Yet another reason Cincinnati sucks

Sunstreaker · Post by **Sunstreaker** » 2004-11-11 10:10am

Censorship: An indepth look at the cowardace of Cincinnati and the pond scum that is the FCC

The Cincinnati Post Online Edition wrote:WCPO among stations that won't show 'Private Ryan'

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Rick Bird
Post staff reporter

The Federal Communnications Commission's crackdown on obscenities on broadcast TV has claimed another casualty: "Saving Private Ryan."
Dozens of TV stations, including WCPO-TV (Channel 9) here and others owned by Cincinnati-based E.W. Scripps, have decided to forego ABC's Veterans Day presentation of the acclaimed World War II film tonight because it contains an utterance of a common obscenity.

Stations don't want to risk trouble with federal regulators because of the so-called "Bono ruling" from the FCC. The agency fined NBC after the U2 lead singer blurted out the word during a Golden Globe award ceremony in 2003, even though it was used in a context of celebration

"The FCC has stated context makes no difference in using the 'F' word, so it could be in violation of FCC standards," Bill Fee, Channel 9 general manager, said about "Private Ryan." "The Scripps stations are taking the opinion that there is too much uncertainty about the use of the word in prime-time."

The decision affects five other ABC affiliates Scripps owns in such major markets as Detroit, Cleveland and Phoenix.

Baltimore-based Sinclair Broadcasting made the same decision Wednesday. The company owns ABC station WKEF-Channel 22 in Dayton and six other ABC affiliates.

ABC is airing the original, unedited version of "Saving Private Ryan," which is full of expletives and graphic violence. The 1998 film has been a staple on various cable television channels the last four years.

This is the third time ABC has shown the movie in prime-time, always airing it unedited. It previously ran on the network in 2001 and 2002 and ABC clearly wants to make it a Veterans Day tradition.

There were no complaints stemming from the previous airings, but that was before the Bono ruling.

ABC did send out a so-called "indemnity statement" to its affiliates promising to defend them if there were any FCC consequences.

"That means they might defend you in court, but local station owners could still be fined, so that's really not the issue," said Fee. "The issue is the FCC has identified use of the 'F' word as a violation of our license. They threw down that gauntlet and we feel we cannot move ahead under that ruling. We aren't willing to question that. We just can't."

The ABC airing carries a parental warning of the most serious kind: A TVMA, L,V designation meaning it is a show intended for mature audiences containing graphic language and violence.

"Clear unequivocal warnings to viewers about the mature language and violent content do not appear to mitigate a TV station's obligation to prohibit the broadcast of profane language prior to 10 p.m.," said William B. Peterson, Scripps senior vice president/TV station group, in a statement. "If the profanity cannot be edited, then the movie will not be cleared for broadcast on our TV stations in this current regulatory environment."

While obscenities and sex scenes in movies are routinely edited out for broadcast TV -- and for basic cable airings -- ABC mandated that its affiliates carry the movie unedited.

An ABC spokeswoman said the creative and contractual arrangement with producer Steven Spielberg, in purchasing the long-term broadcast rights to the movie, required the movie to air as it ran in theaters. The deal was similar to one Spielberg cut when "Schindler's List" aired unedited on NBC.

One of the leading critics of TV sex and violence, the Parents Television Council, issued a statement Wednesday saying it had no problem with the "Private Ryan" movie on broadcast TV.

"Context is everything. We agreed with the FCC on its ruling that the airing of 'Schindler's List' on television was not indecent and we feel that 'Saving Private Ryan' is in the same category," said L. Brent Bozell, PTC president. "In both films, the content is not meant to shock, nor is it gratuitous. -- We will not be filing an indecency complaint with the FCC over the airing of this film."

Late Wednesday, almost all the major TV group owners -- including Hearst-Argyle, Belo, Cox and Citadel -- were said to be leaning toward preempting the movie on their ABC stations. However, an ABC spokeswoman said some owner groups that were initially nervous were coming back on board in light of the statement the PTC issued Wednesday.

The nervousness of station group owners over this movie is clearly tied to the "F" word issue and is very different from the issues of indecency raised by the Janet Jackson case.

But in a larger sense, station owners may be nervous sensing a new willingness from the FCC to fine stations over any indecency.

Publication Date: 11-11-2004

Montcalm · Post by **Montcalm** » 2004-11-11 10:32am

They never heard the saying *If you don't like that change the channel*

Stravo · Post by **Stravo** » 2004-11-11 10:34am

I'm sorry but how is this somehow Cinicinatti's station's fault? They don't want to be fined hundreds of thousands of dollars for airing a movie. This is all on the FCC not the station. The FCC has created the classic chilling effect now on free speech.

I'm just waiting for the FCC to announce they won't fine anyone for airing Ryan to which I pray someone then asks what's the difference between that and some of the other things they've fined others for. There is a recent famous example where Howard Stern was fined for saying something that Oprah said on the same day and she was not fined. Selective enforcement is not something new for these asscrabs.

The Dude · Post by **The Dude** » 2004-11-11 10:59am

I suspect that they know damn well that the FCC is not going to fine anyone for showing a film like SPR.

It's a protest against silly censorship regulations.

Wicked Pilot · Post by **Wicked Pilot** » 2004-11-11 01:15pm

Soldiers fought for our freedoms, while the FCC tries to take them away. If you're with the FCC, you're with the terrorist.

Sunstreaker · Post by **Sunstreaker** » 2004-11-11 01:38pm

Stravo wrote:I'm sorry but how is this somehow Cinicinatti's station's fault? They don't want to be fined hundreds of thousands of dollars for airing a movie. This is all on the FCC not the station. The FCC has created the classic chilling effect now on free speech.

I'm just waiting for the FCC to announce they won't fine anyone for airing Ryan to which I pray someone then asks what's the difference between that and some of the other things they've fined others for. There is a recent famous example where Howard Stern was fined for saying something that Oprah said on the same day and she was not fined. Selective enforcement is not something new for these asscrabs.

SPR has been aired two times unedited on network TV, once in 2001 and a second time in 2002. The FCC is retarded granted, but that doesn't change the fact that ABC has set the programming schedule up and the local affiliates are too afraid to show the same film they've show two times prior to now (without fines).

WCPO is more than just the messenger; they are siding with the FCC and upholding its policies of censorship. It’s only about 20 stations across the country and these 20 stations suck for giving up their integrity because of their fear. And unless the FCC has added restrictions since 2002, ABC has a reason to fight any fines originating from this film.

Also, I really wanted to watch this film tonight so this is a bit personal.

Also again, the FCC would not promise that they wouldn't fine anyone for showing SPR as of this morning.

CBS better win their fight against those elitist FCC pricks. I want sex/violence on TV, but no.. Americans aren't responsible enough to change the channel.

Lord Poe · Post by **Lord Poe** » 2004-11-11 01:54pm

Sunstreaker, things are vastly different now, since Janet Jackson's boob incident. FCC has a "zero tolerance" (unless you're Oprah Winfrey) policy now.

Classic rock songs like "Jet Airliner", "Who Are You?", "She's Got Legs", (Yes, the ZZ Top song), etc. are now edited for radio. Howard Stern can't air his "Best Of" programs anymore because of this new crackdown either.

Sunstreaker · Post by **Sunstreaker** » 2004-11-11 02:51pm

Lord Poe wrote:Sunstreaker, things are vastly different now, since Janet Jackson's boob incident. FCC has a "zero tolerance" (unless you're Oprah Winfrey) policy now.

Classic rock songs like "Jet Airliner", "Who Are You?", "She's Got Legs", (Yes, the ZZ Top song), etc. are now edited for radio. Howard Stern can't air his "Best Of" programs anymore because of this new crackdown either.

The FCC’s crackdowns are appalling, but the Janet Jackson thing isn’t over yet. CBS is fighting as it should be. When these local stations backed by a network bend over then the FCC gains supremacy. These local stations may be just obeying orders, but they are the wrong orders. If the FCC picked this fight I don’t believe they would win.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2004-11-11 04:20pm

Is it just me, or do all these FCC people talking about the "the 'F' word" sound like a bunch of fucking third-graders?

Post by **The Yosemite Bear** » 2004-11-11 05:06pm

Lord Poe wrote:Sunstreaker, things are vastly different now, since Janet Jackson's boob incident. FCC has a "zero tolerance" (unless you're Oprah Winfrey) policy now.

Classic rock songs like "Jet Airliner", "Who Are You?", "She's Got Legs", (Yes, the ZZ Top song), etc. are now edited for radio. Howard Stern can't air his "Best Of" programs anymore because of this new crackdown either.

yes, the definition of FUBAR is not to be allowed....

after all someone may realize just how FUBAR the FCC really is.

and that would leave Colin Powell's neputism appointed son's political carreer may also be FUBAR.

now let's see what classics

I wonder if we should tell them about green backed dollar?

Tsyroc · Post by **Tsyroc** » 2004-11-11 05:16pm

The Yosemite Bear wrote: yes, the definition of FUBAR is not to be allowed....

after all someone may realize just how FUBAR the FCC really is.

That's funny since the military has a long tradition of cleaned up acronymns for public consumtion.

FUBAR - Fowled Up Beyond All Recognition

SNAFU - Situation Normal All Fowled Up

BUFF (for B-52) - Big Ugly Fat Fellow

I don't think there's one for Clusterfuck yet.

Grendel · Post by **Grendel** » 2004-11-11 05:55pm

If it takes massive fines for the FCC to enforce the rules that broadcasters agree to when they sign for their licences, then so be it. Personally I don't see a problem and if people want to see "edgier" programming, they can tune in to cable or sattelite instead of the public airwaves.

Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi · Post by **Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi** » 2004-11-11 06:43pm

I'm curious, exactly how much language is in the movie?

And, why is the puritan element in this country still fed up about Janet Jackson's "incident"? It's not like putting the State of the Union adress on a 15-second delay and increasing fines is going to make it like it never happened.

Grendel · Post by **Grendel** » 2004-11-11 06:48pm

The topic for "Ryan" isn't the language but the level of violence and gore.

Stark · Post by **Stark** » 2004-11-11 06:59pm

The article definately suggests its because someone says 'fuck'. Fuck the FCC is stupid. Its veterans day! Everyone knows war is hell!

Grendel · Post by **Grendel** » 2004-11-11 07:03pm

Stark wrote:The article definately suggests its because someone says 'fuck'. Fuck the FCC is stupid. Its veterans day! Everyone knows war is hell!

That's what the writer of the article is focusing on but it isn't the whole story.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-11-11 07:07pm

Grendel wrote:
Stark wrote:The article definately suggests its because someone says 'fuck'. Fuck the FCC is stupid. Its veterans day! Everyone knows war is hell!
That's what the writer of the article is focusing on but it isn't the whole story.

I'm not inclined to give the FCC the benefit of the doubt after they bullshit they've pulled with Stern and Janet Jackson.

Grendel · Post by **Grendel** » 2004-11-11 07:14pm

Darth Wong wrote:
Grendel wrote:
Stark wrote:The article definately suggests its because someone says 'fuck'. Fuck the FCC is stupid. Its veterans day! Everyone knows war is hell!
That's what the writer of the article is focusing on but it isn't the whole story.
I'm not inclined to give the FCC the benefit of the doubt after they bullshit they've pulled with Stern and Janet Jackson.

Howard Stern has been pushing the envelope for years. Now that the FCC's balls have finally dropped, they're doing what they should have been doing all along; enforcing their rules. I, personally, am all for it. Our airwaves have turned into a 24 hour sewer-fest and that is contrary to the licencing agreement between stations and the FCC. If those stations don't like it then they can turn in their licences and sign off for all I care.

pellaeons_scion · Post by **pellaeons_scion** » 2004-11-11 08:40pm

You are kidding right? Would you prefer a walk back to later times where even kissing on TV was forbidden? You mean your actually pleased some small minded group of people turns around and decrees what you may or may not watch or listen to? I thought that the US had freedom of expression, or is that now to be amended to "Freedom of expression so long as it doesnt offend christian based morality"

What is so bad about swearing anyway? In Australia its seen as almost a part of normal conversation, and very few people get in state about it. Swearing has been around since the dawn of time, and it hasn't contributed to the destruction of any society. Its just plain pathetic, there are far greater issues in the world that should be looked at closer than this backwards moralistic bullshit

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2004-11-11 08:57pm

There should be an absolute minimum of regulations. Holy shit, if you don't want to see something, change the fucking channel!

Grendel · Post by **Grendel** » 2004-11-11 10:19pm

pellaeons_scion wrote:You are kidding right? Would you prefer a walk back to later times where even kissing on TV was forbidden? You mean your actually pleased some small minded group of people turns around and decrees what you may or may not watch or listen to? I thought that the US had freedom of expression, or is that now to be amended to "Freedom of expression so long as it doesnt offend christian based morality"

No. I am not kidding. I rather enjoy most of that shit, but it should be something that I have to seek out; not that others have to avoid. Broadcasts using public airwaves should be monitored and regulated and I am quite thrilled that the FCC has finally gotten some balls. What's more is that "freedom of expression" isn't absolute and broadcasters agree to the FCC limitations when they sign for their licences. If they break the rules, then they should pay.

In short, people that don't want to be exposed to offensive material shouldn't have to be. It should instead be people like me who want that exposure who are forced to seek it out.

What is so bad about swearing anyway? In Australia its seen as almost a part of normal conversation, and very few people get in state about it. Swearing has been around since the dawn of time, and it hasn't contributed to the destruction of any society. Its just plain pathetic, there are far greater issues in the world that should be looked at closer than this backwards moralistic bullshit

Didn't you see that episode of South Park? Why do you think they call them "curse words"?

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-11-11 10:23pm

Grendel wrote:No. I am not kidding. I rather enjoy most of that shit, but it should be something that I have to seek out; not that others have to avoid.

Why?

Broadcasts using public airwaves should be monitored and regulated and I am quite thrilled that the FCC has finally gotten some balls. What's more is that "freedom of expression" isn't absolute and broadcasters agree to the FCC limitations when they sign for their licences. If they break the rules, then they should pay.

Rules which are not objectively defined are a joke. How do you decide what is "offensive"?

In short, people that don't want to be exposed to offensive material shouldn't have to be. It should instead be people like me who want that exposure who are forced to seek it out.

Again, why?

Didn't you see that episode of South Park? Why do you think they call them "curse words"?

Because they're morons? There are things that are said by political commentators that are easily more offensive than any swear-word.

pellaeons_scion · Post by **pellaeons_scion** » 2004-11-11 10:32pm

No. I am not kidding. I rather enjoy most of that shit, but it should be something that I have to seek out; not that others have to avoid. Broadcasts using public airwaves should be monitored and regulated and I am quite thrilled that the FCC has finally gotten some balls. What's more is that "freedom of expression" isn't absolute and broadcasters agree to the FCC limitations when they sign for their licences. If they break the rules, then they should pay.

Right, because the hearing of a curse word will destroy the moral fabric of society and we are so helpless as to need some over-conservative governing body to protect me from the Evil of reality. I find that offensive to my own beliefs.

Please tell me also, how or when freedom of expression became conditional? If it is, thats not exactly freedom is it?

This FCC has got to be crazed. They will willingly yank a program for using a 'curse word' and yet, they will show a body lying in the street, torn with bullets without a disclaimer? Please tell me whats worse, someone using a word, or seeing a dismembered body. But of course thats different, thats news.

What balls is that? The balls to be able to inflict their views on everyone else?What hypocracy is that? This lot will happily tear someone apart for using a curse word or showing some skin, but allow terrible and REAL violence to be shown on your public networks. And you support this? You want someone to be able to tell the general populace what they can, and can not watch?

Grendel · Post by **Grendel** » 2004-11-11 10:35pm

Darth Wong wrote:Why?

Because they're public airwaves. Just as there are standards of behavior and practices on what is acceptable on a public street, there should be similar standards for broadcast. If I am seeking something raunchy I should have to go into a comedy club or a porno shop. I shouldn't subject others to that behavior.

Rules which are not objectively defined are a joke. How do you decide what is "offensive"?

I don't know, but I think that regardless of your opinion on the subject they ought to be defined. Personally, I think they ought to be done on a local basis.

Again, why?

See my first response above.

Because they're morons? There are things that are said by political commentators that are easily more offensive than any swear-word.

You obviously missed the humor in my response.

I think it's a little silly, too, but it's the way things are here in the states and I have learned to deal with it.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-11-11 10:40pm

Grendel wrote:Because they're public airwaves. Just as there are standards of behavior and practices on what is acceptable on a public street, there should be similar standards for broadcast. If I am seeking something raunchy I should have to go into a comedy club or a porno shop. I shouldn't subject others to that behavior.

You need technological devices to pick up these transmissions; they are not analogous to a streetcorner. You must voluntarily turn on the radio or TV, and it's easy to change the channel.

Rules which are not objectively defined are a joke. How do you decide what is "offensive"?
I don't know, but I think that regardless of your opinion on the subject they ought to be defined. Personally, I think they ought to be done on a local basis.

Well, they aren't defined in an objective manner, so they should not be strictly enforced. The idea of strict enforcement of subjective standards is ridiculous.