
Anyway if you remove you antenna and get cable then unless I’m mis-informed then you can lock out the evil free brodcast channels that thus offend you and damage your children beyond belief. I speak as a former child who grew up watching jiggeling breasts, occasional nipples, missed cuss words and all on USA up all night. This has clearly left me a deranged lunatic who spends all my time collecting violent pørņ, beating up puppies, pulling the wings off little girls dressed like faries at halloween (hard to find other times of the year)shopping at places other than Wal-mart, and not liking what king george is doing to our once great country. Oh also when I was 14, and don’t tell anyone, but I saw Graham Chapman dìçk in Monty Python and the life of brian. He wasn’t having sex at the moment, he was just standing there. But as nudity is a shamefull horrible thing that me must protect the children from at all costs, let me assure you that seeing that british willy inspired me to become the cereal killer i am today!
what do you think, last post, over the top?
“Den, that’s my point, exactly. TV’s don’t (yet) have a reliable ability to control what signals they do and don’t recieve. “
He doesn’t get it! they do have one it’s called an off button. Maybe his set is broken and can’t turn off.
Jeff, your exposure to casual nudity has clearly warped your fragile mind…
Overall, I think the discussion is somewhat moot. ABC isn’t about the air “Faces of Death 4” (real or faked), “brought to you by Pepsi” any time soon. And gaffs and mistakes are going to happen and be infrequent, so the need really isn’t as great as the number of posts I’ve made would probably indicate.
I’m going to appear to pull a 180 here, and say that I don’t think there’s a need for the FCC. Maybe there used to be, but with cable taking over the way we get TV, public airwaves are becoming less and less relevant. And TVs are getting better at siphoning out unwanted shows.
But here’s the thing underneath it all. *You* have a right to view whatever entertainment you want. *I* have a right of privacy to be free from viewing things that *I* consider to be offensive. *Your* right ends where it begins to infringe on *my* right, and likewise, *my* right ends when it starts to unreasonalby interfere with *your* right.
So what’s more intrusive? To tell the *I/my* people to sell their TVs, or tell the *you* people to buy DVDs/cable? I’d say that the *I/my* folks are in control at the moment, so don’t expect to see NBC’s Playboy Hour anytime soon.
“When TVs can reliably control what signals they display, we can stop worrying about this. Until then, “you can turn it off” isn’t a totally viable argument. I *can* turn it off, but just as easily, by 7 year old can turn it back on when I’m out of the room. “
Then do your duty as a parent, instruck your 7 year old in what they are not allowed to do, and when they dis-obey punish them. stop expecting others to raise your kids. I have a child, and I don’t expect you to raise them, and after reading your posts I wouldn’t want you to.
“let me assure you that seeing that british willy inspired me to become the cereal killer i am today!”
So what’s your preferred prey, Cheerios or Captain Crunch?
A number of folks here have mentioned the TV rating system and suggested that using those to control what kids are watching is sufficient and that, as long as it’s properly labeled, adultish content should be allowed on broadcast TV. That’s fine as far as it goes, but a number of the real-world instances we’re talking about in this thread (including the one that started it) are cases where there wasn’t warning.
I’ve watched a number of Olympic opening ceremonies. Nothing in those viewings led me to expect paint-covered bare breasts or guys wearing (artistic) strap-ons.
I’ve watched a number of Monday Night Football games. Nothing in those viewings led me to expect a naked woman jumping into a player’s arms.
I’ve watched a number of Superbowl halftime shows. Nothing in those viewings led me to expect a pop singer’s breast would be exposed. (Okay, this one really wasn’t the network’s fault.)
The point is that parents sitting down to watch these events with their children had reasonable expectations about what they were and weren’t going to see; expectations they used to decide ahead of time whether the show was likely to be appropriate for their kids. Those expectations were not met. Thus the anger.
Dav2.718
“let me assure you that seeing that british willy inspired me to become the cereal killer i am today!”
So what’s your preferred prey, Cheerios or Captain Crunch?
——————————
Count Chocula!!!!!
I *can* turn it off, but just as easily, by 7 year old can turn it back on when I’m out of the room.
Once again, Kingbobb, I am amazed are your lack of reading comprehension.
What part of “It’s YOUR job to monitor what your kids watch” are you having trouble comprehending?
If you didn’t want the responsibility that goes with raising a 7-year old, then you should have kept your pants on. Sorry to be blunt, but that’s the job you signed on for.
As I and others have tried to point out to you, all TVs come equipped with a feature that is 100% reliable in keeping objectional material out of your home.
THE OFF BUTTON!!!!
To misquote Gaines, during the Senate hearing on comics, Jim…..are you that scared of your child that you think something they see on tv or something they hear on the radio will turn them into a serial killer or engage in some form of criminal or antisocial act?
Is it that you have no faith in your child or no faith in your parenting skills?
Let me ask a question back: Should I have NO standards for what is appropriate for a child to hear or see? Your question is absolutely absurd. I do not question my skills as a parent, but I also believe there are some things that it would be better to avoid exposing a child to before they are ready to handle it.
Based on your logic, the fact that Michael Jackson exposed a minor to pornography is not necessarily a bad thing. Will a 10 second glimpse of Janet’s nipple scar my child for life? Of course not. But why is it wrong in your mind for me to want to avoid exposing my child to “girls gone wild” before he even reaches the age of puberty?
Let me be blunt: Do you want absolutely no standards for network TV? If the public wants, can we show graphic sex? Should we show the most violent scenes ever put on film? I, for one, believe there is still some shred of common sense in this country that it is inappropriate to expose a child to some things if it can reasonably be avoided.
Have you ever dealt with a child who has been sexually abused? Have you ever dealt with a child who saw his 3 year old sister murdered before his eyes? I have. And those events leave deep scars. Yes, those are extreme cases that happen in real life, not on TV. But you are a fool if you think TV does not have an impact on a child.
Or is it that you’re just another prejudiced, bigoted, small minded, terrified-of-the-unknown-and-what-you-can’t-understand conservative that wishes all these dámņ gays, blacks, powerful women, foreigners and liberal terrorists would stay out of your sensory range and stop their insidious challenging of everything you cling to and use as a crutch.
Again, I ask a very simple question: Why does my suggestion there should be some standard mean I am wanting to stick my head in the sand? I realize standards have changed in the last 50 years. We have gone from not even being able to say the word “pregnant” on the air and couples had to sleep in twin beds (as in “I Love Lucy”) to shows like NYPD Blue that uses language and nudity. I have never suggested we completely turn back the clock. I have simply suggested that we show some common sense and have some basic standards that would reasonably avoid exposing kids to things they are not ready for.
ps. Why DO you still post here? I thought that ‘inside every conservative christian is a sadomasochist just bursting to get out’ was just a myth.
I post for two reasons. First, I have learned a lot about how some of you think. If I only talk to conservative Christians, I would be actually sticking my head in the sand, and that would be stupid. Second, I like the challenge of trying to defend my views. I don’t expect to change most of your minds, but I do like to be forced to actually articulate what I believe. While I may not be as eloquent and as clear as I would like, my views are worthless if I can’t express them in a relatively clear manner. The feedback from many of you has helped me to think more about what I believe and why. Unlike the stereotype you seem to hold, I, and most of my conservative Christian friends, believe it is important to think clearly, consistently, and logically. If what I believe is true, it can and will withstand the attacks/arguments from the other side. I am not arrogant enough to think I have all the answers, so I keep asking questions.
Beyond that, I enjoy PAD’s writings (and least most of them). I like his TV reviews, and hearing his perspective on things. I may disagree, but he usually states his position well. So I primarily come back because of PAD.
Jim in Iowa
David Hungerford makes a good point. Are the ultra consevatives listening? Its letting pørņ, violence, and an unrealistic view of the human body. We’re talking about sports people. David Hungerford is right! BAN all sports!!!!!!
By the way, Wolf in the Forest, in case you weren’t paying attention, I have pretty much agreed that censorship is wrong in most cases (such as the posting about removing gay books or the one about the comic books). I have simply defended the concept that it is appropriate to have a reasonable standard of decency for TV and radio. So a fine for the “wardrobe malfunction” is very appropriate in my book. A fine because Janet said to vote for Kerry would not be. The latter is free speech, the former is indecency.
Jim in Iowa
(1) where do you stand on the art gallery question ? I took my wee son to the gallery the other day, and what should I see but sculptures of Greek goddesses blatantly displaying their brazen nudity. One brazen hussy, by the name of ” Aphrodite ” was thrusting, thrusting I say, her devils dumplings in the direction of the general public. Is it not time that art galleries started to exercise some judgement in this, I ask ?
Unless someone is totally ignorant of art (and yes, with our current educational system, I know that may be happening), they should know that some art actually features, gasp, nudity! In fact, it can even be found in some art inside a church!
I have a very simple answer: I should know what my child might see if I take him or her to an art gallery or leave an art book laying around the house. Especially when you are dealing with art over 50 years old, there is a reason it has been considered a great work of art. I have no problem with nudity in art (or in Greek statues). I may not drag a 6 year old to an art gallery because he may not be able to endure the agony of it, but I would want to expose him (no pun intended) to good art as he matures. (And as a parent, I can exercise some discretion when it comes to modern works of whether it is good art or not!)
Jim in Iowa
Lets go all the way. Big name clothing makers could cloth all of the “obscene” ancient art work. kind of a sponcership thing. David wearing a sporty body glove and vest combo!
So what’s your preferred prey, Cheerios or Captain Crunch?
——————————
Count Chocula!!!!!
You do realized that I fed you that straight-line, don’t you?
How long can these food references go on?
So what’s your preferred prey, Cheerios or Captain Crunch?
——————————
Count Chocula!!!!!
You do realized that I fed you that straight-line, don’t you?
How long can these food references go on?
————————–
as long as the public is hungry for more, they’ll just eat it up
Posted by kingbobb:
“…I don’t think there’s a need for the FCC. Maybe there used to be, but with cable taking over the way we get TV, public airwaves are becoming less and less relevant.”
Well, then you obviously have no idea of the main function of the FCC. Their main job is to regulate the frequencies of the broadcast spectrum. This goes from television, to radio, to the ambient radiation given off by your computer monitor, and so on. Just deciding on what part of the spectum was to be used for digital television, and the broadcast standard took over 10 years of hard work between the FCC, the makers of broadcast transmitters and the main broadcast networks (with PBS being the most active in the process).