Comments on: The FCC is a (expletive deleted) joke

By: Derek

Derek — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 00:57:32 +0000

I’d say you should send this argument to the FCC, but naturally nothing would change. Great system!

By: Eduardo

Eduardo — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 05:23:25 +0000

There’s no doubt that whenever an episode like this happens, you can be sure it’s politically motivated.

The Super Bowl was a victim of political timing. If this had happened in a less conservative period, the FCC wouldn’t have as much of a reason to take on this censorship mode.

This whole process has a starting point. It began 10 years ago when the Clinton/Lewinsky scandal broke out. Once the neocons were fueled by that story, there was no stopping them.

This reminds me of a Simpsons episode, when Apu was being deported. For no reason at all, Helen Lovejoy started screaming “Think of the children!” as a way to push the mayor into enacting some political changes that would favor her group. Children’s welfare can become a convenient excuse whenever you want to push a political agenda.

By: Stef

Stef — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 08:14:01 +0000

My wife was working in the US at the time of the superbowl ‘incident’. She honestly couldn’t understand the brouhaha. It left her with a great impression of the country.

So you are watching a sport where the commentators and crowd go orgasmic when players violently slam into each other as hard as possible, 10 guys flattening 1 guy with (or without) the ball is always a bonus. But when PART of a breast is shown, the country falls to pieces.

The quote in the article says:
[which the FCC found “titillating and shocking.”]

Isn’t that the FCC’s problem? Shouldn’t they seek psychological help if they find 3 second shot of a pair of buttocks “titillating and shocking.”?

We’ve had plenty of similar problems in the past with the BBFC. It was a dark day when they started censoring video games too. My favourite was a game in the mid-1990s when they forced the company to remove throwing stars (as they were against BBFC rulings and were afraid that children would imitate the action, despite the game having an adult rating). So the throwing stars were removed, and replaced with darts. Yes darts. Which any child can get hold of.

Does “pathetic” sum this up adequately?

By: LitBolt

LitBolt — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 08:32:05 +0000

I agree with you, and I’d like to bring up the point of bad language being somehow worse than graphic violence. If you look up the f word on wikipedia, you’ll find that in 2003 when Bono won the Golden Globe, the FCC decided not to censor him saying, “This is really, really f***ing brilliant!” because it was only being used as an intensifier, not in a lewd or vulgar way. But then, in “early 2004,” they decided that “the F-word is one of the most vulgar, graphic and explicit descriptions of sexual activity in the English language.”

By: smeos

smeos — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 20:59:41 +0000

It could be worse, up here in Canada, our FCC (called the CRTC) makes it so that every station has to air a percentage of Canadian content.

Ever seen a show called Road to Avonlea? Yeah, I grew up on that shit.

By: Brad

Brad — Sat, 02 Feb 2008 06:26:23 +0000

And, of course, those who wanted heavy fines and punishments for the Super Bowl nipple issue (fun side fact: as I recall, no news story seemed to realize it was a piercing) didn’t in general support fining Saving Private Ryan, nor did the FCC eventually find any fault with the showings.

Now, frankly, I don’t mind either (although if pressed, I’ll tell you I find Saving Private Ryan’s narrative far more disturbing than Jackson’s nipple shield), but the obvious disparity between the two decisions bothers the hell out of me.

By: Brad

Brad — Sat, 02 Feb 2008 06:44:31 +0000

Ah, to rephrase slightly: “…nor did the FCC find any fault with the showings of Saving Private Ryan.”

By the way, in Alaska (at least in the interior where I am), Conan does come on at 12:30. I have no idea who makes those decisions. I find it especially odd because in Anchorage, about 300 miles south, Conan and the other late shows come on at midnight.

By: stallion

stallion — Sat, 02 Feb 2008 07:28:21 +0000

A little off topic but it must be hard to pick the right type of artist to perform at the superbowl. I notice when MTV produce the halftime show they try and great acts that represent all time of popular music.

Superbowl 2001
Rock&Roll: Aerosmith.
Rap: Nelly.
Pop: Nsync and Britney Spears.
R&B: Mary J Blige.

Superbowl 2004
Rap: Nelly and Diddy.
R&B: Janet Jackson.
Pop: Justin Timberlake.
Rock: Kid Rock.

I wonder which approach is better. Picking one act or trying to do a many mashup.

By: Arman

Arman — Sat, 02 Feb 2008 12:45:26 +0000

A few days ago, I saw a woman’s breast on TV here in Sweden, on a 7:30 pm news broadcast. A feature about mammography. It was the state’s channel SVT that broadcasted it.

Not as much as a word from anyone in response. No one gets upset about stuff like this here, because no one in their right mind believes a child gets corrupted from seeing a woman’s nipples.

So yeah, the FCC is a joke. A bad joke.

By: Mom trumps TNG

Mom trumps TNG — Sun, 03 Feb 2008 16:00:26 +0000

I think that adults can deal with what we see on TV. What’s so hard about “changing the channel” if one doesn’t like a show with violence, nudity, or more cursing than is acceptable? It’s easy nowadays with remotes that can be programmed to do just about anything! (BTW, I think they are designed specifically for men, since I have trouble getting my hands on ours when we’re watching TV together.)
Adults are responsible for what their kids watch on TV. They should be monitoring both time and content of what their kids see. Even if kids happen to see a bare body part, I doubt that they’d be scarred for life. I think the violence that’s shown every day (during prime time–shows or even football) or excessive graphic violence in some video games could be much more harmful to the psyche. However, our own kids saw their share of violence on TV and at the movies, and neither one of them is an ax murderer.
Just my opinion.

By: PhilaDLJ

PhilaDLJ — Mon, 04 Feb 2008 15:41:22 +0000

There’s little doubt that the FCC is unconstitutional. Television is a matter of choice; not everyone has to watch it if they don’t want to.

Yet this vocal minority of fingerwaggers believe it’s their business to take away a basic freedom because it rubs against their narrow ideology.

Boobs have been all over television in Italy for decades, and shows laden with profanity on Channel 4 in the UK are simply preceded by a friendly but direct warning. These aren’t exactly civilizations on the edge of moral collapse.

Sorry, but real life is R-rated. And art imitates life. If there’s a kid watching TV and something untoward is coming on, TURN IT OFF. Don’t regulate it. Just like when a married couple with kids want to have sex, they close the door, or better yet, find somewhere to dump the kids so they’re out of the house. It’s common sense.