Dealings with the FCC

[on:]

What do you think of the FCC so far, or the way American TV is being controlled in general? Are they doing a good job regulating content on TV or have they lost touch with the general audience? I say this in light of what happened with Howard Stern's show and the trouble he's gotten into recently. Couple that with the Janet Jackson fiasco and you have a lot of people saying "What's wrong with the FCC today?" Any opinions?

[Reply #1 on:]

I think that they are being way too overreacting. I understand doing something about delaying live shows that kids could be watching (like the superbowl), but other than that, it should be up to the parents what they let their kids watch. Little kids shouldn't listen to Howard Stern anyway. I think that there are way too many regulations, personally. I think that when it comes down to it, parents should be worrying about what kids watch, not the government.

[Reply #2 on:]

I think parents should just buy a f*&%ing VCR and skip past the objectionable parts (along with monitoring what their kids watch to begin with).

Frankly I don't think kids should be watching the super bowl anyway, sad to say.  Its kind of pathetic that people got so upset about a breast, when the same broadcast featured, near as I could tell, far worse displays of indecency and sexism within the commercials.

[Reply #3 on:]

I think the FCC is not only overreactive, but they've got it all backwards.  They're worried about dirty words and stray nudity, but don't seemed to place the same emphasis on violence.  This has been pointed out so much it's cliche, but it's still as true as ever.

Not that I think they should be doing much regulating anyway.  I'm a big fan of personal responsibility.  Figure out what's good for you (and your family, etc.) on your own and don't watch the rest. 

Good points, DotheBartman.

[Reply #4 on:]

The way the FCC controls the US television just seems ridiculous, at least it gives us living in counties with a more free media something to laugh at 

[Reply #5 on:]

Indeed, god bless the simple 9 PM Watershed.

[Reply #6 on:]

Which has sort of morphed into the "9PM Watershed, but what do you expect on Eastenders anyway, it's obviously not suitable for children". Also the fact that Eastenders is crap.

Bad language I have little problem with, but I think violence and sex should be carefully monitored before 9pm. Then again most kids have TVs in their rooms anyway so even the 9PM watershed is worthless. The burden falls on the parents how ever you look at it.

[Reply #7 on:]

The problem I see with the FCC is the inconsistencies they have with the censoring like following the "all nipples are bad" rule. For example, first they deemed the Janet Jackson thing inappropriate but then they edit out a breast scene from a patient in ER. So the US government allows for freedom of speech, but only when THEY feel it's appropriate.

I guess the FCC want you to save your tissues or something, but real pervs will look online, not at the TV. Sorry, but they got served. Many people also recorded the Super Bowl on Tivo and currently the halftime bit is Tivo's most rewatched event ever. Shows how the FCC is out of touch with the general public.

[Reply #8 on:]

Like Live TV! was anything to brag about.

*Misses topless darts

[Reply #9 on:]

I think the FCC's recent crack down is rediculous. I hear that Howard Stern is considering moving to XM radio because of the FCC's regulations. But if he gets out of his contract early, he will be off the air for 2 years to wait out his contract.  Leaves him in a bad spot.

[Reply #10 on:]

I think the FCC is a bunch of idiots. See, the thing is that Parents aren't monitoring what their children watch. It's not the FCC's fault. It's the parent's fault.

[Reply #11 on:]

 

Originally posted by Archie2K:
Which has sort of morphed into the "9PM Watershed, but what do you expect on Eastenders anyway, it's obviously not suitable for children". Also the fact that Eastenders is crap.

Bad language I have little problem with, but I think violence and sex should be carefully monitored before 9pm. Then again most kids have TVs in their rooms anyway so even the 9PM watershed is worthless. The burden falls on the parents how ever you look at it.

I agree with you on many counts, Including EastEnders is crap.

[Reply #12 on:]

"Extreme violence is okay, as long as nobody says any bad words."

[Reply #13 on:]

I agree with everything that has been said so far.

First of all, the whole Janet Jackson Superbowl thing. I don't think that it's as horrible as they make it out to be. Sure, it shouldn't have happened, but it's not the worst thing that has ever been shown on network TV. And it isn't like her entire chest was exposed, just a small part of her breast. I'm sure kids have seen things a lot worse than that. I also think that the media replayed the scene about a thousand times (albeit censored), so it was just like a little gift to anyone who hadn't seen it the first time around.

Anyway, the FCC can't censor everything. The shows that we watch have ratings that indicate who should watch them, and it is the parents who ultimately decide if their children should watch it. And I'm sure that their are 10 year olds who watch shows intended for adults, so there you go.

[Reply #14 on:]

The funny thing about the Superbowl incident is that it was inappropriate for kids to see a single exposed nipple on TV, but perfectly fine to see a bunch of guys beating the crap out of each other (while chasing a ball, obviously). Okay, violence is bad BUT A NIPPLE CAN SCAR YOUR KIDS FOR LIFE!!! Because, as we all know, kids have never seen a naked woman before 

[Reply #15 on:]

Everybody's got nipples too, so it's not like it's a disfigurement either. But I think it's kind of sad that we're talking about it, because this may just be a plot of Janet's to steal the spotlight from her child molesting brother.

Actually, speaking of disfigurement, I'd like to quote a guy I know:

"I had no problem with it, except that it was a rank hideous boob."

[Reply #16 on:]

 

Originally posted by Nurdbot:
Indeed, god bless the simple 9 PM Watershed.

That is only on TV, radio has no watershed as people who complain about swearing on Radio Four before 9pm get told  Not that there is a lot.

[Reply #17 on:]

 

Originally posted by Tweek:
The way the FCC controls the US television just seems ridiculous, at least it gives us living in counties with a more free media something to laugh at   

::recalls some hoo-ha about the British press being unable to report about the Prime Minister's alleged homosexuality::

You sure you're in a position to talk about your media being more free?

[Reply #18 on:]

 

Originally posted by Tweek:
 

Originally posted by Nurdbot:
Indeed, god bless the simple 9 PM Watershed.

That is only on TV, radio has no watershed as people who complain about swearing on Radio Four before 9pm get told    Not that there is a lot.

I wish Spike Milligan was still around sometimes to mock that.

[Reply #19 on:]

 

::recalls some hoo-ha about the British press being unable to report about the Prime Minister's alleged homosexuality::

You sure you're in a position to talk about your media being more free?

I think you mean Peter Mandelson there. And despite the restrictions, they still managed to get it out on 'Have I got News For You':

Ian Hislop: "...because we're still not allowed to say that Peter Mandelson is a home-OWNER!"
Paul Merton: "Why, aren't gays allowed to own homes?"

Ah, god bless the British lack of respect for authority 

[Reply #20 on:]

I think it's fucking pathetic. 500,000 dollars per curse word?!?!?!?!? It's bullshit! The FCC is only doing this because most of their high board members, including that shitface Michael Powell, are Republican party campaign money donors and they're thanking them for allowing those new rules that allow enterainment companies to own even more of a percentage of the market...

[Reply #21 on:]

Interesting fact, the first time a F-word was used on British TV was in 1965 and the program maker was lampooned by the public, one Tory MP even suggesting he should receive the death penalty. 

I think the burden lies mainly on the parents here. Let's face facts, the news shows gruesome images of deaths and disfigurements from war zones every day all day at times when kids could be watching. Do you see the news being fined? They show stuff that even makes me feel ill (such as the aftermath of the Madrid bombings). However let's not deny the program makers of having any responsibility. I'll bring it up again, Eastenders is marketted as family entertainment on at prime time (8pm) yet there is yelling and violence every episode, and even if the violence isn't shown, rather it is implied, kids watching aren't stupid and understand what's going on.

The answer is to stop watching TV because let's face it, TV is full of crap anyway. Go and read a book.

[Reply #22 on:]

So does this come under free speech for the dumb?

I thought America was hte land of the free, allowing freedom of speech and expression. Apprently you can only say or do things as long as it does not offend anyone.

Besides if kinds really want to see some nipples (or more) just use the internet. (Or if you're in England buy the sun or the Daily sport. Huzzar nipples for all)

[Reply #23 on:]

I think children should be kept away from Justin and Janet's MUSIC, not a nipple or two. Would you rather expose them to tasteless composition and shoddy lyrics or something every child's sucked on at one point?

[Reply #24 on:]

 

Originally posted by wu_konguk:

I thought America was hte land of the free, allowing freedom of speech and expression. Apprently you can only say or do things as long as it does not offend anyone.

It really is all about the cash.  TV and radio are there to provide a vehicle for commercials.  If a group large enough gets offended, most stations will buckle under the pressure so they don't lose part of their advertising demographic. If the majority likes some raunchy program, stations will keep running the program as long as they rake in more cash from them than the offended.  It's not a freedom of speech issure for most TV and radio stations, but freedom to make the most money.

Hundreds of thousands of dollar fines for bad words is what happens when the government gets involved in regulation in a climate of political correctness and shrinking personal responsibility.  I'm sure the real reason the gov. is stepping up their actions is because they can smell the money from the fines.  The lead up period to the election is also a great time for politicians to grand stand on "family value" issues to help themselves get reelected.

Also don't forget that freedom of speech and expression is not absolute.

[Reply #25 on:]

Well I thought Larry Flint proved that porn IS consitutional. At least that is what I remember being told. So niples should come under that catagory as well.

[Reply #26 on:]

I blame the Bible Bashing Ronald Reagon Republican Wannabee's. It saves me time because I blame them for everything else that is wrong with the USA.

[Reply #27 on:]

The nipple event happened to occur during one of the most watched sporting events in this nation. This was during primetime on national television.  Thus it caught the eye of plenty of people who equate a nipple with porn.  The uproar it caused was silly, but predictable because so many watched it.  Many argue that sort of thing has no place during that timeslot. 

Porn is constitutional, but it's not shown on major channels during primetime.  If the nipple thing would have happened on MTV or some other cable channel, it wouldn't have caused nearly as much of a stir.

[Reply #28 on:]

Ah god bless Channel 5 with their evening erotica on Fridays.

[Reply #29 on:]

 

Originally posted by Archie2K:
Ah god bless Channel 5 with their evening erotica on Fridays.

Noooooo! Evil! Evillllllll! Sex bad.

[Reply #30 on:]

 

Originally posted by LAN.gnome:You sure you're in a position to talk about your media being more free?

Yes. I watched some Red Dwarf yesterday from the late 1980s / early 1990s. These are television shows from fifteen years ago - and there's quite a bit of the old middle finger. And yet when I was in the USA last week every single programme on every channel pixelated out middle fingers. I wasn't quite sure why, but hey.

And even when the British press were forced to obey an injunction issued to prevent reporting of Prince Charles's alleged homosexuality, I still heard it mentioned on radio shows (as mentioned above, radio seems to be a lot more free to generally be obscene).

 

Originally posted by Just Chris:
So the US government allows for freedom of speech, but only when THEY feel it's appropriate.

True freedom of speech cannot exist in any society with laws. Logically I could argue under the constitution I'm permitted to publish magizines showing child rape. But other laws prohibit me from doing so. Similarly, laws relating indecent material prevent me from distributing porn to schools.

 

Originally posted by Just Chris:
Many people also recorded the Super Bowl on Tivo and currently the halftime bit is Tivo's most rewatched event ever. Shows how the FCC is out of touch with the general public.

What the general public wants isn't necessarily the right thing. The vast majority of middle aged males in Britain (40-50) would quite like to see 16 year old teenagers naked. Middle aged males make up a sizable amount of the British population. So does that mean they should get their 16 year old naked girls?

 

Originally posted by bankrupt:
Porn is constitutional, but it's not shown on major channels during primetime.

As I mentioned above, just because something is constitutional doesn't mean it's legal. It's illegal for under 18s to view pornography.

 

Originally posted by Tweek:
 That is only on TV, radio has no watershed as people who complain about swearing on Radio Four before 9pm get told    Not that there is a lot.

And indeed, a similar incident with British DJ Sara Cox and guest Ali G (I forget exactly what was said, but it was ruder than Stern) resulted in a basic slap on the wrists, and nothing else.

[Reply #31 on:]

 

Ah god bless Channel 5 with their evening erotica on Fridays.

On Channel 5 it's called 'Erotica'. On Sky, it's called 'Prime Time Entertainment' 

[Reply #32 on:]

 

Originally posted by sheep555:
What the general public wants isn't necessarily the right thing. The vast majority of middle aged males in Britain (40-50) would quite like to see 16 year old teenagers naked. Middle aged males make up a sizable amount of the British population. So does that mean they should get their 16 year old naked girls?

If they want that they have to get The Sport, I have never read it myself, I read The Telegraph, but I recall a bit a a fuss when a few years ago The Sport had pictures of a large chested fifteen year old and a count down to her sixteenth birthday when they showed her topless.

[Reply #33 on:]

click here to read the bill, and click on the image to go sign the petition to prevent this bullshit from passing through Congress' system:

------------------

Please edit your sig to 120 pixel height max.
[This message has been edited by Administrator [-mArc-]

[Reply #34 on:]

But that's my point! The 1st amendmant is not to be taken at face value, because if it was I could argue that it was legal for me to publish child porn.

     

Originally posted by Tweek:If they want that they have to get The Sport, I have never read it myself, I read The Telegraph, but I recall a bit a a fuss when a few years ago The Sport had pictures of a large chested fifteen year old and a count down to her sixteenth birthday when they showed her topless.

I was teching a play a few weeks ago about a slob, and in one scene he reads the Daily Sport (whilst carrying out something perhaps not suited to discussion here. especially considering the person playing the slob was female) - the actor had to physically read every single page in order to make sure when she opened it she wouldn't burst out laughing - it's a hilarious paper. Going marginally off topic, I was a Guardian reader, but switched to the Independent when they came out in tabloid size.

[Reply #35 on:]

I signed that petition for one reason... I have no problems censoring (to a point) television. But you know what they'll try to censor next right? The internet.

[Reply #36 on:]

They can't censor the internet, it's too big and too widespread for one (or a group) of companies to control. Sure, they can take down big sites and moderate them, but there are so many others that they can't deal with.

[Reply #37 on:]

 

Originally posted by NoAPOlogies:
But you know what they'll try to censor next right? The internet.

Not going to happen. China Tried. China Failed.