[ November 11, 2004, 11:41 AM: Message edited by: puckman1 ]
Full Version: Panic attack over airing "Saving Private Ryan"
Coming home a few minutes ago I was listening to the news on the radio about the brou-haha lots of cities across the country are going through agonizing over whether to air the movie "Saving Private Ryan", because they are scared to death, of being fined by the F.C.C. because of language and graphic situations. If this isn't an indicator the country tilts to the right, I don't know what is...whatever happened to, choosing not to watch it, or heaven help me, switch the channel??? You would think based on the panic the network was going to air a soft porn movie or something. Ridiculous! Here in Spokane, there are no plans not to air the movie. Lets hear it again for freedom of choice.
[ November 11, 2004, 11:41 AM: Message edited by: puckman1 ]
[ November 11, 2004, 11:41 AM: Message edited by: puckman1 ]
this must put the current administration's panties in a real wad!
should they come out and trumpet the moral values of these stations who have stood up to indecency?
or should they come out and blast them as pinko commies for not showing such a patriotic war-glorifying movie of heroism?
what's a mindless ideologue to do?
does this fall into that whole reep what you sow thing?
should they come out and trumpet the moral values of these stations who have stood up to indecency?
or should they come out and blast them as pinko commies for not showing such a patriotic war-glorifying movie of heroism?
what's a mindless ideologue to do?
does this fall into that whole reep what you sow thing?
I agree, this is silly. Especially in view of my watching "LAX" for the first time last night and hearing what I thought was inappropriate language on that show. I normally don't watch network TV, never soaps or sitcoms and rarely whatever genre "LAX" fits into, but I was surprised to hear more than a few damns, hells and SOBs on the air. Parental guidance aside (how many parents actually police their kids viewing?), I DO think that is inappropriate for primetime network TV. Movies are a totally different issue.
I am so sick of the FCC sticking their nose into what I want to watch or listen to. The constant pressure networks feel is forcing these affiliates to not show this movie. It's Veteran's Day and ABC has to be fearful of showing oen of the all-time great war movies. Such insanity!
Howard Stern is moving his show to satellite radio in January 2006 to avoid FCC scrutiny. Great for Stern, but now the average fan like me will have to buy satellite radio equipment plus spend $12.95 a month. f**king FCC!
Howard Stern is moving his show to satellite radio in January 2006 to avoid FCC scrutiny. Great for Stern, but now the average fan like me will have to buy satellite radio equipment plus spend $12.95 a month. f**king FCC!
Something about this situation that I found disturbing, ironic, and hilarious was that a few of the stations refusing to show "Saving Private Ryan" are showing "Return to Mayberry" in its place. Now that's the way to salute veterans.
I see nothing wrong with showing "Saving Private Ryan"-as long as they viewing public is appropriately warned that it has strong language and violence. The public can then make an informed decision whether or not to watch.
That movie is a classic and is a perfect fit for Veteran's Day. It shows us non-military people what hell war is-no John Wayne, real blood, real death and real fear. It's as close as I ever want to get to war. It should be required viewing for all persons that send our military men to war. Heck, I think we should go back to the times of Alexander the Great. He led the fight in most battles, was injured himself, and was a tactical battlefield genius. AND if he looked like Colin Farell, I would have followed him anywhere. OY VEY!!!
One last gripe, how "Shpakespeare in Love" EVER won the academy award of SPR, I will never know. It was the Spielberg backlash. He was robbed!
That movie is a classic and is a perfect fit for Veteran's Day. It shows us non-military people what hell war is-no John Wayne, real blood, real death and real fear. It's as close as I ever want to get to war. It should be required viewing for all persons that send our military men to war. Heck, I think we should go back to the times of Alexander the Great. He led the fight in most battles, was injured himself, and was a tactical battlefield genius. AND if he looked like Colin Farell, I would have followed him anywhere. OY VEY!!!
One last gripe, how "Shpakespeare in Love" EVER won the academy award of SPR, I will never know. It was the Spielberg backlash. He was robbed!
The ABC affiliate in Dallas will NOT air Saving Private Ryan out of fear of FCC fines. I love how our current and future (4 more years) administration wields it's power of censorship. 
I have not seen or heard of a ruling/advisory opinion from the FCC on SPR. I have not heard them talking about fining ABC for the show "Desparate Housewives" or CBS for "CSI", or many others that have profanity, sex or violence. I am not sure if these channels are truly scared or are using this movie to highlight their disagreements with the FCC.
SDiego's ABC station will be showing SPR and I'll be watching it. If any of you from cities whose affiliates are courage challenged want to come over and watch it, lemmeno. Bring food and beer.
They are not airing the show here in Atlanta because of the violence and language. Instead the station opted for a more Atlanta friendly movie and are showing "Saving Ryan's Privates" instead. If you TIVO it you can fast forward through the talking parts, you know, the commercials.
WNA, Isn't that the one starring Rob Lowe?
What's amusing is that one station that isn't airing the movie has already aired it before. Twice.
The FCC was asked to issue an advance waiver prior to the airing of SPR this year. AN FCC spokes model stated the agency does not monitor TV broadcasts and stated that they only respond to complaints received and then investigate. SPR was been shown in 2000 and 2001. The agency received a complaint after the 2001 broadcast, but it was declined.
What has changed since 2001 is the infamous Bono speech that used the F word. The stations have viewed the fine for his use of the F word, to be a change from past interpretations of indecency.
My guess is the FCC will recieve several complaints because of the profanity, may be some for the violence, too bad they can't complain about a naked Matt Damon. The FCC will decline to pursue an investigation of these complaints.
The local Montgomery Alabama affialite is showing it as we speak and that first 15 minutes beach scene is intense, horrible, shocking, devastating and a classic.
What has changed since 2001 is the infamous Bono speech that used the F word. The stations have viewed the fine for his use of the F word, to be a change from past interpretations of indecency.
My guess is the FCC will recieve several complaints because of the profanity, may be some for the violence, too bad they can't complain about a naked Matt Damon. The FCC will decline to pursue an investigation of these complaints.
The local Montgomery Alabama affialite is showing it as we speak and that first 15 minutes beach scene is intense, horrible, shocking, devastating and a classic.
I also find it interesting that the timing of this "ruckus" with the war in Iraq going on is interesting. Note that Americans do not get to see bodies of the fallen coming back from Iraq, and lately the Pentagon doesn't seem Americans to want to know too much about how many soliders have died or been injured in the latest assault on Fallujah either. But night after night on television on the evening news we are treated to pictures of twisted carnage from car bombs that go off day after day after day. Hmm.
I thought this 'ruckus' was started by some local stations, and not by the Bush admin. The local stations could not get an answer, so they decided not to air the movie, this was picked up by the media and that's how the 'ruckus' started.
As for showing bodies, i remember a photographer getting in trouble for taking pics of caskets of dead military in Iraq. The media is caught between making news and being sensitive to the family of fallen Americans. I am not sure if the cameras can get to a scene soon enough to take pictures of armless and faceless Americans, before they are taken away by the military. I say-thank you for that.
I hear enough about the number of deaths, the number of car bombs, the number of kidnappings, the number of beheadings to get a very good idea of how rough it is in Iraq. I don't need to see anymore.
As for showing bodies, i remember a photographer getting in trouble for taking pics of caskets of dead military in Iraq. The media is caught between making news and being sensitive to the family of fallen Americans. I am not sure if the cameras can get to a scene soon enough to take pictures of armless and faceless Americans, before they are taken away by the military. I say-thank you for that.
I hear enough about the number of deaths, the number of car bombs, the number of kidnappings, the number of beheadings to get a very good idea of how rough it is in Iraq. I don't need to see anymore.
QUOTE
The FCC was asked to issue an advance waiver prior to the airing of SPR this year. AN FCC spokes model stated the agency does not monitor TV broadcasts and stated that they only respond to complaints received and then investigate. SPR was been shown in 2000 and 2001. The agency received a complaint after the 2001 broadcast, but it was declined.
I don't understand the FCC logic. If SPR was shown in 2001 with a few complaints that the FCC did nothing about, then in my mind a precedent was set and the stations should not have to worry about fines etc.I have a real problem with the FCC lacking a backbone to make a ruling on a movie that has been shown before that resulted in no action taken. Rather than taking a stand based official rules they prefer to "poll" the audience first to see which way sentiment goes. Either the film violates decency standards or it doesn't. We don't need a wishy washy agency spending our tax dollars.
The Richmond, VA station did not air it, and the reasoning was because it used the "f" word 47 times and would be fined 27,000 for each usage (even though they have showed it twice before and never got fined). Instead we got Home Alone and Phenomenon with John Travolta. I received two emails from the station after I emailed them and they said they are just abiding by their owners rules.
QUOTE
HornFan:
The ABC affiliate in Dallas will NOT air Saving Private Ryan out of fear of FCC fines. I love how our current and future (4 more years) administration wields it's power of censorship.
Ah yes, Channel 8, also know as Chapel 8The ABC affiliate in Dallas will NOT air Saving Private Ryan out of fear of FCC fines. I love how our current and future (4 more years) administration wields it's power of censorship.
Gotta love those nutty red states.
Au: it was caused by the by now infamous Janet Jackson incident last year, which of course caused the F.C.C. which correct me if I am wrong, but is run by some Republican appointees who have sent out a "message" with their fines, that they may take it upon themselves to fine local market stations who air something they don't seem to like or want.
My local ABC affiliate did not air the movie. Instead, one of the "Lethal Weapon" movies aired in it's place. Yeah, that's not violent at all...plus, it's a Mel Gibson movie so that makes all those evangelical wackos happy.
QUOTE
bobby78751:
My local ABC affiliate did not air the movie. Instead, one of the \"Lethal Weapon\" movies aired in it's place. Yeah, that's not violent at all...plus, it's a Mel Gibson movie so that makes all those evangelical wackos happy.
Gotta love those nutty red states.
My local ABC affiliate did not air the movie. Instead, one of the \"Lethal Weapon\" movies aired in it's place. Yeah, that's not violent at all...plus, it's a Mel Gibson movie so that makes all those evangelical wackos happy.
Hell, I talked to my Mom in South Dakota and they showed Saving Private Ryan. How odd people can be about swearing!
I thought Michael Powell was appointed by Clinton and elevated to Chairman by Bush?
I saw nothing wrong with having it on network TV. After commercials breaks they warned the audience about what the show contained. IF someone still allowed their child to watch it-that's their problem.
If ABC can show Desperate Housewives with no fines, they should be able to show SPR with no worries.
I saw nothing wrong with having it on network TV. After commercials breaks they warned the audience about what the show contained. IF someone still allowed their child to watch it-that's their problem.
If ABC can show Desperate Housewives with no fines, they should be able to show SPR with no worries.
Not all red state affiliates blocked SPR. It was on here in Wichita.
The shocking truth about the FCC: Censorship by the tyranny of the few
QUOTE
With not much original reporting, I discovered that the latest big fine by the FCC against a TV network -- a record $1.2 million against Fox for its \"sexually suggestive\" Married by America -- was brought about by a mere three people who actually composed letters of complaint. Yes, just three people.
I filed a Freedom of Information Act request on Oct. 12 asking to see all of the 159 complaints the FCC cited in its complaint against Fox.
I just received the FCC's reply with a copy of all the complaints -- and a letter explaining that, well, there weren't 159 after all.
....
I examined the complaints and found that all but two of them were virtually identical. In other words, one person took the time to write a letter and 20 other people then photocopied or merely emailed it to the FCC many times. They all came from an automated complaint factory like the one I write about here. Only two letters were not the form letter.
So in the end, that means that a grand total of three citizens bothered to take the time to sit down and actually write a letter of complaint to the FCC. Millions of people watched the show. Three wrote letters of complaint.
....
I filed a Freedom of Information Act request on Oct. 12 asking to see all of the 159 complaints the FCC cited in its complaint against Fox.
I just received the FCC's reply with a copy of all the complaints -- and a letter explaining that, well, there weren't 159 after all.
....
I examined the complaints and found that all but two of them were virtually identical. In other words, one person took the time to write a letter and 20 other people then photocopied or merely emailed it to the FCC many times. They all came from an automated complaint factory like the one I write about here. Only two letters were not the form letter.
So in the end, that means that a grand total of three citizens bothered to take the time to sit down and actually write a letter of complaint to the FCC. Millions of people watched the show. Three wrote letters of complaint.
....
One of the problems with current FCC enforcement is that it is entirely complaint driven. The FCC went on record before SPR was aired saying they couldn't comment on something that hadn't been shown yet and they hadn't received complaints about. Why the hell not? That just means that there are no actual standards, just the perceived standards of anyone who has an axe to grind. If I get 100 (though evidently three would be sufficient) athiest friends to write letters about the graphic content in an Easter Sunday televised sermon about the crucifixion and resurrection, the FCC would have to either fine that station, or admit to their true role as hypocritical and ineffective guardians of the nation's airwaves. I can't see why the ACLU isn't constantly bombarding the FCC with complaints about any number of objectionable programs just to break the system.
Tom Shales has a whole lotta love for Michael Powell.
Michael Powell Exposed! The FCC Chairman Has No Clothes
Michael Powell Exposed! The FCC Chairman Has No Clothes
QUOTE
Colin Powell, as most Americans know, has \"resigned\" his position as secretary of state, though few in the inner circle of the coldhearted Bush administration will likely be shedding tears at his departure. Staying in office, however, and capable of wreaking havoc in American broadcasting until 2007, is Colin's son Michael Powell, chairman of the Federal Communications Commission and definitely not a force for good in America.
Pompous and imperious, an ideologue who believes unfailingly in his own philosophy of how TV and radio should work (the FCC also has domain over telephone and emerging broadband technologies), Powell ignores or condemns anyone who opposes him. Though FCC chairmen have labored mostly in obscurity, Powell has managed to make himself famous; he's the Torquemada of the insane campaign now being waged against \"obscenity\" on the airwaves.
....
\"Arrogant\" is the adjective used most often in any discussion of Powell and the way he pushes his personal agenda, an extension of the fanatical deregulation that gathered steam under Ronald Reagan's FCC chairman, a reckless loudmouth named Mark Fowler.
....
Says one industry veteran who has seen many FCC chairmen come and go: \"Where we are now is the land of the bizarre.\"
....
Pompous and imperious, an ideologue who believes unfailingly in his own philosophy of how TV and radio should work (the FCC also has domain over telephone and emerging broadband technologies), Powell ignores or condemns anyone who opposes him. Though FCC chairmen have labored mostly in obscurity, Powell has managed to make himself famous; he's the Torquemada of the insane campaign now being waged against \"obscenity\" on the airwaves.
....
\"Arrogant\" is the adjective used most often in any discussion of Powell and the way he pushes his personal agenda, an extension of the fanatical deregulation that gathered steam under Ronald Reagan's FCC chairman, a reckless loudmouth named Mark Fowler.
....
Says one industry veteran who has seen many FCC chairmen come and go: \"Where we are now is the land of the bizarre.\"
....
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.