FCC: Over 99% of indecency complaints are from ONE group

Discussion in 'After Hours Lounge (Off Topic)' started by Chris Lockwood, Dec 7, 2004.

  1. John Miles

    John Miles Stunt Coordinator

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2000
    Messages:
    237
    Likes Received:
    0
    I changed the post to cite iD Software and Doom because that better reflects the statistics I was able to find quickly. I remember seeing one graph from the FBI that was published in David Grossman's anti-entertainment jeremiad "Stop Teaching Our Kids to Kill" that showed the overall national downward trend beginning in the early Eighties. It must have been a real case of cognitive dissonance for Grossman, and I'm still amazed he published it. What, exactly, are we trying to "fix" here?
     
  2. Elinor

    Elinor Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2004
    Messages:
    559
    Likes Received:
    0
    >"They aren't. That's what bugs me about the whole thing: our newfound sense of moral outrage is directed at a perceived statistical problem that doesn't even exist."

    WTF? What micro-time period are you looking at? A 5-year trend?

    I can tell you without any shred of doubt, when I was in school, things like Columbine did not happen. In the last month in Baltimore, there were something like 5 shooting incidents in/around schools. That never happened in the 60s and 70s, or before.
     
  3. Tony Whalen

    Tony Whalen Producer

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2002
    Messages:
    3,150
    Likes Received:
    0

    But hasn't the media always sensationalized such things? I still remember a case where a kid killed himself over Dungeons & Dragons, and suddenly there was near-hysteria with the media (and certian fundamentalist groups) about D&D causing kids to become devil-worshippers and making them suicidal... heck it STILL has negative connotations to this day. D&D didn't cause the problem...nor did DOOM cause the tragedy at Columbine.

    Wow...I think we're getting off topic. At least I certainly am. [​IMG]
     
  4. Jason Seaver

    Jason Seaver Lead Actor

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 1997
    Messages:
    9,306
    Likes Received:
    0
    It's only tricky because we're allowing free speech to be put to something vaguely resembling a vote.
     
  5. Tony Whalen

    Tony Whalen Producer

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2002
    Messages:
    3,150
    Likes Received:
    0

    I'd suggest you go read the article Elinor. I'm in the midst of it right now...
     
  6. Ricardo C

    Ricardo C Producer

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2002
    Messages:
    5,060
    Likes Received:
    0


    Now I'm fully convinced you are just trolling.

    No one here has asked for more of anything. We are not sex addicts who just "gotsa have it" on TV. All we're arguing in favor of is freedom. Freedom to choose, freedom to watch, freedom not to watch, and freedom from having someone else's values imposed on us. If you really don't understand this point, then I'm afraid I have nothing further to say to you.
     
  7. Elinor

    Elinor Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2004
    Messages:
    559
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ricardo, the point you seem to be missing, is that the content of tv is regulated. If you want freedom, you have to change the law. As it currently stands, you do not have the choice of any content you want. The law, which was quoted word for word above, says indecent, profane, and obscene content is, in varying degrees, prohibited or restricted to certain times. It does not say "if there is no rating or warning provided." It cites the times that the material is allowed to be aired.

    I never said YOU wanted more sex and violence. I was giving an example. If someone wants more football, or more cooking shows, they have every right to express that too.
     
  8. Jason Seaver

    Jason Seaver Lead Actor

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 1997
    Messages:
    9,306
    Likes Received:
    0
    Of course, it's also silent on the definition of "incecent, profane, or obscene". The prevailing guideline, I believe, is "community standards", which gets back to the original point of the thread - an extremely small group of people is creating an impression of a community standard that is, in fact, skewed from reality.
     
  9. Tony Whalen

    Tony Whalen Producer

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2002
    Messages:
    3,150
    Likes Received:
    0


    Exactamundo. [​IMG]
     
  10. Ricardo C

    Ricardo C Producer

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2002
    Messages:
    5,060
    Likes Received:
    0


    And there we go [​IMG]
     
  11. Jason Seaver

    Jason Seaver Lead Actor

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 1997
    Messages:
    9,306
    Likes Received:
    0
    And, also, to further hammer the point home, even after these people have artificially inflated their numbers, they are still a vanishingly small percentage of either the audience that did watch the shows in question, or could, which indicates that the FCC was overstepping what bounds they had by levying puntative fines.
     
  12. Glenn Overholt

    Glenn Overholt Producer

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 1999
    Messages:
    4,207
    Likes Received:
    0
    Tony, that's not so off-topic. If the FCC is going to regulate anything, why don't they clean up the news broadcasts a little?

    Worse than CSI or L&O, they show things that really happened. I think that if a school shooting had occured in the '60's, you wouldn't have heard about it because the news on TV wouldn't have broadcast it - out of respect for the parents. Now they don't respect anybody.

    The community decency standards over what is ok to watch is all screwed up too. I can say that for myself, I'd like to have everything on TV. If I owned a station and did that though, I'd be in trouble because it takes more than just my oinion, yet when the gavel comes down in the courtroom it is one judge that determines if it was decent or not.

    Having said that, if you don't like what you see on TV, (as we all know), we can turn the channel or turn it off.

    Glenn
     
  13. Ken Chan

    Ken Chan Producer

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 1999
    Messages:
    3,302
    Likes Received:
    0
    It simply had not happened yet. To put it another way, there's a first time for everything. (And let's not forget, lots of good things happen for the first time too.) The plain fact of the matter is that we constantly have new people (kids in that case) with new ideas. Unless there is a huge change in the human race -- a lot bigger than anything the FCC can do -- it is inevitable that someone will try to top Columbine. Technological advances may enable the attempt. Whether they succeed is another matter.

    But the shock of this new escalation has no real bearing on the larger trend of youth violence overall. It is entirely possible that the total number of incidents clearly decrease, but among that smaller number are a few very showy events. Does that mean that "kids are more violent"? That depends on what you mean. Clearly "more kids are violent" is false. "The most violent kids are more violent" might be true, but once they cross a certain line (total disregard for human life), aren't you really measuring audacity instead of violence?
     
  14. Dave Poehlman

    Dave Poehlman Producer

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2000
    Messages:
    3,817
    Likes Received:
    0


    The dirtiest thing said on television: "Ward, you were a little hard on the beaver last night"
     
  15. Glenn Overholt

    Glenn Overholt Producer

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 1999
    Messages:
    4,207
    Likes Received:
    0
    That was bad, Dave.

    As to the statistics, they never say that they have been adjusted for our population growth. I think we've gained about another 100 million in the last forty years. That should allow for a 50% increase in crime that really isn't an increase at all.

    But again, leave it to the TV news to sensationalize it!

    Glenn
     
  16. Malcolm R

    Malcolm R Executive Producer

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Messages:
    12,647
    Likes Received:
    549
    Real Name:
    Malcolm

    Yep, now that the Peterson trial is over, I see one network is digging up Jon-Benet Ramsey again.

    Outside of the family, who gives a crap? Enough already!
     

Share This Page