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 network indecency. Show all posts
Showing posts with label network indecency. 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.
Sunday, November 6, 2011
Fox's 'Allen Gregory'
Fox has not had a glowing reputation with its programming slotted
during the Family Hour. From Glee to Family Guy to American Dad, the blatant lack of regard for
families across this country is clear. I thought the scripting of pedophilia
(Family Guy), bestiality (Family Guy), mocking of the disabled (Family Guy), sibling sexual fantasies (American Dad), and bondage (American Dad), had reached the height of indecency on broadcast TV.
Until now.
Seven.Years. Old.
Upon being sent to the Principal's office for drinking wine at lunch, Allen is shown having a series of sexual fantasies about her, which include ogling her hairy (blech) cleavage and rubbing her down with suntan oil as she lay topless. And predictably, Allen and his teacher head to a hotel room where it’s clear they’ll be having sex:
Until now.
I'm convinced Fox's human resources department is holding job fairs at halfway houses for child molesters. Allen Gregory (Sundays,
8:30 p.m. ET) is a show that slithers to new a new gutter of sludge. My beef
isn't with the writing, if I can call it that. My beef is with Fox
airing this crap at 8:30 PM, during the massively-ignored 'Family Hour'. The
show’s title character is actually a 7-year old child in second-grade, who has sexual fantasies of
his elderly principal.
Upon being sent to the Principal's office for drinking wine at lunch, Allen is shown having a series of sexual fantasies about her, which include ogling her hairy (blech) cleavage and rubbing her down with suntan oil as she lay topless. And predictably, Allen and his teacher head to a hotel room where it’s clear they’ll be having sex:
Allen: “Let me ask you something. Is it just
like a complete mess down there?”
Principal: “I'm gonna level with you. It's like
post-Katrina.”
Allen: “Damn it, you're perfect.”
Allen Gregory reclines on the bed. The lights go
out. Principal starts moaning his name: “Allen Gregory, Allen Gregory...”
I understand that there are people across this world with freakishly strange senses of humor who enjoy seeing a second grader having sex with his teacher. But they need to enjoy their twisted fantasies on someone else's dime. Allen Gregory is aired on public broadcast television, which means YOUR tax dollars pay for this. Contact your local Fox station and tell then you don’t want this airing.
The advertisers who link their brand with Allen Gregory :
I've included links to the customer service for each company. Make sure to let them know that in this down-turned economy, your hard-earned dollars shouldn't be funding this type of crap on television.
Thursday, August 18, 2011
Playboy Bunnies and Womens' Lib?
When someone thinks of feminism, I'm sure Playboy immediately comes to mind. Forget birth control, suffrage, and equal pay; true liberation is found in deep cleavage and nude centerfolds. Right?
NBC is bringing this glitter to the public airwaves as part of their Fall 2011 lineup. The polemic is that the show will demoralize women by casting them in a meaty light. But NBC prez Bob Greenblatt claims the show is about 'female empowerment', and the nay-sayers are missing the mark on the show's premise. From Gloria to a local NBC affiliate, to the Parents Television Council to the American public, it's clear people are not happy about the show.
I'll play devil's advocate for a moment: There's something very retro about revisiting the Playboy empire glam of eld. When the clubs ruled major cities and those silk bunny ears were as valuable as gold in the waitress arena, girls everywhere wanted to be a part of it. The country was on the eve of a major sexual revamp, and Playboy was a key architect. I get it.
Kind of.
But here's where you really need to pay attention: It doesn't end with the broadcast of The Playboy Club. Ironically, that's least of my concerns. First off, there's Hulu, Side Reel, etc. Forget the decency clauses and sensors; this show will be available to watch anytime on the Internet, 24/7. And if history is any guide, we can safely assume that the slippery slope of prime-time television writing will bang out (bad use of words, sorry) sloppy episodes of glorfied prostitution, spousal infidelity, drugs, alcohol abuse, battery...you get the point.
And then comes the real Frankenstein: Marketing and Advertising. Halloween costumes, TV spin-offs, Disney's newest tween sensation will be groomed for the next lead, and commercials for upcoming episodes will be aired during The Family Hour. But why stop there? Maybe Hasbro will make a Playboy Bunny Girl doll. For $19.99! A Hef doll in a Mercedes for $24.99! Think I'm nuts? Until public outcry reached epic proportions, Hasbro had a whole line of Pussycat Dolls ready for sale.
(I can't think of something I'd like my kids to play with more than a slutty Nicole Sherzinger toy.)
In an age where pornography rules and monogamy is considered antiquated, why do we want to further perpetuate the myth that people must always exist in an uber-aroused state? Don't we want more for our kids society?
Contact NBC here.
NBC is bringing this glitter to the public airwaves as part of their Fall 2011 lineup. The polemic is that the show will demoralize women by casting them in a meaty light. But NBC prez Bob Greenblatt claims the show is about 'female empowerment', and the nay-sayers are missing the mark on the show's premise. From Gloria to a local NBC affiliate, to the Parents Television Council to the American public, it's clear people are not happy about the show.
I'll play devil's advocate for a moment: There's something very retro about revisiting the Playboy empire glam of eld. When the clubs ruled major cities and those silk bunny ears were as valuable as gold in the waitress arena, girls everywhere wanted to be a part of it. The country was on the eve of a major sexual revamp, and Playboy was a key architect. I get it.
Kind of.
But here's where you really need to pay attention: It doesn't end with the broadcast of The Playboy Club. Ironically, that's least of my concerns. First off, there's Hulu, Side Reel, etc. Forget the decency clauses and sensors; this show will be available to watch anytime on the Internet, 24/7. And if history is any guide, we can safely assume that the slippery slope of prime-time television writing will bang out (bad use of words, sorry) sloppy episodes of glorfied prostitution, spousal infidelity, drugs, alcohol abuse, battery...you get the point.
 |
| 'Female Empowerment'? Hmmm... |
(I can't think of something I'd like my kids to play with more than a slutty Nicole Sherzinger toy.) Contact NBC here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
