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.

Photo
- - - - -

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


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
75 replies to this topic

#21 of 76 OFFLINE   Holadem

Holadem

    Lead Actor



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

Posted December 15 2004 - 09:27 AM

Quote:
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
The ultimate paradox of American culture.

--
H

#22 of 76 OFFLINE   Kirk Gunn

Kirk Gunn

    Screenwriter



  • 1,612 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 16 1999

Posted December 15 2004 - 09:33 AM

Chalk one up for the "good guys".

http://www.broadcast...m/CA488198.html


Now that's a paradox- me referring to Stern as a "good guy".

#23 of 76 OFFLINE   Glenn Overholt

Glenn Overholt

    Producer



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

Posted December 15 2004 - 10:26 AM

Stern has never been a 'bad' guy. It's all freedom of speech. If you don't like what you are hearing, then change the channel or turn it off.

The same could be said for the Olympics, or the Super Bowl. Why cry if you miss a game?

And yes, violence is still cool, sex isn't. This still cracks me up.

Glenn

#24 of 76 OFFLINE   Malcolm R

Malcolm R

    Executive Producer



  • 11,674 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 08 2002
  • LocationVermont

Posted December 15 2004 - 12:34 PM

I would not have any reasonable expectation of such language in a show airing at 8 p.m.

There hasn't been a "family hour" at 8 p.m. for nearly 20 years. That parents are just noticing this now speaks volumes about their hands-off approach to child rearing.

Every TV or DVD player sold today has a V-chip or rating lock-out feature. LEARN TO USE THEM!

These tools are readily available but instead of using them, people just keep right on bitching.
The purpose of an education is to replace an empty mind with an open mind.

#25 of 76 OFFLINE   Jason Adams

Jason Adams

    Supporting Actor



  • 631 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 30 2002

Posted December 15 2004 - 03:01 PM

Quote:
These tools are readily available but instead of using them, people just keep right on bitching.

Its easier to bitch then to do something. How long does it take to program these things...5 mins tops?

#26 of 76 OFFLINE   Richard Kim

Richard Kim

    Producer



  • 4,389 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 29 2001

Posted December 15 2004 - 03:38 PM

Quote:
And yes, violence is still cool, sex isn't. This still cracks me up.


"Remember what the MPAA says; horrific, deplorable violence is okay, as long as people don't say any naughty words!"

#27 of 76 OFFLINE   RobertR

RobertR

    Lead Actor



  • 9,533 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 19 1998

Posted December 16 2004 - 02:02 AM

Quote:
And yes, violence is still cool, sex isn't. This still cracks me up.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Remember what the MPAA says; horrific, deplorable violence is okay, as long as people don't say any naughty words!"

Of course, in this day and age, we are told endlessly on this forum and other places that a person's subjective reaction trumps everything, which means that no one has any business telling anyone that he or she is "wrong" for being more offended by one over the other.

#28 of 76 OFFLINE   Elinor

Elinor

    Supporting Actor



  • 559 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 29 2004

Posted December 16 2004 - 02:44 AM

>"That parents are just noticing this now speaks volumes about their hands-off approach to child rearing."

Hmmm. I know it's fun to not read posts and just spout off whatever you like, but I'm pretty sure I said I'm NOT a parent. And I think I said I haven't been watching network tv for the past 7 years. I'm sorry, I disagree with you, before that there was plenty of decent entertainment in the 80s and early 90s.


>"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?"

Good point. The endless parade of decomposed bodies is not totally ok with me. I actually don't like it. But I've been seeing dead bodies on tv since I was a kid. Until a week or so ago, I had never seen a vibrator on tv.

Are you trying to say that content has NOT changed in the past 5 - 10 years? Or are you just trying to make me look like a hypocrite?

#29 of 76 OFFLINE   Ricardo C

Ricardo C

    Producer



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

Posted December 16 2004 - 03:06 AM

Quote:
Good point. The endless parade of decomposed bodies is not totally ok with me. I actually don't like it.

So why watch a show that focuses on forensic experts and ther work?

Quote:
But I've been seeing dead bodies on tv since I was a kid. Until a week or so ago, I had never seen a vibrator on tv.

1.) I've seen dead bodies on TV since I was a kid, too. But never with the level of realism and detail as shown on CSI. To pretend it's business as usual is a bit disingenuous.

2.) What is more visually shocking? A piece of phallically-shaped plastic, or a rotting human body being consumed by maggots? Personal opinion, of course, but I'd say the corpse wins on shock value alone.

Quote:
Are you trying to say that content has NOT changed in the past 5 - 10 years?

Not at all. COntent has indeed become edgier and more adult in recent years. And guess what? The ratings system and the V-chip were created to help viewers handle it.

If a child finds him/herself watching CSI and are traumatized, the parents failed, not the network.

If an adult finds him/herself offended by adult content in a show that announces it before the start of the show, they have no one but themselves to blame.

Quote:
Or are you just trying to make me look like a hypocrite?

You are being hypocritical by demonizing one form of adult content and giving the other a pass because you've become desensitized to it. Myself, I'd rather stare at vibrators than at a maggot crawling into a corpse's mouth. But when I choose to watch CSI, I know what I'm in for, so I don't get outraged when I inevitably get grossed out by this or that scene.

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

#30 of 76 OFFLINE   Tony Whalen

Tony Whalen

    Producer



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

Posted December 16 2004 - 03:15 AM

Sorry Elinor, but the fact that you watch CSI and other violent shows that display mayhem and murder, but you have a problem with the phrase "feeling her up" makes you sound somewhat hypocritical.

Sure network TV has gotten more graphic over the past few years. I don't think anyone would deny that. That's why there is a rating system.

That doesn't change my original opinion though. If you don't like it, don't watch it.

We're talking about shows that were written for a mature audience here...not programing that was designed to be "family-friendly".

As Malcolm stated, there hasn't been a "family-hour" at 8PM for years. Even if it were, parents should be perfectly capable of not allowing their children to watch such programming and/or pressing the OFF button. It's the parents' job to parent...not the televisions. (Obviously this doesn't apply to Elinor, as she's indicated she doesn't have kids...)

CSI certainly wasn't designed for young people. Heck, half the time in my broadcast area, it has warnings at the end of every commercial break that "This program is intended for a mature audience" ...is that only in Canada? Regardless, it's entertainment for adults.

Frankly, it TOTALLY boggles my mind that someone would have little or no problem with realistic "corpses" or violent on-screen gore, but inactive sex-toys sitting on a shelf offends them more.

Holadem nailed it....it's the ultimate paradox of american culture.

It's okay to display beheadings and dead bodies, but god forbid someone should see a nipple. HORRORS!

It's just silly...and I'll never understand it.

#31 of 76 OFFLINE   Tony Whalen

Tony Whalen

    Producer



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

Posted December 16 2004 - 03:22 AM

Quote:
So why watch a show that focuses on forensic experts and ther work?

Good point Ricardo. If a viewer doesn't like the "parade of dead bodies", nor sexual themes...I must also ask...

Why watch a program that focuses NOT ONLY on forensic investigators, but one that takes place in "Sin City" itself, where sexual themes are undoubtedly going to be encountered?

I'm not trying to slight you Elinor... I'm honestly mystified as to why you would watch the program?

#32 of 76 OFFLINE   Elinor

Elinor

    Supporting Actor



  • 559 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 29 2004

Posted December 16 2004 - 03:35 AM

>"It's okay to display beheadings and dead bodies, but god forbid someone should see a nipple. HORRORS!"

You fellas are just having a great ole time distorting what I am saying.

I said clearly that the JJ nipple thing was overblown. It was tacky, but overblown.

I see nipples every day. They don't shock me. *rolling eyes* Even on tv.

I don't know how many different ways I can say the same thing to try to extract understanding. Dead bodies on tv are not new. The rawer sex-related content is. Neither is good, but one is new. If you have been watching this stuff all along, it would not shock you, which would be the only reasonable explanation of why you continue to misunderstand. (The unreasonable explanation is that you are trolling, but I would err on thinking you are just having trouble understanding my english.) I am not a-twitter at the content... I am just shocked. I did not know this kind of stuff was being aired. I DO believe parents should be in control of what kids watch. I had no idea they would *have* to exercise control at 8 pm.

Why watch a show on forensics? Because it is interesing. Silly, but interesting. I actually prefer the more documentary type forensics shows, but my partner likes CSI, so it's on a few times a week.

Stop being so impressed with how clever you are, and listen to what I am saying.

#33 of 76 OFFLINE   Ricardo C

Ricardo C

    Producer



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

Posted December 16 2004 - 04:15 AM

Quote:
I don't know how many different ways I can say the same thing to try to extract understanding. Dead bodies on tv are not new.

Up-close, realistically rendered shots of decomposing dead bodies, are.

Quote:
The rawer sex-related content is.

And that's why shows now warn you as to what type of content to expect.

Quote:
Neither is good, but one is new.

They're often plot devices. Shocking, yes. But "bad"? Not really.

Quote:
If you have been watching this stuff all along, it would not shock you, which would be the only reasonable explanation of why you continue to misunderstand.


No one is misunderstanding you. Some of us just find your selective outrage a tad on the hypocritical side.

You said you find dead bodies less objectionable because you've been seeing them oin TV since you were a kid. As you also said, others have been seeing sexual situations on TV since they were kids. Your poeint of view has no more validity than mine or Tony's or anyone's.

The only real fact in this discussion is that ratings are available that let viewers know what to expect in a given show. To complain because the show actually lived up to its rating is pointless.

Quote:
(The unreasonable explanation is that you are trolling, but I would err on thinking you are just having trouble understanding my english.)

Well, I'm just a lowly foreigner with a poor grasp on English Posted Image, but I would say you just became the first person to troll in this thread.

Quote:
I am not a-twitter at the content... I am just shocked. I did not know this kind of stuff was being aired.

Again, did you miss the ratings code at the start of the show?

Quote:
I DO believe parents should be in control of what kids watch. I had no idea they would *have* to exercise control at 8 pm.

Parents should always be aware of what their kids are watching, 8pm or not. I don't need to have my entertainment choices influenced because Joe Fundamentalist can't spare the time to spend with his kids, but can spare the time to mass-mail the FCC.

Quote:
Why watch a show on forensics? Because it is interesing. Silly, but interesting. I actually prefer the more documentary type forensics shows, but my partner likes CSI, so it's on a few times a week.

You made the choice to watch, knowing that "adult content and language" was to be expected. As Tony said before, not sure why anyone would be shocked to find sexual content in a cop show set in Vegas, of all places.

Quote:
Stop being so impressed with how clever you are, and listen to what I am saying.

I am listening. And my conclusion is that your selective outrage is contradictory, and that you are aware of this but choose to stick to your guns for some reason. I also think that your support for the PTC's actions is misguided.

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

#34 of 76 OFFLINE   Tony Whalen

Tony Whalen

    Producer



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

Posted December 16 2004 - 04:26 AM

Quote:
Stop being so impressed with how clever you are, and listen to what I am saying.


My, that wasn't condescending at all... Posted Image

I might say the same thing to you. Listen to what I'm saying.

I wasn't specifically referring the the Janet Jackson thing...so perhaps I should have said "breast" or "penis" or something other than "nipple". (And yeah, the JJ thing was WAY overblown...)

My POINT, which perhaps I didn't communicate well, was that American culture villifies showing the human body, yet celebrates violence in all it's forms, and that's really rather backwards.

It's okay to see dismembered body parts and maggot-ridden bodies, but a breast (or god forbid, genetalia) sends people (not necessarily directed at YOU Elinor) into shock. Silliness...

Quote:
Dead bodies on tv are not new.


Realistic dead bodies on TV most certainly are. At least when it comes to dramatic television, and not TLC documentary stuff. I don't know about you, but the first few times I watched CSI I was pretty shocked and amazed at the detail on the corpses, and the gory flashback shots.

The question that was posed DIRECTLY to you was how can you be offended MORE by a phallic-shaped bit o' plastic sitting on a shelf than you can be by a rotting corpse or parade thereof. THAT was the main point. Posted Image Not the degree to which you were put-off, but why was a (not-in-use) sex-toy (or the phrase "feeling her up") more shocking than the realistic violence and/or corpses?

How can you be shocked by one thing, but brush off another because you've seen it before? That's contradictory.

*IF* sexual content did offend me, I'd be more upset over the CSI episodes that show scantily clad women and chrome-plated poles, or the episodes that feature "Lady Heather" than I would be over vibrators on a shelf.

Quote:
I had no idea they would *have* to exercise control at 8 pm.


Is there some rule somewhere that says parents don't have to exercise control over their youngsters until a certain hour? Shouldn't a parent always be aware of the activites of their children?

Again, there hasn't been a "family hour" in the time period in question for a long time now. You yourself admitted you haven't watched network TV for years. Posted Image

Again, that is why there is a rating system on television programs these days, and why there are warnings about "mature content" preceeding the program.

Boy, I hope you never watch "The Sopranos". Posted Image

#35 of 76 OFFLINE   Jeff Ulmer

Jeff Ulmer

    Producer



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

Posted December 16 2004 - 04:28 AM

Sorry guys, but Elinor has every right to be upset with one form of content and not another. We all have our own set of values.

When it comes to the kids, I do think parents should be objecting to graphic content, regardless of whether it is violence or sexual in nature. It is disturbing that we as a society can become desensitized to graphic violence, but a discussion of that will lead me out of forum bounds. It is also disturbing that the portrayal of nudity is as skewed as it is. It is a question of balance.

As to having one group being able to dictate what I can and cannot watch - THAT I find objectionable. The FCC should register the complaints, but file them for what they are - focused lobbying. perhaps if they set up a commendation center where people who condone what they are seeing can write in they could weigh the complaints. Again, there is no balance. The system is decidedly undemocratic.

#36 of 76 OFFLINE   Elinor

Elinor

    Supporting Actor



  • 559 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 29 2004

Posted December 16 2004 - 04:29 AM

Ok, let's continue on a bit.

Do you ever wonder why kids are more violent? Is there a chance that it is at least partially caused by violence in entertainment?

Do you wonder why most kids today are sexually active before HS graduation? Is there a chance that it is at least partially caused by the increased sexual content in entertainment?

Do you believe violence and promiscuity among children is a good thing?

Do you believe ratings are an effective control measure for tv?

Do you blame the parents for everything bad that happens?

Are you a parent?

Should we want less violence/sex among our children?

How could we accomplish that?

Before you criticize them, tell me why they are wrong to do what they are doing (the letter writers).

Personally, I think violence and sexual activity among children is bad. I think the causes are many but firmly believe there is a reciprocating relationship between a society's culture (art, entertainment) and its behavior (violence, etc.). Meaning, entertainment/art reflects what is going on AND influences it. It is not the entire cause. Just one of many. I think you fix problems a little bit at a time. I think one of those bits just might be campaigning against gratuitous violence/sex on tv. They are the public airwaves ... they should be used to promote the public good, in a consensus of what is acceptable. You want violence and sex, rent a DVD.

Yes, I am part of the problem if I select one of these shows to watch. (If someone else controls the remote, I absolve myself of blame Posted Image )

#37 of 76 OFFLINE   Glenn Overholt

Glenn Overholt

    Producer



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

Posted December 16 2004 - 04:40 AM

But isn't being 'ok' to watching violence and 'not ok' to watching sex the norm? That is what we have been force-fed for the last 50 years.

What happened to JJ wasn't bad. It was just that following the traditions of TV since it started forbid it. I would like to hear someone argue that seeing JJ's body part was bad.

I can watch all of the crimes shows and make a book, no, an encyclopedia, on ways to kill people. Which is worse and why hasn't the FCC done anything about it?

The whole system is hypcritical. It has warped millions of little minds that grow up and continue to think that violence is ok.

So seeing a row of toys is shocking in that it isn't the norm. We don't see things like that every day. We see the automatic rifle rip 50 bodies apart, but that is ok. The toys are just pushing the envelope a little farther.

No one except the viewer (or their parents) should dictate what is aired over the broadcast waves. The censorship is the problem, not the content.

Glenn

#38 of 76 OFFLINE   Tony Whalen

Tony Whalen

    Producer



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

Posted December 16 2004 - 04:54 AM

Quote:
Sorry guys, but Elinor has every right to be upset with one form of content and not another. We all have our own set of values.


No one is questioning that right. What I'm saying is how is one thing more offensive than another?

Or perhaps a better question is, if you KNOW the program contains "mature content", and you get exactly that, should you be angry with the network/program/writers, or with yourself because you watched a program you were TOLD contained such things?

People who watch mature-programming, and then get offended at the content of such simply mystify me.

Once again... if you don't like it... change the channel. God, we have hundreds to select from these days...should be something there for everyone's tastes. Posted Image

Quote:
As to having one group being able to dictate what I can and cannot watch - THAT I find objectionable.

On that we TOTALLY agree Jeff. Posted Image


Now, on to Elinor's post....

Quote:
Do you ever wonder why kids are more violent? Is there a chance that it is at least partially caused by violence in entertainment?

Sure there is a chance. There is also a chance that due to the reality of todays economics, lots of kids don't have a full-time parent at home, and are left to their own devices. There is also a chance that some parents tend to think of a TV/computer/gamesystem as a babysitter of sorts. There is also a chance that some parents don't monitor their childrens activites.

Quote:
Do you wonder why most kids today are sexually active before HS graduation? Is there a chance that it is at least partially caused by the increased sexual content in entertainment?

I can't speak for anyone else, but kids were pretty sexually active when I was in high school. Not because of what was on TV, but because it was "forbidden" and because it felt good. Is there a chance that increased sexual content in entertainment is a factor? Sure there is a chance, but show me some hard numbers and/or facts that prove it.

Even then, should such numbers exist, I still maintain that kids are going to do "it" because it feels nice...and because they aren't supposed to. Posted Image Does that mean I support it? Hardly. But it DOES mean I'm a realist. Posted Image

Quote:
Do you believe violence and promiscuity among children is a good thing?

Posted Image

Quote:
Do you blame the parents for everything bad that happens?

Everything? No. For blaming other forces (networks, movies, music, computer games) for their child's lack of social skills and/or bad behavior? More likely...yes. (Every generation has had it's demon when it comes to poor behavior of kids... rock music... dungeons&dragons... television... etc)

Quote:
Are you a parent?

Why? Does it invalidate my opinion if I'm not? I'm a responsible adult with his own informed opinions...so why does that matter?

Quote:
Should we want less violence/sex among our children?

My...such loaded questions. Can we even answer this in more than one way?

Quote:
Before you criticize them, tell me why they are wrong to do what they are doing

Because they are a minority that is attempting to tell the MAJORITY what they can and cannot watch.

Today's television has ratings. Todays TVs have V-chips. If a parent uses neither of these resources, and lets their child watch a program that traumatises them, is that the fault of the network, or the parent?

More importantly, because that child has now seen something objectionable, does that mean the parent can tell ME that I can't watch the program in question?

That is the issue at hand.

Quote:
They are the public airwaves ... they should be used to promote the public good, in a consensus of what is acceptable. You want violence and sex, rent a DVD.

Posted Image I can't even formulate a response for that attitude. So because they are "public" airwaves, there mustn't be anything offensive on them? Wow...just...wow.

Okay... I think I'll take more of a back-seat with this little debate. We could try to make our points to each other for pages and pages here...we're not going to change one another's viewpoint. Posted Image

Quote:
The censorship is the problem, not the content.

Summed up the entire problem in a single sentence. Thanks Glenn. Posted Image

#39 of 76 OFFLINE   Elinor

Elinor

    Supporting Actor



  • 559 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 29 2004

Posted December 16 2004 - 04:54 AM

Well, here's something to consider.

The OP said that the majority of indecency complaints are from the PTC. Well, surely they have a particular gripe about that kind of content. That is their prerogative.

I don't think the article looks at or considers that they very well may be a large source of complaining about violent content too ... but obviously violence offends a broader cross-section of the population. So the protest percentages would not be as skewed.

#40 of 76 OFFLINE   Tony Whalen

Tony Whalen

    Producer



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

Posted December 16 2004 - 05:05 AM

Quote:
I don't think the article looks at or considers that they very well may be a large source of complaining about violent content too ... but obviously violence offends a broader cross-section of the population. So the protest percentages would not be as skewed.

No offense Elinor, but can you show me some numbers that indicate this, or sources that can back this claim? Or is this your opinion?

I don't think (in North America) that violence offends people NEARLY as much as sex, nudity or sexual situations/innuendo. But that's just my opinion. Posted Image

Of course if something offends YOU, Elinor, you have every right to protest about it. Don't misunderstand my debate-filled posts here.

However, while someone has every right to state their preference, they don't have the right to tell me what MY preference is, or prevent me from watching something I enjoy. That is why people are annoyed with the PTC in reference to this article. Posted Image


Back to After Hours Lounge



Forum Nav Content I Follow