PBS Feels FCC Chill On Censorship 1037
Shadow Wrought writes "The San Francisco Chronicle is reporting on PBS censoring one of its upcoming drama shows, Cop Shop, due to the chilling effect of the most recent FCC rulings on indecency. Star Richard Dreyfuss offered these choice words as part of a prepared statement, 'It is inescapably censorship under guidelines imposed after the fact by those who are in temporary political power, and so it should be treated as what it is -- a real-world moral and ethical battle with grimly wrongheaded, un-American types who play pick and choose when they define our freedoms of speech and religion as it fits their particular political needs.'"
Wrong poster child (Score:3, Interesting)
3 no-nos bleeped from new crime drama -- Richard Dreyfuss blasts government censorship
And further down the article:
The cuts prompted executive producer and writer David Black and Dreyfuss to whip out prepared statements before facing the nation's TV critics here on Friday.
Tonight on PBS: the world's smallest violin plays "My Heart Bleeds For You".
I'm no fan of corporate-owned media, and the whoring of the airwaves by the likes of FOX. Today's "Reality shows" remind me of the government-run pornography industry in Orwell's 1984 -- a handy way to distract the masses from reality (election? what election?).
But I doubt that "Cop Shop" is going to be the poster boy for government interference with free speech. I suspect that the star and producer have no higher goal than propping up their show's ratings. They had a prepared statement -- the press release crying "censorship" was composed before the show was even screened. That tells me that the show needs propping up by the controversy, because it's likely to fall down under its own pompous weight.
Of course, I could be wrong...
More censorship from Clear Channel, too (Score:3, Interesting)
How to Fix this (Score:2, Interesting)
BROADCAST EVERYTHING ONLINE! There's no censorship in these here hills.
Abandon your televisions, throw away your radios! Head to the hills, and bring your yagi!
Television needs to die. Corporate radio needs to die. These FCC rulings are just going to make that happen faster.
Re:Netcraft: PBS dieing (Score:2, Interesting)
Well, that's no secret. I don't like government-supported media at all because of the potential influence they can have in the content.
On another note, the article seems to pretty much be a rehashed press release for PBS. No quotes from the FCC, no attempts to contact the FCC (that were mentioned), no opposing viewpoint at all. The bias is obvious.
Re:Howard Stern (Score:1, Interesting)
No joke. Why do people think that restricting their vocabulary to 7 special, magical, "sentence enhancers" makes them edgy, liberated, or some such nonsense?
Re:Netcraft: PBS dieing (Score:4, Interesting)
A couple of months ago, definitely post-Janet-Nipple, an episode of NYPD Blue used the word "bullshit." This was the hyped up episode which was supposedly going to feature a steamy love scene at the end, where they toned down the love scene, but didn't bother to edit out "bullshit."
Bullshit is right. One quote from the article that gave me a hearty laugh:
Re:Since when is (Score:3, Interesting)
1). That's the point... the rules have gotten so harsh now that people are going to start fighting it by going to the other end of the spectrum, it's the way you make a point...
2). Richard wouldn't have to pay... as the law is right now, each seperate PBS station would have to pay if it aired it un-edited.
3). PBS generally had a sort of "pass" when it came to the FCC, hence the reason they were able to air unedited version of Monty Python back in the 80's and 90's, including nudity and swearing. They did this with other things too. Not sure if it was some sort of real free pass, or just a "we won't look at PBS" type thing.
Finally... censorship has to go... it is getting ridiculous now. If a channel goes beyond what people like, they won't watch that channel. Let free market deal with non-family friendly stations.
Astonishing (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Boobs bad, violence is good (Score:5, Interesting)
Beyond stupid...
Second that! (Score:4, Interesting)
It's all about "he's just out to sell his book/movie", "get attention" or "to further his/her career". Either that or it's about who they hung around with 30 years ago. Or who they've had sex with. Or if they've ever used drugs. Or how they used to feel differently, and therefore must be hypocrites.
From following the so-called debate, you wouldn't think anyone ever said anything just because they actually believed in it. Or that it could actually be, that someone with personal faults could actually be right, and that a person with a spotless reputation could be wrong about something?
It just makes me sick. And anyone thinks this posting is itself partisan in any way*, they need to seriously start thinking about what democracy is supposed to be about.
* Not counting people who truly advocate totalitarian systems, of course
Re:Free speech? (Score:3, Interesting)
http://www.howardstern.com/oprah.html
Another reason why (Score:2, Interesting)
The fact is that anyone using public funds is (and should be) accountable to the government and held to stricter standards. If you find those standards unacceptable, don't accept the funding or the other freebies. And if you as an individual feel that the FCC is exceeding its bounds, feel free to express your displeasure in any of the many ways provided to you. Better yet, tell the government to stop wasting your money funding unwatched television stations and artists whose only visible talent is shock-mongering and obtaining NEA grants.
Neo-Victorians (Score:4, Interesting)
Someone here on
It's also germane to note that Mr. Limbaugh is NOT part of the Bush administration, so taking his views as though Bush said them is a mistake. You could say the same about Kerry and Al Franken. He's a bit of a nutjob, and everyone knows it.
Hamster
Re:Here we go .... (Score:5, Interesting)
But we can't deal with sexuality like adults because we're so hung up on appearing to be liberated. Who wants to appear to be repressed? The second you mention that maybe having having anal sex broadcast twenty four hours a day in Times Square is a bad idea, you're tarred as if you've just proposed mandatory ankle length bathing suits.
To put it smartly, we have a culture which pressures the sixteen year old boy to have sex in the backseat rather than hang on a few years until he has some vague chances of dealing with it in a capable way.
Re:Censorship is NOT Appropriate (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Let me see if I get this straight (Score:3, Interesting)
The FCC is not a tool of the executive branch, rather, it is an independent regulatory agency.
Next?
Re:Free speech? (Score:3, Interesting)
First of all, you're wrong about speech in public. The courts have ruled that emotive language, while potentially offensive, is protected speech. The trick is generally in how it's used. For example, slinging vulgarities at someone as an insult isn't going to endear you to the court. However, if you are using it in an emotive way to actually make a point, you've got a pretty good shot at "protected" status for your speech.
Also, one significant point that the courts made when ruling on the broadcasting angle, was that it was possible for broadcasters to burst in unexpectadly with "vulgar" or "offensive" statements that could surprise unwary listeners (the Super Bowl non-incident is a prime example). My question, then, is this: how does that apply to someone like Howard Stern? His broadcast is regularly syndicated at a specific time of day on specific stations. You must actively tune to those stations in order to hear him. Therefore, on what grounds does the FCC base persecution on Stern or similar DJs and media figures when the contents of their show are publicly known to be vulgar, and the contents are confined to specific times and stations?
Re:Here we go .... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Here we go .... (Score:2, Interesting)
Right, there's a slippery slope. There's definitely room for discussion. My post was intended to counterbalance what I felt was the OP's unnecessary panic.
> there never is.
Right, Fleischer found Maher's comment tasteless and was condemning it.
> United States is dedicated to being
> the most open and most free society
> ever created.
Hm.... is it? What does that mean?
> we can get away with a barely passing
> grade on free expression
Given the daily "I hate Bush, America is evil" content of the editorial pages of the NYTime and the Washington Post, I don't think we're in danger there.
Do as I say, not as I do (Score:3, Interesting)
I fail to see the logic of that.
r
pay close attention (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Free speech? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Netcraft: PBS dieing (Score:4, Interesting)
"e" (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Here we go .... (Score:3, Interesting)
A similar division is made in the updated table applying to Israel (1967 borders) and the Occupied Territories: in both cases the 'carving out' of these countries anti-journalist actions abroad has flattered their headline position.
Re:FUD (Score:2, Interesting)
So let's not allow TV to show that
That would be fine by me. Any of the areas that you or I listed if censored, wouldnt bother me. The benefits outweigh the possible ramifications. That is what is nice about democracy, you and I can both vote. Dont like democracy? Move to China or Cuba. Want to change things here? Than at least find out why the other side believes what they do. Otherwise you will never convince anyone. =)
I realize that I posted this at one of the DNCs main hangouts. I simply want to express my opinions on the matter and see if there would be any logical discussion. I know that this makes me "dumb" here but believe it or not, not everyone thinks the same way you do.
Patriot Act II: The Clampdown (Score:5, Interesting)
what about public libraries? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Here we go .... (Score:5, Interesting)
But back to censorship, two of the original infamous "seven" dirty words, the phrase "blow job", and the FCC...
What it comes down to (and this has been batted around so many times that I'm not sure why this latest PBS concession is news), is that public broadcasting stations have different standards that they have to adhere to than private (cable, scrambled satellite) broadcasters do. There are 2 main reasons for it: anybody can watch/listen, and no two communities have quite the same standards for what constitutes indecency as far as speech is concerned.
The reason that the FCC came out with the guidelines that they just about never have to enforce is so people in the more modest of these communities can watch television or listen to the radio during a certain timeframe without having to worry too much about seeing something that they might find offensive. Later at night (when most kids are sleeping), the rules relax, and there have been a number of similar concessions made over the years that have slowly allowed what would traditionally be considered risqe' words, apparel, or behavior to show up on public broadcasts.
It seems to fly in the face of the first amendment, but it is a long standing concession to the problems that decency standards and country-wide media programming have when they butt heads. I personally have no problem with the fact that boobs or other body parts may show up on TV, but I'd rather know about it ahead of time...that's me. I also have no particular problem with swear words (and the phrase "blow job"...whoever bleeped that one was a plain and simple asshat) on TV, although, again, advance warning would be nice. The system is there to protect those at the lower end of the tolerance-for-what-they-call-indecency spectrum. Yes, they can turn it off, or turn the channel, but should they *expect* to see some boobie with their superbowl? I know I didn't.
The reason I would like advance warning is that I consider the words to be a bit too rude to use in the company of people you don't know, and I don't want my kids to inadvertently see that happen. I'd like the opportunity to have them not watch that content until they're a bit older and a little more socially aware (probably 7 or so), and can actually discuss the words with me.
Some people think that's silly and uneccesary, and that's okay. Some people think it's too lax and irresponsible, and that's okay, too. Us disagreeing is fine with me.
So, since the f-word and the s-word are traditionally not heard on the airwaves (for various reasons), why is there so much commotion over the bleeping?
Re:Both parties equally guilty (Score:2, Interesting)
Hell yes! For starters, Michael Powell wouldn't be chair of the FCC. Name one thing that organization has done right under his tutelage.
I thought so.
Gore and Lieberman have been advocates of policies like labelling CDs which contain graphic, violent, or offensive content. And yes, I think that's bullshit, too. There is, however, a difference between giving something a scarlet letter versus burning it at the stake.
Instead what we have is a ridiculous, faith-based, ideological swing at the first amendment to the Constitution, which says, to paraphrase, with judicial review in play, that unless what you're saying is patently offensive or in some way endangers others, you can say whatever you want to say.
Now, we have the FCC running around pointing shotguns at all the broadcasters everywhere who are having a hard enough time just trying not to suck rocks, and now we have to worry about crap like this. It's not legislation, it's a balls-out threat. And all it will do is make folks like Clear Channel even more powerful because they can *afford* to pay fines. One little fuckup and a station the size of the one I work at is gone. My job has been explicitly threatened in memoranda on more than one occasion since this shit's gone down, and it's crazy. The memos basically say if the station is fined, you're fired, and the station won't send their lawyers to defend you against a personal fine should the FCC levee one (because, obviously, you've just been fired, so T.S.).