Democrats & Liberals Archives

FCC and Bush: Redefining Obscenity

Last week President Bush signed into law the Broadcast Decency Law (link) telling broadcasters to “take seriously their duty to keep the public airwaves free of obscene, profane and indecent material”. I wondered to myself: what was Bush’s definition of obscene, profane and indecent?

For Profane the definition is, in part:

adj 1 “Characterized by profanity or cursing; "foul-mouthed and blasphemous"; "blue language"; "profane words" 2: not sacred or concerned with religion;”

So since the famous “seven words you can’t say on the air’ haven’t changed and are already governed by the FCC rules, the new law must pertain to the second variant of the definition. So by the second variant, the bar for profanity is purely measured by its effect on the religious community, not the community as a whole. What ever happened to the community standard?

In researching the religious standard for broadcasting I went to CBN (Christian Broadcasting Network) to understand how they measured it.

According to their website:

CBN is a multifaceted nonprofit organization that provides programming by cable, broadcast and satellite to approximately 200 countries, with a 24-hour telephone prayer line. …. Seen in 96% of the television markets across the United States, the show's news/magazine format presents a lively mix of information, interviews, and inspiration to an average daily audience of one million viewers.

CBN is nonprofit, yet clearly states that they produce news shows.

Christian World News is a half-hour weekly news program devoted to the work of the Holy Spirit around the globe. Produced by CBN News,

The fun part is that CBN and CBN News do not take advertisements. CBN and CBN News pay for their airtime separately, like an infomercial does. Does that make CBN and the CBN News the same as the Ronco Rotisserie? My guess, in the eyes of the FCC, they are.

Then one must accept the fact that CBN News is not real news in the eyes of the FCC.

But offensive, profane and indecent is the bar. It’s a shame that lying isn’t included on that bar too. Oh yeah, you might throw in murder. Promoting murder should be included on the bar also.

Because if lying was part of the new law, then this administration would have to fine itself for promoting fake news. Fake news is lying and Fake News has been produced, promoted and distributed by this administration. (link).
Also, more Fake News has been produced and distributed by corporations that produce and distribute their product. (link). So corporations that want to promote a new drug will produce a fake news segment and distribute that fake news to local affiliates for air.

So I guess we’ve determined that lying is okay and naughty words are not.

How about promoting murder?

When Dan Rather leads off his newscast with a story that wasn’t, to say the very least, fact-checked by any journalistic standard, he was strung-up, stripped of his job and neutralized. Yet, Pat Robertson can promote the murder of a standing head-of-state (link) . Pat keeps his job and keeps his FCC license to broadcast. That’s odd.

So promoting murder isn’t a bad thing either.

So as I understand the new rules for the new American Broadcasting Standards ; you can say anything you want about anyone you want as long as you don’t say those seven words. You can promote murdering a person, claim that you’ve discovered the fountain of youth or hawk a product as news and all is good. But say a naughty word or show a nipple and you’re done.

Gotta love the new obscenity standard.

Posted by john trevisani at June 20, 2006 2:39 PM
Comments
Comment #159599

Hmmmm…Isn’t censoring speech one of those government intrusions conservatives are supposed to hate?

Posted by: BillS at June 20, 2006 2:59 PM
Comment #159606

This is an absurd post…

If lying was a criteria, then there would be NO news…

If people don’t watch, it will die…

Roberts is still on because people will watch it.

Dan Rather was removed because his ratings stunk…

A better post would begin with,
It’s all
fake news…

Posted by: Cliff at June 20, 2006 3:22 PM
Comment #159617

News and truth are in the eye of the beholder. Dan Rather proved that as do Republicans and Democrats daily. News is anything that paints the party in a good light and the opposition in a bad light. This blog is an excellent example.

Really, is lying a Republican problems or a government problem? The answer is obvious for anyone who does not worship at the alter of a party.
I am impressed this bit of news was turned into a thread about truth and honesty. Cleaning up the language in the communication industry is a positive step since they do belong to the people. Much like I shouldn’t be forced to smoke a cigarette just because you do in a public facility; I shouldn’t be forced to listen to filthy language because you have the need.

Posted by: curmudgeon-at-large at June 20, 2006 3:55 PM
Comment #159622

curm:


Much like I shouldn’t be forced to smoke a cigarette just because you do in a public facility; I shouldn’t be forced to listen to filthy language because you have the need.

So let me understand you correctly; you’d rather have fake, manufactured news reports as long as they do so without ‘filthy’ language?

Fake news is fake. The result of fake news should be abundantly clear on forums like these. i don’t know how many times i’ve heard regurgitated RNC snippets described as fact. Yet… as long as you don’t use the naughty word, it’s all okay.

Last i heard, they haven’t added any new words to the 7 naughty word list. i guess someone finally added the eighth word to that list: “truth”.

Posted by: john trevisani at June 20, 2006 4:06 PM
Comment #159629

The smoking in public/profanity on airwaves analogy is weak.

If you don’t like what you hear or see, change the channel. If you don’t want your kids to hear/see it, use the V-chip (now mandated on all televisions). Censorship is un-American. Personal responisbility is American. No one controls what is broadcast in your home but you.

Posted by: David S at June 20, 2006 4:24 PM
Comment #159637

Excellent post John T, I could not have put it better myself. We the People, anybody remember that line? Just like the one’s about the right to free speech and the pursuit of happiness these all seem to be unimportant to the new ultra rightwing!!

In the GOP’s grand scheme to reverse all gains made socially in the last 50 years, our rights as Americans take a back seat to the rich elites who pay to have the privledge to change our constitution and re-write 30 years of law and regulations that save lives and keep us healthy and safe.

Instead those who can pay big bucks to the GOP election campaigns are now allowed to polute our environment, send our good paying middle class jobs to China to save themselves pennies. They steal money from our federal, state and local govs leaving our schools underfunded, our communities lacking basic services, our infrastrucuture crumbling… all the while the uber-corporations are making billions of dollars in profits from 300% increases in energy costs, driving up gasoline, propane, natural gas and electrical prices!!!

This is just another step to remove one more chunk of our lives, make the poor poorer and the uber-rich richer!!

Posted by: Dave in NorCal at June 20, 2006 4:38 PM
Comment #159640
The smoking in public/profanity on airwaves analogy is weak.
Mainly because smoking in public can have a measurable (though minimal) negative effect on others, while profanity is based off of what people choose to freak out about. Posted by: SirisC at June 20, 2006 4:50 PM
Comment #159641

“So let me understand you correctly; you’d rather have fake, manufactured news reports as long as they do so without ‘filthy’ language?”

John,

What does filthy language have to do with truth??? The article had nothing to do with truth but with cleaning up communications. Does a few well placed F-bombs make truth? Howard?

Truth is subjective and rarely not biased. According to the DNC, Bush is Hitler and the #1 enemy of the US. You would think the DNC is completely helpless and never had a vote.

According to the RNC, the war could not be better and everything is on schedule. The truth is somewhere between the two, but you feel free to drink their Kool-Aid. Say hi to Dan & M. Moore while your are getting your “truth”.

Posted by: curmudgeon-at-large at June 20, 2006 4:51 PM
Comment #159645

If the President wants to censor material, he might want start on the Senate floor.


Right Dick?

Posted by: Vincent Vega at June 20, 2006 5:02 PM
Comment #159647

There has always been a distinction between cable television and broadcast television and I don’t see any reason to change that. If cable programming continues to take the low road, parents have the ability to control their children’s access to this programming in their home. Broadcast television is, in my opinion, intended for a more general audience and it is reasonable to expect compliance with standards.

Given the current lineup on broadcast TV,I don’t see how anyone can say that diverse, silly, slutty, and low humor is underrepresented.

Janet Jackson’s boob was the vehicle for this issue. Although I don’t think an aging divas breast can bring down American civilization, it is reasonable to expect family friendly fare when watching an American icon such as the Super Bowel.

Posted by: goodkingned at June 20, 2006 5:06 PM
Comment #159649

What the F***k ar you talking about you M***er-F***ers?
You can kiss my G**d**mn *ss and poke a stick up your **ss*s.
The real test of what is profane is not any particular words or gestures.
It is intent. Scatological references are as American as F**cki** apple pie. This is just another example of BUSH&CO attempting to create a distraction.
I believe it was Supreme Court Judge Warren Burger who said “I can’t define pornography,but I know it when I see it”.
Way to go warren,you would have loved the internet. I am still amazed that when cable television came out people feared the invasion of smut in their homes. Nothing happened.

Humans have always had a split view on what constitutes profanity. Abraham Lincoln was perhaps one famous example of a vulgaian who was also remembered as a great speaker. In the long run,he will not be remembered as “the guy who said” You lousyF***K A**”.

Posted by: jblym at June 20, 2006 5:17 PM
Comment #159652

goodkingned,

“Janet Jackson’s boob was the vehicle for this issue. Although I don’t think an aging divas breast can bring down American civilization, it is reasonable to expect family friendly fare when watching an American icon such as the Super Bowel.”

I agree with that. But who gets to decide what is indecent? I think the 700 club is indecent. There are certain lines that should not be crossed on public TV, but there are also fine lines. Who decides on these?

Posted by: Vincent Vega at June 20, 2006 5:22 PM
Comment #159662

goodkingned

If it’s reasonable to expect family friendly fare when watching the super bowl, how about when watching the Family Channel? I have a eleven year old and a seven year old and I cannot believe some of the language and subject matter on this and other supposed children’s programing. No, I don’t like censorship, but I would like some TV to be appropiate for a seven year old to watch without a parent sitting by with one hand on the remote. Children’s programing leaves a lot to be desired.

Posted by: mark at June 20, 2006 5:46 PM
Comment #159663

curmudgeon (appropriate name, by the way)-

Why is it that if you don’t like it you can’t just turn it off? I have yet to hear a sound argument that says you are somehow forced to watch/hear something you label as obscene.

Posted by: David S at June 20, 2006 5:47 PM
Comment #159668

David S,

If I am watching something that I reasonably wouldn’t expect to be obscene, and then something obscene is shown, it is too late to turn it off since I have already been exposed to the obscenity.

Granted, I think if hearing a swear word once is a problem for someone, that someone has much deeper problems.

Posted by: SirisC at June 20, 2006 5:52 PM
Comment #159670

David S

I agree turning it off is a good solution most of the time, but some programing(such a channel that calls itself the Family Channel or others that target young children)should be able to be watched without the worry of seeing or hearing anything that comes anywhere close to be indecent or obsene.

Posted by: mark at June 20, 2006 5:56 PM
Comment #159686

This is a non-Bush issue…but you all probably don’t realize that.

The “media” have NEVER had 1st Amendment rights.

There has ALWAYS been censorship in the media.
So is it a JFK issue? An LBJ issue? An FDR issue? A Herbert Hoover issue?

When I first got into broadcasting in the late 60’s, the fine for “Indecent, obscene, profane or superflous” (superflous is defined as personal messages broadcast over the air) broadcasts what $500 and/or 1 year in Federal Prison.

Yes, you could go to Federal Prison for saying “FUCK” on the air. And you would be in the same cell with a guy whose name ends in a vowel and is in the pen for killing 12 people in 3 states because his Godfather told him to.

Then, the FCC (Federal Communications Commission) lightened up a bit in the ‘70’s and made it a $7,000 fine for each instance of saying one of the “7 Words You Can’t Say On TV”.

Last year saw the fine go up to $14,000 PER INSTANCE…then $32,000 PER INSTANCE.

Now it’s $325,000…PER INSTANCE.

Now, let’s look at that in its proper perspective.

If you play the song “Back That Ass Up” by Juvenile…and it says “Youz a fine motherfucker, won’t ‘cha back that ass up” a total of ten times in the song…you have a potential fine of $3,250,000 for playing that song ONE TIME!

It’s not completely Bush’s fault, although many of you would like to (wishfully…and incorrectly) think that.

Blame the FCC.

Blame the president who created the FCC.

Blame the Geneva Treaty of 1947.

Blame those that are unable to record a song without “motherfucker” in it.

Blame Congress.

There’s plenty of blame to go around without hoisting it all on Bush’s shoulders.

Posted by: Jim T at June 20, 2006 6:18 PM
Comment #159700

SirisC and Mark-

All television channels are required to post ratings on all programming, and those ratings are what can trigger the V-chip that is undoubtedly in your television set. Set the chip up and be amazed at how well it works, blocking anything that is outside of your ratings guidelines.

As far as the Family Channel is concerned, I’d love to hear what was broadcast on there that you found offensive. Teenagers holding hands? Kissing even??

Posted by: David S at June 20, 2006 6:38 PM
Comment #159718

“Why is it that if you don’t like it you can’t just turn it off?”

David,

Will you command me to leave the restaurant if I don’t like the smoke as well? Public airways my friend. Not to mention, you don’t always know when it is coming. (see Superbowl) What purpose does cheap language serve anyhow?

Posted by: curmudgeon-at-large at June 20, 2006 6:57 PM
Comment #159732

Bush is the obscenety.
I like thi being a troll 4 a day, no need to speel chek, no logik. Just dumm stuf.

Posted by: Dave at June 20, 2006 7:11 PM
Comment #159749

curmudgeon-

I also believe that bars and restaurants should be able to decide independently if they allow smoking or not, and that consumers and employees can decide whether or not they want to eat/work there accordingly. Personal choice = personal responsibility.

However, there is a major difference between lung cancer and whatever possible ill effects you can dream up for seeing a boobie.

Posted by: David S at June 20, 2006 7:30 PM
Comment #159764

Hey folks you miss the point. We’re turning the clock back to the Ozzie and Harriet days when there were no such things as spousal abuse, incest or homosexuality. Just the way god intended.

Keep it in the closet, PLEASE! That’s what god intended when he created the USA and the TV.

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at June 20, 2006 7:52 PM
Comment #159771

I know we need to somewhat keep it clean here, but in all honesty, how many here remember the comments they heard on the street after the “booby slip”?

Most of what I heard here in Kansas was derogatory comments regarding black people. Mostly referencing apes, monkeys, etc.

I’ll always wonder if the outrage would have been as great if the “slip” had involved someone like Brittany Spears. Think how long Cher has dressed provocatively for TV performances.

It just seems like an odd point at which for the camels back to give out.

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at June 20, 2006 8:05 PM
Comment #159782

I find it funny that we can find words and sexality profane yet violence isn’t. In Europe nudity is the norm and violence is not , sex is natural and murdering each other is not. No wonder we get no respect from other countries, With so much other problems we face e.i. poverty, rising deficit, lower wages, war, and so on that we take on t.v

Posted by: michele at June 20, 2006 8:19 PM
Comment #159834

David S,
Regarding Family Channel content; Foul language,fourteen year olds making out, this in a program advertised for young children. Yes, I turned the channel but it was too late. It was rated TV G.

michele,
I absolutely agree. the violence on TV(and movies) does much more damage than sex and obscene language. If adults want to watch this content they should be free to do so but it should not be on programing aimed at children.

Posted by: mark at June 20, 2006 10:09 PM
Comment #159860

Its pandering time again,
I really missed it,
Im glad were gonna vote this year.


Posted by: j2t2 at June 21, 2006 12:28 AM
Comment #159923

—every one now will become christian by proxy how does that grab you. King George has proclaimed it. Next thing we will have the net. anointed. farwel,robertson & Co. Posting the regulations @ the bottom of this page.

Posted by: DAVID at June 21, 2006 4:20 AM
Comment #159929

DAVID:

I’m sure that there were lots of nonfundal, not particularly religious people who didn’t want to explain the erectile dsyfunction commercials to their eight year olds during the Super Bowl. Everything isn’t about religion.

Posted by: goodkingned at June 21, 2006 4:37 AM
Comment #159930

DAVID

Sorry, The above should read:

I’m sure that there were lots of nonfundamental, not particularly religious people …

Posted by: goodkingned at June 21, 2006 4:40 AM
Comment #159933

—Although I am a Christen I am a very strong supporter of the separation of Church an State . I do not use profanity but I do not judge others as to what they should say. I also believe the rules are quiet plane on this site. I do not otherwise care two dead flies about people who lie an spin and just make asses of themselves. For certain they can not be christian an the Internet generally is not a good place for religious discussions!

Posted by: DAVID at June 21, 2006 5:26 AM
Comment #159935

“Hide this nipple I can’t see.” - Tartuffe (from memory).

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at June 21, 2006 5:49 AM
Comment #159938

curmudgeon-at-large,

Much like I shouldn’t be forced to smoke a cigarette just because you do in a public facility; I shouldn’t be forced to listen to filthy language because you have the need.

I’m sorry, I didn’t know that when I turn on my TV I’m actually controlling your too.
Pardon me.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at June 21, 2006 5:54 AM
Comment #159939

Naughty words never killed anyone, while lies, guns corruption and incompetence all already have.
But, yeah, sure, obscenity is the #1 enemy of America these days, let’s fix that now.

What a bunch of hypocrital political moves!

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at June 21, 2006 6:06 AM
Comment #159942

“I’m sorry, I didn’t know that when I turn on my TV I’m actually controlling your too.”

Ok Philippe, with this logic I will know ask (since I have been labeled religous)the Prez. to declare all progammming to be nothing but religous in nature at this point. Don’t worry, we don’t plan on controlling you in any way.

While I am at it, I will ask Washington to stop all government activity until lies, guns corruption and incompetence have all been eliminated. Wait, are those not the charcteristics of every government?

Actually, I like your idea, Bravo.

Posted by: curmudgeon-at-large at June 21, 2006 8:03 AM
Comment #159943

I knew that the Republicans would eventually pass legislation that could be used against them. Now it will be more expensive than ever to show boobs on TV.

Posted by: heartland at June 21, 2006 8:06 AM
Comment #159944

Depicting a homosexual couple on television is offensive to many. Does anyone remember the outcry to Will and Grace and about the kiss between Madonna and Britney?

It is my belief that this whole ‘family values’ charade is a load of crap. Although this administration, with all of its religious zealots (ref: Ashcroft’s covering of the lady justice and Bush’s numerous biblical references related to evil doers) is really just pandering. But the end result is; religion i running, not supplementing our society.

As i’ve stated, the 7 deadly words haven’t changed and they will not. If you use them; you’ll be fined. Yet, it’s perfectly okay for someone to get on the air and use their show (Pat Robertson) to promote the assassination of a standing head-of-state. And it’s okay to create VNR (Video News Releases) and pretend that they are REAL news items.

It’s really a sad commentary.

Posted by: john.trevisani at June 21, 2006 8:10 AM
Comment #159945

curmudgeon-at-large,

Ok Philippe, with this logic I will know ask (since I have been labeled religous)the Prez. to declare all progammming to be nothing but religous in nature at this point. Don’t worry, we don’t plan on controlling you in any way.

As I’m not slave of my TV nor do I receive any america broadcast here in France, go on.
Just notice that AFAIK I didn’t labeleld you as religious and I fail to see how one free mind can be controlled via TV programs. TVs are electricity powered devices that even a 3 years old know how to turn on and off. There is so much more source of information and entertainment than TV. TVs are not happyness pills, nor they were designed for babysitting our kids.

While I am at it, I will ask Washington to stop all government activity until lies, guns corruption and incompetence have all been eliminated. Wait, are those not the charcteristics of every government?

Stopping all activity doesn’t sound like the best way for any government to fight these issues, as TV obscenity law doesn’t sound the #1 issue US gov should focus on now. Except, obvioulsy, that’s an election year.
Still no law planned to stop US public debt depth “obscenity” ?

Actually, I like your idea, Bravo.

You’re welcome.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at June 21, 2006 8:20 AM
Comment #159947

Perhaps I’m just being a bit naive here, but has anyone ever actually conclusively shown any harmful effects on anyone from material deemed obscene, indecent, or profane?

I don’t know about any of you, but I have never personally been harmed in any way by any words or images in my entire life. Maybe I’ve just led a sheltered existence, but I don’t think so, considering that I’m no saint; in fact, as a young man I clearly remember actually seeking out such material. Maybe I’ve just been lucky, and the dastardly image that’s gonna get me is lurking right around the corner, waiting to pounce when the moment is right. Perhaps I should buy some duct tape and seal myself in here…

It’s so nice and comforting to know that a group of people stand ever vigilant to use tax-payer money to protect my family and I from threats that could possibly, kinda almost hurt us in an mentally-offended sorta way, sometime (maybe).

Perhaps next they’ll crack down on those damn vendors who sell ice cream much, much too cold, as that has a tendency to make my head feel funny as well for a few minutes. I’ve even heard stories of children being exposed to this…I shudder to think of the consequences on their impressionable little minds. How will I explain it to them? Oh for the love of god, how?!? Forever scarred by the deep-frozen icy treats, doomed to recoil in fear at the tinkling repetitive music of the trucks that deliver them to their next round of innocent, unsuspecting victims.

Please remember to write your congressmen about this ever-growing threat to our country’s youth before it’s too late, they apparently have nothing better to do right now.

Posted by: Liberal Demon at June 21, 2006 8:49 AM
Comment #159956

Liberal Demon,

LOL.

PS: Beware of corners, you never know, both obscenity and ice cream truck could be hidden right around!

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at June 21, 2006 9:27 AM
Comment #159961

Is it my imagination, or are the majority of those that support censorship on television, doing so on behalf of their children? I hear “Childrens programming this” and “Childrens programming that”.

As an adult, if you’ve made it through the public school system you’ve heard and know “every” meaning of all 7 of the words not airable on television. If you’ve watched more than one hour of news, you’ve seen more real violence than any depiction of it in a drama. If you’ve been successfully able to shower or use the toilet in daylight or with the lights on, there are very few body parts that may accidentally be shown that will frighten you. That being said, this has got to be about the children, so I have a suggestion:

Be ready to explain things, or simply stop letting your kids watch so much television!


Posted by: DOC at June 21, 2006 10:24 AM
Comment #159963

Well said, DOC.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at June 21, 2006 10:29 AM
Comment #159966

Being curious, I’ve just check this famous 7 words list that are bleeped in broadcast networks: no wonder average french are considered vulgar!


Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at June 21, 2006 10:38 AM
Comment #159974

DOC,

We do appreciate your input on raising our children, BUT as long as I am responsible for my little crumb-crunchers, I will push to clean up our broadcasting (I agree with the reduction on violence as well). Hollywood and the major networks do not own the airways, we do. Your elected leaders supported the ban, therefore you have as well.

It is not a coincidence that American society has become more hateful and vulgar in the last 20-30 years. Television has led the way. I see no need to follow in the footseps of France or any other EU nation. My wife is frome France, and they obviously have their own issues. Keep the Tour de France going, and I will be greatful.

Posted by: curmudgeon-at-large at June 21, 2006 11:10 AM
Comment #159975

curmudgeon-at-large,

I see no need to follow in the footseps of France or any other EU nation. My wife is frome France, and they obviously have their own issues. Keep the Tour de France going, and I will be greatful.

Regarding TV programs, we’ve a rate system similar to your PG rate, where a symbol is overlayed in the right bottom corner during all the program.
People are warned, but programs are not censored.
It make a difference, no?

Off topic, why so much people on this blog seems to have a french wife!?!

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at June 21, 2006 11:20 AM
Comment #159983

CAL - Based on your comments, it seems unlikely that you have had much exposure to the broadcast industry as a business.
Not to be contradictory, BUT the fact is, the airwaves do not belong to you, or to us, they belong to the sponsors. You have little chance of truly affecting content from as a political agenda item, as most often those issues compete with the first ammendment rights of the artists. You stand a better chance at getting “something” accomplished from a consumer standpoint, but I would still assume that it would be very little.

Posted by: DOC at June 21, 2006 12:02 PM
Comment #160078

DOC,

I am still naive’ enough to think government is for me as well. Imagine that.

Posted by: curmudgeon-at-large at June 21, 2006 4:28 PM
Comment #160091

DOC

“Be ready to explain things,or simply stop letting your kids watch so much television”

I completely agree with the above , however, as one of those who was complaining about children’s programing, I also resent it. My children, as a general rule, are allowed to watch no more than one hour of TV per day, usually with an adult. I don’t consider this too much television. When they are watching shows marketed to young children(under ten) that end up having obscenities or referencing sexual situations I strongly object. Yes, I can and do turn off the TV. The point is I shouldn’t have to censor a program aimed for a seven year old because of offensive, vulgar content. I am no prude when it comes to adult programing but when it comes to children’s programing some standards of decency need to exsist.

Posted by: mark at June 21, 2006 4:59 PM
Comment #160093

Words can’t hurt people.
Words can offend people, but only the closed-minded.
Nipples can’t hurt or offend you.

So I’ve never understood laws such as this.


curmudgeon,

We do appreciate your input on raising our children, BUT as long as I am responsible for my little crumb-crunchers, I will push to clean up our broadcasting

If what is broadcast on television or radio affects your children in any way shape or form, it will be because you let it affect them.

If they see or hear something that you don’t want them to, it’s your own fault for not having any control over your own children in the first place.

Television is not an “extra parent” but so many treat it as one these days.

Posted by: TheTraveler at June 21, 2006 5:01 PM
Comment #160092

c-a-l Oh! See now, we do have something in common.

Posted by: DOC at June 21, 2006 5:01 PM
Comment #160098

I’d add that, the things you heard or saw on the playground are the same things your kids hear and see on the playground.

Kids tend to follow the lead of their parents on unknown issues. If a nipple pops out while watching a program with thier kids, most responsible parents will refrain from any sexual reaction. I mean you wouldn’t likly hear “Oooh Janet, Yeah Baby, Show that nipple”. There are those parents who jump up and turn red or make a big show of disgust, which the children will pick up on and mimic. Then there are a few that will look for a reaction in the child, and make a determination accordingly.

I watched the Janet-wardrobe malfunction. My 8 year old was sitting right next to me. Right after the nipple shot, he looked at me, and giggled. I giggled back. And that was the end of it.

I’m not saying all parents can do this, but you should make a decision on how you want your kids to respond to this kind of stuff. You can’t prevent it from happening. The question is, Which do you prefer?; that it be learned about in the home, or on the street.

Posted by: DOC at June 21, 2006 5:17 PM
Comment #160116

Mark - Agreed. If it says TVY it should be TVY and not TVPG or TV14. You have a valid point that if the rating is incorrect the station should be strongly reprimanded by the viewers.
In this type of situation I would contact both the local station and the network. If a network is persistent, I would escalate to my congressional reprepresentatives.

Posted by: DOC at June 21, 2006 6:01 PM
Comment #160138

The biggest threat to the media is not obscenity, it’s becoming right-wing. Right-wing companies like Rupert Murdoch’s “News Corporation” already control much of what we see and hear.

Now the large media conglomerates want to combine even further (you can read about it on www.thenation.com). Liberals and independents have had less and less ability to get their political views out as the press and media become increasingly conservative. Even PBS now is being “foxicized.”

Think the internet is safe? Well, not if the telecom companies have their way and abolish net neutrality.

The reason why the average American is so brainwashed and seen as stupid is largely because a few corporation get to decide what we see and hear.

Real republican crimes like selling out our country, massive corruption, lying and propaganda get glossed over while people get riled up over things like obsenity on TV and other supposed liberal evils.

Posted by: john at June 21, 2006 6:57 PM
Comment #160227

DOC
Thanks for the advice on what to do if I feel children’s programing has gone to far. I will follow up next time I see something like this happen.

Posted by: mark at June 21, 2006 9:50 PM
Comment #160238

Instead of trying to keep the airwaves free of obscenities GWB should concentrate on keeping them free of false advertising. It’s bad enough when corporations lie to us about their products but now the politicians have started their garbage. Republican candidate for Govenor in Michigan Michael Devoss has already spent several million(he is heir to the Amway fortune) telling us how he is going to save Michigan. He says he will create jobs here even though he moved most of Amway’s to China!

Posted by: mark at June 21, 2006 10:05 PM
Comment #160338

Mark - I hope you don’t find me insincere. I would be livid if I found a family program to be incorrectly labeled. I have 3 children and 2 grandchildren. Luckily the twins are turning 26 and the youngest is almost 11, and my GC’s are 3.5 and 3 days.

Protect. Love. Advise.

Give.


Posted by: DOC at June 22, 2006 2:07 AM
Comment #160381

DOC

Not at all. I appreciate your point of view. Congratulations on becoming a grandfather! I see your up at 2 a.m., are you helping with the grandchildren?(Did the twins both have babies on the same day or is there another set of twins?)

Posted by: mark at June 22, 2006 7:19 AM
Comment #160415

Mark - Spending time with my 3.5 year old Grandson, while his Mom and new sister recover from the big show.

Posted by: DOC at June 22, 2006 10:03 AM
Comment #160420

RELIGION IS OBSCENE!

Posted by: capnmike at June 22, 2006 10:22 AM
Comment #160428

To all,

Why is it that I can see a hairy man-nipple on T.V. but not a womans?
Why is it O.K. to watch people getting tortured and killed but not a nude lezbian scene?
Why is it that we can see the dead face and autopsy pics from dead terrorist but not flagged draped coffins of American heroes?
Why is it that I can watch “shock and awe” but not nude poker tournament?
Hypocrisy and far right kooks.

Posted by: Andre M. Hernandez at June 22, 2006 11:20 AM
Comment #160444

Andre, well, I guess sex and wasted lives are more obscene to some than plain violence and hate.

Obscenity is very subjective.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at June 22, 2006 11:58 AM
Comment #160455

Phillipe,

Religion is subjective and we need to follow the far rights version of god.
Obscenity is subjective and we now have them dictating that to us too.

Posted by: Andre M. Hernandez at June 22, 2006 12:51 PM
Comment #160584

This discussion rapidly turned from Bush’s action to fake news and personal standards. Something that needs to be considered; however, is why he urged, supported, or acted as a major advocate for the plan. The fact is that despite his personal views on the subject of broadcasting content, the President has to appease some block of voters in order to draw support from them.
According to many posts the president has violated church/state neutrality. That may be true, if his decision is interpreted to signify that. Another way to look at it is: he wants to draw support from some Americans in a vastly divided country. The president’s personal opinion does not need to concur with what he does. If lobbyists on behalf of reliously oriented interest groups request a tighter control on broadcasting or want more religious programs to be introduced then with sufficient efforts they can succeed. The counter-action to requesting more religious programing or, in other case, requesting more, as previously defined, obsene programs does not exist. If it did then it would go beyond the protection of freedom of expression, so the champions of freedom of speech could never stand behind a request to add more obsene material; it is not what they are concerned with.
Culturally defining obsenity is difficult due to the multitude of opinions, even in this multiladder forum. I can only assume that the majority of the liberal opinion leans away from a strictly regilious view and towards a “healthy living” position. There is no guarantee that major networks will go along with the new action, and embrace relious broadcasting without fear of turning off at least a small portion of their viewers.

Posted by: Konstantin Chaykovskiy at June 22, 2006 4:54 PM
Comment #160711

Jesus was crucifyed for all of you He died on a cross.I just want you all to know that Jesus’s Holy spirt lives in my soul.That is not religion but my life thank GOD.That is what you folks don’t know that He is the one that makes dislike all bad words and I would give up T.V. or anything else that the Lord tells me too.

Posted by: Sylvia Oliver at June 22, 2006 8:56 PM
Comment #160784

Sylvia

Jesus did not die, He lives.

Posted by: mark at June 22, 2006 10:46 PM
Comment #160925

All the TV Stations had to do was to threaten to just shut down till Bush put the ink pen down and if he signed that Bill just go ahead and destroy the transmitters and close the doors.

They own the equipment not the Government and the owners have the money to retire.

It would not bother me a bit if the Brainwashing politcal ads could not be Slammed into my living room.

Since it will never happen I’m sure the networks will not brodcast many republican ads, this is just what the Dems needed a good ol fashioned Backfire aginst the GOP!!!

Thanks Bush you all right!!!

Posted by: Ice T at June 23, 2006 12:13 PM
Post a comment