ABC affliliates are whipped!!

[Rockrivr1]

Up here in the Boston area the local ABC affiliate decided not to run Saving Private Ryan last night. They basically stated that they are afraid that the FCC would level huge fines on them. Because of that we got some crappy Tom Cruise movie. (I hate that guy!) :banghead: (ABC's statement: It's to protect the children! )

Ok, this FCC thing is starting to get WAY out of hand. What I don't get is how they could possibly level fines for showing such an acclaimed moving on VETERANS DAY!! From what I read online, my ABC affiliate isn't the only one who didn't run this movie. I guess many were afraid. It's beyond me I guess. Didn't the networks run this movie a couple of times already without difficulty? If this keeps going on were going to be stuck watching re-runs of Leave it to Beaver and Lawrence Welk (sp?) during prime time.

Oh, just to keep this gun related, I had my CMP M1 Garand in front of me to watch SPR. I was going to give it a good cleaning during the movie. Good thing I had the movie on DVD. I was looking forward to watching and cleaning the Garand all day!!

 

[foghornl]

Cleveland ABC wimped out, too.

 

[rritter]

What changed was Janet Jackson's nipple. Since then, the FCC has greatly increased the fines for broadcasting "objectionable material". Actors in the movie say '????' a lot (soldiers in a war zone, who knew?) and the stations are afraid that somebody will file a complaint leading to huge fines. So, they wimp out and don't show it. Can you say 'chilling effect'?

Roger

 

[Rebar]

duplicate thread:
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=110799

 

[2nd Amendment]

No, this was a half-hearted attempt at a political statement on the part of the "media". They are attempting to make a point about "censorship". Of course they missed the entire point, which would be the difference between the gratuitous Jackson episode vs the contextual nature of SPR's "obscenities". Far as I can see all the affiliates did was show their ignorance of the issue, among other things.

 

[walking arsenal]

I work for an ABC affiliate, we ran it.

the reason we ran it was because it was historically acurate to what happened violence and language whise.

www.wdio.com

 

[moa]

Strange that no one complains when Schindler's List is broadcast on TV. There is lots of nudity and foul language and gross violence. SL must be PC enough to pass muster.

 

[Turkey Creek]

As far as I know, TV's still come with a magical device called a tuner, which when combined with the brain kicking into choice mode, can be used to make a viewing selection- unfortunately, many people seem to be incapable of making choices for themselves, having grown dependent on others (govt, media execs, etc) to relieve them of that onerus burden- sad state of affairs that seems to be getting worse all the time-

 

[Desertdog]

IMHO there is a big differnce in a show being shown with fair warning and what Janet Jackson did at the half-time show.

You know what Howard Stern will be doing on his show so you have a choice between watching/listening or not.

The public had no chance to decide if they wanted to see Janet expose her chest or not.

 

[CannibalCrowley]

Strange that no one complains when Schindler's List is broadcast on TV. There is lots of nudity and foul language and gross violence. SL must be PC enough to pass muster.

That was before the Jackson and Bono rulings.

What I don't get is how they could possibly level fines for showing such an acclaimed moving on VETERANS DAY!!

The day shouldn't have any affect on the law. If the f-word is too vulgar for broadcast tv on a normal night, then it's too vulgar for Veterans' Day. If the stations aren't fined for Saving Private Ryan, then they should be able to run the South Park movie uncut as well.

 

[tulsamal]

No, this was a half-hearted attempt at a political statement on the part of the "media". They are attempting to make a point about "censorship". Of course they missed the entire point, which would be the difference between the gratuitous Jackson episode vs the contextual nature of SPR's "obscenities".

I think that is exactly what happened.

The Tulsa ABC station showed it.

Gregg

 

[Carlos]

I watched Saving Private Ryan on ABC last night in Portland, Oregon.

 

[Gray Peterson]

Blah...

American Family Association's ABC Complaint

And some members of this forum think of the AFA as our friends. They are not. Someone should send them an email, asking them their position on gun control. Their answers may suprise some.

 

[Matt G]

Nudity, BTW, isn't per se against the rules. If it can show an artistic or instructional purpose and doesn't appeal to the prurient interests, it's not out of hand disallowed.

Frankly, the sight of an unadorned nipple doesn't upset me as a person or as a parent as much as the thought of an attempted genocide or of good men dying in bad ways. But some things must be dealt with. They happened, after all.

 

[joab]

I agree and disagree with 2A.
I think it was a political statement, but the public just didn't get it.
The talk shows only screamed that they were wimping out. If they talked about the political statement being made it would have had far more effect than the belly aching about the FCC that they were doing.

Jackson's boob ambush is in no way similar to airing a predisclaimed mature movie that gives the viewer the choice of whether or not to watch.

My problem with the affiliates is not that they were stared down by the FCC but that they chose the wrong side, in my opinion, to make a statement about.

Morals and common decency do not have to run counter to 1A. The movie industry self polices itself if TV did the same the FCC could keep their job justifying noses out of it