Jump to content

Sign up for a free account to remove the pop-up ads

Signing up for an account is fast and free. As a member you can join in the conversation, enter contests and remove the pop-up ads that guests get. Click here to create your free account.

- - - - -

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

  • You cannot start a new topic
  • Please log in to reply
75 replies to this topic

#1 of 76 OFFLINE   Chris Lockwood

Chris Lockwood


  • 3,215 posts
  • Join Date: Apr 21 1999

Posted December 07 2004 - 06:12 AM

Anyone who thinks the public at large is rising up to complain about broadcast "indecency" needs to read this:


#2 of 76 OFFLINE   Jeff Ulmer

Jeff Ulmer


  • 5,593 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 23 1998

Posted December 07 2004 - 06:22 AM

That's not really surprising.

#3 of 76 OFFLINE   Andrew Bunk

Andrew Bunk


  • 1,825 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 02 2001

Posted December 07 2004 - 08:29 AM

That's just sickening. These are indeed small, small people if they feel the need to waste their lives trying to make broadcasting more puritanical than it already is.

End rant. Posted Image
My DVD, Blu-Ray and HD DVD Collection @ DVDSpot

#4 of 76 ONLINE   Jesse Skeen

Jesse Skeen


  • 4,108 posts
  • Join Date: Apr 24 1999

Posted December 07 2004 - 08:31 AM

I'm extremely disappointed that there hasn't been such a group formed to protest the use of continuous onscreen logos on TV networks. I find THAT indecent and offensive, and a misuse of public airwaves.
Home video oddities, old commercials and other junk: http://www.youtube.com/user/eyeh8nbc

#5 of 76 OFFLINE   Jimi C

Jimi C


  • 1,209 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 22 2004

Posted December 07 2004 - 08:36 AM

Im going to go way out on a limb and assume you own a rptv or a plasma..

#6 of 76 OFFLINE   CRyan



  • 1,244 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 09 1999

Posted December 07 2004 - 09:58 AM

Thats about right. Although, I am curious how they know this. BTW, I own an LCD and a DLP and find them outrageous. Part of the reason I have stopped watching broadcast TV altogether. C. Ryan

#7 of 76 OFFLINE   Jay H

Jay H


  • 5,678 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 22 1999
  • Real Name:Jay
  • LocationPittsfield, MA

Posted December 07 2004 - 11:13 AM

I think Abe Simpson must be part of that PTC group!

Posted Image
You are the crispy noodle in the vegetarian salad of life

#8 of 76 OFFLINE   StephenHa


    Second Unit

  • 364 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 28 2003

Posted December 07 2004 - 11:22 AM

I find most of the shows on tv not worth watching in the first place so I can't be offended it's on something I want to see. Most groups like that will go out of their way to find something indecent (like if the Cleavers were in the same bed heaven forbid back in the 50's)if it wasn't for tv they'd be complaining how we're ruining their children in another way, if it keeps up they may just have to learn their names too (the kids names that is)I wish people would stop worrying about how I raise my kids and worry about themselves then maybe the whole world would be better

#9 of 76 OFFLINE   Keith Plucker

Keith Plucker


  • 1,079 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 04 1999
  • LocationSacramento

Posted December 07 2004 - 01:20 PM

The title of this thread is incorrect. From the article...
As I read that, only about half came from that group. A staggering percentage none the less, but far from 99.9% unless you ignore the JJ incident. That being said, finding out a tiny minority of organized people, aka a special interest group, has a large affect on government policy is certainly nothing new. We have seen it going on for years in regards to the legislation media companies helped push through. AARP is also quite active on behalf of their membership. Heck, we could probably go on and on. It is really just business as usual. -Keith
As far as I'm concerned, it's a damned shame that a field as potentially dynamic and vital as journalism should be overrun with dullards, bums, and hacks, hag-ridden with myopia, apathy, and complacence, and generally stuck in a bog of stagnant mediocrity. - Hunter S. Thompson, 1958, from cover letter he wrote for a newspaper job.

#10 of 76 OFFLINE   Glenn Overholt

Glenn Overholt


  • 4,207 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 24 1999

Posted December 07 2004 - 02:23 PM

I don't read that like you did. It looks to me like they didn't have the numbers for the PTC for Janet's malfunction, and left it out. However, I think it would be nice to complain about the complainers the next time something pops up - or pops out! Glenn

#11 of 76 OFFLINE   Seth Paxton

Seth Paxton

    Lead Actor

  • 7,588 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 05 1998

Posted December 07 2004 - 03:02 PM

Should we be mad, or inspired. Posted Image

Someone run to kinkos, stat. We are going to get AMC turned around after all. Posted Image

The numbers on the JJ aspect read as though they don't have the amount, or that since it was a special situation they didn't include it. They aren't saying that 500K people weren't PTC, just that of the 500K NON-SB complains, 99.9% did come just from the PTC.

The SB situation was obviously a special situation and didn't make sense to be included when looking at the day to day standard types of complaints received.

It could be that the PTC still sent in 400K of the 500K Super Bowl complaints too, but for the article they aren't dicussing the figures from that unique situation.

#12 of 76 OFFLINE   Chris Lockwood

Chris Lockwood


  • 3,215 posts
  • Join Date: Apr 21 1999

Posted December 07 2004 - 04:44 PM

> The title of this thread is incorrect. From the article... Let me help with your reading comprehension. The article also says this:
That is exactly what the thread title says. What part of that is unclear?

#13 of 76 OFFLINE   RobertR


    Lead Actor

  • 9,632 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 19 1998

Posted December 08 2004 - 02:00 AM

I think it's generally the case that these kind of complaints, be they complaints about "decency", "insensitivity", or being "offensive" to some, come from a limited number of people, and don't necessarily represent the views of people in general.

#14 of 76 OFFLINE   Holadem


    Lead Actor

  • 8,972 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 04 2000

Posted December 08 2004 - 02:09 AM

You're saying the exact opposite of the what your quote of the article stated. -- H

#15 of 76 OFFLINE   ThomasC


    Lead Actor

  • 6,526 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 15 2001

Posted December 14 2004 - 01:59 PM

This is the worst. I can't believe this. From IMDB:

#16 of 76 OFFLINE   Tony Whalen

Tony Whalen


  • 3,150 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 29 2002

Posted December 15 2004 - 04:58 AM

God forbid people should just shut off their TV if they see something they find objectionable. Posted Image

That Olympics one just takes the cake. I watched the opening ceremonies, and the "painted" figures (no idea if they were nude, or wearing body-stockings) were simply amazing and very artistic.

#17 of 76 OFFLINE   Elinor


    Supporting Actor

  • 559 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 29 2004

Posted December 15 2004 - 05:20 AM

>"God forbid people should just shut off their TV if they see something they find objectionable." Well, sure. I used to say that too. And I thought the whole JJ thing was way overblown. But I haven't watched network tv in a long time ... probably about 7 years or so. Til recently, I've added an OTA antenna for local HD channels. I watch a few network shows occasionally. The crime type shows. I'm watching Cold Case a week or so ago, and the female lead says something about a guy "feeling her up". Then I'm watching CSI, and I see a row of vibrators sitting there. Now, I'm no prude ... at least I don't think so. But I just don't feel language and images like that belong on early to mid prime time programming. Not only have I begun to understand the groups' protests ... I pretty much agree with them. I would not have any reasonable expectation of such language in a show airing at 8 p.m. And I don't have kids ... but if I did, I'd be very likely to complain very vocally to FCC and the networks involved.

#18 of 76 OFFLINE   Jeff Ulmer

Jeff Ulmer


  • 5,593 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 23 1998

Posted December 15 2004 - 05:41 AM

Who do we complain to to get more indecency on TV? Posted Image

We can have violence a plenty, but god forbid we see some flesh. Just which is harming our society more? Posted Image

#19 of 76 OFFLINE   ThomasC


    Lead Actor

  • 6,526 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 15 2001

Posted December 15 2004 - 08:13 AM

I remember those figures/dancers covered in body paint, and I'm pretty darn sure they had their unmentionables covered up. Colin Quinn made a great joke about the Super Bowl incident on Comedy Central's Last Laugh '04 (this is not verbatim at all, but the point is still there): "I don't see what the big deal was. The people that complained about it said that the Super Bowl is supposed to be a family-friendly event. What about all the commericals for beer, Viagra, Levitra, and Cialis? If I down a few bottles and pop a pill, I sure as hell want to see some titties."

#20 of 76 OFFLINE   Ricardo C

Ricardo C


  • 5,060 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 14 2002

Posted December 15 2004 - 09:03 AM

Let me get this straight... You're watching CSI, and a "row of vibrators" offends you, but you're totally ok with the endless parade of decomposed bodies and gory flashbacks? Posted Image

And I don't watch "Cold Case", but isn't it also a cop show dealing with unsolved crimes?

If sexual content doesn't belong on "early to mid prime time programming", then neither do scenes of rotting corpses and graphic murders. To complain about one and not the other is a little hypocritical.

Maybe TV manufacturers need to make the OFF button a bit more visible.

Man, an hour wasted on this sig! Thanks, Toshiba! :P

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users