The FCC (at the insistence of some viewer) has issued a Notice of Apparent Liability (i.e.: "You better talk fast, or you're gonna get fined") against KUEN-DT, the Utah Education Network, a State agency. It concerns a couple of words and a few scenes of female breast, in two documentaries, one about combat photographers, and one about the portrayal of Women in Cinema, which were broadcast on one of their DTV subchannels (as well as their "closed circuit" educational satellite network):

http://www.sltrib.com/search/ci_5431031

http://www.sltrib.com/search/ci_5447217

Their defense, it appears, is that hardly any broadcast viewers could see it anyway, since "only 788 homes in Utah have over-the-air Digital TV".

Wonder............did they get those numbers from the Cable company or from Satellite? :D

It's a well known fact: 63.47% of all statistics are simply made up.
;)

It's a well known fact: 63.47% of all statistics are simply made up.
;)
It's well known that in a thread like this, 98.2% of the time, someone will make this post... ;)

Their defense, it appears, is that hardly any broadcast viewers could see it anyway, since "only 788 homes in Utah have over-the-air Digital TV".
:D

Maybe they should test that theory by turning off their transmitter and turning in their liscense... One less PBS affiliate wouldn't hurt IMHO. We only have 3 here.

member station, not affiliate

People often think I'm nuts for doing this, but whenever I notice an anomoly in a digital OTA broadcast, such as lipsync issues, artifacting, or whatever, I make SURE I call the station engineer to report it, if for no other reason just to let them know that somebody is watching and that somebody cares about it. I've convinced my sister to do that too...

I guess what I always wonder is if that we are the only two yahoos in chicago that are bothering to do this...lol...

The ol' "If a tree falls in the woods" defense. :)

These people are psychos, on no I saw a flash of a naked breast, the devil is going to get me! It's not like PBS is showing hardcore pornos, though they might consider that for the next fundraising drive to get viewership!

Wasn't even a PBS station...it is the State of Utah educational network. Channel 9-2 is a feed of mostly Annenberg programming, intended to be used in classroom and distance learning situations (like Adult Continuing Education. They broadcast OTA and on a Ku satellite.

Here come the speech police at the FCC. This is the easy stuff for them to go after -- a breast and one of the "7 dirty words."

This really pales in comparison to what is on TV during the daytime (jerry Springer, etc.), not to mention the violence that is on during the evenings on network tv. For some reason, however, nobody ever complains about the network tv trash.

Of course I am just guessing, but how much would you bet if they showed Saving Private Ryan, or even one of the SAW films that no one would complain, but a naked breast.......OMG :eek:

These people are psychos, on no I saw a flash of a naked breast, the devil is going to get me! It's not like PBS is showing hardcore pornos, though they might consider that for the next fundraising drive to get viewership!

What's funny is that this apparently did happen recently at KPPX-TV a few days ago. Like hardcore and all. If it had only affected the DT station, I wonder if anyone would have noticed... :D

What's funny is that this apparently did happen recently at KPPX-TV a few days ago. Like hardcore and all. If it had only affected the DT station, I wonder if anyone would have noticed... :D

Well, considering that's a PAX station, I bet even less than 788 homes were watching. :D

I for one welcome our big breasted overlords!

Of course I am just guessing, but how much would you bet if they showed Saving Private Ryan, or even one of the SAW films that no one would complain, but a naked breast.......OMG :eek:
Well, in the case of Saving Private Ryan, we nearly had a test of that. Unfortunately, ABC stations were afraid to air the planned unedited version because of the fear of potential fines - and ABC eventually canned the plan.

Well, in the case of Saving Private Ryan, we nearly had a test of that. Unfortunately, ABC stations were afraid to air the planned unedited version because of the fear of potential fines - and ABC eventually canned the plan.The Saving Private Ryan "fear" was an anti-FCC publicity stunt from the get-go. The FCC wouldn't have fined stations that showed it and in fact didn't (yes, it was shown unedited on the majority of ABC stations.) Those who didn't were just trying to make a point about "censorship," and IMHO wasn't really a valid point at that.

The FCC isn't made up of morons, no matter what people think, but networks long ago lost any common sense on the matter, either. The nets want strict definitions of what is acceptable and what is not for the clear reason that they want to know how far they can stretch things, not because of any sense of "responsibility" on their part.

A better question is what the programming in question was rated; profanity on a TV-MA program is far less likely to generate a fine than the same language used on a program rated TV-G.

I don't think the educational station puts any ratings on it's shows.....perhaps it should.

I've always said, "Every new DTV set comes with a V-chip type of system built-in, so why the heck can't we use it?" Maybe then, we could be grown-ups and have something for varying tastes, rather than having all one flavor of TV, or having to worry about what the kids might be able to watch.

It is time to get rid of the FCC. Just have them issue frequencies and make sure there is no overlap. They should be out of the content arena entirely. Let the market decide what is acceptable, not one listener or viewer. This is just another joke. Why take these stupid complaints seriously.

It is time to get rid of the FCC. Just have them issue frequencies and make sure there is no overlap.

That IS what the FCC is charged with. :confused:

They should be out of the content arena entirely. Let the market decide what is acceptable, not one listener or viewer. This is just another joke. Why take these stupid complaints seriously.

Because it is all politics. Votes and such. Nothing more.

Because it is all politics. Votes and such. Nothing more.
I personally volunteer to be the first to join up when the recruiting begins to go around and b*tch-slap all the content whiners out there who can't change the channel until they stop all their complaining. Let 'em support the Hallmark channel and leave my favorite shows alone.

If people want to protect children, they should pay attention to what the kids are doing. Too many people expect everyone else (including the TV) to babysit their kids. My parents sent me to bed early, limited my TV viewing and **gasp!** read to me. The took the time to explain right and wrong and insisted I act appropriately when out in public. Shockingly, I grew up to be a well-adjusted, hard-working, friendly and polite adult.

As long as a show is properly rated, they should be able to show anything within those ratings limits. If ABC wanted to show XXX adult programming, they should be able to if the show is rated that way. The only question is, would it be rated "P" for Porn, or "X"?

I personally volunteer to be the first to join up when the recruiting begins to go around and b*tch-slap all the content whiners out there who can't change the channel until they stop all their complaining. Let 'em support the Hallmark channel and leave my favorite shows alone.

If people want to protect children, they should pay attention to what the kids are doing. Too many people expect everyone else (including the TV) to babysit their kids. My parents sent me to bed early, limited my TV viewing and **gasp!** read to me. The took the time to explain right and wrong and insisted I act appropriately when out in public. Shockingly, I grew up to be a well-adjusted, hard-working, friendly and polite adult.

As long as a show is properly rated, they should be able to show anything within those ratings limits. If ABC wanted to show XXX adult programming, they should be able to if the show is rated that way. The only question is, would it be rated "P" for Porn, or "X"?

There are actually several folks that go around on the internet complaining that even their SkyAngel programming is too racy for their children. (*Gasp*, Hallmark shows Walker, Texas Ranger...*gasp*, Fox News airs Viagara commercials, etc.)

There are actually several folks that go around on the internet complaining that even their SkyAngel programming is too racy for their children. (*Gasp*, Hallmark shows Walker, Texas Ranger...*gasp*, Fox News airs Viagara commercials, etc.)
In that case, perhaps TV really isn't the proper entertainment venue for them any more than reading the Bible would be something that would interest me.

There's a reason the inventors of the TV set included an "off" button.

The fact is, when it comes to any form of entertainment, majority rules. If you don't like what the rest of the group does, feel free to do something else. I don't like reality TV, but I realize the shows are popular and make money. I simply choose to watch something else, instead.

I prefer the government stay out of as many things as possible, provided no crimes are being committed or no one is being physically injured do to a defect in a product. Of course, it's funny how so many people want their will imposed on others, but cry foul when other people's is imposed upon them.

The fact is, if morally right programming was "the thing", I'd have no problem with 80 channels of "Cross Talk with Jesus". However, the majority of viewers have decided otherwise, and that's where we are.

You are forgetting that the (over the) airwaves are not the playthings of a few rich conglomerates, but a resource of the American people. All of us. Just as we need protection from someone dropping their pants and underwear in front of us as we are walking down the mall with our children (even if the pervert yells out a warning a few seconds ahead of time) the public airwaves also need certain standards at certain times of the day for a similar reason. The supposed "safe harbor" hours of 6:00 AM until 10:00 PM were upheld by the courts, but the FCC has been flip-flopping for years.

A few weeks before the date of this latest Utah "oops", a public television station in Santa Barabra was fined about $15,000 by the FCC for a similar "class F-word profanity" problem on the public airwaves.

Would you expect anything less from a state that will not allow "Merlot" on a license plate since it is an "intoxicant?"

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070318/ap_on_fe_st/merlot_plate;_ylt=Atxr.ihdSETo9zQ9NsJQdpztiBIF

I want to know who put the starch in the shorts of the person who reported the plate to the state!!!

Somebody got 4NIC8ER past the censors.

OK, Timpanogos, I really gotta ask, "Was it you that filed the complaint?" :D

BTW, I tuned in to the "Women in Cinema" thing, which aired again a few weeks back, just before the "Graduate" scene-in-question. I was a little shocked to see it, but quickly realized it was in context with the documentary nature of the show. I haven't seen the other (combat photographers) show.

I don't think that Annenberg submits all their program details to TMS, so that's probably why KUEN doesn't have the ("V-Chip") ratings enabled on 9-2.

You are forgetting that the (over the) airwaves are not the playthings of a few rich conglomerates, but a resource of the American people. All of us. Just as we need protection from someone dropping their pants and underwear in front of us as we are walking down the mall with our children (even if the pervert yells out a warning a few seconds ahead of time) the public airwaves also need certain standards at certain times of the day for a similar reason. The supposed "safe harbor" hours of 6:00 AM until 10:00 PM were upheld by the courts, but the FCC has been flip-flopping for years.

A few weeks before the date of this latest Utah "oops", a public television station in Santa Barabra was fined about $15,000 by the FCC for a similar "class F-word profanity" problem on the public airwaves.

Do you really think the FCC intended their safe-harbor rules to create liability for a public television station conducting a distance education class?

Ken, you should know by now that I only complain about KSL programming! :D

I do know that KUEN has been airing the American Cinema series since about 1995. And it was regularly broadcast on ANALOG Channel 9 until just the last year or so. Even BYU uses the same American Cinema series, so the naked gals and f-bombs must meet Council of the Twelve approval. I hear that they like'm with especially big bazoongas.

Just as we need protection from someone dropping their pants and underwear in front of us as we are walking down the mall with our children (even if the pervert yells out a warning a few seconds ahead of time) the public airwaves also need certain standards at certain times of the day for a similar reason.

We have mall security to protect us from that sort of thing. They are the V-Chip of the shopping world. Besides, real life doesn't have another channel or an off button. We have laws to support our concept of morality when we can't prevent the actions of others.

However, your argument is flawed. There are plenty of laws that prohibit someone from exposing themselves in public, yet people do it anyway. The reason more anti-social behavior doesn't happen in real life than we currently experience is for that reason: it's against the social grain. We've decided as a group that being naked in public is not acceptable to us. Therefore, few people do it. However, we can't always prevent the ocasional whack job from spoiling a family-friendly environment - hence the laws. That's why you see fines for Janet Jackson exposing herself during a sports broadcast while we may see someone's butt on NYPD Blue.

TV is much the same way. We vote with our eyeballs. If the desire for "moral" programming was in the mindset of most viewers, we wouldn't have shows like "The Shield", "Jerry Springer" and others like them on TV. We also have ratings to determine if children should be allowed in, much like an ID checker at a club. If a stripper was performing at a daycare center, that would be a problem. However, at the club full of adults, it is acceptable. The sign at the door that sets an age limit provides ample warning to divert those that shouldn't enter that world.

Now, to "protect" those that may not be capable of making proper viewing decisions (such as children), we have technology to block programs and even whole channels. I would expect that as DVR technology becomes smarter and more readily available, we'll see the ability to blacklist specific shows, even if the fall outside of the ratings group that would normally be blocked.

The fact is, in houses with children, the TV belongs in a room where viewing can be monitored - same as for the family computer. If the adults are passing by frequently, it discourages undesired activity. Young children do not need TVs in their bedrooms.

Since I was about 10 years old I had my own TV with an analog box and got a digital box when I was around 14 (the first day it was available with cable) and had access to all premium channels. I had full access to all available channels my parents had in their room. I watched R rated movies and yes even Real Sex and such when I was 12 years old and up. Well I was raised to be honest, hard working and understand right and wrong. So with that in mind I finished all of my schooling from 10 years old and on with nothing worse than a grade of C and that was very rare. I had mostly As with a few Bs and took honors courses to boot. I never got into a fight and I played sports (basketball and football in high school) and baseball in middle school and little league. I even had a girlfriend for my last three years of high school and we as most young adults/kids did the wild thing but as I learned sex ed I was smart and safe as was she. I went on to college and did just as well and I now have a B.S. from Boston College, Master of Science from Harvard along with a doctorate from USF.

So maybe I'm rare but I'm a firm believer that its not what kids see on TV sets that define them its what they are raised as. So its the parents that make the child in every sense of the phrase. An abused child is highly more likely to abuse his own child(ren). A child growing up in a racist family is highly more likely to be a racist his/her self. A child that rides along with a parent that has a problem with road rage is also more likely to drive with road rage when they are adults. A parent who does drugs (illegal) is more likely to use drugs as an adult because they will do what they see and many parents even give their drugs to their kids.

On the other hand supportive parents who teach their children right and wrong are highly more likely to also be supportive and moral adults. Plus I know more than enough religious boys that went to my private school that I knew for a fact were being sexually abused by their parent(s) as I turned their behinds in and ended up being right. I know one of those boys who happens to be great friends with me today who has said many times that I saved his life. He was planning to kill himself very soon before I turned his parents in. I'm not saying that all religious people are like this (far far from it in reality) but it only affirms my view that its more about the parents that decide how their children turn out compared to what they watch on TV.

Oh and did I mention that the old issues of Playboy were given to me after my father read his and yes I looked at the pictures "and" read he whole darn thing cover to cover.

There may be an "off" button, but more importantly is broadcast television is being broadcast into your home. The V-chip helps control content, but for the sake of argument, say you are a parent and have the V-chip set to only allow TV-G programming, only to have someone drop the F-bomb during that TV-G program. If I had kids I'd have a complaint letter to the FCC in the mailbox before the program ended.

There's no reason that adults can't watch whatever they want, but if you choose to take the steps to try and deny access to what you consider inappropriate content to your children, broadcasters should be forced to adhere to those rules.

So, once again, Saving Private Ryan unedited and rated TV-MA, I have no issue with. Rating an awards show TV-G only to have Bono spout off I do have an issue with (especially when the networks should know better and have a delay in place.)

I still wanna know how they came up with "only 788 homes" can get OTA DTV, though :) .

There may be an "off" button, but more importantly is broadcast television is being broadcast into your home. The V-chip helps control content, but for the sake of argument, say you are a parent and have the V-chip set to only allow TV-G programming, only to have someone drop the F-bomb during that TV-G program. If I had kids I'd have a complaint letter to the FCC in the mailbox before the program ended.

There's no reason that adults can't watch whatever they want, but if you choose to take the steps to try and deny access to what you consider inappropriate content to your children, broadcasters should be forced to adhere to those rules.

So, once again, Saving Private Ryan unedited and rated TV-MA, I have no issue with. Rating an awards show TV-G only to have Bono spout off I do have an issue with (especially when the networks should know better and have a delay in place.)
I have no problem with penalties for programming that violates the ratings they have been labelled with. What I have a problem with is "moral" activists deciding for me that I, as an adult, have no right to watch a TV-MA show, just because it's being broadcast over public airwaves. While I understand the concept that the airwaves are for the service of everyone, I feel there are times when it's good to have programs geared toward specific audiences.

No matter the content, I'm never obligated to watch if it doesn't suit my tastes.

So Letterman is rated TVPG, while Leno is rated TV14. About the same content. And NBC chooses to not even rate its programming for years. Now they do most of the time, but many times without descriptors...

Unrated advertisements for upcoming network programming shows the gratuitous scenes that gave the primetime program the harder rating in the first place, shown as teasers for primetime in local programming, when our kids come home from school. Ever see sleazy "Las Vegas" advertising at all times of the day? So you can show the scene in an unrated ad, yet when you show the scene in the actual program, it has to have a rating lable...

Trusting the Hollywood types to rate television programming, the executives in New York or San Fransisco, is laughable. They have no judgement concerning middle America. All they know is "push the envelope" to get noticed, to set yourself apart from the background clutter:

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/news/e3i898ca0de1754206a72612f6e991544a2

We have syndicated "dating" shows rated TVPG airing in early afternoon on local UHF channel 24 where dates raise their blouses (blurred out of course) and flash their dates and dialog is bleeped... with the bleep still managing to leave in the "F" and the "K", but leaving out the "U" and "C". And the syndicator rated the program TVPG? Give me a break.

And even on kenglish's own KSL television, syndicated, TVPG rated "Extra" a few weeks ago aired the full bare butt photo of Scarlet Johannsen from the fold out cover of Vanity Fair. Between 3:00PM and 3:30PM when the kiddies arrive home from school.

The ratings are all but useless. Look at the ratings creep that the MPAA has had over the years. You even get the "F" word in "PG" rated movies ("The Doctor"). What if certain people don't want to ever hear the most obscene of all words? Ever? In my circle of friends, the strongest word ever used is "damn".

Look, there are many people in this world who have never taken drugs, never set foot in a strip club, and can still manage to be happy, productive people. With great kids. The "tools" that the networks are pushing to "block offensive programming" simply do not work.

And the lobby for 'a la carte cable and satellite television is gaining steam. Indeed, let the viewers decide. I think that the rich cry babies in media conglomerates will be very surprised when the dust settles and most people choose programming and channels with less sleaze, not more; less gratuitous violence, not more.

There will always be a market for crap. Fine, just don't throw the crap in my famly's face when we aren't expecting it.

So Letterman is rated TVPG, while Leno is rated TV14. About the same content. And NBC chooses to not even rate its programming for years. Now they do most of the time, but many times without descriptors...

Unrated advertisements for upcoming network programming shows the gratuitous scenes that gave the primetime program the harder rating in the first place, shown as teasers for primetime in local programming, when our kids come home from school. Ever see sleazy "Las Vegas" advertising at all times of the day? So you can show the scene in an unrated ad, yet when you show the scene in the actual program, it has to have a rating lable...

Trusting the Hollywood types to rate television programming, the executives in New York or San Fransisco, is laughable. They have no judgement concerning middle America. All they know is "push the envelope" to get noticed, to set yourself apart from the background clutter:

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/news/e3i898ca0de1754206a72612f6e991544a2

We have syndicated "dating" shows rated TVPG airing in early afternoon on local UHF channel 24 where dates raise their blouses (blurred out of course) and flash their dates and dialog is bleeped... with the bleep still managing to leave in the "F" and the "K", but leaving out the "U" and "C". And the syndicator rated the program TVPG? Give me a break.

And even on kenglish's own KSL television, syndicated, TVPG rated "Extra" a few weeks ago aired the full bare butt photo of Scarlet Johannsen from the fold out cover of Vanity Fair. Between 3:00PM and 3:30PM when the kiddies arrive home from school.

The ratings are all but useless. Look at the ratings creep that the MPAA has had over the years. You even get the "F" word in "PG" rated movies ("The Doctor"). What if certain people don't want to ever hear the most obscene of all words? Ever? In my circle of friends, the strongest word ever used is "damn".

Look, there are many people in this world who have never taken drugs, never set foot in a strip club, and can still manage to be happy, productive people. With great kids. The "tools" that the networks are pushing to "block offensive programming" simply do not work.

And the lobby for 'a la carte cable and satellite television is gaining steam. Indeed, let the viewers decide. I think that the rich cry babies in media conglomerates will be very surprised when the dust settles and most people choose programming and channels with less sleaze, not more; less gratuitous violence, not more.

There will always be a market for crap. Fine, just don't throw the crap in my famly's face when we aren't expecting it.
Everything you said should be addressed. I have no problem with penalties for content that does not match ratings. However, the one point that I disagree on is that a mandate for Ala Carte should have anything to do with "protecting our children". If you don't want to pay for a channel you don't watch, that's fine. However, if the content offends you, that's what channel blocking and the V-Chip are for.

And the lobby for 'a la carte cable and satellite television is gaining steam. Indeed, let the viewers decide. I think that the rich cry babies in media conglomerates will be very surprised when the dust settles and most people choose programming and channels with less sleaze, not more; less gratuitous violence, not more.

I agree with everything else you are saying, content should always be labeled and rated correctly.

People should always be able to choose what they want they want to view. I disagree with those who think we need to programming the OTA channels for the least common denominator so that they can never offend anyone anywhere. The public airwaves belong to me just as much as everybody else.

However, I believe that a la carte would decrease the amount of choices for family programming. While I'm sure someone would find a business model to support family programming, I think the options would be limited. I would see more of the programmers going mainstream with more sex and violence to capture a larger audience.

Gee, then I guess that we are surprisingly all in agreement: people should be able to watch what they want, when they want. With no surprises.

I watch local channels in OTA, for a few reasons:
1. Quality. The OTA signal is better for HD than is my cable provider, or was my satellite provider.
2. Content. My cable provider has not worked out a deal with our CBS affiliate for the HD feed. Seems KRQE-DT wants Comcast to fork over some more money for the digital signal.
3. Recording. I use a Home Theater Computer, that features excellent OTA HD-DVR capability.

I wonder if many others use OTA for local HD content, or cable/sat more? What say you, good people?

Gee, then I guess that we are surprisingly all in agreement: people should be able to watch what they want, when they want. With no surprises.
That's not an unreasonable expectation. I would wonder if someone didn't want that. If it's a kid show, even the commercials should be geared toward that audience.

All content should match the rating of the show it exists in.

When I ran master control at a local station years ago, I had the freedom to substitute non-sponsored promos I felt weren't appropriate for the program. Sometimes traffic makes a mistake, since some of the filler stuff is generated by computer. For example, I always removed Jerry Springer promos from community focus and children's programming. I also swapped out unrelated promos with ones for shows that matched the demographic. For example, I might swap a promo for "Matlock" with a promo for "Star Trek: DS9" during "Star Trek: Voyager".

It's not rocket science and is something that simply makes sense. For that matter, I have no problem with promos for "racier" shows within "family" programming, provided they have been properly edited to make them less objectionable for airing in that show. If movie trailers can be "approved for all audiences", so can show promos.

In my home, it's digital OTA exclusively. My wife and I decided that the monthly bill we were paying to our satellite provider was just not a good value. We got a Series 3 Tivo, on which I paid for 3 years of service in advance. Now I have 3 years of NO TELEVISION BILL. We get to watch all of our favorite network shows in HD whenever. For everything that's not covered by that, its Netflix for DVD/HD DVD/Blu ray.

I watch local channels in OTA, for a few reasons:
1. Quality. The OTA signal is better for HD than is my cable provider, or was my satellite provider.
2. Content. My cable provider has not worked out a deal with our CBS affiliate for the HD feed. Seems KRQE-DT wants Comcast to fork over some more money for the digital signal.
3. Recording. I use a Home Theater Computer, that features excellent OTA HD-DVR capability.

I wonder if many others use OTA for local HD content, or cable/sat more? What say you, good people?

In my home, it's digital OTA exclusively. My wife and I decided that the monthly bill we were paying to our satellite provider was just not a good value. We got a Series 3 Tivo, on which I paid for 3 years of service in advance. Now I have 3 years of NO TELEVISION BILL. We get to watch all of our favorite network shows in HD whenever. For everything that's not covered by that, its Netflix for DVD/HD DVD/Blu ray.

Yes, you have 3 years on NO TELEVISION BILL, but that is because you paid for it in advance. I'm guessing that you paid about $600 for the S3 and then paid $300 for the 3 year plan (available right now). That's $900 and if figured on a monthly basis it equals $25 a month. You still have a television bill, you just paid for it up front.

That said, you indeed have what you want for a whole bunch less than that available on satellite or cable.

I'm not sure why American children are so much more venerable than in other countries for sexual content. Maybe it's something in the water.

Recent Zogby poll results. The target sample was 1,004 interviews with approximately 39 questions asked. The margin of error is +/- 3.2 percentage points. The survey was conducted between March 1-2, 2007:

Q: Do you agree or disagree that there is too much sex, violence and coarse language on television?

79% agreed

18% disagreed

3% not sure

Recent Zogby poll results. The target sample was 1,004 interviews with approximately 39 questions asked. The margin of error is +/- 3.2 percentage points. The survey was conducted between March 1-2, 2007:

Q: Do you agree or disagree that there is too much sex, violence and coarse language on television?

79% agreed

18% disagreed

3% not sure

Like Tyra says, So What!

I still wanna know how they came up with "only 788 homes" can get OTA DTV, though :) .....

The FCC isn't made up of morons
No, it is made up of religious fanatics.

Would you expect anything less from a state that will not allow "Merlot" on a license plate since it is an "intoxicant?"

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070318/ap_on_fe_st/merlot_plate;_ylt=Atxr.ihdSETo9zQ9NsJQdpztiBIF

I want to know who put the starch in the shorts of the person who reported the plate to the state!!!

I wonder if they would allow my street name? I live on Merlot Court. :)

No, it [the FCC] is made up of religious fanatics.
Where is this coming from? Also, what does it add to this thread? When the FCC gets complaints, they have an obligation to address them, do they not? The FCC's response and follow-on actions to complaints are to be based on law alone, although you can certainly make the case that laws have basis in ethical constructs that also have importance to religions. That makes it quite a leap to say what you said, I think.

No, it is made up of religious fanatics.Call 'em what you will, but those with other viewpoints and value systems have a right to their moral standards just as much as we have a right to ours. I'm not sure when it became so PC to slam those with different standards/values than ours. :confused: The main thing is that somehow the "rights" of all extremes can co-exist fairly. The V-chip and a consistently applied ratings system are one of the ways to do it - if you've got a better method in mind that's more "fair" to all parties, I'm sure there are politicians who would love to know about it (votes - right?). Referring to those not aligned with you as "religious fanatics" might not be the best way to start. :cool:

It's been my experience that parents with young children are not heavily represented on forums like the AVSForum. Maybe more of them are taking their child-rearing responsibilities more seriously than assumed.

As for the "788 homes", I'm also real curious to know how they established that number - especially since they didn't say "less than 800". I highly doubt that they went door-to-door or that they subtracted all the cable and satellite subscribers from the known number of homes in the area, as I'd figure that number to be much higher.

Where is this coming from? Also, what does it add to this thread? When the FCC gets complaints, they have an obligation to address them, do they not? The FCC's response and follow-on actions to complaints are to be based on law alone, although you can certainly make the case that laws have basis in ethical constructs that also have importance to religions. That makes it quite a leap to say what you said, I think.

Well, I'm not so sure. When Bono said the "f" word ont he golden globes, the FCC under the Clinton administration issued a well reasoned decision that said that the use of the word in this circumstance was not indecent. It was not indecent since it was not "a description of sexual or excretory activity or organs." He used the word as an adjective. Religous fanatics cried foul, and the decision was reversed once President Bush took office.

So, now, because of this decision, radio stations can't play the Who's "Who are you" without editing the song. Before the decision, stations would play it even though it contained the "f" word. I'm sure there are other examples.

There is a difference between something that is offensive and something that is indecent. I'm not sure if the Bush administration understands the difference.

Personally I think that flatulence on TV shows is indecent, but it is apparently allowed. But, because it doesn't really offend religious sensibilities, I doubt if the FCC would fine a station that airs a program where someone passes gas.

I think it is fairly clear to any outside observer that religion and the religous lobby is a factor in how the FCC chooses to enforce the law and what interpretations the FCC gives to the law.

Personally I think that flatulence on TV shows is indecent, but it is apparently allowed. But, because it doesn't really offend religious sensibilities, I doubt if the FCC would fine a station that airs a program where someone passes gas.
Of course flatulence is considered an actual medical condition, so it would be improper to discriminate. It's true:

http://www.celiac.com/st_prod.html?p_prodid=1376

;)

The amount of complaints are not related to the amount of people complaining, or who even saw the show. The FCC doesn't check or even care if it's the same form letter sent a thousand times from the same person. The fact is that content is being hijacked by a small minority of viewers.

Devo had it right almost 30 years ago

"Freedom of choice
Is what you got
Freedom from choice
Is what you want"

And the lobby for 'a la carte cable and satellite television is gaining steam. Indeed, let the viewers decide. I think that the rich cry babies in media conglomerates will be very surprised when the dust settles and most people choose programming and channels with less sleaze, not more; less gratuitous violence, not more.

Except that historically, TV ratings have shown the opposite to be true. :)

Personally, I've never subscribed to any multi-channel provider (or ala-carte channel) for their "wholesome, family friendly content." :D

Except that historically, TV ratings have shown the opposite to be true. :)

Personally, I've never subscribed to any multi-channel provider (or ala-carte channel) for their "wholesome, family friendly content." :D

So, "The Shield" isn't about your friendly neighborhood police officer, walking the beat and give little Tommy a pat on the head as he tells him "you're no fool, so stay in school"?

Devo had it right almost 30 years ago

"Freedom of choice
Is what you got
Freedom from choice
Is what you want"

Devo had A LOT of things right ;).

Personally, I find censorship totally unacceptable. Nobody's religion should be dictating the content of my entertainment - - that is between me and the sponsors. If they show what I want to see, I will watch it. If not, I won't. Anyone who feels the need to prevent other people from seeing the entertainment they want is simply not eligible for tolerance on my part.

If a breast is so horrifying to you, then why not move on to another plane of existence where there are no breasts. This is real life on earth, and there are breasts.

I agree as long as it is rated properly. If they show nudity or air swear words in a TV-G, they should be heavily fined. If it is rated properly, there should be no problem.

JSWbBk, your passionate post (#56) sounds logical, but the logic is flawed. There are many things on this "plane of existence" which you might not want broadcast over the public airwaves. Others would have a different set of things they might not want broadcast. That's where the need for "standards," even "community standards," originates. Any relation between those standards and some people's religion is necessarily merely coincidental in the context of what would prompt FCC action against a broadcaster.

In an advanced society, the free flow of ideas encourages artistic creativity and welcomes participation in humanity's collective thinking process. Progressive ideas are mulled over in the media and all are enriched by the conversation.

In a medieval theocracy, however, the people surrender complete control over their daily lives to a militant, sectarian government that seeks to enforce arbitrary standards ostensibly in the interest of the public good.

The "community" has no standards. It will watch whatever garbage is shown on TV. It has proven that over and over again. What are commonly called "Community Standards" are actually developed by religious leaders and political demagogues pandering to people's shame and their hatred of anyone and anything which it is currently in vogue to be offended by.

Amazingly, the people themselves are often the biggest defenders of these public policies especially (even exclusively) when applied to others rather than to themselves. They believe that by doing so they are somehow to be rewarded whether in our current breast-laden plane of existence, or in the breastless world which is to come.

Be not afraid, though. There are no evil body parts you need to be protected from. Even if there were, your HDTV is equipped with a special on/off switch to control your exposure to reality.

I don't like "American Idol" so I don't watch it. Isn't that radical?

Here in Phoenix the PBS station took the digital copy of the analog channel off the OTA feed and added the Create channel. I wrote the General Manager to complain and he said that he had gotten twenty or so similar complaints.

He seemed surprised that anyone watched OTA.

What if certain people don't want to ever hear the most obscene of all words? Ever?

I assume the word you mean is 'compression'. ;)

Be not afraid, though. There are no evil body parts you need to be protected from. Even if there were, your HDTV is equipped with a special on/off switch to control your exposure to reality.

I don't like "American Idol" so I don't watch it. Isn't that radical?

It is very radical if you are suggesting that all material, regardless of content, should be able to air without any rating system or means for parents to filter out what they do not want in their household. Especially if we're talking about public airwaves.

Suggesting that people should not allow somebody else's moral compass dictate what they can view makes sense - but if you are suggesting that all content should be allowed without restriction - you are doing the exact same thing. You are imposing your morals on the rest of us.

What if certain people don't want to ever hear the most obscene of all words? Ever?
Fungdark. or Meekrob (forgot that one :p )

Fungdark.I thought it was Frak... :eek:

the breastless world which is to come.
Love it.

I still wanna know how they came up with "only 788 homes" can get OTA DTV, though :) .
I guess no one is really interested in answering that question. They're just pontificating, most of which has nothing to do with HDTV. I'm not surprised...

That's how many people donated money to the station and answered "yes" to the survey, "Do you own a digital television?" (shrug). That guess is just as good as any, until the station explains where they got the number. These people are psychos, on no I saw a flash of a naked breast, the devil is going to get me! It's not like PBS is showing hardcore pornos.... Yeah but this is UTAH, where I couldn't even find the latest copy of "Playboy" magazine in my local Barnes & Noble store.

A public education station in L.A. or Philadelphia might get away with it, but certainly not conservative Utah.

What's funny is that this apparently did happen recently at KPPX-TV a few days ago. Like hardcore and all. If it had only affected the DT station, I wonder if anyone would have noticed... :D

According to wikipedia, it was on DT channel 3, Ion Life. And yes many people complained. The employee responsible was fired.

Just as we need protection from someone dropping their pants and underwear in front of us... This isn't illegal. Public nudity is not a crime. Now if they started fondling themselves, yes, but just simple nudity is not a crime.

Neither is breast-feeding, so don't start hassling women trying to feed their children. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled the baby's need for nutrition is more-important than your right to not see a mammary gland. Ever see sleazy "Las Vegas" advertising at all times of the day? ..... We have syndicated "dating" shows rated TVPG airing in early afternoon on local UHF channel 24 where dates raise their blouses (blurred out of course) and flash their dates ..... And even on kenglish's own KSL television, syndicated, TVPG rated "Extra" a few weeks ago aired the full bare butt photo of Scarlet Johannsen ... I don't see anything here that I find offensive, or that I would not want my kids to see. God created the human body. What God creates is perfection and nothing to be ashamed of.

The only restriction for over-the-air television should be "no sex" and limit nudity to after 11 pm, except for a few rare cases like when NBC aired Schindler's List.

Does anyone know the outcome of the FCC case in question that started this thread? Ken, you still out there?

This isn't illegal. Public nudity is not a crime. Now if they started fondling themselves, yes, but just simple nudity is not a crime.

Not a federal crime, but if you walk around naked, in most communities you'll be thrown in jail or at least cited. They generally call those laws "disturbing the peace".


The only restriction for over-the-air television should be "no sex" and limit nudity to after 11 pm, except for a few rare cases like when NBC aired Schindler's List.

The no nudity rule actually ends @ 10PM. Yes, stations can broadcast nudity in the US over the air after 10PM. However, since they all go to local news, and then late night talk shows, then syndicated programming, its very rare. Plus they fear advertisers will pull $$ if they show naked people.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watershed_(broadcasting)

Oh no, a BOOB!!:confused:

Yes, stations can broadcast nudity in the US over the air after 10PM.For nationwide broadcasters, it's effectively 11 PM. It's what got ABC in trouble with the FCC when they showed some clevage on NYPD Blue. It was after 10PM on the east coast, but not in the central time zone, where it was between 9 and 10 PM, and the Parents Television Council was all too happy to use that loophole to go after ABC.

KTXL in Sacramento (before the Fox network came along and ruined it) used to show lots of movies in prime-time with nudity. I have a recording of the movie "Class" which has a nice 'wardrobe malfunction' in it, which they aired at 1 PM on a Sunday afternoon in 1986!

I recall FOX 43 once showing a shower scene. The woman reached-out, grabbed a towel, and then disappeared again.

I figured it was just a mistake by the program director (he didn't realize there was nudity), not intentional. It was the first time I'd seen a topless women that was in full-color, rather than a still image on my Commodore Amiga.

Once the Feb 17th deadline goes past and there is no more over the air analog of full power channels,broadcast tV should be able to show stuff uncut :)

For films:
G and PG may run any time.
PG-13 films may not start between the following hours:
6am and 9am weekdays
3pm and 7pm weekdays
6am and noon Saturday and Sundays
Holidays based on day for regular day.
R rated films may not start prior to 8pm east (7pm Central)
and mus finish by 7am the following morning
NC-17 films may not start prior to 11pm and must finish by 6am.
Films named to the National Film Registry may start at any time regardless of rating.

TV-14 =PG-13
TV-MA=R or NC-17 based on content.

The V chip should be ON! :)

The V chip should be ON! :)

Ah, the V Chip...

The only time I have ever seen anyone use the V Chip is one time I remember my brother used it to play a prank on his kids.

Bah!

The notion that some kid is going to be permanently screwed up by seeing a boobie -- come on!

If this were put to an honest vote, America would vote for more boobies. Maybe we can convince some right-wing Christians that more boobies would be a great anti-gay initiative or something. I'm sure we could invent some Boobie Institute for Adavancement of Boobtology to issue a peer-reviewed paper on the importance of boobies on television.

Anyway... Within the letter of the law, isn't educational programming allowed to display certain so-called offensive depictions for educational purposes?

How about "Put the boob back in boob tube".

The V chip will still not be completely effective because most SD viewers will be getting a downconverted feed via cable and satellite. Those using analog cable with a TV that doesn't support V Chip will be in the same situation as they are now. Cable wants to do away with analog so in a few years that could be a moot point. Do all the cable STBs and sat IRDs have V Chip control?

How about "Put the boob back in boob tube".

The V chip will still not be completely effective because most SD viewers will be getting a downconverted feed via cable and satellite. Those using analog cable with a TV that doesn't support V Chip will be in the same situation as they are now. Cable wants to do away with analog so in a few years that could be a moot point. Do all the cable STBs and sat IRDs have V Chip control?
All cable at satellite boxes have "locks and limits" functions. They go by the program guide rating info. Not only can you set ratings limits, but lock out the entire box if the kid is getting a "no TV" punishment. You can also limit PPV purchases and search for shows by rating.

But V-chip technology is useless if the program ratings are bogus and inaccurate, which most of the time they are.

Just curious, but what was going through the mind of the person that brought this thread back from the dead? It hadn't been posted on in 1 1/2 years, and then he just brings it back to life....

Maybe I should go find the oldest article I can, and bring that back from the dead too ;)

I did a search and it popped up. I didn't realize how old the thread was until just now.

A lot of people don't want to see nudity on television because they are offended by it. And for whatever reason they think they have a right to not be offended. Case in point: My mom. She already thinks television has gone too far with "bedroom scenes" and the FCC should censor them.

She acts as if everyone should conform to her Judeo-Christian values, and because they don't, God has turned his back on America (the recession, lost jobs, et cetera). She thinks the Forties and Fifties were the ideal time "when people had morals" and we should go back to then.

There are probably millions of others who think the same as her, and they demand the FCC conform to their wishes.

But V-chip technology is useless if the program ratings are bogus and inaccurate, which most of the time they are.
Can you cite some specific examples of the ratings being innaccurate? Other than a few isolated questionable jokes in some sitcoms, for the most part, I've found them mostly accurate. You say "most", so I'm sure you can give several examples.

Obviously, since commercials are not currently rated along with the show, citing that as an example does not nullify the accuracy of the ratings of the shows themselves. It merely means some revising to what the ratings encompass may be in order.

Can you cite some specific examples of the ratings being innaccurate? Other than a few isolated questionable jokes in some sitcoms, for the most part, I've found them mostly accurate. You say "most", so I'm sure you can give several examples.

The ones that make me wonder are the Simpson's episodes that are TV-14 with the full "DLSV" warning: sexual situations, intense violence, with course language or suggestive dialog. By the FCC's own content categories the 'V' should be 'FV' because it's a cartoon.

The ones that make me wonder are the Simpson's episodes that are TV-14 with the full "DLSV" warning: sexual situations, intense violence, with course language or suggestive dialog. By the FCC's own content categories the 'V' should be 'FV' because it's a cartoon.

FV is only used for shows rated TV-Y7. What V stands for varies depending on the overall rating.

TV-Y7 (Directed to Older Children -- This program is designed for children age 7 and above.) It may be more appropriate for children who have acquired the developmental skills needed to distinguish between make-believe and reality. Themes and elements in this program may include mild fantasy or comedic violence, or may frighten children under the age of 7. Therefore, parents may wish to consider the suitability of this program for their very young children. Note: For those programs where fantasy violence may be more intense or more combative than other programs in this category, such programs will be designated TV-Y7-FV. For programs designed for the entire audience, the general categories are:

TV-G (General Audience -- Most parents would find this program suitable for all ages.) Although this rating does not signify a program designed specifically for children, most parents may let younger children watch this program unattended. It contains little or no violence, no strong language and little or no sexual dialogue or situations.

TV-PG (Parental Guidance Suggested -- This program contains material that parents may find unsuitable for younger children.) Many parents may want to watch it with their younger children. The theme itself may call for parental guidance and/or the program contains one or more of the following: moderate violence (V), some sexual situations (S), infrequent coarse language (L), or some suggestive dialogue (D).

TV-14 (Parents Strongly Cautioned -- This program contains some material that many parents would find unsuitable for children under 14 years of age.) Parents are strongly urged to exercise greater care in monitoring this program and are cautioned against letting children under the age of 14 watch unattended. This program contains one or more of the following: intense violence (V), intense sexual situations (S), strong coarse language (L), or intensely suggestive dialogue (D).

TV-MA (Mature Audience Only -- This program is specifically designed to be viewed by adults and therefore may be unsuitable for children under 17.) This program contains one or more of the following: graphic violence (V), explicit sexual activity (S), or crude indecent language (L).

http://www.fcc.gov/parents/parent_guide.html

The clear QAM channels on Bright House of Bakersfield most often don't have any v-chip ratings data whatsoever!

Just curious, but what was going through the mind of the person that brought this thread back from the dead? It hadn't been posted on in 1 1/2 years, and then he just brings it back to life....


Yah..same here..
At first I thought "NEWBIE!" then when I saw the post count I went "Troll"..
But maybe we should give the benefit of a doubt..it could be boredom, no homework that night,too much alcohol.. I dunno.. :)

FV is only used for shows rated TV-Y7. What V stands for varies depending on the overall rating.

So Simpsons episodes rated TV-14 with a V contain "intense violence".

I guess Homer's "Why you little..." Bart choking is considered "intense violence".

So Simpsons episodes rated TV-14 with a V contain "intense violence".

I guess Homer's "Why you little..." Bart choking is considered "intense violence".

Perhaps the acronym they really intend is CYA:D.

So Simpsons episodes rated TV-14 with a V contain "intense violence".

I guess Homer's "Why you little..." Bart choking is considered "intense violence".

Yep.

Can you cite some specific examples of the ratings being innaccurate?

Mojo and HDNet show a lot of stuff with a TV-MA rating that I find very boring. They also inexplicably (since they are on cable, and both show uncut movies) blur and bleep what little potential MA content there is on these shows.

I wonder if they allow to air the network premiere of "The 40 year old virgin" maybe it was blacked out in that state...