Now the FCC is Scaring Me

[SCS2k]

TV stations don't want to show "Saving Private Ryan" because they may be fined by the FCC for airing offensive material:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/SHOWBIZ/TV/11/11/movie.canceled.ap/index.html

Apparently it is OK for the government to send our soldiers to be killed and wounded in battle but it's not Ok for TV stations to show a realistic depiction of it.

 

[NetViper]

The FCC has turned in to a big joke. They all need to get a life.

 

[Sig]

Perhaps a letter to Mike or his father Colin, is in order to allow you to vent your concerns

 

[DocL]

TV stations don't want to show "Saving Private Ryan" because they may be fined by the FCC for airing offensive material:

Apparently it is OK for the government to send our soldiers to be killed and wounded in battle but it's not Ok for TV stations to show a realistic depiction of it.

I agree, and last night on the news they showed two of our soldiers in Iraq shooting into an alley to kill a rebel and then say to the camera "He's done." It looked like a scene out of a movie, but I knew that the outcome was real, not fake like in the movies. The FCC is a joke and I can't wait to hear what Howard Stern has to say once he goes to Sirius.

 

[nkb]

The biggest gripe by critics of the FCC is that there are no clear-cut rules for what is allowed and what is not allowed. They wield power without being held accountable by anyone. Nobody votes for these guys, they are appointed, so they do not fear retribution from anyone except who appointed them.

If they decide that something is offensive, even though the vast majority doesn't agree, they can fine you, and you have no recourse, except taking them to court.

The FCC is out of control.

 

[ChrisK]

I think I might be a good person to talk about this issue since I work for the ABC affiliate station here in Hawaii in which we are NOT airing Saving Private Ryan as requested by our station owner Hearst-Argyle.

It is my understandig that ABC told all its affiliates that they would cover any fines any station may get from the FCC. The FCC also noted that they would not fine any station airing Saving Private Ryan. The problem is some of the station owners (Like Hearst-Argyle) is claiming that ABC will not garantee any protection against 3rd party lawsuits like from a local government watch dog group or similar that may sue the affiliates directly and put the stations license in jeapordy. Since ABC could not or would not offer protection from these types of lawsuits at least Hearst-Argyle told all its affiliates not to air it in the "Safe Harbor" 7PM-10PM time slot. Our station had asked ABC for permission to air the show later that night at 10PM or later, but was denied. Thus we are not airing it at all.

The problem is not with the FCC in this case as they stated they would not fine any station airing this show. Also, many watch dog groups also noted they would not pursue any lawsuits, however, in the case of the watch dog groups knbody knows all of them and not all have said they will not sue. However, truthfully, it is my opnion that we should not be airing this movie in the uncut format in primetime anyway. Why you may ask? I do like the movie myself, but the FCC needs to be firm and consistent on the rules. If they fine NBC for a little nipple slip that aired for 2 seconds they should fine ABC for airing a show that uses the F word and graphic violence 47 times. They fine NBC and Howard Stern for similar things on the radio. It doesn't matter if I'm right or wrong or I agree or not, it is a matter of it being against their rules and they should show some consistency. Quite frankly, I am amazed that the FCC stated they would let the graphic language slide in this case.

 

[nkb]

It doesn't matter if I'm right or wrong or I agree or not, it is a matter of it being against their rules and they should show some consistency.

And that is the meat of the problem: the FCC does not have specific rules in place. The rules are very vague, citing violations of "community standards" as a guideline, which can be interpreted a million different ways.

What still boggles my mind is how big a deal was made about the Janet Jackson "incident", and that NBC got nailed for this, despite statements by everyone involved (Jackson, Timberlake, MTV) that NBC did not have prior knowledge of the incident. How can you fine a company that, in good faith, broadcast a show that was not meant to be "offensive", while the actual people who were responsible went on their merry ways?

I guess it has something to do with the FCC not having any jurisdiction over individual performers and a cable broadcasting company, so they lashed out at the company that is under their control.

 

[SCS2k]

I think I might be a good person to talk about this issue since I work for the ABC affiliate station here in Hawaii in which we are NOT airing Saving Private Ryan as requested by our station owner Hearst-Argyle.

The FCC also noted that they would not fine any station airing Saving Private Ryan.

Actually, the article clearly states that the FCC would NOT guarantee that they would not fine a station. They stated that if there were a complaint they WOULD act on it. Many of the stations/ABC were upset that the FCC would NOT give them the guarantee that you claim they have. Please read the entire CNN article. I doubt the FCC made any special exception for your local station.

Here's the actual quote:

Janice Wise, spokeswoman for the FCC's enforcement bureau, told The Hollywood Reporter the agency had received calls from broadcasters asking if the film would run afoul of the rules. Wise said the commission was barred from making a prebroadcast decision "because that would be censorship."

"If we get a complaint, we'll act on it," she said.

In Ohio, WCPO-TV of Cincinnati and WSYX-TV of Columbus will not show the movie.

Other stations choosing to replace the movie with other programming are located in Atlanta, Dallas, Honolulu, New Orleans, Milwaukee, Phoenix, Orlando, Florida, and Charlotte, North Carolina. They are owned by a variety of companies, including Cox Television, Tribune Broadcasting Corp., Hearst-Argyle Television Inc., Belo Corp. and Sinclair Broadcast Group.

"We regret that the FCC, given its current timidity in dealing in this area, would not grant an advance waiver, which would have allowed stations like ours to run it without any question or any concern," Cole said.

 

[ChrisK]

Actually, the article clearly states that the FCC would NOT guarantee that they would not fine a station. They stated that if there were a complaint they WOULD act on it. Many of the stations/ABC were upset that the FCC would NOT give them the guarantee that you claim they have. Please read the entire CNN article. I doubt the FCC made any special exception for your local station.

Here's the actual quote:

Janice Wise, spokeswoman for the FCC's enforcement bureau, told The Hollywood Reporter the agency had received calls from broadcasters asking if the film would run afoul of the rules. Wise said the commission was barred from making a prebroadcast decision "because that would be censorship."

"If we get a complaint, we'll act on it," she said.

I did read the article. The FCC can't publically say they will not act or fine a station. I agree, they don't give any garantees. They did imply that they would probably not fine any station though through back door communications even though they did not specifically say that since they can't. Reemmber, the station owners lawyesr and ABC lawyers and FCC people have been addressing this issue for a while.Our station owner also ownes some of those other stations mentioned as well. The fines are not really the issue at all since ABC told the affiliates they will cover any fines if any. The affilate owners are worried about other sanctions like loosing their license. Yes, that is an extreme example, but it can happen.

As you see in the quote below, the FCC did recieve at least one complaint the last time this show aired but the complaint was denied and no action was taken. This is probably what will happen this time around, thus my statement that it was implied that the FCC would not fine any station.

An FCC spokeswoman said Wednesday that the agency does not monitor television broadcasts, but responds to complaints. The agency received a complaint after the 2001 broadcast of "Saving Private Ryan," but it was denied, she said

The act on it simply means they will take notice and look into the matter, but it doesn't mean they will actually issue fines. Like I mentioned, fines are not what the owners are worried about. It is the other sacntions the FCC can enforce. As the spokeswomen for the FCC noted, any complaint they will look into it and act upon it. The difference is if Joe Smoe calls in to complain it is one thing. If one of the larger watch dog lobbiest groups file a complaint it holds more weight IMHO. Now this probably isn't fair, but I'm sure those parties with their lawyer threats hold more weight than any random caller. That is what the owners are worried about because ABC will not offer any protection. What I mean by protection is any legal advise or put up the bill for any lawyers the affiliates may have to use.


Just a note. This may not hold true for all the stations owned by the other owner, but that statement by WSB-TV's Web site, the Atlanta station's vice president and general manager, Greg Stone is something similar to what our GM stated in a public airing as well. Turthfully it is not the affiliates decision but the stations owner. We all just say publically what our owners tell us to say. When we got the message from Hearst-Argyle it implied one thing. When our GM make a public airing to address the issue it seem to imply something else.

By the way, I'm not in any management position at the station where I work. I'm just a Technical Director in Master Control, but we do keep close tabs on things like this since part of our FCC lincense or permits clearly state certain things. If the FCC really wanted to flex their muscle they could go after the poor switcher since we too are not allowed under our FCC agreement when we signed for our permits and license to air certain objectioable material. We as individuals could loose our permits and license. I 99.99% believe that will never happen, but it could. If that happends we pretty much loose our jobs since we can't work.

 

[huckster]

I agree with requesting a later 'air' time. I'm a big fan of realistic/historical war movies. I actually own "Saving Private Ryan".

However, as the father of two children, I do NOT support this type of programming before 9pm. Many people use the argument "it's an accurate depiction of reality", or "this is what happens in the world and it is on the news anyway".

Part of being a responsible parent is monitoring what a child is exposed to. And it is granted that there are many parents out there who aren't particularly responsible. But even in our house, I can guarantee you that my four year old in the matter of five seconds or less could find a remote control no matter where we put it, turn on the TV, and potentially have a two second scene indelibly etched into his psyche.

Not trying to be over the top here, but I'm abhorred and concerned at how far the tv programming has fallen. The children around us seem to have been forgotten, and we all are going to pay the price for allowing such disturbing and graphic programming into their young worlds.

end of rant. you may now proceed with your disturbing and debauched normal programming....

 

[nkb]

I agree with requesting a later 'air' time. I'm a big fan of realistic/historical war movies. I actually own "Saving Private Ryan".

However, as the father of two children, I do NOT support this type of programming before 9pm. Many people use the argument "it's an accurate depiction of reality", or "this is what happens in the world and it is on the news anyway".

Part of being a responsible parent is monitoring what a child is exposed to. And it is granted that there are many parents out there who aren't particularly responsible. But even in our house, I can guarantee you that my four year old in the matter of five seconds or less could find a remote control no matter where we put it, turn on the TV, and potentially have a two second scene indelibly etched into his psyche.

Not trying to be over the top here, but I'm abhorred and concerned at how far the tv programming has fallen. The children around us seem to have been forgotten, and we all are going to pay the price for allowing such disturbing and graphic programming into their young worlds.

end of rant. you may now proceed with your disturbing and debauched normal programming....

With all due respect, why should the fact that you don't have control of your kid at home impact my ability to view a movie at a reasonable time?

I'm purely speculating here, but I'm guessing your kid can find the remote control wherever you happen to leave it. If you feel that strongly about your children not seeing something harsh, then you should take it upon yourself to secure the remote, by either putting it out of reach or locking it up when you are done.

That is the beauty of television and radio: you can choose to turn it on and watch or hear what you want, or you can choose to turn it off. You, as a parent, are the single biggest influence on your child. It is your responsibility, not mine and not the broadcasters, to control what your child sees.

End of my rant.

 

[MiamieNeSeX]

With all due respect, why should the fact that you don't have control of your kid at home impact my ability to view a movie at a reasonable time?

I'm purely speculating here, but I'm guessing your kid can find the remote control wherever you happen to leave it. If you feel that strongly about your children not seeing something harsh, then you should take it upon yourself to secure the remote, by either putting it out of reach or locking it up when you are done.

That is the beauty of television and radio: you can choose to turn it on and watch or hear what you want, or you can choose to turn it off. You, as a parent, are the single biggest influence on your child. It is your responsibility, not mine and not the broadcasters, to control what your child sees.

End of my rant.

What he said.


Armando

 

[SCS2k]

What he said.


Armando

Ditto

 

[huckster]

Do you people have kids!??!! Even if the remotes are locked up in childproof cabinets, they are certainly capable of, at a very young age, walking up to the tv and turning it on. And, realistically, do you think even a 9yr old, or 8yr old, has any business seeing "Saving Private Ryan" type programming??!! Or are children of that age supposed to be prevented from ever turning on the tv by their parents??? During primetime no less....

I'm more than a little dissappointed by your responses, and unfortunately you've perfectly illustrated the whole point of my post.

 

[MiamieNeSeX]

Do you people have kids!??!! Even if the remotes are locked up in childproof cabinets, they are certainly capable of, at a very young age, walking up to the tv and turning it on. And, realistically, do you think even a 9yr old, or 8yr old, has any business seeing "Saving Private Ryan" type programming??!! Or are children of that age supposed to be prevented from ever turning on the tv by their parents??? During primetime no less....

I'm more than a little dissappointed by your responses, and unfortunately you've perfectly illustrated the whole point of my post.

Yes, I have 2 wonderful girls, and I certainly dont need you, the networks or the government to help me raise my kids. If people would start taking responsibility for their own actions and quit trying to "Blame the other Guy" we would all be much better off.


PS If you cant control a 9 year old from turning a TV on and off then I suggest you spend less time playing with your NSX and more time with your kid


Armando

 

[nkb]

Do you people have kids!??!!

Yes, and I am taking full responsibility for raising them. My wife and I will have control over what they watch until we feel they can make their own mature decisions.

Even if the remotes are locked up in childproof cabinets, they are certainly capable of, at a very young age, walking up to the tv and turning it on.

Absolutely. This is where parenting comes in. At a very young age, they can also turn on the gas stove. Do you teach them that they shouldn't? If so, why not extend it to not playing with the TV?

And, realistically, do you think even a 9yr old, or 8yr old, has any business seeing "Saving Private Ryan" type programming??!!

Absolutely not. As a parent, I have the power (and the responsibility) to prevent my kids from watching age-inappropriate material.

Or are children of that age supposed to be prevented from ever turning on the tv by their parents??? During primetime no less....

Yes, that is what I am advocating. So, your argument is, because you don't feel like monitoring your kids, everyone else should suffer. Why should I be prevented from enjoying an R-rated movie at a reasonable time because someone else's kids are allowed to watch without supervision?

I'm more than a little dissappointed by your responses, and unfortunately you've perfectly illustrated the whole point of my post.

I'm not sure how we've illustrated your point. You are asking for censorship of public airwaves because you don't want to be bothered supervising your kids. I say, take control of your kids, and let the rest of us, not the FCC, choose what we want or don't want to watch.

 

[huckster]

To each their own---you're the parent, and they are your kids. I suspect we have different standards. In our house we dont want our kids to see any violent programming even if it is a two second clip. When we have family in from out of town that wants to watch the today show, as an example, they go upstairs where the kids arent to watch it. We screen children's videos/dvds before we let them watch them. Cable is a choice. What you are advocating for is that publicly broadcast channels, which don't require cable, allow violent programming during time periods that children potentially have access. The FCC SHOULD screen material during primetime, and used to have much tighter standards in doing so. Today people apparently want their unlimited access to violent programming at any and all times, and the kids be damned.

I'll bet you have blocks on your internet access. Why? Using your argument it is YOUR responsibility as the parent to monitor that usage 24/7. The TV is no different. But based upon your responses, the only choice is to throw the tv out. Because Hey, ultra-violent shows like "Saving Private Ryan" should be shown at 7pm and you have the right to see it before your kids and my kids bedtime. Geesh, give me a break..... Why dont we ban your computer's blocking/censoring capabilities. Lets see how long that lasts in your household.

Again, I think the programming allowed on our non-cable tv networks during primetime has deteriorated to the point that it really says something about how much we do (or actually don't) value our children.

But don't worry. If you have your way and it gets any worse I'll gladly throw out my tvs. Just to prevent my child from ever running up to the tv and turning it on to see two seconds of "saving private ryan" type programming.

 

[SCS2k]

To each their own---you're the parent, and they are your kids. I suspect we have different standards. In our house we dont want our kids to see any violent programming even if it is a two second clip. When we have family in from out of town that wants to watch the today show, as an example, they go upstairs where the kids arent to watch it. We screen children's videos/dvds before we let them watch them. Cable is a choice. What you are advocating for is that publicly broadcast channels, which don't require cable, allow violent programming during time periods that children potentially have access. The FCC SHOULD screen material during primetime, and used to have much tighter standards in doing so. Today people apparently want their unlimited access to violent programming at any and all times, and the kids be damned.

I'll bet you have blocks on your internet access. Why? Using your argument it is YOUR responsibility as the parent to monitor that usage 24/7. The TV is no different. But based upon your responses, the only choice is to throw the tv out. Because Hey, ultra-violent shows like "Saving Private Ryan" should be shown at 7pm and you have the right to see it before your kids and my kids bedtime. Geesh, give me a break..... Why dont we ban your computer's blocking/censoring capabilities. Lets see how long that lasts in your household.

Again, I think the programming allowed on our non-cable tv networks during primetime has deteriorated to the point that it really says something about how much we do (or actually don't) value our children.

But don't worry. If you have your way and it gets any worse I'll gladly throw out my tvs. Just to prevent my child from ever running up to the tv and turning it on to see two seconds of "saving private ryan" type programming.

I suspect we DO have different standards. I expect PARENTS to take responsibility for their children. I don't expect the government to censor the airwaves so that I can shirk my responsibilities. Censoring the airwaves has nothing to do with the value of children. It does make it easier for parents, once again, to avoid having to monitor their children. It is NOT the government's job to raise your children just because you can't keep the remote out of their hands. It's called personal responsibility. You chose to have kids, watch them, educate them and when they are exposed to objectionable material (they will be, be it on TV or elsewhere) teach them how to deal with it. I am personally more frightened by the mentality demonstrated in making excuse after excuse, justification after justification for not taking the responsibility for raising your own children than I am by anything seen on primetime network TV. JMO.

 

[jgtcnsx]

it is a great movie and teaches alot of people about the history of the war and how bad it was to be there. yes, it might be graphic but thats how it was.

 

[huckster]

Ok, I'll try argueing my position one more time.

Whether a parent is responsible or irresponsible, Censoring prime time network tv is about the kids, not the parents. In fact, most irresponsible parents dont care whether there is violent graphic programming on during primetime. Why would they? They're irresponsible. I've been to several movies at the theatre in the past two years, 7oclock showing, where parents have their two-five year olds with them. These are R rated movies. Most notably "lord of the rings", where the 3yr old screamed halfway through it. I'm perfectly aware how many parents will go out of their way to expose their kids to traumatizing programming. And I also realize that we don't control what other parents do, although I do consider that neglectful/abusive on the part of the parents.

Primetime TV programming has become completely adult-centric. I'm ok with that too. But when programming becomes so violent/graphic that it is dangerous for a child to turn on the tv, YOU should be concerned. I think that directly reflects how selfcentered and irresponsible our adult society has become.

If you are REALLY a responsible parent you realize two things. First, children need to be sheltered from certain things as they explore their world based upon appropriate age development levels. Second, young children are driven to explore and take in everything around them like a tape/video recorder being imprinted.

A two-second clip of "Saving Private Ryan" is NOT something I want imprinted on my young child. It is not only feasible but common that a young child/toddler become fascinated with hitting the on/off button on the tv. Your arguement seems to be that this is the parent's fault and responsibility.
We already leave our tv's set on the weather channel to avoid an 'accidental turn-on' resulting in a 2-5second clip of inappropriate material. Nonetheless, I wouldnt want my 6-9yr old having access to "Saving Private Ryan" either, something that could easily happen if shown on network tv.

Violent graphic programming is right down there with pornography when it comes to inappropriateness for children. Using your arguement we might as well allow pornography on primetime as well. Then leave it up to the parents to provide the censorship.

This site has always had a higher caliber membership. I too am in general against governmental interference in the individual family's life. But we ALL bear some responsibility for what our children are exposed to. I'm more than a little shocked that so many people are comfortable with irresponsible primetime programming. Take the violent and pornographic programming to cable, where parents can choose between safe network or cable. You have the option of censorship with the internet. You should also have the option of censorship with the television.

And by the way, I take umbrage with the inference that my position on this is one of irresponsibility. Quite the opposite. I want the option of having network tv programming that IS safe for my kids should the tv be turned on with or without my permission, even if only for two seconds. I'd hope everyone, parent or not, would want the same for the children in our society.

 

[nkb]

To each their own---you're the parent, and they are your kids. I suspect we have different standards. In our house we dont want our kids to see any violent programming even if it is a two second clip. When we have family in from out of town that wants to watch the today show, as an example, they go upstairs where the kids arent to watch it. We screen children's videos/dvds before we let them watch them.

I think your suspicion is wrong. Our standards are similar, and I agree with your above approach. Where we differ is who is responsible for keeping kids from seeing inappropriate programming. I take full responsibility for monitoring what my kids see. You advocate that the FCC censor what is shown on TV, so that you don't have to worry about what your kids might see.

Cable is a choice. What you are advocating for is that publicly broadcast channels, which don't require cable, allow violent programming during time periods that children potentially have access.

TV is a choice also. Last I checked, nobody forces us to have a TV in the house.

I'll bet you have blocks on your internet access. Why? Using your argument it is YOUR responsibility as the parent to monitor that usage 24/7. The TV is no different. But based upon your responses, the only choice is to throw the tv out.

Don't look now, but you just made my argument for me with the internet example.
It IS my responsibility to monitor internet usage. And I can do that a number of different ways, one of which is having blocks. I can still have internet, yet my kids can't surf unsupervised. Why can't you extend the same logic to TV broadcasting?

Again, I think the programming allowed on our non-cable tv networks during primetime has deteriorated to the point that it really says something about how much we do (or actually don't) value our children.

I think the amount of responsibility and work parents are willing to shoulder says something about how much kids are valued. Parents who expect others (the FCC, for example) to control what their kids can see, instead of making the effort themselves, are the ones with the misplaced values.
I also don't really like how you insinuate that I don't value my kids, just because I am against TV censorship.

But don't worry. If you have your way and it gets any worse I'll gladly throw out my tvs. Just to prevent my child from ever running up to the tv and turning it on to see two seconds of "saving private ryan" type programming.

Why is your kid turning on the TV without your knowledge? If you use TV as a babysitter, and your kid associates TV as a viable method to pass free time, then that is your fault, and not mine. Have them read a book, instead of watching cartoons or Barney.

It all comes down to this. You have complete control over what comes into your house, whether it be TV broadcasts, radio programs, cable, internet, or the Avon lady. Let every individual make their own decision on what is appropriate for their family.

 

[nkb]

You have the option of censorship with the internet. You should also have the option of censorship with the television.

Huckster,
Your logic is failing you here.

You are making the argument that the internet is censored, so TV should be also. I absolutely agree. Make the point of censorship the same: when it enters your house.

 

[huckster]

Our kids see 1/2 hour of videos a day. So tv has not been a problem, yet. We are uber-responsible when it comes to the boob-tube. Of course we don't/wouldn't allow our children to turn on the tv without permission. But children sometimes do things WITHOUT permission whether forbidden or not. That's why we parents have this thing called 'consequences'. In the time it takes a child to turn on the tv and have the parent jump over and turn it off they still could have taken in some very inappropriate material. THAT is my whole point. If you really stand by the position that parents should be able to completely prevent this, then go ahead and tell me that pornography should also be on network tv. I suspect that you won't, because you differentiate between violent programming and pornographic programming. You probably consider 'two seconds' of violent programming to be an acceptable risk, whereas you would never want your child to potentially see two seconds of pornography. I consider both to be equally destructive and want the FCC to have standards that prevent this programming during primetime network tv.

For adults, let them watch this adult programming after primetime or watch it on cable. It has no place on the networks during primetime.

Anyway, I'm done. We can agree to disagree.

 

[huckster]

NKB, actually i think YOUR logic is failing. The internet is censored through blockers that prevent access to inappropriate websites. Primetime network tv doesnt give you that option.

 

[nsxtasy]

The internet is censored through blockers that prevent access to inappropriate websites. Primetime network tv doesnt give you that option.

The V-Chip is an electronic chip which works in conjunction with your television, VCR, or cable box. If you choose to utilize the V-chip feature, you select a rating level you feel appropriate for your children. V-chip reads the transmitted ratings code for all programming and will automatically deny access to programming which exceeds your preset ratings limitations.