Right-wing moralists launch censor war

[Mudbug]

http://www.sundayherald.com/45957

America’s freedom of speech is under attack. Mickey Mouse and Private Ryan had better watch out, says Ros Davidson in Los Angeles
*

WHAT do Tom Hanks, sex researcher Alfred Kinsey, U2’s Bono, Janet Jackson’s boobs and Mickey Mouse have in common? They’re all targets in an attack on American popular culture, which is accelerating following George Bush’s re-election.

E-mail complaints from angry right-wing viewers are flooding federal regulators this weekend following the unedited broadcast on Remembrance Day of the film Saving Private Ryan.

In fact, one third of the local TV stations affiliated with national network ABC, owned by Disney, refused to air the critically acclaimed second world war blockbuster because it contains swear words. The Oscar-winning film about D-Day, directed by Steven Spielberg, also includes graphic, realistic violence.

The 66 stations, from Boston to Detroit and Honolulu, said they feared sanctions from the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) for airing “profanity” during prime evening hours. That was despite the fact that ABC had promised to cover any fine by the commission, whose members are appointed by its president.

“ABC crossed the line by airing at least 20 ‘f’ words and 12 ‘s’ words during prime-time viewing hours!,” says the evangelical group American Family Association, which claims it has 2.3 million members and is one of the groups leading the revamped charge against “immorality”. “We believe ABC should have aired their salute to heroes without violating broadcast decency laws,” it said.

Each TV station could face a fine of £18,000 if found to have aired “indecent” material. Under long-standing guide lines, profanity is banned from 6am to 10pm on America’s publicly owned broadcast channels, but not on cable channels.

“It would clearly have been our preference to run the movie,” says Ray Cole, president of Citadel Communications, which owns three of the stations. “We think it is a patriotic, artistic tribute to our fighting forces.”

Senator John McCain, a one-time POW in Vietnam, introduced Saving Private Ryan on Thursday. A maverick Republican and a former presidential candidate, he spent much of Thursday trying to stem the desertions. The film is nowhere near indecent, he says angrily.

Initially, only 20 stations were expected to opt out. The 1998 movie has been shown twice before on ABC, to some complaints from viewers but without TV stations baling.

Previously, regulators have permitted some programmes with swearing to be aired when the language is justified artistically by the context. According to an agreement between Spielberg and the television network ABC, the film could not be edited for artistic reasons.

Thursday’s widespread reaction worries cultural observers because of America’s constitutionally guaranteed freedom of speech and because ownership of TV and radio outlets has become dramatically consolidated in recent years.

“It’s self-censorship,” says BJ Bullert, a communications scholar at the University of Washington. “There’s a climate of intimidation, especially in response to the election. It’s a new kind of cold war, and it comes from the top, from George Bush and Karl Rove.”

The national mood is different now, and not just because of the election results. “Moral values” were cited by 22% of Americans as the top issue in the November 2 vote, according to pollsters.

In September, regulators fined CBS £299,000 for the live broadcast in January in which singer Janet Jackson’s breast was bared briefly during half-time at the Super Bowl . Jackson’s “wardrobe malfunction” prompted accusations of immorality from conservative activists, some viewers, members of Congress and commentators.

Rove, Bush’s top political adviser, says: “I think people are concerned about the coarseness of our culture, about what they see on TV and in movies.”

Former Richard Nixon speechwriter William Safire, a columnist with The New York Times, describes it as the “social political event of the past year”. Conservative Christian groups, including the American Family Association, are also rallying against the new film Kinsey, released this weekend to critical acclaim, and starring Liam Neeson and Laura Linney.

The ideas in the film, directed by Oscar-winner Bill Condon who also made Gods And Monsters, promote pre-marital sex, which leads to abortion and Aids, claims the group Catholic Exchange.

Kinsey is a gripping and “brutally honest, uncompromising and non-judgemental” look at the controversial university researcher who revolutionised cultural attitudes towards sex in the 1940s and 1950s, said a CNN reviewer.

Robert Knight, of the curiously named Concerned Women for America, told Associated Press recently that Kinsey was akin to the notorious Nazi pseudo- scientist Dr Josef Mengele.

Knight backtracked on the comparison on Friday, but his reaction indicates the seriousness of America’s culture wars.

The American Family Association also calls for a general boycott of Disney, because the company has encouraged gays to visit its theme parks, and of food giant Procter & Gamble for hiring gays.

Two months after the Janet Jackson incident, which also involved singer Justin Timberlake, NBC ran up against the FCC. Rock star Bono, from the band U2, said “f***” during the live broadcast of the Golden Globe Awards.

Recalled less often, say critics of the culture wars, is the record fine of £652,000 for Rupert Murdoch’s Fox network for the heterosexual reality programme, Married By America. At issue were prime-time scenes in which “party-goers lick whipped cream from strippers’ bodies” and two female strippers spanked a man on all fours wearing only his underwear, said the commission complaint.

The silence over Fox’s fine, from those who tout “moral values”, is hypocritical, says a column by Frank Rich in today’s New York Times. Fox News has become controversial for its right-wing commentary and popularity in “red” or pro-Bush America.

Another indication of the red culture scare is the action of one of the US’s newly elected politicians, Tom Coburn, a senator from Oklahoma, says Rich. As a state-elected politician, he attacked NBC in 1997 for encouraging “irresponsible sexual behaviour” and for taking “network TV to an all-time low with full-frontal nudity, violence and profanity”. His anger was prompted by the prime-time airing of another Spielberg film, Schindler’s List, about the Holocaust.

14 November 2004

[Mudbug]

found this to be an interesting article - dissect as you will. It bothers me that stations were worried about fines for showing a movie on television.

/goes back upstairs for a bit, will return later.

[Dont Hurt Me]

ABC just going to extremes after allowing Janets Boob to be shown during family hour of superbowl. It was their attempt to look stupid again and get back for the being fined. Face it these clowns that run ABC have not a clue. Maybe thats why i almost never watch the stale network. If i want saving the private ill just throw it in my DVD player and not watch all those crap butt commercials.

[Lyle]

ABC just going to extremes after allowing Janets Boob to be shown during family hour of superbowl. It was their attempt to look stupid again and get back for the being fined. Face it these clowns that run ABC have not a clue. Maybe thats why i almost never watch the stale network. If i want saving the private ill just throw it in my DVD player and not watch all those crap butt commercials.For the record, it was CBS (not ABC) that got fined for Janet Jackson's "wardrobe malfunction". And while some people do hold the opinion that the ABC affiliates were doing this as some kind of publicity stunt (i.e. to get back at the FCC), I think I've read elsewhere that at least some of those stations tried to get a waiver from the FCC in advance but were unable to do so; so, without that guarantee of immunity, they opted not to show the movie.

[Chip NoVaMac]

Is this not the second time that ABC (at least) has shown this movie. It makes me worried that we are becoming a nation of the intolerant. At the same point if "Saving Private Ryan" was done 20+ years ago they would have done it without the swear words.

I do remember a date that that she and I walked out of "Scar Face", because I was was embarrassed by the language.

I look at many movies and TV today and wonder if we need the "realism' of the language.

[wordmunger]

Here's a very interesting article (http://www.buzzmachine.com/archives/2004_11_15.html#008481) about how few people it actually takes to initiate an FCC complaint. It turns out the largest fine in FCC history was levied on the basis of three unique letters: over a million dollar fine for three letters!

[Xtremehkr]

Here's a very interesting article (http://www.buzzmachine.com/archives/2004_11_15.html#008481) about how few people it actually takes to initiate an FCC complaint. It turns out the largest fine in FCC history was levied on the basis of three unique letters: over a million dollar fine for three letters!

I wonder if that could be offset by more people writing in support of what they saw? Or whether the rules have been set by the same people who are behind the letter writing campaigns. I think the rules the FCC are following are probably biased towards censorship, too few people seem to protest when free speech has been taken away though.

TVs already have V Chips, properly used, there is no risk of seeing anything you don't want to see. I don't see what the problem is.

[Dont Hurt Me]

For the record, it was CBS (not ABC) that got fined for Janet Jackson's "wardrobe malfunction". And while some people do hold the opinion that the ABC affiliates were doing this as some kind of publicity stunt (i.e. to get back at the FCC), I think I've read elsewhere that at least some of those stations tried to get a waiver from the FCC in advance but were unable to do so; so, without that guarantee of immunity, they opted not to show the movie.
Thanks for the correction.

[Backtothemac]

Well, let me put it to you this way.

There are some things that should not be on the public air waves.

My wife and I returned from Church, had dinner, and I was upstairs working on some flyiers for work. I asked my wife to come up. My daughter turned on the TV downstairs, and ABC is one of the channels in her grouping so that she doesn't hear things she should not hear at the age of 6. My wife and I nearly hit the floor when we heard about 3 f bombs going off in a row.

See our offiliate aired the show unedited, and my 6 year old got to hear something that she then turned to me and said dad, what does **** mean?

It isn't moral right wingers imposing our views on others, it is common sense, and values that we want our children to hear. Needless to say, her channels are now limited to HD Discovery, Nick, cartoon network, and a few others.

[Xtremehkr]

Set your V Chip to the appropriate setting and she will never hear the word ****, at least until she gets to junior high anyway.

[IJ Reilly]

Second thread on this subject, but that's fine with me...

What I find so interesting about this movement is that any household in the US reached by cable or satellite (which is most of them) is watching dozens if not more channels without any decency restrictions imposed by the FCC, and many of them are pretty raw (HBO, anybody?). Since these broadcasters are out of reach, it seems the new Roundheads are using the power of the federal government to beat up on whomever they can. It's the new political correctness, right wing style.

[skunk]

See our offiliate aired the show unedited, and my 6 year old got to hear something that she then turned to me and said dad, what does **** mean?
If she's old enough to watch people being blown apart, surely she's old enough for you to explain that?

[mactastic]

I had an experience with a younger member of our family who heard a word said by some people at the same restaurant we were at. She picked it up and repeated it.

Now, what would the remedy for this be? Obviously I don't want my neice's moral upbringing ruined by a passing stranger. Should we ban all uses of the F-word in public? Is there any practical difference between a child picking up bad language on TV versus from real live human beings?

[Backtothemac]

Second thread on this subject, but that's fine with me...

What I find so interesting about this movement is that any household in the US reached by cable or satellite (which is most of them) is watching dozens if not more channels without any decency restrictions imposed by the FCC, and many of them are pretty raw (HBO, anybody?). Since these broadcasters are out of reach, it seems the new Roundheads are using the power of the federal government to beat up on whomever they can. It's the new political correctness, right wing style.

IJ, HBO is a subscription service. ABC is not. ABC is broadcast over the air, and it is government regulated. I personally don't want the f bomb on regular tv for kids to hear.

[Backtothemac]

If she's old enough to watch people being blown apart, surely she's old enough for you to explain that?

Well, it was a scene when someone wasnt' getting blown up. She doesn't watch stuff like that, so I should not have to explain any of that until I choose to.

[Backtothemac]

I had an experience with a younger member of our family who heard a word said by some people at the same restaurant we were at. She picked it up and repeated it.

Now, what would the remedy for this be? Obviously I don't want my neice's moral upbringing ruined by a passing stranger. Should we ban all uses of the F-word in public? Is there any practical difference between a child picking up bad language on TV versus from real live human beings?


Personally, I would have been chest deep in that person, asking them to say they were sorry to my child. And if not, well, I assume there would be an arguement that would follow, after my child had left the room of course ;)

[IJ Reilly]

IJ, HBO is a subscription service. ABC is not. ABC is broadcast over the air, and it is government regulated. I personally don't want the f bomb on regular tv for kids to hear.

That's exactly what I tried to say, however unclearly. The number of households reached by cable is vast, probably a majority by now, rendering the distinction between "regular" and "subscription" TV rather moot. Most homes have got f-words and much more being beamed into their TV sets every day. You can bet the truth & righteousness squad would go after the cable stations, if they could, but they can't.

[mactastic]

Personally, I would have been chest deep in that person, asking them to say they were sorry to my child. And if not, well, I assume there would be an arguement that would follow, after my child had left the room of course ;)

So you'd take the risk of escalating the situation to violence to prove to your kid that swearing is wrong?

[skunk]

It's a normal part of the everyday language - and activity - of most of the world's population. It could have been me at the next table. I might feel I had nothing to apologize for. Where would you take it from there?

[blackfox]

Damn, I read an excellent editorial a few days ago which discussed a pertinent irony with regards to this topic. Unfortunately, it has been archived and costs $$$ to retrieve.

To (badly) paraphrase the article, it comments on the obvious hypocrisy and irony of the right-wing "moral values" stance.

Ruport Murdoch, the right-wing media giant is happy to chime in with the rest of the GOP in condemning the "moral decline" in our country, yet at the same time, Murdoch's FOX Network (not News) continues to parade out shows which hit new lows in the realm of good taste.

This is indicative of a purposeful two-facedness by the Right. On one hand they decry the lack of morality, yet on the other they actively contribute to it. Republican Politicians are not immune to moral lapses, yet they seem to be coated in Teflon.

This just seems to be further indicative of the real problem. The refusal to take responsibility for one's actions. If the Right really cared about the problem, they would do more than merely spout rhetoric. This also applies to the average citizen, if you don't like it, don't watch it and provide your children with the knowledge to deal with these things intelligently and wisely.

There was another editorial recently which spoke about the lack of character-building in College, which is arguably the most important thing for a young person to learn. In a time where many kids are brought up on TV and Video Games, it seems that the parents have no right to cry foul, as they have often neglected their responsibility to develop their child's character.

This is often more than simply sheltering them from that which may be distasteful, as that is ultimately impossible. Imo, it involves a development and nurture of their critical-thinking skills and an exposure to quality alternatives. To foster a sense of who you are, as a firm mooring from which to relate to the rest of the world. To develop moral standards by which to judge the world around you and yourself. To have the courage that comes from the resultant confidence.

To me the problem is not swear words, or breasts, but the sea of relativism that people are thrown into without a compass or oars. The response to these things smacks of infantalism, which reflects the essential lack of character of many of those complaining. To live merely in opposition to something is not a legitimate social or psychological position. Where is the maturity?

To fix such problems do not require censure or legislation, in fact look at my signature to see that this will actually exarcerbate the problem. All it involves is personal responsibility and effort in building of character.

[Chip NoVaMac]

Well, let me put it to you this way.

There are some things that should not be on the public air waves.

My wife and I returned from Church, had dinner, and I was upstairs working on some flyiers for work. I asked my wife to come up. My daughter turned on the TV downstairs, and ABC is one of the channels in her grouping so that she doesn't hear things she should not hear at the age of 6. My wife and I nearly hit the floor when we heard about 3 f bombs going off in a row.

See our offiliate aired the show unedited, and my 6 year old got to hear something that she then turned to me and said dad, what does **** mean?

It isn't moral right wingers imposing our views on others, it is common sense, and values that we want our children to hear. Needless to say, her channels are now limited to HD Discovery, Nick, cartoon network, and a few others.

They are no longer the public airwaves. They belong to the highest bidder....

[Chip NoVaMac]

Well, let me put it to you this way.

There are some things that should not be on the public air waves.

My wife and I returned from Church, had dinner, and I was upstairs working on some flyiers for work. I asked my wife to come up. My daughter turned on the TV downstairs, and ABC is one of the channels in her grouping so that she doesn't hear things she should not hear at the age of 6. My wife and I nearly hit the floor when we heard about 3 f bombs going off in a row.

See our offiliate aired the show unedited, and my 6 year old got to hear something that she then turned to me and said dad, what does **** mean?

It isn't moral right wingers imposing our views on others, it is common sense, and values that we want our children to hear. Needless to say, her channels are now limited to HD Discovery, Nick, cartoon network, and a few others.

One of my most vivid memories as a child was an uncle that nearly broke his neck turning the channels when Elvis's special in Hawaii was being aired one Sunday night..... :)

[Chip NoVaMac]

I had an experience with a younger member of our family who heard a word said by some people at the same restaurant we were at. She picked it up and repeated it.

Now, what would the remedy for this be? Obviously I don't want my neice's moral upbringing ruined by a passing stranger. Should we ban all uses of the F-word in public? Is there any practical difference between a child picking up bad language on TV versus from real live human beings?

Heaven forbid if she should see two people in true love, in an embrace at a restaurant (gay or straight). What would she think if she saw a African-American kissing a "white" person. :eek:

[Chip NoVaMac]

IJ, HBO is a subscription service. ABC is not. ABC is broadcast over the air, and it is government regulated. I personally don't want the f bomb on regular tv for kids to hear.

Only for the political comments. You can't have it both ways.

[Lyle]

I had an experience with a younger member of our family who heard a word said by some people at the same restaurant we were at. She picked it up and repeated it.

Now, what would the remedy for this be? Obviously I don't want my neice's moral upbringing ruined by a passing stranger. Should we ban all uses of the F-word in public? Is there any practical difference between a child picking up bad language on TV versus from real live human beings?I don't think any parent is naive enough to believe that they can prevent their kids from eventually hearing bad language somewhere in public, whether it's from a stranger at a restaurant or some kid at school. And no, there's no practical difference between their picking it up "off the street" versus from a TV show. I think the difference, however, is that parents might at least hope to have some control over what's beamed into their homes during hours when their kids might be watching.

But IMO (and mind you, I'm not a parent) the responsibility for the latter ultimately rests with the parents and not the FCC. So if that means you get a TV with a V-chip (or whatever), do that. If it means that you only let kids watch TV when you're there to monitor what they're watching, do that. If it means (gasp) no TV at all, well, do that.

[Ugg]

It's a normal part of the everyday language - and activity - of most of the world's population. It could have been me at the next table. I might feel I had nothing to apologize for. Where would you take it from there?

That's a good point. Maybe we all just need to be implanted with v chips :D

I can't see why I should have to censor my language when I'm out in public just because someone hasn't explained the meaning of the word to their child.

[mactastic]

I don't think any parent is naive enough to believe that they can prevent their kids from eventually hearing bad language somewhere in public, whether it's from a stranger at a restaurant or some kid at school. And no, there's no practical difference between their picking it up "off the street" versus from a TV show. I think the difference, however, is that parents might at least hope to have some control over what's beamed into their homes during hours when their kids might be watching.

Exactly. A parent can only prepare their children to face the big nasty world. They cannot protect them from it forever. Eventually all kids will hear ideas contrary to yours. They will learn language and behaviors that you won't approve of. And if you have prepared them adequately they will be able to deal with it appropriately.

I hear the 'I don't want to have to explain homosexuality to my 6 year old' line a lot, but people like that fail to see that there are degrees of what you explain to a kid. When they see two hetro people and they ask why they are kissing, do you tell the kid about sex in all it's graphic detail? No you tell them that sometimes when people like each other blah blah blah...

But IMO (and mind you, I'm not a parent) the responsibility for the latter ultimately rests with the parents and not the FCC. So if that means you get a TV with a V-chip (or whatever), do that. If it means that you only let kids watch TV when you're there to monitor what they're watching, do that. If it means (gasp) no TV at all, well, do that.

Yeah it constantly amazes me how many conservatives want their individual freedoms until it means their kid might see or hear something they object to. (Won't somebody PLEASE think of the children!) :D Nice to see you're not like that.

[Backtothemac]

Heaven forbid if she should see two people in true love, in an embrace at a restaurant (gay or straight). What would she think if she saw a African-American kissing a "white" person. :eek:

WTF. Where does this come from. I said nothing about people in love, kissing, etc.

I am not a homo-phob, nor am I a racist, and for you to make it sound like I am is pretty shallow, and quite honestly uncalled for.

[Backtothemac]

Exactly. A parent can only prepare their children to face the big nasty world. They cannot protect them from it forever. Eventually all kids will hear ideas contrary to yours. They will learn language and behaviors that you won't approve of. And if you have prepared them adequately they will be able to deal with it appropriately.

I hear the 'I don't want to have to explain homosexuality to my 6 year old' line a lot, but people like that fail to see that there are degrees of what you explain to a kid. When they see two hetro people and they ask why they are kissing, do you tell the kid about sex in all it's graphic detail? No you tell them that sometimes when people like each other blah blah blah...



Yeah it constantly amazes me how many conservatives want their individual freedoms until it means their kid might see or hear something they object to. (Won't somebody PLEASE think of the children!) :D Nice to see you're not like that.

Your right. But as a parent, the question is, do you want your SIX year old seeing, and hearing content such as that in Saving Private Ryan? There have to be boundries put into place to protect those that do not need to see that material.

[zimv20]

about the speaking in public thing...

i self-censor if there are kids w/in earshot, whether i know them or not. if a parent said something about my language, my reaction would depend entirely on how they presented it.

e.g. for "hey buddy, i'm really trying to keep my kid from hearing such language", i'd probably apologize to the kid and tell them i did something very bad about which i'm not proud.

but for, "hey jerkwad, you say that again and i'm gonna punch you in the mouth," well, i'm not sure exactly what i'd say. but it'd probably be very different from the above. maybe, "i see that your kid has a lot bigger problems than what *i'm* saying. jennifer."

okay, maybe not the "jennifer" part.

[mactastic]

Your right. But as a parent, the question is, do you want your SIX year old seeing, and hearing content such as that in Saving Private Ryan? There have to be boundries put into place to protect those that do not need to see that material.

And that boundary is called an observant parent. You can no more protect your child from content on TV than you can content out in the world. Don't you find the commercials on the Cartoon Network insulting? I'd be more worried about protecting my kid from those than from the f-word. Besides, all the kids I've known almost all their parents have told me stories about some instance where the kid embarrased the hell out of the parent by swearing inappropriately long before age six. Most I've run into have had it happen by 2 or 3.

On a side note, my favorite of these stories is my wife's best friend's son whom his mother heard out in the yard one day yelling 'Whore!' over and over a couple seconds apart. When she looked outside she saw him swinging his plastic golf club and yelling 'Whore' as he swung. So she says, 'No hon, it's FORE.' Kid looks puzzled and says 'Oh, ok mom.' and goes back to swinging only getting it right this time. I believe this was at about 5. :D

[Backtothemac]

about the speaking in public thing...

i self-censor if there are kids w/in earshot, whether i know them or not. if a parent said something about my language, my reaction would depend entirely on how they presented it.

e.g. for "hey buddy, i'm really trying to keep my kid from hearing such language", i'd probably apologize to the kid and tell them i did something very bad about which i'm not proud.

but for, "hey jerkwad, you say that again and i'm gonna punch you in the mouth," well, i'm not sure exactly what i'd say. but it'd probably be very different from the above. maybe, "i see that your kid has a lot bigger problems than what *i'm* saying. jennifer."

okay, maybe not the "jennifer" part.

Zim,
It would be like this for me.

Sir, I am sorry to interupt your dinner, but we overheard you saying the F word, and I have tried to teach my daughter that that is not language that she should use, so I am trying to keep her from hearing it.

Now, if the guy was nice, and said something like you did, everything would be cool.

If the guy was an ass, then my wife would take my daughter outside, and I would probably punch his lights out ;)

[mactastic]

Cool! Then you can explain to my kid who's also sitting in the restaurant why violence that I don't want him to see is OK to use to solve a problem!

Or would I have to try and punch your lights out then? :D

[Desertrat]

"To me the problem is not swear words, or breasts, but the sea of relativism that people are thrown into without a compass or oars. The response to these things smacks of infantalism, which reflects the essential lack of character of many of those complaining."

I can agree about the "sea of relativism". But for the average folks, the response is about the lack of character shown by many proponents of "anything goes".

One big drawback about casual use of the "f-bomb" (I like that term. :) ) is that it's then difficult to escalate. Overuse dulls the impact. Somebody who's regularly cussing has difficulty in making others really believe he's upset. He has no further words to use besides actual threats.

One who eschews profanity and obscenity is then believed if he swears when upset. It's a credibility thing. And, of course, one is also far more welcome in polite company. One is less likely to be requested to leave the company of others, for that matter.

IMO, without regard to the CBS fine, ABC in common sense for a prime-time showing should have just done the little bleep-thing. I'm surprised they didn't do it for the previous showings.

I dunno. The whole deal with sex and violence is that it shouldn't be blatant around little kids. They're nowhere near mature enough to understand. (I fully agree with those who put the onus on the parents as to controlling the TV) As folks get older and more able to show independent judgement, the failings of all of us should be explained. I don't expect a perfect world, but kids are supposed to grow into it gradually.

So I just amble along, polite and courteous to others, making at least some effort to not offend others' sensibilities. It strikes me as pointless, or somehow an example of immature machismo to not care at all what others think.

It ain't that I don't know "the words". Heck, I'm fairly fluent in six languages. :D I just save'em for when they're useful.

'Rat

[Xtremehkr]

What advantage is gained by sheltering your kids to the point where they may be naive about so many different things? I don't know if being naive about everything is the best way to head out into the world.

I can understand wanting to protect your kids, there is nothing wrong with that. But it seems to me that the best way of protecting your kids from the world is to prepare them for it.

And lets face it, a word is a word, when you start punching people I really start to wonder what example you are setting. If you teach your kids that violence is a solution to not agreeing with other people, eventually they are going to run into someone who kills them.

Do you know by looking at them who takes one form of martial arts or another? I don't.

Can you tell by looking at someone whether or not they have a weapon? Not really.

Using violence as a solution is setting someone up for potential disaster.

[Chip NoVaMac]

WTF. Where does this come from. I said nothing about people in love, kissing, etc.

I am not a homo-phob, nor am I a racist, and for you to make it sound like I am is pretty shallow, and quite honestly uncalled for.

Keep in mind that the comments made were to mactasitic and not you personally. Nor to mactasitic personally.

the point being is that if you allow child to understand the "fabric" of life they are better able to deal with life IMO.

In the end, you might want to see whom the response was to before going off the handle.

[Chip NoVaMac]

Zim,
It would be like this for me.

Sir, I am sorry to interupt your dinner, but we overheard you saying the F word, and I have tried to teach my daughter that that is not language that she should use, so I am trying to keep her from hearing it.

Now, if the guy was nice, and said something like you did, everything would be cool.

If the guy was an ass, then my wife would take my daughter outside, and I would probably punch his lights out ;)

To that end, do you limit public discussion of abortion? Do you limit discussion of the "war"? I remember the first any only time that I refereed to my Mom as the "battle axe". I was like 5 or 6 at the time, and I don;t remember where I heard it. But too this day I never have used the term. :D

The question is, where so you draw the line? Is it "foul" language? Is it same sex affection? Is it inter-racial dating? Or is it smoking in in front of your child?

Is it not a role a parent to instruct the child that certain behavior is not expected from the parent? Or maybe even society?

Where do your rights begin, and others end?

[Chip NoVaMac]

Cool! Then you can explain to my kid who's also sitting in the restaurant why violence that I don't want him to see is OK to use to solve a problem!

Or would I have to try and punch your lights out then? :D

It is an opportunity for you to explain your "values". It may not match yours, but it is a life lesson that your child will remember down the road.

[Chip NoVaMac]

"To me the problem is not swear words, or breasts, but the sea of relativism that people are thrown into without a compass or oars. The response to these things smacks of infantalism, which reflects the essential lack of character of many of those complaining."

I can agree about the "sea of relativism". But for the average folks, the response is about the lack of character shown by many proponents of "anything goes".

One big drawback about casual use of the "f-bomb" (I like that term. :) ) is that it's then difficult to escalate. Overuse dulls the impact. Somebody who's regularly cussing has difficulty in making others really believe he's upset. He has no further words to use besides actual threats.

One who eschews profanity and obscenity is then believed if he swears when upset. It's a credibility thing. And, of course, one is also far more welcome in polite company. One is less likely to be requested to leave the company of others, for that matter.

IMO, without regard to the CBS fine, ABC in common sense for a prime-time showing should have just done the little bleep-thing. I'm surprised they didn't do it for the previous showings.

I dunno. The whole deal with sex and violence is that it shouldn't be blatant around little kids. They're nowhere near mature enough to understand. (I fully agree with those who put the onus on the parents as to controlling the TV) As folks get older and more able to show independent judgement, the failings of all of us should be explained. I don't expect a perfect world, but kids are supposed to grow into it gradually.

So I just amble along, polite and courteous to others, making at least some effort to not offend others' sensibilities. It strikes me as pointless, or somehow an example of immature machismo to not care at all what others think.

It ain't that I don't know "the words". Heck, I'm fairly fluent in six languages. :D I just save'em for when they're useful.

'Rat

I wish my Dad were still around. I was brought up the "f-bomb" was not popularly used (unless of course he was truly pissed). To this day I remember a date that took to the opening weekend of "Scar Face" with Al Pacino. We walked out in the middle of the movie. i wonder how it was used during his time.

The gore of "Private Ryan" is another issue. Maybe not too much different from the "Robe", "sparticus"l, and other major films of the time.

[Backtothemac]

What advantage is gained by sheltering your kids to the point where they may be naive about so many different things? I don't know if being naive about everything is the best way to head out into the world.

I can understand wanting to protect your kids, there is nothing wrong with that. But it seems to me that the best way of protecting your kids from the world is to prepare them for it.

And lets face it, a word is a word, when you start punching people I really start to wonder what example you are setting. If you teach your kids that violence is a solution to not agreeing with other people, eventually they are going to run into someone who kills them.

Do you know by looking at them who takes one form of martial arts or another? I don't.

Can you tell by looking at someone whether or not they have a weapon? Not really.

Using violence as a solution is setting someone up for potential disaster.

I agree, but I am not talking about a 12 year old, I am talking about a six year old little girl, she still believes in Santa, the Tooth fairy, etc. I don't want her exposed to violence, and language like there is in Private Ryan.

[Chip NoVaMac]

I agree, but I am not talking about a 12 year old, I am talking about a six year old little girl, she still believes in Santa, the Tooth fairy, etc. I don't want her exposed to violence, and language like there is in Private Ryan.

Then tune out ABC that night. Or do you have no control as some parents I know of their children. Why should I suffer because your child might see the movie and see the reason not to have war?

[Backtothemac]

Then tune out ABC that night. Or do you have no control as some parents I know of their children. Why should I suffer because your child might see the movie and see the reason not to have war?

You have to suffer! That is rich. How about you can't know what is coming on every channel on every night. How about, I thought it was safe for my daughter to watch ABC. NORMAL television. And with all due respect, I happen to have a wonderful family, and an amazing child. But for the love of christ, she is SIX MAN SIX! Do you really think that programing is relevant for a six year old!

[Xtremehkr]

I agree, but I am not talking about a 12 year old, I am talking about a six year old little girl, she still believes in Santa, the Tooth fairy, etc. I don't want her exposed to violence, and language like there is in Private Ryan.

I would talk her like a 6 year old, it's a word that adults use, not kids. Basically the same thing my parents told me. At that age, you generally accept and move on.

Or say, it means something bad, something adults say when they are angry. That's how I knew when Dad was either really angry or had done something stupid while working on the house.

Even at that age I could tell that it was a bad word, but did not have a complete understanding. Until about Junior High, maybe a little before, when all kids start using words like that. And I found out the other meanings, and a lot of other things, though I had a pretty good grasp already cause I had been taught that stuff.

But knowing what the word was, hardly had a detrimental effct. I still believed in Santa Claus, I still wanted to be Peter Pan. I still expected the tooth fairy to bring me toys. But I also knew when Dad had hammered his thumb while working on the house, and that while it could be used for other things as well, it was off limits for me.

For a little bit longer anyway, my parents weren't much into censorship.

[Xtremehkr]

Hey does war care if you are 6 when you get caught up in it?

That's the reality of war, to someone so young, who doesn't really understand death yet, at least they are starting to get the right idea about.

But it's really your responsibility to be paying attention to what she is watching, not anyone elses.

There are very very effective technological innovations that will solve this problem whether you are there or not. Why do you insist that censorship is the only solution?

[Backtothemac]

I would talk her like a 6 year old, it's a word that adults use, not kids. Basically the same thing my parents told me. At that age, you generally accept and move on.

Or say, it means something bad, something adults say when they are angry. That's how I knew when Dad was either really angry or had done something stupid while working on the house.

Even at that age I could tell that it was a bad word, but did not have a complete understanding. Until about Junior High, maybe a little before, when all kids start using words like that. And I found out the other meanings, and a lot of other things, though I had a pretty good grasp already cause I had been taught that stuff.

But knowing what the word was, hardly had a detrimental effct. I still believed in Santa Claus, I still wanted to be Peter Pan. I still expected the tooth fairy to bring me toys. But I also knew when Dad had hammered his thumb while working on the house, and that while it could be used for other things as well, it was off limits for me.

For a little bit longer anyway, my parents weren't much into censorship.

You know what, I respect that. I don't use that language in front of my daughter because I don't want her to hear it at six, but I respect your family. My point, is do we really want TV forcing the conversation into our home through movies, and entertainment programing? Do we want others making the decision for us on what, when and how we teach the world to our children?

[brap]

This thread beggars belief.

Change the channel, there are plenty more. Simply because it doesn't fit with one set of morals doesn't mean it has to fit in with everyone's set of morals. It's part of toleration - remember that word? Freedom of speech, now there's a concept. Parental responsibility, there's another concept.

Maybe it's a cultural gap, I don't know, but the argument that less freedom is better is utterly incomprehensible.

Next: Machiavelli banned from Public libraries? Heaven forbid my precious little Bobby reads such trash!

[Xtremehkr]

You know what, I respect that. I don't use that language in front of my daughter because I don't want her to hear it at six, but I respect your family. My point, is do we really want TV forcing the conversation into our home through movies, and entertainment programing? Do we want others making the decision for us on what, when and how we teach the world to our children?

The TV does not have to be on. The TV can be set to avoid language like that. If your kids are not being watched eventually they are going to find out about things you don't like. Kids are curious, they want to know things.

Lock them up, or expect them to find out about things you don't want them to know.

Or, turn the TV off and give her a book, TV, especially sanitized TV teachs kids to have an unrealistic expectation for what they are going to experience in the world.

Family Ties, Growing Pains, Tool Time, 7th Heaven, The Cosby show are fantasy, things don't work like that.

[Backtothemac]

brap, I am not even going down the slippery slope model. I am not talking about anything except network tv. That is supposed to be safe. That is not supposed to have vulgarity and violence on it, that my wife cannot even stomach.

And Xtremehkr do you really think that letting a 6 year old watch private ryan is a good idea?

[Backtothemac]

The TV does not have to be on. The TV can be set to avoid language like that. If your kids are not being watched eventually they are going to find out about things you don't like. Kids are curious, they want to know things.

Lock them up, or expect them to find out about things you don't want them to know.

Or, turn the TV off and give her a book, TV, especially sanitized TV teachs kids to have an unrealistic expectation for what they are going to experience in the world.

Family Ties, Growing Pains, Tool Time, 7th Heaven, The Cosby show are fantasy, things don't work like that.

She turned on the tv to watch extreme home makeover. She likes that show, and frankly, it is a great show. But alas, it wasn't on. Private Ryan was. She does read, and has TV for 2 hours a day, broken up however she wants, but the point is not to sanitize the world. Or make her into a Stepford child. The point is when is it too much for the average viewer.

[Xtremehkr]

brap, I am not even going down the slippery slope model. I am not talking about anything except network tv. That is supposed to be safe. That is not supposed to have vulgarity and violence on it, that my wife cannot even stomach.

And Xtremehkr do you really think that letting a 6 year old watch private ryan is a good idea?

It's not up to me to decide what you let your daughter watch. Myself, yes, I grew up watching what my parents watched. I didn't understand 10% of it, but I asked a lot of questions about why, how, where, when and learned a lot. Then I went and played.

But that is not the issue, what you want as a parent for your kids only affects me when you want to sanitize television and ignore any suggestion that a compromise can be made. There is a solution that offers a perfect compromise, and let's your kids see only what you want them while allowing adults to see what they want to see on network television as well.

Why is that unacceptable?

[zimv20]

I am not talking about anything except network tv. That is supposed to be safe.
it is? i'll accept that at certain programming times, it is*, at other times, it isn't, and then in the evening, there's a mix. but that's what the vchip and pre-program warnings are for.

of course, i sympathize w/ all parents in this regard, it's impossible to watch even one kid all the time. there are tools to help, as i've mentioned. but i don't think it's reasonable to assume all network tv is safe all the time. if it ever was (was it?), it certainly hasn't been for decades.

* where "safe" is relative, of course. i'd rather let my 5 y.o. nephew listen to cuss words on tv than watch people getting murdered or their limbs blown off.

[Xtremehkr]

She turned on the tv to watch extreme home makeover. She likes that show, and frankly, it is a great show. But alas, it wasn't on. Private Ryan was. She does read, and has TV for 2 hours a day, broken up however she wants, but the point is not to sanitize the world. Or make her into a Stepford child. The point is when is it too much for the average viewer.

It would be harder to define what the "average viewer" is. What kind of ratings did it get?

Maybe you are in the minority.

[Backtothemac]

Guys, 7pm on a Sunday night. Come on, that should be a safe time for your kid to turn on the tv and not be exposed to what some WWII vets called the most real portrait of war they have ever seen.

I don't want to sanatize your tv. They could show it on HBO, or later in the night, but at 7pm on a Sunday.

[brap]

brap, I am not even going down the slippery slope model. I am not talking about anything except network tv. That is supposed to be safe. That is not supposed to have vulgarity and violence on it, that my wife cannot even stomach.
Assuming you have a film classification system, the vulgarity and violence should have been made perfectly clear.

This argument is effectively rescinding your claim to the right to decide, and is a very slippery slope indeed.

[zimv20]

Guys, 7pm on a Sunday night. Come on, that should be a safe time for your kid to turn on the tv and not be exposed [...]
that was what i was getting at above. those evening hours are the grey area times that are pushing the boundaries (remember the scandal of showing buttocks on NYPD Blue? or the [gasp] breast on ER?).

i'd always thought "adult time" started at 10 pm CST.

all that said, i was surprised to learn that ABC was airing the movie w/ all the explitives intact. i was even more surprised to learn that they'd done the exact thing before. so is the recent flap really a reaction to the holiday timing, or does it have more to do w/ bush getting 4 more years and the christian right feeling empowered?

[Xtremehkr]

Generally at that age, my sister and I were in bed by 7pm.

But regardless, I learned an important lesson early on.

When my sister and I wanted different things my parents would let us argue for a while, just because it is a part of development. And after a while they would step in and help us decide on something that would be mutually agreeable. COMPROMISE, it really helps you get through life unless you want to fight everyone or make them adhere to what you want.

There is a solution that is in most televisions sold today, mine has one, I didn't know it was there when I bought it. But it allows for me to watch what I want and for parents to prevent their kids from seeing all sort of different things. From violence to sex or foul language, you can prevent it all.

What's wrong with that? Why does it have to be your way or everything is wrong with the world.

[Chip NoVaMac]

brap, I am not even going down the slippery slope model. I am not talking about anything except network tv. That is supposed to be safe. That is not supposed to have vulgarity and violence on it, that my wife cannot even stomach.

And Xtremehkr do you really think that letting a 6 year old watch private ryan is a good idea?

So let me understand, ""Duty, Honor, Country. Values. Tradition." does not extend to to your child? Despite the language and gore. Lets face it you could explain the language as a "part" of war.

Maybe you want your cake and eat it too? You want the blood without seeing it. Maybe you are happy that we don't see the coffins coming home. Very Cold War.

[IJ Reilly]

Guys, 7pm on a Sunday night. Come on, that should be a safe time for your kid to turn on the tv and not be exposed to what some WWII vets called the most real portrait of war they have ever seen.

I don't want to sanatize your tv. They could show it on HBO, or later in the night, but at 7pm on a Sunday.

I simply do not understand the distinction being made here. What is so different between "network" TV and "cable" TV anymore, now that most households have both?

[Chip NoVaMac]

I simply do not understand the distinction being made here. What is so different between "network" TV and "cable" TV anymore, now that most households have both?

I think he may be hoping for the Ted Mac Hour or the Wonderful World of Disney. ;)

This brings to mind that I never saw Star Trek when it first ran. I was in bed at like 7 or 8 PM till my high school days. This counted even during the summer (try sleeping with the sun setting at like 8PM!).

My parents controlled what I saw on TV. Why do we need to have the networks do the job of the parents today? Back when I was young my parents did not have cable, VCR, or a DVD player. They took upon themselves to "protect" me from materials they did not want me to see.

Are some parents too lazy today? They have options that my parents did not have. If they weren't lazy; why would they want us to raise their child by limiting what we see on TV? Maybe they don't want to show the true effects of "war". They just want ""Duty, Honor, Country. Values. Tradition.".

[blackfox]

BTTM, at some point you have to reconcile the reality that although we are one of the most conservative Western Cultures, ours seems to be in the most severe moral decline.

By Conservative I mean that we shy away from nudity and sex and taboo. We somehow exalt violence, however. Again, like the second quote in my signature, when you censure things and/or repress them, you lose any semblance of being able to properly guage what is appropriate.

You have only to look at our infantile/adolescent take on sexuality, violence and language to see this.

Many other countries deal with these issues intelligently and subsequently do not have the problems we have with our lesser Cultural expressions.

Everything is so sensationalized.

[takao]

here they showed the movie at 8pm last time (shortly before the 6.)
sundayn ormally means sports in the afternoon or kids porgramm untill the news at 19:30(like every day) and then other stuff
at 6 i was allowed to watch some save movies at 8pm and discovery channel like stuff ..and i _had_ to ask my parents if i can turn on the TV

but of course the private channels have no problem with showing shows where you can see nude breasts at lunchtime :rolleyes:
oh and don't forget that ad with the 2 grils kissing in the afternoon (with one breast exposed)
for swear words: most of them i learned in school ...

(last eastern one private channel show a ww2 war movie at 2pm on sunday..directly after a bible movie ..so much for irony)

[Thomas Veil]

Is this not the second time that ABC (at least) has shown this movie. It makes me worried that we are becoming a nation of the intolerant. At the same point if "Saving Private Ryan" was done 20+ years ago they would have done it without the swear words.

I do remember a date that that she and I walked out of "Scar Face", because I was was embarrassed by the language.

I look at many movies and TV today and wonder if we need the "realism' of the language.
I agree with a quite a lot of this. Which shows that this whole issue is not as black-and-white as the Morality Police would have you believe.

I too turned off "Scarface" on TV because every other word was "f---". But some bad language, in the right context (such as a war) is appropriate. It would be unrealistic and false to portray it otherwise.

That said, I don't know why ABC was airing the movie uncensored at 7 pm. It's a broadcast network after all, not cable. And if you want the uncensored version, there are several ways to see it.


Ruport Murdoch, the right-wing media giant is happy to chime in with the rest of the GOP in condemning the "moral decline" in our country, yet at the same time, Murdoch's FOX Network (not News) continues to parade out shows which hit new lows in the realm of good taste....

To me the problem is not swear words, or breasts, but the sea of relativism that people are thrown into without a compass or oars. The response to these things smacks of infantalism, which reflects the essential lack of character of many of those complaining. To live merely in opposition to something is not a legitimate social or psychological position. Where is the maturity?
Amen.


I simply do not understand the distinction being made here. What is so different between "network" TV and "cable" TV anymore, now that most households have both?
Well, the difference, of course, is that you can opt out of cable if you want to.

I do get the argument, really, about parents also controlling their kids' television. But with people working all kinds of hours (yes, even Sunday nights, I worked that shift just recently), sometimes kids are home alone or only under the supervision of older kids. And not everyone has a TV with a V-chip.


One big drawback about casual use of the "f-bomb" (I like that term. :) ) is that it's then difficult to escalate. Overuse dulls the impact.
I recently read an essay by Harlan Ellison, in which he said much the same thing. His conclusion, though, was that we should not censor that kind of language, because its proliferation would eventually render it meaningless, which would (he said) lead to the invention of newer and more inventive swear words. "Which," he concluded, "would only enrich the language. So, yours for bigger and better f***s..." :D

[Lyle]

I can't see why I should have to censor my language when I'm out in public just because someone hasn't explained the meaning of the word to their child.

about the speaking in public thing... I self-censor if there are kids w/in earshot...
I wonder if this is a European vs. American attitude, or just a personal thing.

I was raised in the Southeastern United States, but I have traveled most everywhere in the U.S. (including several extended stints in NYC). It's been my observation that most Americans behave like zimv20: If they're aware of kids within earshot, they self-censor. But it goes even further than that; most Americans I've run into act embarassed (maybe even ashamed) and apologize if they have been unknowingly using profanity in front of kids. I don't recall ever seeing anyone react with an attitude like the one Ugg described.

I'm not trying to set up an "us versus them" or "right versus wrong" situation by comparing European and American attitudes on this. I'm just curious what other people have observed. Have I just been unusually lucky to run into all of the polite people in the U.S.? ;)

[Ugg]

I wonder if this is a European vs. American attitude, or just a personal thing.

I was raised in the Southeastern United States, but I have traveled most everywhere in the U.S. (including several extended stints in NYC). It's been my observation that most Americans behave like zimv20: If they're aware of kids within earshot, they self-censor. But it goes even further than that; most Americans I've run into act embarassed (maybe even ashamed) and apologize if they have been unknowingly using profanity in front of kids. I don't recall ever seeing anyone react with an attitude like the one Ugg described.

I'm not trying to set up an "us versus them" or "right versus wrong" situation by comparing European and American attitudes on this. I'm just curious what other people have observed. Have I just been unusually lucky to run into all of the polite people in the U.S.? ;)

To reduce this conversation to the use of the F-bomb is sort of silly. I probably use the word and it's cousins less than, I don't know, maybe once a month. I'm not a fan of those who need to pepper their speech with bodily excreta and bedroom habits. I think though that it's more about adult speech in general. If I'm at a restaurant and discussing a hot topic like religion or abortion or whatever, should I then self-censor because of the wee ears around me? Personally I would think those topics would be a heck of a lot more difficult to explain to a six year old than the f-bomb. Yet, people get all bent out of shape at the occasional expletive.

You'll find a lot less swearing in general in public discourse in Europe but at the same time there's a lot less of an effort to shield little ears from what goes on in the adult world. What's the point of raising your children in a vacuum?

As far as TV goes, I can't see why any parent would give their child unfettered and unsupervised access to it. But then I don't watch TV at all.

[Backtothemac]

Are some parents too lazy today? They have options that my parents did not have. If they weren't lazy; why would they want us to raise their child by limiting what we see on TV? Maybe they don't want to show the true effects of "war". They just want ""Duty, Honor, Country. Values. Tradition.".

Ya just can't resist the shots can ya. Well, I don't want my 6 year old to see war, violence, sex, and hear crude language. i would imagine that the majority of parents don't want their SIX year olds to see and hear the type of situations that were in Private Ryan.

Thus, when your child turns on the TV to a SAFE channel that they have permission to watch on a SUNDAY night at 7pm, you would not expect to hear the f-bomb and have her see people blown apart. See what we did not know, is that she did see some of it. She told us last night at 3 am when she could not sleep.

So, your RIGHT to see things like that on TV gets trumped by the protection of my child. Or it should at least. Rights are not absolute, and the first rights that we should protect are the rights of the children in our society.

Hogwash when trying to get networks not to air Saving Private Ryan is called censorship. Flip over to HBO, go rent it, or go buy it. You have the right to do that. But to broadcast it over the public air waves, that is just uncalled for. Period.

[mactastic]

Hello! I don't want my kid growing up with images of Barbie on her TV. Ergo I now have the right to demand all Barbie commercials be pulled from TV?

I now think McDonalds commercials are making kids fat. I want all of those pulled from network TV as well.

I don't want my kid dressing like a cheap tramp either, so no Gap ads, no CK, etc. Those ads need to be pulled.

Where does it stop? Why is it bad words and not lies about products? Why bad words and not violence? It's ok to watch 'the most realistic depiction of war' but it's not ok to hear the bad words that come with it? What gives? And whose morals get to dictate what is objectionable?

If you are that worried about it, why let your kid near the TV unsupervised at all? It's not that hard to buy some Spongebob DVDs, or anything else you deem appropriate. And perhaps you need to re-evaluate what you consider 'safe' channels rather than censoring what other people see. I wouldn't count any of them as 'safe' myself.

Plus this really has to get put in perspective. You kid is going to hear and see things you don't want them to both on TV and IRL.

Finally, this violates conservative ideals in two ways. First, there is the idea that the market decides what people get as a product. If the demand is there, the product is a success. If not the product fails. Second, the related ideas of personal responsibility and local control. What is more local than a parent turning off the TV? And what is more personally responsible than the same?

If I said I didn't want to take away your guns, I just wanted to keep you from owning certain types because of their potential hazard to others, would you buy that argument? (Probably not a good example due to your stand on guns, but pretend you are a traditional conservative here.)

[Lyle]

You'll find a lot less swearing in general in public discourse in Europe but at the same time there's a lot less of an effort to shield little ears from what goes on in the adult world. What's the point of raising your children in a vacuum?I don't think it's about wanting to raise kids in a vacuum, I think it's just the expectation of parents to be able to decide when their kids are exposed to the "adult world". Yes, of course my child is eventually going to find out what abortion is, and that there are a lot of different religious beliefs out there, and even what the "F" word means. But if I'd prefer that my kid didn't have to be aware of those things at, say, age six, is that so wrong?
As far as TV goes, I can't see why any parent would give their child unfettered and unsupervised access to it.As I noted in a previous post, I'm in agreement with you on this: it seems like a child's access to TV is something that parents have plenty of opportunities to control if they so choose. But then again, I'm not a parent, and so I acknowledge that controlling a kid's access to TV is probably a lot easier said than done.

[IJ Reilly]

Well, the difference, of course, is that you can opt out of cable if you want to.

You can opt out of all of it if you want to. And some do. I've known households without a TV and somehow they survive. Frankly, if I had kids I wouldn't have a TV or the internet in my home. Some of the nastiest stuff I see on a daily basis isn't on TV anyway -- it drops right into my e-mailbox, and I can't opt out of that.

Another point about the shrinking real-world difference between cable and network TV: most people now get both on cable, either because they live in an area with poor or no broadcast reception, or because they want all of that other cable content along with broadcast TV. This is rapidly becoming a distinction without a difference.

I'll repeat my earlier assertion: The only reason the self-appointed decency squad is beating up on ABC in this instance is because they are subject to FCC regulations, and cable is not. It's an exercise in right wing political correctness, pure and simple.

[emw]

I picked the wrong day to be sick and miss the good discussion. But at least I've had the opportunity to review the responses here, and I've got a couple of comments.

First, I've got a 4 year old daughter (and a 1 year old son, but he doesn't play into these discussions). There are many things that I don't really want her to see, either because I know she'll get nightmares, or I don't feel she's old enough to comprehend, but I'm not opposed to them being shown.

For example, ABC made significant attempts to prepare the public for what was being shown - commercials describing the fact that it would be an uncensored event were played at least 1-2 weeks before the airing, so I knew it would be on, and simply avoided it. That simple. They are limited in their TV time, because we prefer to have them do art projects, or read, or play together than simply sit in front of the TV, and we ALWAYS know what they are watching.

Also, as a parent, it is my responsibility to know what my kids are watching. There are many shows today, even on supposed "kid-friendly" networks that I wouldn't want my kids watching. Discovery Channel aires some fairly graphic medical shows, as does Animal Planet. Yes, they are educational in nature, but it doesn't mean the kids should watch it. Cartoon network? Come on - half of that is just bodily function humor (which I enjoy, but don't really want my kid repeating).

I guess the net for me is it is my responsibility to educate my children on my values, and to give them the ability to make their own decisions in life. As long as networks provide enough kid-friendly shows, which I do believe is their responsibility, to balance the "Saving Private Ryan"'s I'm okay with it.

[mactastic]

:D At least they wern't showing 'Saving Ryan's Privates'!

[Backtothemac]

mactastic, to me it is the violence, and the language. Sure, me and my wife were upstairs, and madi turned on the tv to see some very disturbing parts of private ryan. Well the movie, not Ryan ;)

Anyway, I just think that 7pm on a Sunday is a bit extreme for that movie to air unedited.

We agree to disagree, I don't think it is censorship, I am against that. However, I think it is common sense.

[emw]

:D At least they wern't showing 'Saving Ryan's Privates'!

I thought you were joking. But I guess not! (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0221532/) :D

[mactastic]

mactastic, to me it is the violence, and the language. Sure, me and my wife were upstairs, and madi turned on the tv to see some very disturbing parts of private ryan. Well the movie, not Ryan ;)

Anyway, I just think that 7pm on a Sunday is a bit extreme for that movie to air unedited.

We agree to disagree, I don't think it is censorship, I am against that. However, I think it is common sense.

Would you be willing to protect kids from pollutants that are giving them asthma by disallowing them to be put into the air? Or are you only worried about their morals?

[Xtremehkr]

I guess no one likes the idea of finding of a compromise. It's no wonder things have gotten so partisan.

[Backtothemac]

Would you be willing to protect kids from pollutants that are giving them asthma by disallowing them to be put into the air? Or are you only worried about their morals?

Actually I have worked on a commission here in town to help lobby the state government to reduce emmissions in Alabama. So, I am a tree hugging republican I guess ;)

[Backtothemac]

I guess no one likes the idea of finding of a compromise. It's no wonder things have gotten so partisan.

how about no f-bomb shows at 7pm on a Sunday, but ok after 9 on weekdays and Saturdays. Violence, sex, etc go in that category as well.

Sound fair?

[emw]

Would you be willing to protect kids from pollutants that are giving them asthma by disallowing them to be put into the air? Or are you only worried about their morals?

Backtothemac is opposed to airing of violent, foul-language programs on national TV during "Prime Time." While I disagree with the position in this specific case, it is no reason to question the dedication or love he has for his child.

In fact, in most cases I would agree with him, but Saving Private Ryan is an important film, and one that warranted being shown given the nature of the holiday (we need to remember not only that they fought for us, but what they went through as well). I do not believe that type of material is generally appropriate for network programming. And I am far from being a right-wing moral conservative.

[takao]

I wonder if this is a European vs. American attitude, or just a personal thing.

I was raised in the Southeastern United States, but I have traveled most everywhere in the U.S. (including several extended stints in NYC). It's been my observation that most Americans behave like zimv20: If they're aware of kids within earshot, they self-censor. But it goes even further than that; most Americans I've run into act embarassed (maybe even ashamed) and apologize if they have been unknowingly using profanity in front of kids. I don't recall ever seeing anyone react with an attitude like the one Ugg described.

I'm not trying to set up an "us versus them" or "right versus wrong" situation by comparing European and American attitudes on this. I'm just curious what other people have observed. Have I just been unusually lucky to run into all of the polite people in the U.S.? ;)

not sure but when i get to hear swear words it's most of the times from teenagers or ...*grasp* ... kids...(you know those eminem fans under 12...)..
i personally use perhaps more than i'm aware of ... you know this situations where you hit the thumb instead the nail or when i get NullPointerExceptions out of nowhere
but i don't use the german version of the f-bomb..that sounds too ridiculous (i use multiple german versions of the s-word when swearing...they are still better than the old un-politicalcorrect dialect words for swearing)

i don't see why i should self censore my words around others/kids/etc .... but i'm austrian and some parts of the country over here are famous for being unfriendly/unpolite/harsh with words ... (and thanks to hudnreds of years of monarchy no one else can take as much bureaucracy like us..)

[blackfox]

As a small aside to the discussion here, I will just mention the obvious fact that TV chooses to play certain material based almost solely on the criteria of making those advertising dollars. Prime time is called that for a reason - big bucks to be had, as there is a huge potential audience of viewers.

So we can argue about the wisdom or morality of showing this, that or the other, but business is amoral at best and only takes our opinion into consideration when it affects their pocketbook.

Just felt like addressing the obvious 400lb gorilla in the room.

[Chip NoVaMac]

Ya just can't resist the shots can ya. Well, I don't want my 6 year old to see war, violence, sex, and hear crude language. i would imagine that the majority of parents don't want their SIX year olds to see and hear the type of situations that were in Private Ryan.

Thus, when your child turns on the TV to a SAFE channel that they have permission to watch on a SUNDAY night at 7pm, you would not expect to hear the f-bomb and have her see people blown apart. See what we did not know, is that she did see some of it. She told us last night at 3 am when she could not sleep.

So, your RIGHT to see things like that on TV gets trumped by the protection of my child. Or it should at least. Rights are not absolute, and the first rights that we should protect are the rights of the children in our society.

Hogwash when trying to get networks not to air Saving Private Ryan is called censorship. Flip over to HBO, go rent it, or go buy it. You have the right to do that. But to broadcast it over the public air waves, that is just uncalled for. Period.

That is the difference between the time I grew up and now I guess. We only had one TV. And my parents controlled what I saw. Like I said before an uncle of mine nearly broke his neck changing channels on an Elvis in Hawaii so many years ago.

You may not like the path I going down, but it up to the parent to still watch out for the safety of that child. One can not expect laws alone to do the job. i question the need of a child to have a TV that they can control, but those were the values I was brought up with. I did not have a TV of my own till I started earning money myself. Nor did I have my own phone line.

At the same point, you could have rented a movie or flipped over to HBO in order to prevent your child from seeing Private Ryan. When I was growing up, there TV movies that my parents thought I should watch (though they were much "safer" than some today). I wish I could say how my parents would have viewed Private Ryan if I were still a child.

If I were a parent, I not sure how I would stand on this movie. At 6 yo, I might draw the line. I assume that you would not allow your daughter to view the Passion of Christ either. I know that I would have reservations on this movie for TV. Yet objectionable movies just don't "appear". They are advertised, and listed in TV listings. I have not used the V-chip; but I assume that the V-chip would have shielded your daughter from this particular movie.

In the end, the protection of your child is up to you. Laws should not be the end all. Keep in mind the airwaves are no longer "public".

[mactastic]

how about no f-bomb shows at 7pm on a Sunday, but ok after 9 on weekdays and Saturdays. Violence, sex, etc go in that category as well.

Sound fair?

Does football or hockey count as violence? How about the Vibe awards?

[zimv20]

To reduce this conversation to the use of the F-bomb is sort of silly. I probably use the word and it's cousins less than, I don't know, maybe once a month.
i, otoh, w/ certain people will swear a mean streak in normal conversation, so i'm probably a little more sensitive about doing so when in a crowd.

however, i was talking pretty specifically about four letter words, and not discussion of ideas. so if i'm in a heated conversation about, say, bush, the conversation will continue w/ kids around, i'll just stop saying "he's a ****ing idiot ********". :-)

edit: ah, i see that the **** part of ******** isn't filtered. can someone report my post and tell them to add ******** to the language filter? thanks. unfortunately, this version of the message board doesn't allow me to self-report!

[zimv20]

how about no f-bomb shows at 7pm on a Sunday, but ok after 9 on weekdays and Saturdays. Violence, sex, etc go in that category as well.

Sound fair?
what's so special about sunday?

[mactastic]

Can anyone guarantee me that my kids won't see a fight break out at a baseball game on TV? Can we agree to not show sporting events during kid-hours?

[takao]

what's so special about sunday?

last day of the week perhaps ? ;)

[skunk]

Or first...

Let's face it, there are some pretty awful programs for both adults and kids out there. Surely, if the TV is being used as a babysitter, you get what it dishes out. If parents look after their children, they can keep an eye on things. If they delegate that task to a commercial medium, that's their lookout.

[emw]

At the same point, you could have rented a movie or flipped over to HBO in order to prevent your child from seeing Private Ryan. When I was growing up, there TV movies that my parents thought I should watch (though they were much "safer" than some today). I wish I could say how my parents would have viewed Private Ryan if I were still a child.

When I was kid, we couldn't watch Happy Days, or any show that contained even the vaguest sexual reference. In fact, my dad would often change channels if there were questionable commercials, for cryin' out loud. I don't think I realized that people kissed until I was in high school. ;)

Of course, when I was a kid, my parents didn't work evenings, or have to bring work home, or need to pay bills online at night because both of them worked, or a thousand other things that tend to distract us. It is getting more difficult to be constantly diligent, and buying new TVs isn't always an option.

So am I for censorship? No. Am I for responsible programming? Yes.

[Lyle]

Sigh. If anyone's keeping score, it looks like ABC is going for broke (http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6512160/):
The nation’s chief media regulator expressed disappointment Wednesday over the steamy locker room opening to ABC’s “Monday Night Football” broadcast... The opening, which has generated complaints to ABC and the FCC, featured actress Nicollette Sheridan of the hit show “Desperate Housewives” in the locker room, wearing only a towel and provocatively asking Owens to skip the game for her. She drops the towel and jumps into the arms of Philadelphia Eagles star Terrell Owens. Sheridan was shown only from behind and above the waist after dropping the towel.

[Backtothemac]

Let me clarify a few things.

1) My daughter doesn't have her own T.V.
2) Normally we are in the room with her at all times when the TV is on.
3) She asked if she could turn on Extreme home makeover, because she knows we watch it every Sunday after Church.
4) My wife and I were upstairs when she turned it on.
5) She saw a very violent part of the movie, and heard rather bad language that we don't use in our house.
6) She has had nightmares since.
7) No I would not let her watch the Passion
8) 7P.M. on a Sunday should be family programing as it normally is.
9) I care about the environment.
10) I am not a right wing morality censor.
11) Some stations are considered public in nature
12) Public broadcasts have to meet FCC criteria
13) Saving private ryan doesn't
14) What if it were Black Hawk down, same thing
15) I just want to protect my 6 year old because you cannot always be there to monitor what they see.
16) I have never used a V-Chip, but I have limited her access to other stations and times that I would deem inappropriate.

There, does that help you guys understand why I think they went to far. If they would have bumped it back to 9 p.m. that would have been fine with me.

[Backtothemac]

Sigh. If anyone's keeping score, it looks like ABC is going for broke (http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6512160/):

I again think they went to far. Why does everything have to be about sex, and violence. What happened to the programing that I grew up on?

[Chip NoVaMac]

When I was kid, we couldn't watch Happy Days, or any show that contained even the vaguest sexual reference. In fact, my dad would often change channels if there were questionable commercials, for cryin' out loud. I don't think I realized that people kissed until I was in high school. ;)

Of course, when I was a kid, my parents didn't work evenings, or have to bring work home, or need to pay bills online at night because both of them worked, or a thousand other things that tend to distract us. It is getting more difficult to be constantly diligent, and buying new TVs isn't always an option.

So am I for censorship? No. Am I for responsible programming? Yes.

Thanks, your post is the first one that made me see the issue more clearly.

I have to admit that I am surprised at what passes for "family fair" between 8 and 9 PM. Children should be happy that I am not their parent. For I would be very protective of what they watched or did. Not to mention they probably would be in bed by 8PM like I was as a kid.

You touch on something that is hard to peg. And that is where the lines gets drawn on "censorship" verses "responsible programming". For a movie like Saving Private Ryan it is hard for me to make a judgment, since it is a powerful film. IMO it has redeeming value that should allow it be on TV. I respect that ABC showed it without commercials. And I assume with a warning.

I am concerned by some of the points in the initial article. How a vocal, organized "minority" (I don't see how these groups are speaking for the majority IMO) can dictate standards for what is shown on TV is scary to me. At the same time I can understand their concern. For allowing this film to be shown could allow Scarface to be shown also.

I wonder if there is some middle ground that can be reached.

[Backtothemac]

Chip, I agree with you, Private Ryan one day will show my daughter what Grand Pa did. See he was on the beach in Omaha. However, I don't want her exposed to that type of material now at the age of 6. That is just too young. Now, having said that, I think that the movie should be shown, however, not at 7 P.M. on a Sunday night. Right after Church!

Why could not they have waited till 9 P.M. or at least 8? That would be all that I ask. Madi doesn't watch T.V. after 8 unless it is Hannity and Colmes. :)

[blackfox]

I again think they went to far. Why does everything have to be about sex, and violence. What happened to the programing that I grew up on?It died, along with that world.

Which is why I disagree with the Conservative push to return the country to the morality of those times. I understand and agree with the motives, but you just can't go back. You can only go forward.

I find as much of the fodder that passes for Culture abhorrent as you do, BTTM, but any solutions to this problem must be rooted in the unfortunate realities of the present, as much as we might wish it otherwise.

In many ways, the ways our parents raised us are increasingly irrelevant, innappropriate or impossible in today's world. It is just too different.

It is a very sad fact, but a fact nonetheless.

I am not advocating throwing the baby out with the bathwater, but I think many of the older generation have trouble dealing with the problem of raising kids in today's world, because they are unable or unwilling to understand it.

Luckily, Love and example are timeless.

[mactastic]

Chip, I agree with you, Private Ryan one day will show my daughter what Grand Pa did. See he was on the beach in Omaha. However, I don't want her exposed to that type of material now at the age of 6. That is just too young. Now, having said that, I think that the movie should be shown, however, not at 7 P.M. on a Sunday night. Right after Church!

What the hell does the time of Church have to do with this? You know some people go to church at other times, and some don't go at all. So the argument that this shouldn't be shown 'Right after Church!' can't be used as justification.

Why could not they have waited till 9 P.M. or at least 8? That would be all that I ask. Madi doesn't watch T.V. after 8 unless it is Hannity and Colmes. :)

Whoa... you don't want your kid learning the f-word, but you want her learning that shouting over people is OK? That's F-ed up man. Very few people are as blatantly and publicly disrespectful of people who disagree with them as Sean Hannity is. And yet you don't mind him 'Hannitizing' your daughter? And isn't there the distinct possibility that they will show footage like the Marine shooting an unarmed wounded man on H and C? That's much worse than seeing the CGI violence of SPR.

[Lyle]

Why does everything have to be about sex, and violence?I think blackfox has already answered your question quite directly:
... TV chooses to play certain material based almost solely on the criteria of making those advertising dollars. Prime time is called that for a reason - big bucks to be had, as there is a huge potential audience of viewers.P.S. While I've already stated my case that (IMO) parents have to take the lead on doing whatever it takes to monitor what their kids are seeing on TV (including pulling the plug on it), I wouldn't want you to assume that I'm unsympathetic to what you're saying. As emw put it, there is a difference between parents asking for "responsible" programming on the networks' part and censorship. So am I happy that ABC decided to show Saving Private Ryan uncensored, during hours when it's extremely likely that kids might discover it (despite, or perhaps thanks to) advance warnings? Well, no. But given that that's the way things are, I think you've gotta do what you've gotta do to protect your kids, even if that means more restrictions on unsupervised TV viewing.

[mactastic]

How about cutthroat win-at-all-costs reality shows? I don't want my kid learning that it's a wise move to backstab the people around you to get ahead in life, or that you need plastic surgery to be beautiful, or that two leggy blond sluts can indeed pretend to be normal people. Yet those are shown in primetime... Just who's values count here?

Personally I don't see much of anything in prime time that is appropriate for a 6yo. FoodTV maybe.

And yes, I'd like to see more responsible programming from the networks (and cable too) but how do we do that? Mandate it through legislation? Obviously the market has spoken here. Where have our free-market conservatives gone off to?

[emw]

I am concerned by some of the points in the initial article. How a vocal, organized "minority" (I don't see how these groups are speaking for the majority IMO) can dictate standards for what is shown on TV is scary to me.
The problem is, the squeaky wheel gets the oil. If the minority is the only one that is vocal and organized, then there is no clear way to know what the majority thought, except through the very real "evidence" of viewership. Which in this case, seemed to vote against (http://tv.zap2it.com/tveditorial/tve_main/1,1002,272|weekly||,00.html) Saving Private Ryan.

I would tend to think the majority of Americans are against graphic violence on network TV in prime time, even though many of us would agree that this particular film has significant merit.

At the same time I can understand their concern. For allowing this film to be shown could allow Scarface to be shown also.

True - how do you quantify "artistic" or "historical" merit? At some point there needs to be a decision as to what qualifies as acceptable programming, and that is where things get dicey.

[emw]

Which is why I disagree with the Conservative push to return the country to the morality of those times. I understand and agree with the motives, but you just can't go back. You can only go forward.

Why does moving forward default to being less conservative? Humans have gone through these cycles for millennia - the next generation is not always more "conservative" than the previous, they tend more often to be the opposite of the previous. So our grandchildren are likely to look at us and wonder how we were ever so permissive, just like we wonder how our grandmothers couldn't wear clothing that exposed their stomachs in public.

[Lyle]

How about cutthroat win-at-all-costs reality shows? I don't want my kid learning that it's a wise move to backstab the people around you to get ahead in life, or that you need plastic surgery to be beautiful, or that two leggy blond sluts can indeed pretend to be normal people. Yet those are shown in primetime... Just who's values count here?

Personally I don't see much of anything in prime time that is appropriate for a 6yo. FoodTV maybe.Yup.

And yes, I'd like to see more responsible programming from the networks (and cable too) but how do we do that? Mandate it through legislation? Obviously the market has spoken here. Where have our free-market conservatives gone off to?I prefer the free market approach, but since you brought it up I'll pose the question (and I promise it's not a trick): If a significant enough segment market were to "speak" by boycotting advertisers for a particular program (like the ones you alluded to) would that be OK?

[emw]

And yes, I'd like to see more responsible programming from the networks (and cable too) but how do we do that? Mandate it through legislation? Obviously the market has spoken here. Where have our free-market conservatives gone off to?

Unfortunately, I don't think it's just the market dictating this. It's shareholders. Networks can make a "reality" series in most cases for far less than it takes to make a normal show. So Fear Factor costs NBC about what, $500K per episode? Compared to the $1,000,000+ per episode per cast member for Friends? It doesn't take much to realize that a smaller audience (and hence a smaller advertising revenue) will still result in big profits on these shows.

If you look at the ratings, many of these shows (minus The Apprentice and Survivor) generally don't do very well compared with big-budget items like CSI, ER, etc.

[emw]

I prefer the free market approach, but since you brought it up I'll pose the question (and I promise it's not a trick): If a significant enough segment market were to "speak" by boycotting advertisers for a particular program (like the ones you alluded to) would that be OK?

But then you'd have to sit through all that crap to know what you weren't supposed to be buying! :eek:

[mactastic]

Unfortunately, I don't think it's just the market dictating this. It's shareholders. Networks can make a "reality" series in most cases for far less than it takes to make a normal show. So Fear Factor costs NBC about what, $500K per episode? Compared to the $1,000,000+ per episode per cast member for Friends? It doesn't take much to realize that a smaller audience (and hence a smaller advertising revenue) will still result in big profits on these shows.

If you look at the ratings, many of these shows (minus The Apprentice and Survivor) generally don't do very well compared with big-budget items like CSI, ER, etc.

But isn't that 'the market'? If it makes a profit?

[skunk]

3) She asked if she could turn on Extreme home makeover, because she knows we watch it every Sunday after Church.
4) My wife and I were upstairs when she turned it on.
"Wow!" is all I can say! You've got Sunday well sorted! :D

I tend to agree, actually, that there should be a child-friendly TV slot, but I'd really be more upset with the violence than the swearing. However, on Remembrance Day, and for an undeniably relevant and thought-provoking film, perhaps exceptions can be made, provided adequate warnings are given. From Teletubbies to Private Ryan is rather a jump.

[mactastic]

Yup.

I prefer the free market approach, but since you brought it up I'll pose the question (and I promise it's not a trick): If a significant enough segment market were to "speak" by boycotting advertisers for a particular program (like the ones you alluded to) would that be OK?

Yes because I'm free to boycott those whose boycotts I disagree with.

Q. for you: Is the free market working in this case or does it need a nudge from the outside?

[emw]

But isn't that 'the market'? If it makes a profit?

My point was that even if only a relatively small number of people watch the shows, but the shows themselves are profitable, then the networks showing them isn't a decision based on market share.

I guess it's always been about dollars, it's just that traditionally you spend more to make more. With reality TV, you spend less, but make the same amount (or more) despite poor viewership.

[mactastic]

My point was that even if only a relatively small number of people watch the shows, but the shows themselves are profitable, then the networks showing them isn't a decision based on market share.

I guess it's always been about dollars, it's just that traditionally you spend more to make more. With reality TV, you spend less, but make the same amount (or more) despite poor viewership.

I understand your point, but we're using market differently. I'm talking about the concept of the free market, you are talking about the number of people watching a given program. Two totally unrelated items.

[takao]

My point was that even if only a relatively small number of people watch the shows, but the shows themselves are profitable, then the networks showing them isn't a decision based on market share.

I guess it's always been about dollars, it's just that traditionally you spend more to make more. With reality TV, you spend less, but make the same amount (or more) despite poor viewership.

interesting... here the tv channels are rather buying US made shows (friends,simpsons etc.) for money than making their own ones..simple because it's _cheaper_ and normally only news shows or certain sports events can rival new movies etc. ( msot viwers i naustria in the last years always were big skiing events liek the last olypic mens downhill with more than 2,2 million viewers ..out of 8 million austrians)

[Lyle]

Yes because I'm free to boycott those whose boycotts I disagree with.Yes.

Q. for you: Is the free market working in this case or does it need a nudge from the outside?Sorry, I got lost (remember, I voted for Bush). Is the free market working in which case?

[mactastic]

Yes.

Sorry, I got lost (remember, I voted for Bush). Is the free market working in which case?

Is the free market providing the content it should be for our society? The free marketeers theory should hold that the programming that doesn't fail from lack of viewership is what should survive. Do we want to let the free market continue down this path of TV programming? Or is there a possibility that letting the free market decide which shows will endure only feeds the lowest common denominator in our society?

[emw]

Is the free market providing the content it should be for our society? The free marketeers theory should hold that the programming that doesn't fail from lack of viewership is what should survive. Do we want to let the free market continue down this path of TV programming? Or is there a possibility that letting the free market decide which shows will endure only feeds the lowest common denominator in our society?

Unfortunately, the model has been modified by such low-cost options as reality TV, I think. The networks now make money off of programs that may have been failures in the past, if based solely on viewership. And as we all know, when networks find a formula that works, they beat it into the ground until people get sick of it, then move on to something else.

[Xtremehkr]

From Teletubbies to Private Ryan is rather a jump.

;) I was wondering about that myself. What channel in what market?

[Xtremehkr]

how about no f-bomb shows at 7pm on a Sunday, but ok after 9 on weekdays and Saturdays. Violence, sex, etc go in that category as well.

Sound fair?

Not all adults work 9 to 5 jobs either. I still think that the V Chip is the best method as it prevents accidents whether parents are there or not. You have to consider that we are now in practically a 24 hour a day economy and many industries don't start when others do or start a lot earlier.

[chanoc]

It's simple, if media offends you turn away.

If Tom Leykis offends you turn to another station.

If curse words and semi nudity on television offend you turn to another station.

If viewing maddox.xmission.com (http://www.maddox.xmission.com) offends you then go to another Web site.

See GOP, stop deciding for me, ******* off, and have a nice day. :p

[Xtremehkr]

It's simple, if media offends you turn away.

If Tom Leykis offends you turn to another station.

If curse words and semi nudity on television offend you turn to another station.

If viewing maddox.xmission.com (http://www.maddox.xmission.com) offends you then go to another Web site.

See GOP, stop deciding for me, ******* off, and have a nice day. :p

It's Toms job to piss people off, but I am a fan also. More Tom Leykis, less Rush Limbaugh. Tom actually tackles issues like the number of kids born to single mothers and other social ills. He cares despite his gruff persona, and he's funny.

[Mr_Ed]

Not all adults work 9 to 5 jobs either. I still think that the V Chip is the best method as it prevents accidents whether parents are there or not. You have to consider that we are now in practically a 24 hour a day economy and many industries don't start when others do or start a lot earlier.

I agree about the V-Chip, and that is a very good point about adults basically working around the clock these days. Use the freakin' V-Chip in your TV!! Program it to block ratings you don't want your children to access. Or is the time it takes to do that too much of a sacrifice to make 'for the children'? Is the time it will take you, as a parent, to 'unlock' a show you want to watch too much sacrifice to make 'for the children'? Hell, I'm not a parent and even I take the time to set ratings limits on my satellite box when my nieces/nephews visit my home!

This may sound 'harsh' but in this day and age, if a child watches something on TV at home that the parents think it's inappropriate, the parents have no one to blame but themselves. A parent's vigilance should be all that is required, but parents today also have other tools at their disposal. All programming and rating information is available to them well in advance of a showing, and there is technology in the sets to block programming based on the ratings. Looking for a 'compromise' on what time of day you can say a certain word on TV, or at what age it is appropriate to expose a child to certain programming is ridiculous and does not address the real problem: Parents don't want to 'parent' any more. The attempt to sanitize TV is only one symptom. How often these days do take notice of young children in public that seem to be completely out of control? I know that did not happen in my family when I was child, and I am willing to bet many here of my age group would say the same.

If you are concerned, as a parent, about what your children watch on TV, then use the tools at your disposal and take charge of your children's lives. What your children do in your home is your responsibility, not mine.

[pseudobrit]

:D At least they wern't showing 'Saving Ryan's Privates'!

As I skimmed this thread, I saw "Shaving" when I read this line.

[shudders]

[Chip NoVaMac]

As I skimmed this thread, I saw "Shaving" when I read this line.

[shudders]

That is the sequel.... :eek:

[Chip NoVaMac]

One thing that just dawned on me that BTTM is in the central time zone. Because I am also a fan of EHMO also. That normally airs at 8PM, but with SPR, they did a repeat of EHMO at 7PM. So it appears that all the other time zones saw the movie at 8PM (which might be a safer hour).

I wonder how difficult it would have been for ABC to have delayed the broadcast till 8PM in the CST zone. Clearly the stations have the ability to pull the plug on the ABC feed. And ABC could have made the request that the stations delay the airing in the CST.