Jump to content


FCC


  • You cannot reply to this topic
16 replies to this topic

#1 KZ

    Multipurpose Machine

  • Industry II
  • 2,087 Posts:
  • Interests:Howdy folks, Im Zack and I live in California.

Posted 12 October 2004 - 09:07 PM

Ok, I dont know if anyone else feels the same way as me, but the FCC is pissing me off. I was looking on yahoo and they are trying to fine Fox $1.2 million for showing " graphic scenes from bachelor and bachelorette parties." Now I know 1.2 million isnt much when divided between all the stations (about $7000 each) but really, if someone finds something innapropriate, why not change the damn channel? I mean you can show people getting shot and blah blah blah, but if there is something somewhat sexually realated all hell breaks loose. Its so stupid. 159 people complained to the FCC about the fox show, and thats nothing. People these days are so dumb and have no common sense. The FCC should focus on getting all the killing and violence off the airs, not something sexually related.

Thats just my opinion, but how do you guys feel?
Zack

#2 edmontonguy

    Edmontonguy

  • Member
  • 927 Posts:

Posted 12 October 2004 - 09:16 PM

I really don't know about the FCC but the issue is valid. As long as prgramming has appropriately screened ratings and/or has specific warnings periodically throughout the show then the company should not be held a accountable for people's veiwing habits. As humans we are a being that reproduces Sexually and that is more natural than killing. As Zack says Killing should be removed from programming before things we are more likely to encounter in day to day life like sexuality.

#3 SkiBachelor

    Forum Administrator

  • Administrator II
  • 6,242 Posts:
  • Interests:Hi, I'm Cameron!

Posted 12 October 2004 - 09:39 PM

It's funn,y in the United States we're supposed to have freedom of speech but apparently the FCC doesn't see it that way. When I was young I remember when radio and television broadcasters could say anything they wanted to after 10 pm and not get fined since most children would be in bed. But now all broadcasters who broadcast on public air waves have to fallow the FCC rules 24 hours a day.

But what really ticks me off about the FCC is ever since the costume failure at the super bowl, the FCC has banned even more words like bitch, hoe, etc. but someway skeet was able to slip the words to ban.

I agree with Zack about how if someone doesn't like what they hear or see on tv or the radio to just turn it off or change the station. No one is forcing them to listen to the broadcast, but people in these days don't want to take responsible for their own actions.

But what I think is funny is how it's prohibited to say sh!t on the air when only words that make sexual relations are prohibited.
- Cameron

#4 Bill

    Founder

  • Administrator II
  • 2,851 Posts:

Posted 13 October 2004 - 08:12 AM

What it comes down to is that parents aren't always able to monitor their children, so the government kicks in. Like being underage and trying to buy mature movies, video games and cds. But of course that is because of {insert adult peanuts voice here}. :)
- Bill


#5 Kicking Horse

    Established User

  • Industry I
  • 3,071 Posts:
  • Interests:Chairlifts

Posted 13 October 2004 - 09:51 AM

I think the Fcc should not have any say.

I think anyone can say / watch w/e they want. Without the damn goverment / fcc sticking there noses in.
Jeff

#6 Bill

    Founder

  • Administrator II
  • 2,851 Posts:

Posted 13 October 2004 - 10:02 AM

Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way.

If you want interesting reading, read about the Patriot Act after 9/11. We as Americans lost some of our rights in exchange for national security.
- Bill


#7 Guest_altaskier_*

  • Visiting Guest

Posted 13 October 2004 - 10:53 AM

Up here in Canada, it seems that standards and practices have relaxed somewhat over the past few years. Our CTV Network runs full uncut episodes of 'The Sopranos' on Sunday nights after 10 pm (one year behind the current HBO season, though), as well as 'Nip and Tuck' on Thursdays after 10. CBC, our publicly owned broadcaster, regularly runs European movies (with nudity) after midnight and some of their dramas, such as 'DaVinci's Inquest' (a sort of 'CSI: Inner-City' that has been on the air much longer than William Petersen & Co.), features coarse language and mature themes - all at 8pm! Whether this is a good thing or not is a subject up for debate but I know that my mother (who is in her mid-70s and conservative in nature) still has to get her Sopranos fix every week. And speaking as a person who only has antenna-based 'PeasantVision', I still get to see some of the better shows without having to pop for cable or satellite service.

This post has been edited by altaskier: 13 October 2004 - 11:05 AM


#8 floridaskier

    Established User

  • Administrator I
  • 2,814 Posts:

Posted 13 October 2004 - 12:51 PM

I just read the article about Fox. There wasn't much of this before the Janet Jackson thing in the Super Bowl.
Seems like only the FCC cared about the Fox thing. Janet Jackson was all over the news after it happened, and they weren't fined as much as Fox is being fined. Did anyone hear anything about what Fox did?
- Tyler
West Palm Beach, FL - elev. 9 feet

#9 SkiBachelor

    Forum Administrator

  • Administrator II
  • 6,242 Posts:
  • Interests:Hi, I'm Cameron!

Posted 13 October 2004 - 12:59 PM

Well that would be pretty sad if some parent let their television babysit their child while they went to happy hour. And the people that are complaining to the FCC are probably in their 50s thinking this is unmoral.

Another funny thing I found on the internet a month after the super bowl thing was that the FCC was going to try to moderate cable television too. I just don't understand why the FCC has to moderate the public airwaves when there are only like 4 networks pretty much that use those airwaves while most people in the United States have cable or satellite television, which can go un-moderated.

I think us American should vote on this and throw in a late ballot measure to say if we want the FCC to monitor the airwaves or not. :)
- Cameron

#10 hyak.net

    Established User

  • Member
  • 346 Posts:
  • Interests:Snowboarding, Basketball, Ski History....

Posted 13 October 2004 - 01:27 PM

The FCC rules of broadcast have not changed and there never was a time when broadcasters could say or do what they wanted, no matter what time it was. Only cable is allowed to do more then standard 'free broadcast' or radio.

The rules are clear, and there are many of those who keep pushing the limit to see what they can do and the FCC is now drawing the line and making those who cross the line pay the price. Having standards is not a bad thing.......when you get older and have kids you will understand.

#11 edmontonguy

    Edmontonguy

  • Member
  • 927 Posts:

Posted 13 October 2004 - 02:54 PM

This past spring a French Language Radio Station in Quebec was denied a licence renewal in resonse to 92 complaints. The CRTC Suspended the license renewal after coments were made about Public figures, Ethnic Students and the Mentally Handycapped. Though there was outcry from the listeners the CRTC decided that in favour of the minorities offened they would uphold their decision. This i think is a good example of how Public sensorship should work though it would be interesting to see what the CRTC would do about sexual content as on most morning radio shows i've heard in Canada there is very suggestive Launguge used.

#12 SkiBachelor

    Forum Administrator

  • Administrator II
  • 6,242 Posts:
  • Interests:Hi, I'm Cameron!

Posted 13 October 2004 - 03:27 PM

I actually did a paper about the FCC for my Writing 121 class during freshman year in college and in it, I brought up a study that took 12 years to complete. The study was about 2 groups of young children, probably 1 year olds or around there. In this study, they introduced 1 group to no explicit language while in the other group they did. And in the study, they found out that the children that heard the explicit language at a young age were better behaved than the other group.

I'm not saying that listen listening to explicit language at a young age will make you a better person or whatever, but if kids did hear explicit language at a younger age, they probably would respect it more and know what it ment rather than learning one of those words when your older and saying it freely because it's a bad word.
- Cameron

#13 floridaskier

    Established User

  • Administrator I
  • 2,814 Posts:

Posted 13 October 2004 - 04:50 PM

Kids should hear bad words from their parents first and know not to use them before they hear them anywhere else
- Tyler
West Palm Beach, FL - elev. 9 feet

#14 pyrotechnik

    ski instructor of the year - 2005

  • Member
  • 78 Posts:
  • Interests:skiing

Posted 13 October 2004 - 08:26 PM

kids have become desensitized to swearing and violence, as displayed in movies, video games(especially), music, and tv. sex and such is much more of a "closed subject". sure, people get attracted to nudity on tv, but not so much to violence and swearing....

i dont know if i worded this right, i hope you all know what i mean.

#15 liftmech

    lift mechanic

  • Administrator II
  • 5,906 Posts:
  • Interests:Many.

Posted 14 October 2004 - 03:33 AM

Yes, I agree. We as a society are so desensitised to violence that seeing on television doesn't really cause a stir anymore. Throw in a little nudity, some suggestive language, though, and you've crossed the line. This may change over time, given how attitudes have relaxed over the last hundred years or so.
My take on the CRTC, via Edmontonguy and altaskier: When I lived in Bellingham the only broadcast stations we got via 'PeasantVison' were those from Vancouver- Global, BCTV, CBC, et cetera. We also listened to CFOX, Rock 101 and such on the radio. After five or six years of Canadian broadcasting I got so used to not hearing songs censored or shows moved to cable that it was a bit of a shock when I moved to Colorado and suddenly everything is censored again. An example: 'What It's Like' by Everlast. I first heard the song on CFOX, with no beeps or clever substitutions entered. Now when I hear it, there's a part of the song that you only hear every other word because it relates to being called a whore or shooting somewone with your Colt .45.
Member, Department of Ancient Technology, Colorado chapter.

#16 liftmech

    lift mechanic

  • Administrator II
  • 5,906 Posts:
  • Interests:Many.

Posted 14 October 2004 - 03:35 AM

NWS, on Oct 13 2004, 10:02 AM, said:

Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way.

If you want interesting reading, read about the Patriot Act after 9/11.  We as Americans lost some of our rights in exchange for national security.
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


Don't get me started. How that got around the Supreme Court is beyond me, since it seems to violate several parts of the Constitution. How can we lose rights when they were enshrined in law over two hundred years ago?
Member, Department of Ancient Technology, Colorado chapter.

#17 floridaskier

    Established User

  • Administrator I
  • 2,814 Posts:

Posted 14 October 2004 - 05:25 AM

Let's not get started on all the bad political stuff in the last four years, it could get nasty
- Tyler
West Palm Beach, FL - elev. 9 feet





1 User(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users