FCC report: TV violence should be regulated

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Thomas Veil, Feb 18, 2007.

  1. Thomas Veil macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    Reality
    #1
    Here we go again:

    CNN

    This is one of those "Whack-a-Mole" issues: every time you think it's gone away, it pops up again. And if they're not blaming television, then it's comic books, or horror movies, or music.

    I'm not sure where they're getting their studies from. I thought the idea that television created violent children was pretty much debunked a couple of decades ago. But like a violent horror movie villain, it's ba-a-a-ack, and I just hope that Congressional Democrats will dump it in the ashcan, rather than take up its recommendations. The FCC regulating violence? *(Shudders)*
     
  2. adrianblaine macrumors 65816

    adrianblaine

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2006
    Location:
    Pasadena, CA
    #2
    While I don't care for violence, I don't think the government should be controlling when it is shown. It really is the parents responsibility to care enough about what their kids are watching if they think it affects them negatively. I've seen many interviews where even TV and movie stars say they don't let their kids watch much TV. If the TV studios feel a moral obligation to not show certain shows during certain times, more power to them.
     
  3. Xander562 macrumors 68000

    Xander562

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2006
    #3
    I agree. It doesn't bother me that they show violence, although I don't particularly care for it. It's up to the people to choose what they want to and don't want to see. Or what they want their children to or not to see. And I think as the TV/Entertainment technologies advance, it will be increasingly easier to block shows with explicit content.
     
  4. obeygiant macrumors 68040

    obeygiant

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2002
    Location:
    totally cool
    #4
    The US has always censored violence to a certain degree but much less than sex, just talk to Howard Stern. In other countries like Sweden they censor violence much more than sex. I wonder if there is any data out there comparing the two countries in terms of teenage pregnancy or teen violence, or other ways this might effect the people.
     
  5. it5five macrumors 65816

    it5five

    Joined:
    May 31, 2006
    Location:
    New York
    #5
    This is true. In fact, I'm taking an ethics course on Sex and Violence in Movies and TV right now. European countries often edit out violence in American programming, while leaving the sex scenes alone.

    I think it's ridiculous to censor things like violence on television, especially with the ratings system in place along with the V-Chip. If parents don't want their children to see violent (and thus, rated M) programs, they should block the M rated programs.

    This also deals with the ethics of the people making these programs though. While I'm not against violence on television, a lot of the violence that I see is a result of lazy producing. All too often, it's easy to throw money at an idea and be done with it, rather than creatively work around an idea to make something better. When producers have millions of dollars to create a massive car explosion, they'll do that, rather than work the car explosion into the story without actually showing it. Have you ever wondered why movies created during the Haye's Code era are often considerd part of the "Golden Age" of Hollywood? It's because those movies are far better than most of the movies being put out today. Why? The people making these films had to deal with censorship, and had to constanly review and re-write the material they were working with. Whenever anybody is forced to go back and re-think their material, often times it will result in better material.

    That said, I still believe that parents need to moniter their children more closely, rather than pass that responsibility off to somebody else.
     
  6. MacNut macrumors Core

    MacNut

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Location:
    CT
    #6
    I guess this law would shut down the soap oprah business.:rolleyes:
     
  7. solvs macrumors 603

    solvs

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    LaLaLand, CA
    #7
    And this is the issue Dems and Repubs can get together to support. :rolleyes: Yeah, how about getting rid of the real violence and Hollywood can get back to being lazy and wondering why people aren't going to see as many movies or watch their prime time crap fests. I'm sure some studio execs can slip some money into their pockets so the politician can talk about, then do absolutely nothing, while the studios make some more money from the publicity, as the politicians gain more votes from people who complain about violence, then go watch some violent movies and TV shows with their kids. :rolleyes: again.
     
  8. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #8
    Thanks man. Now THAT'S an image I did not need in my head... :eek:
     
  9. Thanatoast macrumors 6502a

    Thanatoast

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2002
    Location:
    Denver
    #9
    Are they also gonna regulate toilet humor and reality tv programming? How about pat story lines where wrong is always wrong and right is always 6'0" and blond? Maybe they could look into limiting the amount of ads for pills for diseases that start "do you wake up tired in the morning" or "do you go to the bathroom"?

    Of course that's if they wanted to do something useful. There's a v-chip there for a reason. I'm just upset it isn't programmed to filter the things above.
     
  10. Thomas Veil thread starter macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    Reality
    #10
    Maybe they could do something about the stupidity on TV instead.

    Like the comedian Gallagher said: "I wish they had a knob on the TV to turn up the intelligence. They've got one marked 'Brightness', but it doesn't work, does it?"
     
  11. aquajet macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2005
    Location:
    VA
    #11
    You ain't kiddin'. With the exception of a few programs, I pretty much hate television. The only programs I watch:

    1. Keith O.
    2. Daily Show
    3. the various Law and Order series
    4. Fairly Odd Parents

    I also watch Hannity and that other guy on occasion for good measure, but I usually end up wanting to break the TV after about five minutes.
     
  12. Ugg macrumors 68000

    Ugg

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2003
    Location:
    Penryn
    #12
    I don't own a tv. What's the point? A bunch of overpaid talking heads, toilet humor, polarizing news programs, stupid commercials. Bleeehhh!

    iTunes, Netflix and Jaman is where it's at.
     
  13. Desertrat macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #13
    Thomas Veil, it's problably less the intelligence level than it is education and maturity. Prime Time is aimed at an 8th-grade educational level. Fourteen years old, roughly. "Full of testosterone, empty of judgement".

    'Rat
     
  14. MacNut macrumors Core

    MacNut

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Location:
    CT
    #14
    What do you watch Nickelodeon.:rolleyes:
     
  15. obeygiant macrumors 68040

    obeygiant

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2002
    Location:
    totally cool
    #15
    Sure its Entertainment. Its made to reach the widest audience possible to attract high-end advertising clients.
     
  16. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #16
    Presumably, these new rules could only apply to broadcast TV, so what good could they possibly do?
     
  17. Ugg macrumors 68000

    Ugg

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2003
    Location:
    Penryn
    #18
    Eliminate broadcast TV?

    I don't watch TV in part because of the violence. I see nothing wrong with limiting gratuitous violence until after 10 pm. However, it it doesn't apply to cable then....
     
  18. Thomas Veil thread starter macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    Reality
    #19
    It's not just broadcast TV, though. In a part of the article that I cut for brevity:

     
  19. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #20
    I know the FCC has been trying to find ways to regulate the content of non-broadcast TV, but without some major changes to the laws, I don't see how they're going to get it.
     
  20. Thomas Veil thread starter macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    Reality
    #21
    That's apparently why they want to get Congress involved...to change the law.

    With Dems in charge, I don't think it's likely to happen. But you never know. And the attempt alone is alarming enough.
     
  21. Desertrat macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #22
    Sort of a veer, as to why people want to control the content of TV: If watching a lot of TV doesn't inculcate certain propensities into the viewer, why is there advertising?

    Why else would studies conclude that those who watch a lot of TV news fear crime more than those who don't?

    From these points I go on to ask how could one conclude that the young and impressionable aren't affected by what they watch?

    My kid watched the Saturday morning kiddie shows. Mattel's advertising certainly inculcated that all manner of plastic fantastics were highly important. Without parental control--and that's the crux of the whole TV "problem", IMO, the behavior associated with toys can easily carry over into life outside the home. Doesn't matter if it's Barbie dolls or war toys.

    We don't have much parental control, I keep reading in the daily papers. When there's a vacuum in any system of controls, somebody's gonna step in. In this case--as is common--here comes Congress.

    'Rat
     

Share This Page