FCC: Over 99% of indecency complaints are from ONE group (1 Viewer)

[Holadem]

The ultimate paradox of American culture.

--
H

 

[Kirk Gunn]

Chalk one up for the "good guys".

http://www.broadcastingcable.com/CA488198.html


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

 

[Glenn Overholt]

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

 

[Malcolm R]

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.

 

[Jason Adams]

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

 

[Richard Kim]

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

 

[RobertR]

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.

 

[Elinor]

>"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?

 

[Ricardo C]

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.

 

[Tony Whalen]

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.

 

[Tony Whalen]

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?

 

[Elinor]

>"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.

 

[Ricardo C]

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.

 

[Tony Whalen]

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.

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".

 

[Jeff Ulmer]

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.

 

[Elinor]

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 )

 

[Glenn Overholt]

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

 

[Tony Whalen]

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

 

[Elinor]

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.

 

[Tony Whalen]

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.

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.