Thursday, July 13, 2006

FCC Still Cleaning the Airwaves
Still, that's not why I'm making this post. It's amazing that an article can be written (even by an al-Reuters reporter) with such a strong anti-FCC bias. I know individuals have conflicting opinions on this issue... I personally consider myself to be pretty moderate (argh, I hate to use that word!) on what should and should not be allowed on TV and radio. Most strongly, I believe it is the role of the parents to... well... parent. Put on the controversial stuff later at night, and have disclaimers prior to the showings. By those rules, I say show anything! I'm actually quite happy to see an uncut movie or TV show such as South Park on later at night. What really stuck out in this article, however, is the following quote:
A live, on-field event -- albeit when no athletes were on the field -- during the 2004 Super Bowl halftime show, when Janet Jackson's breast was accidentally bared, helped reignite Washington's interest in the indecency issue. Since then there has been a highly charged fight at the commission about just how far the commission can go in restricting broadcasts.
OK... I was offended when this happened. Not because a boob was exposed, rather because it occurred during one of the MOST watched shows for the entire year in television, in prime time, with no warnings. We can all joke about the "wardrobe malfunction," and funny jokes they are, but anyone who sincerely believes this was an "accident" has not seen the episode in question. That this article presumes just that is telling.

Comments on "FCC Still Cleaning the Airwaves"


Anonymous honey said ... (11:23 AM) : 


Does this issue smell a little bit like McCarthyism to you? Every single curse word...every little bit of nudity...FINED! Maybe I am just a little wiser than the dumbasses who called in and claimed they were offended by Janet Jackson's pasty-covered breast at the Superbowl, because when I watch a "live" TV show I know that anything can happen. What if a streaker had run across the field? Whose fault would that have been? I think parents and viewers should have some common sense here and know that "live" means possible craziness. (And I don't think Janet meant for that to happen as her face (which no one evaluated - why would they with her goods hanging out) showed that she was very surprised about what happened.). I think that incident also helped companies play with new technology to delay live events by a few minutes so their handy editing tools could be used, if necessary (a great natural consequence).

I have a niece who is five and she has said nearly every curse word in the book (she starts Kindergarten next month - I can't wait to hear about her exploits in the principal's office). The reason she has said those things - her parents say them and they let her watch movies/TV with cursing. Is she destroyed? No. Is she a fucking badass? Hells yeah - but that is for other reasons than her cursing. I talk to her about formal and informal language - what you say and don't say around certain groups of people. She's fine and she now no longer says "fucking shit" around her parents - just me and the other kids at the playground. :)

My very long point is that we take care of our kids by making good decisions about what they are watching, including mostly us. And the media, though sometimes insane, should be able to offer us programs that we choose to watch. And if we don't, then they eventually will go off the air. The biggest consequence of that Superbowl accident was that some people didn't end up watching it the next year which hurt the company enough (no fee was probably needed). That's where the consequence should emanate from.

And another point I have to make...are we playing cornhole soon? I am ready to kick some ass...(thank goddess I can say that in your blog - no fine). :)


post a comment

Go to the source!