FCC: 'Private Ryan' not indecent

[SuperJerk 0]

FCC: 'Private Ryan' not indecent

 

 

WASHINGTON (Reuters) -- U.S. communications regulators Monday rejected complaints that the broadcast of "Saving Private Ryan," a film depicting the U.S. landing in France during World War II, violated indecency limits.

 

The Federal Communications Commission unanimously decided that ABC television affiliates did not violate indecency regulations when they aired the movie on Veteran's Day in November, despite complaints about profanity and violence.

 

Sixty-six ABC stations decided against showing the award-winning film for fear of running afoul with the FCC, which has been cracking down on broadcast and radio stations after several high-profile incidents.

 

"In light of the overall context in which this material is presented, the commission determined that it was not indecent or profane," the FCC said in a statement.

 

Warnings were aired throughout the broadcast about the movie's content. The ABC network, owned by the Walt Disney Co. , ran the movie twice before and did not attract FCC fines.

 

Some parents groups and lawmakers have been pushing the FCC to take a harder line against broadcasters, like Viacom Inc.'s CBS network which aired the infamous incident in which Janet Jackson's bare breast was shown during the 2004 Super Bowl on national television.

 

credit: http://www.cnn.com/2005/SHOWBIZ/TV/02/28/m...reut/index.html

 

This articles doesn't name names, but says that complaints were made.

 

Seriously, this film (despite a few storytelling flaws) is a great work of historical fiction that realistically portrays the horrors of war.

 

Can we all agree that people who would complain need to learn how to change the damn channel?

[teke184 0]

The reason all of this came up is that the managers of some TV stations were trying to piss off the FCC and overturn the "nipplegate" increases in FCC fines.

 

 

Ryan had been shown uncut on TV several years ago, despite having almost NC-17 levels of violence, because of how important many people felt the film was. The same thing happened with Schindler's List, although Schindler's faux pas would be the nudity of some concentration camp internees.

 

The FCC wasn't going to suddenly start assessing fines on this film even if it got complaints, but some people felt they needed to make a statement by refusing to show it.

[Jingus 0]

The Schindler's List broadcast actually wasn't uncut, it was just mostly uncut. A few subtle trims had been made to some of the most raw shots (the one where Ralph Fiennes ejects a shell out of his rifle towards the crotch of the naked woman sitting on his bed, for example).

 

I don't get it, how was complaining about Saving Private Ryan supposed to reduce fines?

[teke184 0]

The Schindler's List broadcast actually wasn't uncut, it was just mostly uncut. A few subtle trims had been made to some of the most raw shots (the one where Ralph Fiennes ejects a shell out of his rifle towards the crotch of the naked woman sitting on his bed, for example).

 

I don't get it, how was complaining about Saving Private Ryan supposed to reduce fines?

By complaining about a highly-regarded film that most people would have no objection to, they're bringing attention to the new FCC indecency rules that were put in place post-nipplegate.

 

Many people within the industry seem to feel the new indecency rules are too broad and open the stations up to potential damages for situations outside of their control. Think Howard Stern et all, who are fleeing to Satellite Radio now because they don't want to deal with the FCC.

 

 

 

It's strikingly similar to a strategy used at my office to overturn rules we feel are stupid... if someone makes a stupid rule, you follow the new rule to the letter and make sure to beat the rule-maker into submission with it.

 

 

Example- My old boss instituted some changes in the process used to fix errors in our computer system that required that he be personally involved on all decisions involving X type of error.

 

Since each error in the system holds up production for the entire unit and the personal involvement of my boss added nothing to the solution that we couldn't do ourselves, we started conspicuously bringing things to him and implying that it would only have taken us 30 seconds to fix on our own but, since we have to track him down and get his approval each time it happens, it now takes us 30 minutes to do a fix and holds up production for that amount of time.

 

That rule typically lasts a week or so, at which point he gets sick of the hassle the new rule causes and goes back to the old way of doing things.

[Special K 0]

Any news on the FCC trying to exert control over cable stations? That's what worries me. The only show I've watched since I was, I think, 17 on network TV is Arrested D, which seems to be in danger of being cancelled anyway. If they fuck with my FX shows though, I'll be pissed.

 

In regards to the more specific case, in general I think whatever's shown after 11 is fair game. And this is an oft bellabored point, but FCC sees Violence<Profanity<sex, when in reality I would say an innocuous movie like Die Hard is far, far more offensive than The Unbearable Lightness of Being. Doesn't mean I support censorship in any form, and doesn't mean I like me some violent movies, but violence is much worse than a fuckin 'fuck' or a nipple. We all know that. I don't think, in fact, that ANYONE on this entire board has disputed that.

America is perhaps the weirdest sex cultere on earth, competing with the Japanese. American culture is so hungry for sex the latest sexy gossip tidbit is revelled over. While, open sexual activity is generally reviled.

 

Heres my take, using the example of music videos. Any pop queen nowadays will show the most amount of cleavage possible, whoring themselves out while they play the popstar card.

 

I'd much rather have Bjork (who has incidentally incredible talent) showing her breasts unashamadly in a video.

[iggymcfly 0]

The thing is that's not even true. The vast majority of the culture is perfectly fine with open sexuality.

 

The problem is that there are small segments of the society left over from the Puritancial days that are extremely militant, and are constantly trying to beat down every little thing they can.

 

Comparing the American culture where small focus groups keep things off television to the Japanese culture whose attitudes on sex are so weird that I can't quite comprehend them is completely wrong.

[Slayer 0]

So what we have here are people afraid to show/say certain things because they're worried about if the government will come down on them.

 

Sure sounds like the ideals this nation was built on

[Guest Cerebus]

For the record, I thought the Janet Jackson thing deserved a small fine and a mild rebuke. Not a bloody inquisition.

 

Anyway, it was likely PTC, who provided 99% (NOT a hyperbole, the actual figure) of the non-Nipplegate complaints to the FCC.

[NoCalMike 0]

I don't even understand why Saving Private Ryan is an "important film" Sure the opening Normandy beach scene is probably as accurate a depiction you can get, but, besides that I didn't think it was anything special. I think the point of this is the hypocritical nature of not only the FCC, but the MPAA in how it rates movies, not always based on content, but who is directing the film, and how a naked breast somehow trumps a guy walking aroung with his guts spilling out.

 

I am sorry, but I'd rather have my kind flipping around tv and see a pair of breasts on accident, then people getting their faces shot off, and limbs blown off.

[Guest Cerebus]

My mom made the case that the Janet Jackson thing was bad b/c parents didn't have any control. You're watching the Super Bowl half-time, do you EXPECT to see bare breasts? I mean, if your kid is watching Saving Private Ryan you know what to expect. You shouldn't have your kids watch a football game and worry about titties.

[NoCalMike 0]

My mom made the case that the Janet Jackson thing was bad b/c parents didn't have any control. You're watching the Super Bowl half-time, do you EXPECT to see bare breasts? I mean, if your kid is watching Saving Private Ryan you know what to expect. You shouldn't have your kids watch a football game and worry about titties.

You are right, but if it truly was a "wardrobe malfunction" then it was an accident, and not planned, and I am willing to bet no one remebered or cared enough to let it distract themself from the rest of the game.

 

I do however agree that it was inappropriate for it to take place at the superbowl, but the argument being made is that a naked breast was "indecent" thus garnering a fine, and that is what I have an issue with, when at the same time Saving Private Ryan can be aired uncut during primetime.

[Guest Cerebus]

I would say it is different because, like I said, the idea of less censorship by the FCC is that parents should have the control. If you don't let people know or warn them of what their kids will be watching, how do they know what is good and what isn't? Some are more obvious, like Nip/Tuck, than others, a cartoon like Aqua Teen Hunger Force. That's why it annoyed me more than anything, but congressional hearings? Give me a break.

[Special K 0]

Those shows are aired after 10, though, and if you don't care enough to monitor what young kids watch at that late an hour (why are they doing so in the first place? Buy them a fucking book.) then I don't see why networks and cable channels should suffer for their laziness.

 

I would be interested to know what time SPR was broadcast at. If it was broadcast during 'family hours' I would actually be a little ticked. Sure it's a good movie, but it's just horrifically violent. A movie being 'good' doesn't make it more palitable. Silence of the Lambs is an awesome movie, but it shouldn't be shown uncut during family hours.

[Spaceman Spiff 0]

I believe SPR aired starting at 8:00 or 9:00. And why would you be ticked? You know what goes on in the movie in regards to violence/language, so it shouldn't catch you by surprise.

[NoCalMike 0]

My personal belief is that you play the movie uncut, just with commercials since networks have to pay bills, and you throw up the viewer discretion message after the commercial breaks to tell the viewer what the movie contains.

[Slayer 0]

One problem I've been hearing about is that the FCC is intentionally being vague in it's post-you-know-who rules of the airwaves, not letting media people know what's bad until after it's aired, thereby creating more trepidation and self-censorship

[NoCalMike 0]

One problem I've been hearing about is that the FCC is intentionally being vague in it's post-you-know-who rules of the airwaves, not letting media people know what's bad until after it's aired, thereby creating more trepidation and self-censorship

Well not only that, but they are inconsistent about what is "obscene" and/or "indecent" No rational thinking person can think a bare breast is obscene, I don't care what time of the day it is shown, and especially in the manner it was shown at the superbowl, for a split second to where if you blink, you missed it.

 

Also their willingness to bow down to a small number of complainers who send 40 complaints each to make it look like a relevent movement, is quite troublesome.

[SuperJerk 0]

I think people lost their right to bitch the day TV shows got parental ratings and v-chips became standard issue in TVs.

[SuperJerk 0]

Senator fights cable 'indecency'

Alaska's Stevens says he'll push to apply public broadcast standards to satellite, too.

March 1, 2005: 2:20 PM EST

 

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Senate Commerce Committee Chairman Ted Stevens said Tuesday he would push to apply broadcast decency standards to subscription television and radio services like cable and satellite.

 

"Cable is a much greater violator in the indecency area," the Alaska Republican told the National Association of Broadcasters, which represents most local television affiliates. "I think we have the same power to deal with cable as over-the-air" broadcasters.

 

"There has to be some standard of decency," he said.

 

Stevens told reporters afterward that he would push legislation to apply the standards to cable and satellite radio and television.

 

Federal regulations bar broadcast television and radio stations from airing obscene material and restrict indecent material, such as sexually explicit discussions or profanity, to late-night hours when children are less likely to be watching or listening.

 

But so far those restrictions have not applied to subscription television and radio services offered by companies like Comcast Corp. (up $0.28 to $32.74, Research) or Sirius Satellite Radio Inc. (up $0.38 to $5.95, Research), which recently signed shock jock Howard Stern.

 

Stevens said he disagreed "violently" with assertions by the cable industry that Congress does not have the authority to impose limits on what they air.

 

"If that's the issue they want to take on, we'll take it on and let the Supreme Court decide," he said.

 

The House of Representatives has approved legislation to raise fines to $500,000 from $32,500 on television and radio broadcasters that violate indecency limits. The Senate has legislation pending to increase fines as well.

 

But neither bill has provisions that would extend indecency restrictions to cable and satellite services. 

 

credit: http://money.cnn.com/2005/03/01/technology...dex.htm?cnn=yes

 

Ted Stevens is a fucking fucker.

[NoCalMike 0]

Fuck that guy. Unfortunately I have been afraid that this move has been a long time coming and it was only a matter of time until SOMEONE said it. Ugh.......

[Ted the Poster 0]

We shouldn't be too worried. Congress knows that if this ever came to fruition that there would be fucking riot from people on both sides, excluding of course the ultra-PC liberals and the religious right.

[Guest Cerebus]

"Let the Supreme Court decide?" THIS is our Senate Commerce chairman??? The Supreme Court has NOT gone along with any of this new indency bullshit or any of the FCC's deregulation crap either. Does he honestly think they would roll over and let them take over cable and pay tv?

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

I think people lost their right to bitch the day TV shows got parental ratings and v-chips became standard issue in TVs.

YES!

 

I love how that stupid v-chip was supposed to solve all these problems and now the problems got "worse." This idea gave networks more of an opportunity to be more vulgar because if you don't like it, just blank that station out of your TV.

 

Thanks Bill Clinton, because if not for the v-chip I doubt the Shield would have ever seen the light of day on cable television...

[Vyce 0]

All of thes politicians should be more concerned about social security, the war on terror, etc., about a million different things, rather than whose tit I may or may not see on my TV screen at night.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

This reminds me of the PBS Frontline brouhaha recently. PBS gave every station an uncensored copy with more violence, real f-words, etc, and told them they could air it at their own peril or air their silly little "war is heck" cutting job instead.

 

Lastly, fuck Ted Whoever that I've never even heard of. The FCC cannot decide to go after cable. And no, Congress cannot tell the FCC to go after cable. The government is unable to go after cable because the court system has already stripped the government of this ability.

 

Anybody saying they want to regulate indecency standards on cable is just blowing air or trying to get in with the family values crew.

 

[Guest MikeSC]

Thing is, the REASON the gov't had any oversight was because, when TV first started, there was a limited number of channels afforded to television broadcasting (which is why TV and radio get gov't oversight while newspapers do not).

 

Those days have LONG passed and there are a near infinite number of channels for TV and radio broadcasts.

 

A broadcaster needs to have the guts to take this to court and argue the merits of gov't oversight whatsoever.

-=Mike

[SuperJerk 0]

I think people lost their right to bitch the day TV shows got parental ratings and v-chips became standard issue in TVs.

YES!

 

I love how that stupid v-chip was supposed to solve all these problems and now the problems got "worse." This idea gave networks more of an opportunity to be more vulgar because if you don't like it, just blank that station out of your TV.

And yet, parents STILL complain.

 

Its like the idiot cunt DJ at one of my local radio stations a few years ago complaining that there was "literally nothing else on for people to watch" instead of Saving Private Ryan. Bitch evidently thought there was only one station on her TV and that she was required to leave her TV turned on at all times with her kids in the room.

 

(Note: for those of you in the KC area, I'm referring to Tanna on the "Max, Tanna, and Moffitt Show" on 99.7KY. Johnny Dare owns their asses.)

[AndrewTS 0]

I loved the irony of that v-chip commercial with 50's sitcom library music and an announcer that sounded straight out of a 50's commercial.

[Slayer 0]

Johnny Dare owns their asses.

We used to get JD down here in Wichita, but the station dropped him in favor of Don Imus *shudder*

 

Because I really need to know about local NYC events

[Guest sek69]

I'm still waiting for the PTC and the uptight moral brigade to tell us just how many children were scarred due to seeing a 1/4 second wide angle flash of a tit.

 

If tits were so harmful and have no place near football, why do most teams have cheerleader squads?

 

Why is the aforementioned tit able to be the lynchpin of a new puritanical movement but a commercial warning about four-hour boners can run during all hours, even "Family Time"? Clearly the PTC needs to provide an anatomical chart showing which body parts can be discussed and which can't.