Is the FCC tough enough — or not enough — on network TV?

older polls Forum

TALK OF THE DAY

Is the FCC tough enough — or not enough — on network TV?
By Kurt Greenbaum
03/15/2006 4:44 pm
Who can forget the reason why the words “Janet Jackson” and “Super Bowl” will be forever linked in our collective memory? The “wardrobe malfunction” on live network TV resulted in a $550,000 fine against 20 CBS stations. That fine was upheld today by the FCC.

Plus, the agency also proposed a $3.6 million against dozens of CBS stations and affiliates for airing the graphic depiction of “teenage boys and girls participating in a sexual orgy” on an episode of “Without a Trace,” according to the story.

FCC chairman Kevin Martin said: “The number of complaints received by the commission has risen year after year. I share the concerns of the public — and of parents, in particular — that are voiced in these complaints.”

Is Martin speaking for you? Or does this kind of regulation butt up against freedom of speech? Do you make a dinstinction between what can be aired on stations you can get only by paying a fee (i.e. cable or satellite) and the broadcast stations that can be viewed for free?

Way too tough in every way.

-HECK!

These are bad choices, what if you think they go too far? We live in a country of prudes that are so scared of their own sexuality that they go and bomb other countries to compensate for it.

Way not tough enough! I have a 10-year-old-girl and an 8-year-old boy who don't need to see flashing mammaries and that brainless chick lathering up a car and making love to it—not during primetime network TV, anyway.

Showing a human body is one thing but insinuating sex or passion seems to be taboo. Traveling the world for the last 15 years, I have seen TV ads in many countries that have no problem showing a naked woman taking a shower. The ad was for the shower stall not for sex. There is a difference.
This country is a land of prudes because we associate naked flesh with sex and not as a natural part of life.
I think we need to lighten up and quit being so extreme with our censorship laws. However, showing sexual inuendos on prime time is not acceptable.

I don't know when America found it had a divine right to television. If there were only ads or programs that didn't offend anyone, it would be dead air.

I've gone over the Nipplegate incident a few times and to be quite honest I think seeing a partially covered nipple for a half second is a lot easier for children to see over a Theisman-like career ending injury.

Bottom line- you don't like something, don't watch it. The remote allows us all to change the channel or turn the thing off if we don't like what we see. It is that easy.

-HECK!

Best sollution: Gives each individual family the option to select the censorship in their homes. But don't blindfold the country.

I would agree but then let's not forget the 'moral majority', the right-winger religious groups that issue quarterly statements bashing shows they deem 'offensive.'

-HECK!

I don't understand how this is the ACLU's fault when the people that are looking to tighten the noose of standards hail from the religious right.

Seeing television in other countries, it's increasingly clear that Americans are prudes. From sanitized war coverage to idiotic furor over the exposure of a breast, I wonder how these people survive.

It's not all Americans, not even the majority, it's just the *****y, uptight sheltered bible thumpers.

-HECK!

They are too tough. The Puritans started America and their overwhelming prudishness lives on.

Oops, I meant 'Puritan,' not 'Protestant.' I'll change it.

The real problem is the complainers would rather have a bunch of crappy shows like My Three Sons and Leave It to Beaver dominating the airwaves.

Not necessarily. Most people that I know of who are very strict just don't want everyone jumping into bed and tongue wresting every two minutes. That stuff can take the time slots after 9.

Well, a lot of us Right Wingers will watch far out stuff. Or Conservative Democrats.


I would use Battlestar Galactica or 24 as an example. Or even CSI or Melrose Place or Soprano's or Sex in the City.


The main deal here, in my view, is that children under the age of 10 shouldn't be seeing that stuff. As an adult, I can differentiate between whats real and whats fantasy and what is escapism and what is moral code.


I love 24, but I wouldn't let my kid watch it, if he was under ten. (If I had a kid.)


However, parents rights are also important and if someone wants to let there 6 year old child watch SAW 2, it's their right to do so. The thought is horrifying to me, that a parent would do that, but we all draw the line in different places.

Which brings us full circle to the ratings. Parents who want to shield themselves or their children from sex and violence on T.V. or video games, have a decent idea of what to avoid. The old liberal argument, turn the channel if you don't want to watch it, well a lot of us do that.

We don't watch Fear Factor or CSI because we see the rating and know what the show is about and don't want to see it.


The super bowl was rated general audience, and was supposed to be free of nekkid boobs. A nekkid boob appeared. Myself, I have a high threshold for nudity, I didn't mind it so much. I watch R rated movies and don't get offended to easy.


But the nekkid boober violated the rating on the show. I'm glad the FCC did something about it, but they only did so because of the uproar.


To sum up: It's about ratings and Parental rights. Parents have the right to raise children to watch whatever they want, nudity, violence or lack thereof, and the ratings system helps parents and/or adults make a decision.

I don't think there should be any ratings, I think it just promotes laziness, much like the attitude that anything animated is for kids. I bet I could slip Hentai onto a daytime slot and mom would walk right past the TV without even paying attention. That's the real problem; as for the boob, it's just prudish in my eyes because it's a boob. Now if Justin Timberlake were licking that boob, then I could understand.