the fcc, "self-policing" (self-censorship), and goosestepping

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Thanatoast, May 9, 2004.

  1. Thanatoast macrumors 65816


    Dec 3, 2002
    Media outlets have become so concerned about "naughty" words that they are starting to bleep anything that even sounds like it might be offensive to someone, somewhere, for whatever reason. Pretty soon, we won't be able to speak to eachother except in euphamism. All bad words will be excised and all bad thoughts will, naturally, :rolleyes: cease. Words scheduled to be on the list for termination in the near future are masticate, woodpecker, and uvula.
  2. Krizoitz macrumors 65816


    Apr 26, 2003
    Tokyo, Japan
    I think thats a little bit of an overstatement. It was a bit of a knee-jerk reaction, the pendulum swings back and forth. Recently it had swung towards the less controlled side, now its swinging to the more controlled side, it'll probably settle somewhere in the middle at some point.
  3. Sayhey macrumors 68000


    May 22, 2003
    San Francisco
    Sorry, that pendulum swings because of the actions of people, not some uncontrollable force of nature. As such when we have programs being censored for an absurd prudish standard it needs to fought not accepted as the natural rhythm of things. If we don't speak up about it we will have our cultural standards beings set by the Clear Channels of the world. That is not a prospect to which I look forward. Perhaps I'll dust off some old Lenny Bruce records and find a place to play them. Think Michael Powell and his thought police will mind?
  4. Neserk macrumors 6502a


    Jan 1, 2004
  5. Voltron macrumors newbie


    May 9, 2004
    Howard Stern brought up a possible valid point when he pointed out a show of Oprah Winfrey's that delved into a sexual nature that he himself has been fined for. And stated how it is unfair he gets fined for the same thing while Oprah gets ignored. On one of those discussion tables, Meet The Press I think it was, some tried to discount it stating that Oprah was trying to educate while Howard was trying to entertain. But one on that panel brought up the fact that both were simply trying to keep the ratings up.

    If they are going to have a standard it needs to be a well publicized standard and it needs to be equally enforced on everyone.
  6. zimv20 macrumors 601


    Jul 18, 2002
    wttw in chicago has opted for the "bleeped" version of Prime Suspect. god ****ing damnit to hell am i sick of stupid michael powell and the rest of this administration enforcing its vision of decency on us. what am i, a ****ing kid?

    am i correct in that the FCC has no jurisdiction over cable TV?
  7. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Jul 16, 2002
    I believe the cable networks aren't covered by the FCC rules, since they don't broadcast over the public airwaves. These days, with most people getting both types of programming over a cable, that's a distinction without much of a difference. (Compared to the Sopranos, the language in Prime Suspect is quite mild.)

    In the interests of accuracy, this isn't really an unprecedented move. When the first of the Prime Suspect series was aired on US television about ten years ago, it was also the expurgated version. To see the unedited version, you need to buy the DVD (I did). Possibly, some affiliates aired the uncensored version, but I don't think so.

Share This Page