ABC Affiliates Fear Running Afoul of FCC

[Mr Manifesto]

ABC affiliates pulling 'Private Ryan'
(http://money.cnn.com/2004/11/11/news/fortune500/savingpvt_ryan/index.htm?cnn=yes)

Cripes. Even Australia isn't afraid of showing this one uncensored. I mean, war is heck, right?

[daenku32]

I don't know why.. I mean all the bodies are battered and not one has the disturting figure of a woman's tit.

[Rob Lister]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
ABC affiliates pulling 'Private Ryan'
(http://money.cnn.com/2004/11/11/news/fortune500/savingpvt_ryan/index.htm?cnn=yes)

Cripes. Even Australia isn't afraid of showing this one uncensored. I mean, war is heck, right?

There's some sort of political message in all of this. Private Ryan has been shown more than once on more than one (broadcast) network...without any problem so far as I know. Plus, the networks in question can edit-out anything they personally find potentially offensive to viewers.

Just to be clear, the political message may be from potential viewers that know how the FCC works and are pissed about several past rulings. It isn't necessarily (all of) ABC's fault. They may be just reacting, not strictly acting.

Edit to add: pretty good movie, btw. I recommend it.

[Rob Lister]

Originally posted by daenku32
I don't know why.. I mean all the bodies are battered and not one has the disturting figure of a woman's tit.

Some people believe that context plays an important role. Others don't. I know of one radio disc jocky that doesn't.

I personally don't care.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Rob Lister

Edit to add: pretty good movie, btw. I recommend it.
My brother keeps nagging me to watch it. And I will. I mean, I saw Road to Perdition, and I quite liked that. I just have to stop thinking Philidelphia... Forest Gump... Mazes and Monsters...

[Luke T.]

If only prior to the Superbowl halftime show they had aired a warning message "may contains scenes of nudity"...

[hgc]

Originally posted by Rob Lister
There's some sort of political message in all of this. Private Ryan has been shown more than once on more than one (broadcast) network...without any problem so far as I know. Plus, the networks in question can edit-out anything they personally find potentially offensive to viewers.

Just to be clear, the political message may be from potential viewers that know how the FCC works and are pissed about several past rulings. It isn't necessarily (all of) ABC's fault. They may be just reacting, not strictly acting.

Edit to add: pretty good movie, btw. I recommend it. The point is that ABC will show it uncensored, and this movie contains many mind-pollutin' dirty words. Think of the Children! If the FCC let's it go without fines, then why can't everyone else broadcast dirty words? Methinks Little General Powell doesn't know the answer.

[Brown]

The movie, of course, has the dreaded F-word in it, and there is even a minor sub-plot surrounding it: the meaning of FUBAR.

The FCC will not say whether stations that air the movie will be subject to penalty if the dreaded F-word goes over the public airwaves.

So what is happening is what First Amendment advocates call "chilling." The message is very likely protected by the First Amendment, but past actions by the FCC have raised the legitimate concern of whether presentation of the message will result in the imposition of a penalty. As a result, there is a tendency not to take the risk of a penalty, and legitimate expression is suppressed.

[TragicMonkey]

ABC can't edit the movie: their agreement with Spielberg precludes that.

I think this is hilarious, in that a teaches a great lesson that once you start censoring you're stuck drawing the lines, which turn out to be very arbitrary. The same holy-Joes who so objected to Janet's nipple will now never see Mel Gibson's Jesus movie on broadcast television. Whoops!

[JPK]

Originally posted by Rob Lister
There's some sort of political message in all of this. Private Ryan has been shown more than once on more than one (broadcast) network...without any problem so far as I know. Plus, the networks in question can edit-out anything they personally find potentially offensive to viewers.

Just to be clear, the political message may be from potential viewers that know how the FCC works and are pissed about several past rulings. It isn't necessarily (all of) ABC's fault. They may be just reacting, not strictly acting.

Edit to add: pretty good movie, btw. I recommend it.

According to CNN:
A fellow affiliate, South Carolina's WSOC-TV, said in a statement on its Web site that ABC's contract with Steven Spielberg prohibits stations carrying the film to edit its content.

JPK

[Brown]

In addition to the dreaded F-word, the movie depicts a man being blown to bits, a man having his leg blown off, men burning to death, a man with his face destroyed, men with their arms blown off, men bleeding from bullet holes, men getting their brains blown out, the killing of surrendering soldiers, men ripped in half, and men cut to pieces by machine gun fire.

This is a movie for mature audiences.

One doubts, however, that such images are what is at stake. Rather, at least three of George Carlin's infamous seven words make appearances in this movie, and that is the sort of thing that, for some reason, outrages some bluenoses. But it seems to me that if the audience can handle the horrific images of violence, handling the "bad words" ought to be easy in comparison.

[HarryKeogh]

Would you rather have your child hear the F-word or see people getting shot, executed and blown to pieces.

Which is more detrimental to the health of your child? After watching this movie will their nightmares be filled with people cursing each other or the violent images of war?

Our priorities are screwed. Parents are more than eager to take their kids to see Starship Troopers where dozens of people are shot and eaten by giant bugs but will cover their child's eyes during the shower scene (I happened to sit behind this parent of the year when I saw that lousy movie)

If ABC bleeped out the curse words the affiliates would fear no retribution upon airing it. Violence is acceptable, dirty words are not.

I'm sick of this governmental baby-sitting. The whole thing is f#$%ed up.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by Brown
But it seems to me that if the audience can handle the horrific images of violence, handling the "bad words" ought to be easy in comparison.

That's because you're rational. The viewing public, may the Celestial Walrus bless their pointed heads, will watch all sorts of scenes of violence and carnage without a twitch, but rise up in fury with a letter-writing campaign if a beer commercial shows a gay couple.

[Brown]

What would be great is if an affiliate said, "We're going to air the movie uncut, and if you try to penalize us, you are going to have a major fight on your hands, mother-FCCers!"

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Brown
What would be great is if an affiliate said, "We're going to air the movie uncut, and if you try to penalize us, you are going to have a major fight on your hands, mother-FCCers!"

I think all TV stations in the Western world should make a similar stance.

I mean... Swearing. What a joke. Cops, politicians, newspaper publishers, even the fcuking Pope all swear. It isn't as if showing it on TV is going to make people swear any more. The only people who don't swear are a hand full of Readers' Digest subscribers. Do we want these nutballs deciding what we can hear on TV?

[Charlie Monoxide]

It's a great movie! Unfortunately, watching ANY movie on network TV (non HBO or movie channels), is an exercise in frustration. There'll be commercials every 20 minutes in the first hour, followed by commercials every 3 minutes in the final hour. Also, the movie will be hacked down to incorporate the ads.

Charlie (DVD's are great!) Monoxide

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Charlie Monoxide
It's a great movie! Unfortunately, watching ANY movie on network TV (non HBO or movie channels), is an exercise in frustration. There'll be commercials every 20 minutes in the first hour, followed by commercials every 3 minutes in the final hour. Also, the movie will be hacked down to incorporate the ads.

Charlie (DVD's are great!) Monoxide

The last straw for me was watching Pulp Fiction on a FTA (Free to Air) station. They trimmed from the part where Bruce Willis runs his car into Ving Rhames to the part where they were wrestling in the pawn shop and one of the hillbilly boys points a shotgun at them. It was like they teleported in there or something. Hopefully someone sent a turd to the programme director.

[Rob Lister]

Originally posted by hgc
The point is that ABC will show it uncensored, and this movie contains many mind-pollutin' dirty words. Think of the Children! If the FCC let's it go without fines, then why can't everyone else broadcast dirty words? Methinks Little General Powell doesn't know the answer.

If ABC shows it uncensored then they deserve the fines they are very likely to get, IMO.

[Rob Lister]

Originally posted by Brown
The FCC will not say whether stations that air the movie will be subject to penalty if the dreaded F-word goes over the public airwaves.

And for good reason. They don't know. The FCC is primarily complaint-driven. No complaints, no fines. Even with a complaint, certain standards, specifically as they regard concext, must be breached. It's a judgment call on the part of the FCC and their rulings may be appealed before a jury of twelve, if need be.

[Brown]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
The last straw for me was watching Pulp Fiction on a FTA (Free to Air) station. They trimmed from the part where Bruce Willis runs his car into Ving Rhames to the part where they were wrestling in the pawn shop and one of the hillbilly boys points a shotgun at them. It was like they teleported in there or something.The worst movie I ever saw on commercial television was an edited version of Mel Brooks's "History of the World, Part I." All foul language, racist language, sexually suggestive material, excretory material and drug-related material was excised, as was any material that might be insulting to any religion. As a result, nearly all of the jokes were edited out of this comedy and the stories--such as they were--made not a lick of sense.

I had to ask myself, "What was the point of putting THAT edited monstrosity on the air?"

[Rob Lister]

Originally posted by JPK
According to CNN:
quote:A fellow affiliate, South Carolina's WSOC-TV, said in a statement on its Web site that ABC's contract with Steven Spielberg prohibits stations carrying the film to edit its content.

JPK

Yea, but do you believe that is true? I don't. If it is true then ABC deserves to be flogged by their shareholders, not just fined by the FCC.

[Mr. Skinny]

If they pull it in my area, I'll just put on my DVD copy.

I usually reserve Veterans Day and Memorial Day to re-watch it, simply because I want to be reminded of how gory war can be, and what it must be like to watch your friend be blown to bits, etc.

After I saw it the first time, I made a point of taking my (then 15 year old) son to see it, just in case he thought fighting in a war might somehow be "cool".

I also bought "Band of Brothers" on DVD as well. Great series.

I appreciate the attempt to bring the realisim of war to the screen with both productions. As someone who grew up watching the TV series "Combat" in the 60's, I can appreciate the difference.

I just can't fathom how saying the F-word could be any worse than seeing a depiction of a guy laying on a Normandy beach with his intestines hanging out.

Anyhow, color me confused.

[Rob Lister]

Originally posted by Mr. Skinny
I just can't fathom how saying the F-word could be any worse than seeing a depiction of a guy laying on a Normandy beach with his intestines hanging out.

Who says it is?

[Mr. Skinny]

Another affiliate, WSB-TV in Atlanta, said it asked ABC for permission to air the film after 10 p.m. and to have the option to edit some of the scenes.

"ABC would not allow that, nor would it give permission for us to edit out the graphic language," said WSB-TV General Manager Greg Stone in a statement.

I guess I was responding to this, Rob, though I admit that the graphic violence appears to be equally problematic.

Guess I could have explained better.

[hgc]

Originally posted by Rob Lister
Yea, but do you believe that is true? I don't. If it is true then ABC deserves to be flogged by their shareholders, not just fined by the FCC. Why is it so hard to believe? If Spielberg doesn't want it shown edited, then ABC could either agree to his terms or pass on it altogether. I think agreeing to his terms and showing it is financially rewarding (assuming they can show it under the circumstances).

[Rob Lister]

Originally posted by hgc
Why is it so hard to believe? If Spielberg doesn't want it shown edited, then ABC could either agree to his terms or pass on it altogether. I think agreeing to his terms and showing it is financially rewarding (assuming they can show it under the circumstances).

Well, certainly they can show it. It's been shown before. One news show suggested it was shown unedited but that's not how I remember it. At any rate, their affiliates may not wish to show it uncut if it is too bloody/vulgar. They would incur not only the FCC fines, if any, but the rath of their viewers as well.

I really don't see what the problem is.

[jj]

Originally posted by Rob Lister
Who says it is?

So, why should ABC be fined, and for what? Please explain clearly and simply, showing precedent and ethical authority for your assertion as well as legal reasoning.

[hgc]

Originally posted by Brown
The worst movie I ever saw on commercial television was an edited version of Mel Brooks's "History of the World, Part I." All foul language, racist language, sexually suggestive material, excretory material and drug-related material was excised, as was any material that might be insulting to any religion. As a result, nearly all of the jokes were edited out of this comedy and the stories--such as they were--made not a lick of sense.

I had to ask myself, "What was the point of putting THAT edited monstrosity on the air?" Not only can I not watch movies that are edited for length and for content, but I also can't watch movies on HBO/pay channels anymore. They all clip the image by use of "pan and scan" to cram it into the 133:1 aspect ratio of a TV screen. At any time you are seeing half or less of the actual image that was framed by the director and cinematographer. Most of my movie viewing on TV is on IFC and TCM.

[JPK]

The FCC should stick to regulating the frequecies and power out put of stations and thats it. They should not influence content. People need to take responsibity for themselves. I certainly do not need a group of people that I have no choice in thier selection, make the desicions over what I get to watch on TV or hear on the radio.
And to take it to another level. Does anyone know anyone who was actually harmed by the almost inpercievable showing of a little bit of Jannet JAcksons boob? Who are these people thats life has been so altered due to that image? I have never met anyone, of any age, harmed by a breast. In fact an argument can be made that breasts are extremley bennificial to mam kind. I will of course war to be carefull. They usually travel in pairs.
JPK

[Rob Lister]

Originally posted by jj
So, why should ABC be fined, and for what? Please explain clearly and simply, showing precedent and ethical authority for your assertion as well as legal reasoning.

You tell me. Your question in no way regarded the quote from me so I'm not sure what you're asking. You appear to be once again spoiling for a fight. If so, please do a better job and be more specific.

[Rob Lister]

Originally posted by hgc
Not only can I not watch movies that are edited for length and for content, but I also can't watch movies on HBO/pay channels anymore. They all clip the image by use of "pan and scan" to cram it into the 133:1 aspect ratio of a TV screen. At any time you are seeing half or less of the actual image that was framed by the director and cinematographer. Most of my movie viewing on TV is on IFC and TCM.

the aspect ratio is the real crime in editing, IMO. Someone should start a thread. Luckily, that type of editing is soon to go out the window...hopefully. Think of it: they could show the movie in the original aspect and put commericials above or below the movie. Sort of like the TVGuide channel does.

Lot's of business possibilites in that.

[Rob Lister]

Originally posted by JPK
The FCC should stick to regulating the frequecies and power out put of stations and thats it. They should not influence content. People need to take responsibity for themselves. I certainly do not need a group of people that I have no choice in thier selection, make the desicions over what I get to watch on TV or hear on the radio.
And to take it to another level. Does anyone know anyone who was actually harmed by the almost inpercievable showing of a little bit of Jannet JAcksons boob? Who are these people thats life has been so altered due to that image? I have never met anyone, of any age, harmed by a breast. In fact an argument can be made that breasts are extremley bennificial to mam kind. I will of course war to be carefull. They usually travel in pairs.
JPK

Sometimes I agree with you. Other times I don't. I think the problem is going to solve itself shortly. It's going to go the way of the buggy whip. Until then, it's a matter of lines in the sand. You think there should be no line but most people would be a little upset if they turned on channel three only to find Debby Does Dallas streaming into their living room. Only a minority wouldn't care.

[WildCat]

Originally posted by Brown
What would be great is if an affiliate said, "We're going to air the movie uncut, and if you try to penalize us, you are going to have a major fight on your hands, mother-FCCers!"
There is a very good reason why this hasn't already happened. You see, if a station decided to fight the FCC in court the FCC would pull their license in the meantime. And since a court fight could take years, no station has dared to actually fight the FCC on this issue. Aren't unelected gov't regulatory agencies wonderful!

[jj]

Originally posted by Rob Lister
You tell me. Your question in no way regarded the quote from me so I'm not sure what you're asking. You appear to be once again spoiling for a fight. If so, please do a better job and be more specific.

Was this you, or somebody pretending to be you?

---
If ABC shows it uncensored then they deserve the fines they are very likely to get, IMO.
---

[jj]

Originally posted by Rob Lister
I think the problem is going to solve itself shortly. It's going to go the way of the buggy whip. Until then, it's a matter of lines in the sand.

And, this solution will come about how, and the results will be what? You're the epitomy of vagueness here.

[Rob Lister]

Originally posted by jj
Was this you, or somebody pretending to be you?

---
If ABC shows it uncensored then they deserve the fines they are very likely to get, IMO.
---

Yes, but that is not what you quoted when you asked the fight-spoiling question. Please try to be more careful next time. Also note that the quoted context represents my opinon and is not meant to be taken as fact. I understand you have difficulty with such concepts but that's your bad, not mine.

Feel Better?

[Rob Lister]

Originally posted by jj
And, this solution will come about how, and the results will be what? You're the epitomy of vagueness here.

Broadcast TV and radio will go the way of the buggy whip. Just a prediction. You may or may not agree.

[jj]

Originally posted by Rob Lister
Broadcast TV and radio will go the way of the buggy whip. Just a prediction. You may or may not agree.

Well, there are some few places where broadcast may remain a necessity. . .

But "some few" is different than ubiquitous.

[jj]

Originally posted by Rob Lister
Yes, but that is not what you quoted when you asked the fight-spoiling question. Please try to be more careful next time. Also note that the quoted context represents my opinon and is not meant to be taken as fact. I understand you have difficulty with such concepts but that's your bad, not mine.

Feel Better?

Well, you see, most of us, when we say things, have an opinion that persists beyond the individual written article. Therefore, when discussing your position, one might assume that most or all of your comments might remain germane to the discussion. One might, even, reasonably, assume that you might be able to relate all of your comments on a subject into one whole.

Perhaps what you're saying is that with you, this is not the case.

Now that we've cleared that up, which comments did you mean, and which comments didn't you mean? Or did you just change your mind? Or are you just trying to avoid the implications of your own question? Or what?

[dsm]

What's next?? Bugs Bunny...?

Oh, yeah, been there, done that... Nevermind

;) :D ;)

[Rob Lister]

Originally posted by jj
Well, there are some few places where broadcast may remain a necessity. . .

But "some few" is different than ubiquitous.

Just as there are some places that still sell buggy whips. Try finding one at Walmart.

[Rob Lister]

Originally posted by jj
Well, you see, most of us, when we say things, have an opinion that persists beyond the individual written article. Therefore, when discussing your position, one might assume that most or all of your comments might remain germane to the discussion. One might, even, reasonably, assume that you might be able to relate all of your comments on a subject into one whole.

Perhaps what you're saying is that with you, this is not the case.

Now that we've cleared that up, which comments did you mean, and which comments didn't you mean? Or did you just change your mind? Or are you just trying to avoid the implications of your own question? Or what?

Your entire post is meaningless. Just so you know, that's an opinion. Try sticking with the topic. That might help. Otherwise, start another flame war thread. Perhaps you'll do better than you have in the past.

[JPK]

Originally posted by Rob Lister
Sometimes I agree with you. Other times I don't. I think the problem is going to solve itself shortly. It's going to go the way of the buggy whip. Until then, it's a matter of lines in the sand. You think there should be no line but most people would be a little upset if they turned on channel three only to find Debby Does Dallas streaming into their living room. Only a minority wouldn't care.

I didn't say that there should be no line as far as content goes. I simply feel that the FCC should not be the ones deciding content. On the whole, ratings should dictate the type of content that gets aired. If something doesn't apeal to you, don't watch it. And lets say that by chance Debby Does Dallas happens to be on a channle when channel surfing and I catch a brief bit of adult play. Or worse yet..the childeren see it. I keep forgetting that we must protect the childeren. How exactly does this harm me or even a child. Whereas I might be somewhat offended at the style of shaving in this classic bit of porn, I doubt it would do me much harm. As for any child I would imagine much would depend on the age. Too young to care, just old enough to find it pretty funny or tittiliating if you will, or old enough to understand what's going on and think it's pretty cool or disgusting. But being the adult there I would turn it off. My judgement call and dare I say no harm done.
My point being, I do not need a babysitter to determine what I should be able to watch., and parents shouldn't be using the TV as a babysitter for thier kids. Take some responsibility for themselves.

JPK

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by JPK
My point being, I do not need a babysitter to determine what I should be able to watch., and parents shouldn't be using the TV as a babysitter for thier kids. Take some responsibility for themselves.

You miss the point. You can't expect parents to exert any sort of control over their children. Instead, you must sanitize the entire world so that nothing can harm their precious offspring when they let them run loose. Aren't you thinking of the children?

It's not like you can really expect concerned parents to take their children to the park. The parents want to dump their children in the wilderness, confident in the knowledge that the government has shot all the wild animals, filled in all the streams, and levelled all the bits where a child could fall from and scrape his little knee.

[JPK]

Originally posted by TragicMonkey
You miss the point. You can't expect parents to exert any sort of control over their children. Instead, you must sanitize the entire world so that nothing can harm their precious offspring when they let them run loose. Aren't you thinking of the children?

It's not like you can really expect concerned parents to take their children to the park. The parents want to dump their children in the wilderness, confident in the knowledge that the government has shot all the wild animals, filled in all the streams, and levelled all the bits where a child could fall from and scrape his little knee.

Sadly, I admit your right. I keep forgetting about the children. We must protect the children!!!
To help remind me of this I will watch one of my favorite movies, The Children. This classic will no doubt drive home the point.

The Children (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0080527/)

JPK

[jj]

Originally posted by Rob Lister
Your entire post is meaningless. Just so you know, that's an opinion. Try sticking with the topic. That might help. Otherwise, start another flame war thread. Perhaps you'll do better than you have in the past.

Heeeere we go again, ladies and boys. When Mr. Lister gets caught with his mouth open and the flies buzzing in and out, here comes the ad-hominems.

Can't you do better than that?

I'll simply continue to point out your sick behaviors. You chose to pick a fight, you chose to admit as much, and now you chose to do it again, instead of being a mench and actually taking responsiblity for what you said in previous articles.

So, what does that make you? Well, if we sum up your behavior over a bunch of threads, you are:

Bully
Stalker
Irresponsible

You're not looking very good, are you?