What say you? Do the federally-funded public airwaves demand the same attention and accountability as any other commodity we invest in? Should advertisers and networks be held to a higher standard than paid cable?
Showing posts with label supreme court ruling. Show all posts
Showing posts with label supreme court ruling. Show all posts
Monday, January 16, 2012
My Debate with Media Lawyer: Who Won?
In case you missed last week's post covering the suit before the Supreme Court, I discussed it on my local news with a media lawyer. His argument was flimsy, at best, citing some nonsense about networks having no idea what 'indecent' material could be viewed as. We did agree on one point, however: The free market will make sure any over-the-top content aired on broadcast television is not aired. Advertisers don't want to be associated with what the mass public views as offensive, and if consumers aren't happy, no one wins. Let's be clear about one thing: This lawsuit isn't about freedom of expression. It's about money.
What say you? Do the federally-funded public airwaves demand the same attention and accountability as any other commodity we invest in? Should advertisers and networks be held to a higher standard than paid cable?
What say you? Do the federally-funded public airwaves demand the same attention and accountability as any other commodity we invest in? Should advertisers and networks be held to a higher standard than paid cable?
Thursday, January 12, 2012
Supreme Court to Rule in Favor of Broadcast Indecency?
Media junkies everywhere are discussing the upcoming ruling by the SCOTUS, which could be devastating for families everywhere (or not, depending on the family). In the FCC vs. Fox TV, The Federal Communications Commission filed suit against Fox TV for a number of expletives used by not-so-classy celebs. (See story here).
Ironically, I'm on my way out the door now to go tape a segment for our local news. It's regarding an upcoming episode of Modern Family, where a bleeped 'F'-bomb will be dropped multiple times. This very week, our country could see television move to a directions where bleeps could be tossed out the window, along with bans on nudity.
Opponents of the suit say it's unconstitutional for the SCOTUS to decide what can or cannot be said on TV. Advocates say it's unconstitutional for the SCOTUS to not decide what can or cannot be said on TV.
I'll present the facts and let you decide:
The *"Family Hour" was enacted by network heads and members of the FCC as a safeguard for families. Meant specifically to prevent anything indecent being said on public airwaves during a time when families-specifically children-are most likely watching, it has been laughingly and arrogantly ignored for the better part of the 80's until present time.
The real kicker though, is that you pay for it. You may hate shows like American Dad, Family Guy, or Glee, but you have no choice but the fund its content. These are shown on broadcast television, which is about as public as your local post office or library. Which you pay for with tax dollars.
So you tell me: Is it unconstitutional? The SCOTUS, who are federal employees, bankrolled by us, is set to decide what can or cannot be said on public airwaves. The public airwaves are federal, which are also bankrolled by us. I don't know about you, but I happen to think it's amoral for the government to take my money, and tell me to change the channel if I don't like what I paid for.
But that's me.
*The previous post stated The Family Hour was a bill signed by congress. This was incorrect. Corrections have been made.
Ironically, I'm on my way out the door now to go tape a segment for our local news. It's regarding an upcoming episode of Modern Family, where a bleeped 'F'-bomb will be dropped multiple times. This very week, our country could see television move to a directions where bleeps could be tossed out the window, along with bans on nudity.
Opponents of the suit say it's unconstitutional for the SCOTUS to decide what can or cannot be said on TV. Advocates say it's unconstitutional for the SCOTUS to not decide what can or cannot be said on TV.
I'll present the facts and let you decide:
The *"Family Hour" was enacted by network heads and members of the FCC as a safeguard for families. Meant specifically to prevent anything indecent being said on public airwaves during a time when families-specifically children-are most likely watching, it has been laughingly and arrogantly ignored for the better part of the 80's until present time.
The real kicker though, is that you pay for it. You may hate shows like American Dad, Family Guy, or Glee, but you have no choice but the fund its content. These are shown on broadcast television, which is about as public as your local post office or library. Which you pay for with tax dollars.
So you tell me: Is it unconstitutional? The SCOTUS, who are federal employees, bankrolled by us, is set to decide what can or cannot be said on public airwaves. The public airwaves are federal, which are also bankrolled by us. I don't know about you, but I happen to think it's amoral for the government to take my money, and tell me to change the channel if I don't like what I paid for.
But that's me.
*The previous post stated The Family Hour was a bill signed by congress. This was incorrect. Corrections have been made.
Saturday, July 2, 2011
The Daily Show-and-Tell
There are three types of people who don't care to hear about the negative effects of violent video games: 1) People who enjoy playing them. 2) People who don't want to be bothered with having to tell their kids 'no'. 3) People who have a feeling the games are harmful but would rather exist in a comfortable bubble of denial.
Which one are you?
Last week, The California Supreme Court came down with a ruling devastating for families across this country. In a 7-2 decision, SCOTUS ruled that children of any age should be allowed to purchase violent or sexually explicit video games without barriers. Simply speaking, this means that on your next run to Target, your preschooler can pick up a copy of Mortal Kombat (one of PC World's most violent-rated games) along with her Elmo coloring book. Realistically speaking, there aren’t many parents who would allow that purchase to happen under their watchful eyes.
Which one are you?
Last week, The California Supreme Court came down with a ruling devastating for families across this country. In a 7-2 decision, SCOTUS ruled that children of any age should be allowed to purchase violent or sexually explicit video games without barriers. Simply speaking, this means that on your next run to Target, your preschooler can pick up a copy of Mortal Kombat (one of PC World's most violent-rated games) along with her Elmo coloring book. Realistically speaking, there aren’t many parents who would allow that purchase to happen under their watchful eyes.
But what about when they’re not around? That is exactly what the Entertainment Merchants Association is banking on. Little Jimmy and his friends biking up to Kmart with their allowance money, and perusing the vast selection of AO (Adult-Only) rated games, with no one to stop them from buying it. Games like Mortal Kombat has the controller impaling his victims in a torrent of entrails, and is a top-selling XBox 360 game. Nice, eh? Oh, and if you for one second think your child would never purchase something that graphic, I have a bridge I’d like to sell you.
Jon Stewart recently covered the SCOTUS ruling on The Daily Show. Now, I can’t think of anyone less likely to side with parent advocacy groups than Stewart. He’s a political satirist whose left-leaning politics more often than not poke gratuitous fun at the right. He’s funny, and though personally I am a conservative, I enjoy Stewart. He’s smart, witty, and knows how to engage a crowd. Our politics are pretty night-and-day, but I still enjoy catching episodes online. However, I was shocked to see his recent coverage regarding Brown vs. The Entertainment Merchants Association:
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| Moral Kombat | ||||
| ||||
Stewart mentioned he wasn’t aware of any effects violent gaming has on kids—of course he isn't. He's a comedian whose forum isn't to analyze this sort of thing. But it’s what I do, and I have a lot of information on that subject. Check out my page on Violent Gaming Effects.
The question I’m left with is this: If the government is now placing stickers on cigarette packets with cancer-infested lungs to deter people from buying them, why are they saying it’s OK to virtually maim, rape and impale victims? And if your answer is the template, “It’s not real-it’s a game”, then explain to me why so much attention has been given to this issue. Could it be that perhaps all the studies out there proving the negative effects are correct?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
