Hypocrisy on TV and the FCC

RE: Hypocrisy on TV and the FCC

Yeah, it started with Howard Stern with me too.

I'm sorta skeptical to just be totally on Howard's side, and I'm heistant to believe that it's all Powell's fault. Plus, you're really exaggerating. It's ridiculous, but not neo-nazi. But, FCC does suck the big one and there does need to be changes.
And as for ABC apologizing...It would make my day if a spokesman just came up and said, "Suck it up, you damn pussies." But hell will freeze over before that happens. The only way to fix it is if I dedicate my life to having a career in ABC, which I certainly am not going to do.

RE: Hypocrisy on TV and the FCC

damn you FCC, Jon Stewart summed this argument up better then I coudl ever articulate it.

RE: Hypocrisy on TV and the FCC

There are kids of all ages who watch pro football, and as someone who wants to be a parent someday, I think the networks have an obligation to inform people what they're going to be seeing before they see it. For adults, it's no big deal (though it is in very poor taste), but remember that the NFL is supposed to be family entertainment. PG-rated stuff.

If you want to look at naked people, Google Images can help you with that. Keep it off my TV set unless I ask for it.

RE: Hypocrisy on TV and the FCC

how did i know you were going to defend the conservatives chardish.... knew i could count on that.

just so we are clear.... its ok to show brutal murders, maggots in peoples skull, recreation of sex, snorting cocaine, all kinds of other criminal activites..... but to show a womans naked back is completely taboo and cause for all this uproar? bs!

also, there was no nudity. it was a woman in a towel and then her back.



edit: this was my conversation with chardish... i'll finish my argument here.

TasselFoot: how'd i know you would defend the fcc.
Sindacollion: meh. there are innumerable places for you to get R-rated entertainment
Sindacollion: even cable can say the F word now after hours
TasselFoot: so whats the problem with Nicolette Sheridan's back on MNF. nothing.
TasselFoot: shows like CSI, 24, Law & Order... etc. all have extreme violence and drug use.... yet there is no big hoopla about it.
Sindacollion: because they're not family-oriented entertainment and they don't claim to be
TasselFoot: its because its sports, so therefore "real"... whereas dramas aren't.
TasselFoot: so? they are on at the same time. 9pm.
TasselFoot: and on network tv
Sindacollion: G-rated movies show at the same time as R-rated movies in the same theater. who cares?
Sindacollion: do you want monday night football to be PG-13? think how many little kids wouldn't be able to see it
TasselFoot: or how many more would watch it.
Sindacollion: they tried that already, it was called XFL and people hated it
TasselFoot: i just want consistency. if there is no problem showing people getting shot in the head, people being strangled, suffocated, drowned, raped, drugged, etc... at 9pm. why is there a problem showing a back.
TasselFoot: no... the xfl was bad for many other reasons.
TasselFoot: i know sports isn't your domain... so don't try and argue football with me.
Sindacollion: so you're saying that the airtime of a show affects the content that is expected to be on at that time?
Sindacollion: this isn't about what's allowed and not allowed. this is about what we expect to see
TasselFoot: it damn well should. abc, cbs, nbc are all 100% free shows to get on any tv. they all have relatively similar programming across the board.
TasselFoot: who cares. there is nothing wrong with seeing her back. its not like janet jackson's nipple.
Sindacollion: i agree that it's far far far tamer, but the context of the thing...i wouldn't want my 5 year old seeing that
TasselFoot: you can watch desperate housewives itself and see teri hatcher run around in a towel.
Sindacollion: so why can't you do that
Sindacollion: why bring it to MNF
TasselFoot: actually... towelless. she loses it when she slams a car door.
Sindacollion: why is it necessary
TasselFoot: then runs around outside herself covering her privates.
Sindacollion: why can't football be football?
TasselFoot: do you ever watch MNF?
Sindacollion: no. most sports events i see are live, i don't like watching televised sports except for the super bowl
TasselFoot: ok... so then you have no frame of reference for what the "standard" MNF opening skit is then, right?
Sindacollion: no
Sindacollion: i don't really have time for this. it's late and i have class in the morning
TasselFoot: all of them are somehow promotional for either another show of ABCs or some upcoming movie... or music album. all of them try and market to america's hot spots... like sex and beautiful people. take the Super Bowl in 2003.
Sindacollion: we can argue later
TasselFoot: i'm almost done.
Sindacollion: we're arguing later
Sindacollion: good night mike
TasselFoot: it was on Fox 2 years ago...
TasselFoot: fine. night evan.


what i was going to say is that all throughout Fox's super bowl were ads for Alias S2E13, which was airing afterwards. i recommend all of you watch the 1st 5 minutes. its quite good. Jennifer Garner prances around in first a black, then a red bra/panties outfit to sexy music. that is what the commercials were depicting as well, to the 85+ million people watching.... how are these two things different? and, there was no uproar about Alias.

ABC and the other big networks have moral obligations to not show adult stuff because they are prime time, on non-cable channels. Therefore, kids watch, and they don't need to be showing stuff that's inappropriate for kids.

Why did they apologize? To keep their ratings up. If they don't, parents turn off ABC because they don't mind showing non-kid-friendly stuff. That's why it's more of ABC's decision. The FCC is only trying to uphold the moral contract.

I agree that they shouldn't have done it and apologized; I really hate seeing that happen. Either don't do it in the first place, or stick to your decision.

But with things like John Rocker and his comments, he shouldn't have to apologize for that. He doesn't have much to lose. Of course, if he did have something to lose, he probably would apologize for the sake of keeping whatever it is.

EDIT AFTER TASSEL: Remember, CSI, Desperate Housewives, and the like are all rated. People know ahead of time that there is going to be sex, violence, and drug use in those shows. Monday Night Football is for football, not sexual innuendo

--Guido

People should not be concerned about what the TV shows them, they should be concerned about what they want their kids to see and enforce that.

Terrell Owens is awesome. Any and all who oppose his brand of humor should be shot.

The end.

Tass A++ for referancing the '03 super bowl.... where were they at then?

what about this?!!?!? During MNF there have been the coors lite commercials, WITH 2 WOMEN CATFIGHTING IN A FOUNTAIN! its more provactive and sexual then anything in that preview was, and no one said a damn thing about it because it was by a beer company... the whole thing is ludicrous and utter bullshit... and yup that'll be edited which it should since kids see this but its the best way to articulate the ridiculousness and hypocrisy.. and Tass did you see Michael Powell's statement on MSNBC? He should just jump off the highest roof he can find right now, he's so insincere.

The worst of commonly shown baseball and football commercials are just as suggestive as showing a bareback.

I watch a lot of football and baseball, and showing a bareback is nothing I don't normally see elsewhere in the broadcasting.

Parents know the occasional sexual theme can be attached to that kind of airing. They feature cheerleaders, commercials with suggestive concepts, among other things. Any parent that doesn't want their kid seeing that should know that a football airing is one of the places where it would be.

Plus, those networks have been pushing the limits of their tacit rules for years now. It's the responsibility of the parent to watch out. The networks do have every right to do that, and it was just in the best interest of the network to apologize. They don't actually mean it, but they do know that it would help their viewer base rise again.

Several of you have mentioned it but the importance doesn't seem to occur to you: You only see things that are potentially inappropriate for kids in ads and shows that give warnings beforehand. Did it ever occur to you that most parents who watch football with their kids change channels during the commercials SPECIFICALLY because they want to avoid what they know may be inappropriate. The same is true for shows with blood, murder, drugs, etc. Parents SPECIFICALLY skip and ban those things so their kills will not see inappropriate material. However, one simple rule of TV is that you do NOT show inappropriate material during a show that is not supposed to have it. You shouldn't and won't ever see a person getting stabbed and murdered on Dora the Explorer, will you? Parents do not want to see that stuff in the middle of shows that aren't supposed to have it, and if the show is going to have it they want a warning so they can change the channel. Football commercials and inappropriate shows have both been publicly declared a source of inappropriate material for younger children, and this is common knowledge for parents. However, knowing that a sex-innuendo from a show you may consider inappropriate in the first place will be aired in the next few seconds is NOT common knowledge and therefore considered an inappropriate placement for the joke. The FCC isn't being ridiculous or neo-nazi at all; they're doing their job and holding TV shows to the tacit and explicit rules of the trade.

Drac... no rules of the trade were broken. there is nothing in the FCC disallowing ABC to show Nicolette Sheridan's back. there is nothing to prevent Fox from airing Alias' promo 25 times during the super bowl. or the coors lite commercials, or ads for any other show. TV stations show the ads for their own shows either right at the start or right at the end of a commercial break, so even if parents were changing the channel to avoid commercials, there is still a chance they would catch the promos.

its complete bs. America is a land of free rights and girls in skimpy clothing. i am exercising my right to complain about the complainers of the promo. and seriously.... WHAT IS SO HORRIDLY WRONG WITH SEEING A WOMANS BACK! jeez... i would much rather have a small kid see a womans back than watch spongebob squarepants. i'll use spongebob as an example... even sesame street is guilty of this. the writers of these shows add in cynical humor. the 5 year olds may not pick up on all of the inuendos, but it is setting a much worse example than anything MNF has done. why don't parents complain about spongebob or puff the magic dragon (who we all know is an inuendo).

all i ever preach people, is consistency. consistency just doesn't exist in this country. for these reasons, men like Howard Stern and George Carlin are my heros. THEY are consistent in their beliefs. and god bless them.

its true, but Carlin > howard stern by quite a bit

No, you wont on Dora the Explorer...but what about Loony Tunes? Jackie Chan Adventure? Power Rangers? etc. The average kids show has 25 acts of violence per hour. You dont hear about children running around HAVE SEX. No, but you do hear about children shooting each other.

I'm not saying censorship is good. I believe there should be no censorship at all or at least very few restrictions. However, I am in favor of devices such as the V-chip and other techniques that allow Parents to monitor their children. Which is why I back the FCC's decision.

However, I dont understand why it is alright for children to watch men run around hitting and tackling eachother but to show a women's back side (if even that) is taboo. Football is a VERY violent sport.

Americans are such prudes when it comes to even the slightest nudity. It's not like there is some great secret as to what people have underneath their clothes. But I wont spoil the surprise if you dont know.

Sex is so taboo in America. Why?