posted on November 11, 2004 08:45:04 AM new
MORE CENSORING OF THE MEDIA BY THE CURRENT DICTATORSHIP.
Think it's funny??? Wait until it's something YOU think should be aired.
The Dis-United States takes another step toward the loss of freedom of the press and freedom of speech.
What this is about is Tom Hanks slam dunking bush and the fact that Americans are not ALLOWED to see nasty things like caskets returning to America and one of the most realistic war movies ever made.
OH, shocked by the word F---? Ya RIGHT, I've seen the crap on prime time TV and EVERYTHING is about sex and F--- is the ONLY word not used.....I even saw a commercial for phone sex during prime time when the little conservative kiddies are watching.
America..land of the FREE????
Home of the BRAVE????
NOT!
TV Stations Cancel 'Saving Private Ryan'
Updated 7:23 AM ET November 11, 2004
By LEON DROUIN KEITH
NEW YORK (AP) - Several ABC affiliates have announced that they won't take part in the network's Veterans Day airing of "Saving Private Ryan," saying the acclaimed film's violence and language could draw sanctions from the Federal Communications Commission.
Stations replacing the movie with other programming Thursday include Cox Television-owned stations in Atlanta and Charlotte, N.C., three Midwest stations owned by Citadel Communications.
"Under strict interpretation of the rules, we can't run that programming before 10 p.m.," said Ray Cole, president of Citadel, which owns WOI-TV in Des Moines, KCAU-TV in Sioux City and KLKN-TV in Lincoln, Neb.
The Oscar-winning film includes a violent depiction of the D-Day invasion and profanity.
"We have attempted to get an advanced waiver from the FCC and, remarkably to me, they are not willing to do so," Cole told The Des Moines Register.
In a statement on the Web site of Atlanta's WSB-TV, the station's vice president and general manager, Greg Stone cited a March ruling in which the FCC said an expletive uttered by rock star Bono during NBC's live airing of the 2003 Golden Globe Awards was both indecent and profane.
The agency made it clear then that virtually any use of the F-word _ which is used in "Saving Private Ryan" _ was inappropriate for over-the-air radio and television.
The Bono case "reversed years of prior policy that the context of language matters," Stone said. He added that broadcaster could not get any clarification from the FCC on whether the movie violates the standard.
Other stations that decided not to air the movie include WGNO-TV of New Orleans, owned by Tribune Broadcasting Corp., and WMUR-TV of Manchester, N.H., owned by Hearst-Argyle Television Inc.
ABC, which broadcast the film uncut in 2001 and 2002, issued a statement saying it is proud to broadcast it again. The network's contract with director Steven Spielberg stipulates that the film cannot be edited.
"As in the past, this broadcast will contain appropriate and clear advisories and parental guidelines," the statement said.
Several stations said ABC had rejected their requests to air the movie after 10 p.m.
An FCC spokeswoman said Wednesday that the agency does not monitor television broadcasts, but responds to complaints. The agency did receive a complaint after the 2001 broadcast of "Saving Private Ryan," but it was denied, she said.
WSOC-TV of Charlotte said it had received complaints about language in the movie when it was aired in 2001 and 2002.
"Now, after much concern and discussion about family viewing over past months, and with Americans at war across the world, it is the vivid depiction of violence combined with graphic language proposed to begin airing at 8 p.m. that has forced our decision," said Lee Armstrong, the station's vice president and general manager.
ABC has told its affiliates it would cover any fines, but Cole, of Citadel, said the network could not protect its affiliates against other FCC sanctions.
The FCC has stepped up enforcement of its decency standards for certain content following this year's Super Bowl halftime show, in which one of Janet Jackson's breasts was exposed.
Profane speech, which is barred from broadcast radio and television between 6 a.m. and 10 p.m., is defined by the FCC as language that is "so grossly offensive to members of the public who actually hear it as to amount to a nuisance," or epithets that tend "to provoke violent resentment."
The guidelines say the context in which such material appears is of critical importance.
Cole cited recent FCC actions and last week's re-election of President Bush as reasons for replacing "Saving Private Ryan" on Thursday with a music program and the TV movie "Return to Mayberry."
"We're just coming off an election where moral issues were cited as a reason by people voting one way or another and, in my opinion, the commissioners are fearful of the new Congress," Cole said.
posted on November 11, 2004 09:46:00 AM new
Crow, it is just the backlash from those with moral values that don't want the F-word being heard on TV.
Q. What's the difference between the Vietnam War and the Iraq War?
A. George W. Bush had a plan to get out of the Vietnam War.
--------------------------------------
There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again." —George W. Bush, Nashville, Tenn., Sept. 17, 2002
---------------------------------- "Give it up for George W. Bush, the best friend international jihad ever had."
posted on November 11, 2004 10:56:36 AM newThe FCC has stepped up enforcement of its decency standards
What is this country coming to when everyone is so scared now from the FCC.
Should change that name over to KGB. At least the reds did not try to cover up the fact that they where running a dictatorship.
posted on November 11, 2004 11:12:36 AM new
Crowfarm, this is not a case of censorship by the government. If it were, none of the ABC affiliates would be allowed to show the film.
This is a case of some affiliates deciding on their own to censor what their viewers are allowed to see. I've seen news blurbs in the past about stations deciding not to screen an episode of a show that contains something they don't like. Usually when the episode touches upon something controversial.
In this case, the affiliates are using FCC regulation wording to support their move. Obviously this statute is not enforced on a regular basis, judging by some of the language I hear in prime-time television every day.
Personally, if I was one of the viewers in that affiliate's area, I would be irate. The stations are keeping everyone from viewing what some might not want to see. Censorship pure & simple. If I am offended by something, I simply will not view it. If others want to see something I don't like, that's their business, not mine. These stations are taking away their viewer's right to choose. The stations, not the government in this case.
____________________
"Bad temper is its own scourge. Few things are more bitter than to feel bitter. A man's venom poisons himself more than his victim." --Charles Buxton
posted on November 11, 2004 11:37:11 AM new
In some cases it might be fear. But, in all likelihood, what is really driving the move is the management of those particular affiliates letting their own personal beliefs guide them in this and making the decision for their viewers. They, personally, are offended by the language.
What is amazing about this is that, from their actions, you might be led to believe that the word in question is used constantly throughout the film in every other sentence. It is not.
Stations merely have to announce to their audiences before the film begins and during the few commercial interruptions that will occur during this showing that the film contains objectionable language. Their viewers can then make the choice to view or not to view for themselves.
This reminds me a great deal of the Doonesbury cartoon a few months back that was censored by some newspapers because a character who'd been injured in Iraq used a "bad" word upon learning the extent of his injuries. A word that would realistically be used in such a situation.
Ludicrous.
____________________
"Bad temper is its own scourge. Few things are more bitter than to feel bitter. A man's venom poisons himself more than his victim." --Charles Buxton
posted on November 11, 2004 11:38:25 AM newMORE CENSORING OF THE MEDIA BY THE CURRENT DICTATORSHIP.
NOPE!!! Another untruth once again. Some people just over-react to every little thing and then of course, blame it on the President. Just a tad hysterical, imo. If you're so upset...email ABC and complain...let them explain why THEY made the decision THEY did.
and bunni's correct....this was ABC's decision not our President's/governments. The network is concerned about the language used in the film and whether or not it fill violate FCC rules and they'll have to pay a fine.
The fine for JJ exposing her breast cost a small fortune....they're thinking of their pocketbooks...bottom line.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Four More Years....YES!!!
posted on November 11, 2004 11:53:30 AM new
Crowfarm, I dislike Bush & Co. and their practices just as much as you do. However, I do not see anything in this case that indicates any involvement by them. I am not being "naive" here, just realistic.
The FCC was started in 1934. While FCC commissioners are appointed by the President, and Bush has of course appointed his share, the rule against "bad" language has been in effect since the very beginning. Bush had nothing to do with it.
And, as I said before, if this were a case of the government as embodied by the FCC stepping in to say "thou shalt not show this film" then none of the ABC stations in this country would be allowed to screen it. Instead, this is a case of some stations deciding not to.
____________________
"Bad temper is its own scourge. Few things are more bitter than to feel bitter. A man's venom poisons himself more than his victim." --Charles Buxton
posted on November 11, 2004 01:00:50 PM new
Ya, on a day meant to honor our fighting men and WOMEN how fitting is it to ban a movie that shows very accurately WHAT these people did because there's a naughty word in it.
Welllllll, it'd be kinda hard to sign anyone up for the military now if they saw that movie....may be a little discouraging and THAT'S why it won't be shown. Some people might connect what's happening in Iraq with some of the things that happen in that movie.....oooooo, wouldn't want that.......
posted on November 11, 2004 01:35:39 PM new
Crow, in protest you can watch "Shaving Ryan's Privates" instead. I heard it was going to be aired on cable tonight.
Q. What's the difference between the Vietnam War and the Iraq War?
A. George W. Bush had a plan to get out of the Vietnam War.
--------------------------------------
There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again." —George W. Bush, Nashville, Tenn., Sept. 17, 2002
---------------------------------- "Give it up for George W. Bush, the best friend international jihad ever had."
posted on November 11, 2004 04:46:25 PM new
According to a news report I saw today, the current FCC fine is $27,000 per incident. It was suggested that ABC is deliberately pushing the (anti-censorship) point - but some of the affiliates are too afraid that they might be fined.
It will be interesting to see if those that air it are fined. I do believe that there has been a change in the way the FCC is enforcing it's regulations. This movie has been shown twice before on network TV. I think that on those occasions, the stations just aired it with "mature audience" type warnings.
posted on November 11, 2004 04:57:53 PM newthe stations just aired it with "mature audience" type warnings
Thats the way it should be, after all its the parents who should be controlling what their kids are watching and not using the tv as a cheap baby sitter.
posted on November 11, 2004 06:32:19 PM new
I generally like war and action movies.
Maybe Private Ryan was historically accurrate, I dunno. But I didn't much care for it as entertainment. Something about the plot just didn't hit with me. The violence and profanity don't really bother me.
Did anyone else out there NOT like Private Ryan?
--------------------------------------
We do not stop playing because we grow old. We grow old because we stop playing -- Anonymous
posted on November 11, 2004 09:01:45 PM new
The only time anyone is allowed to say fu*ck is when Dick Cheney says "go fu*ck yourself". Otherwise, it's not allowed to be said.
posted on November 12, 2004 03:54:53 AM new
" just got home and "Private Ryan" is on ABC as I type.
terryann
edited to add: I heard the "f-word" at 10:05"
well crowcrap-they showed the movie and they used the f-word-you happy now???there goes your government censorship conspiracy down the tubes-as ususal you were wrong and your stupid posts are full of crapola.
posted on November 12, 2004 03:59:46 AM new
"The only time anyone is allowed to say fu*ck is when Dick Cheney says "go fu*ck yourself". Otherwise, it's not allowed to be said"
Im sure he said that to a democrat,probably for a good reason
posted on November 12, 2004 04:40:22 AM new
It's really too early to tell if crow was wrong. Due to a contract ABC signed with Spielberg - they weren't allowed to edit the movie. Thus any station that aired it had to include the "f" word. We'll have to wait and see if the affiliates that aired it and/or ABC get fined.
posted on November 12, 2004 05:02:40 AM new
It was just not the words, it was also the graphic violence... the fines could bankrupt some of the smaller stations without backing from corporate headquarters...
I can't imagine it being much good on tv anyway...
AIN'T LIFE GRAND...
Bigotry and prejudice -- these are assertions, not arguments. This is name-calling, not case-building.
posted on November 12, 2004 05:15:26 AM new
Good God people...it's a movie!! If you want to see it so damn bad rent or buy it. What a bunch of babies you are.
posted on November 12, 2004 11:42:11 AM new
Gloss over the fact that part of censorship is instilling in people the fear of certain actions. What is the difference between censuring an act or action or financially devastating someone if they do an act or action? Especially if the act or action is judged after the fact.
For a fine example of controlling a subject population, I recommend the book 'Treblinka' by Jean-Francois Steiner. It is an illuminating view in the ruthless domination and decimation of a people. It is a tale of the only rebellion in a Nazi concentration camp during WWII. (ISBN # 0-452-01124-8)
One of the most interesting points made in this book is that people will believe their hopes and wishes before they will believe the truth.
People are not good or bad, they are good and bad. The same with our governments, they are both good and bad depending on whether it is your cookie getting munched. Just because the conservatives have a better grasp on reality does not convey righteousness to all they do. After all, the worst despots in the world do good acts in their own self-interest.
__________
The Democrats were rejected by a majority of Americans
posted on November 12, 2004 11:52:51 AM new
I think her point was clear. To not show a movie based on the very war that was fought on a day like Veteran's Day, is like banning crucifixion movies on Easter. What's the message?
posted on November 12, 2004 03:38:42 PM newIt was just not the words, it was also the graphic violence... the fines could bankrupt some of the smaller stations without backing from corporate headquarters
Now that is the truth. Alot of these of these stations are locally or small proprietor owned. Their main agenda is revenue! If anybody thinks its about anything else, they're attributing all kinds of psycobabble that probably doesnt even apply here.
Advertising, TV, Communications....follow the money folks, you'll see where why and how decisions gets made.
