or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › HDTV › HDTV Programming › The Creeping of Bleeping
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Creeping of Bleeping - Page 2

post #31 of 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Conrad View Post

Thanks for chiming in, I wanted to hear an opinion from someone there but I've rented DVDs, BD's and streams of BBC shows which weren't bleeped or blurred. But I would assume that these shows such as "Being Human" or "Luther" showed after 9 PM there.
Yep - all of those dramas are shown post-2100. Bleeping is pretty unusual on original content pre-2100, and blurring is pretty unheard of, as original commissions are aware of their transmission timeslots. If a show is commissioned, you're normally aware of its timeslot, so you know what is and isn't acceptable for broadcast in that timeslot.

Where bleeping and blurring IS used is when clips from other shows/movies are shown on pre-2100 programmes AND are editorially justified.
Quote:
The "s" word has been showing up on US cable networks such as FX and AMC but not the "f" word. FX seems to like to push the nudity envelope as much as they can get away with but then FOX is the one suing to get the rules gone. And the shows I'm talking about are after 10 PM. They know they have to compete with premium channels where there is no restriction. Gratuitous use is poor taste but use for realism is not.

The BBC's "Film 2012" movie review show frequently airs movie clips with "f" words and worse, but this airs at 2325.
post #32 of 164
KOTCS is on NBC right now and Mutt just said the S word, no bleeps or anything . My wife and I had to rewind the DVR to be sure. I have never heard that on regular primetime TV before. WOW
post #33 of 164
It was left intact on CBS when they first aired "Network" in the late 1970s, in the line where Peter Finch's character declared that he had run out of the taurine variety.
post #34 of 164
Thinking about it I worked on an OTA show in the UK in 2003/4 which did a report on the list of words that had to be referred to very senior management to be broadcast, and in doing so had to say them, and thus had to refer the broadcast to very senior management.

wink.gif

We were given permission as it was editorially justified, but were told we couldn't be seen to enjoy saying them. The show aired at midnight. No bleeping, no blurring.
post #35 of 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by sneals2000 View Post

Thinking about it I worked on an OTA show in the UK in 2003/4 which did a report on the list of words that had to be referred to very senior management to be broadcast, and in doing so had to say them, and thus had to refer the broadcast to very senior management.

I think most would thoroughly enjoy repeating those words to their management, especially with creative combinations which may imply physically impossible actions and could make Chris Rock blush.
post #36 of 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDon View Post

Just because it's a premium subscriber-supported channel doesn't mean that profanity is a good idea 100% of the time. Some of the shows on those channels are G-rated, meaning "safe for all ages." Most parents I know would throw a massive fit if unbleeped cursing came through in a promo that ran right after "Madagascar" at 9AM on a Sunday. And they're not going to make two versions of the promo because that just invites the possibility of the wrong one airing at the wrong time.
As for the NFL, they pride themselves on being family-friendly. Which is why the Super Bowl carries a G-rating. Which is why the whole Janet Jackson fiasco was a bigger issue then than it would have been on an episode of, say, "NYPD Blue" back in the day. G-rated.. airing at 5pm (PT). Yeah, that's GOTTA be safe. "Inside the NFL" doesn't just run late at night. And it runs adjacent to family-friendly programming. Hence the bleeping. The promos for the comedians run 24/7. The actual comedy specials do not.
Actually, Inside the NFL on Friday nights (late night) runs ahead of "Dave's Old Porn". Yes a real series, not family safe.
post #37 of 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by humdinger70 View Post

Actually, Inside the NFL on Friday nights (late night) runs ahead of "Dave's Old Porn". Yes a real series, not family safe.
It repeats at 8AM on Saturday. Hence the bleeping.
post #38 of 164
You're tilting at windmills, iGreg, and seem to be the only one bothered by this.
post #39 of 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by RDK006 View Post

You're tilting at windmills, iGreg, and seem to be the only one bothered by this.

I dunno, I find them annoying too, but certainly not the biggest problem with HDTV today. I'd rank bitstarving, annoying popups, cropping "scoped" movies, and constant on screen bugs all higher.

The only context where I'd find them appropriate is on the news covering a story where someone said 4 letter words not allowed on broadcast TV before 10. Any other context and they can be aired at a more appropriate time without bleeping, or at least do something comical, ala Craigy Ferg.

In fact the whole concept of bleeping is just goofy. Viewers can almost always figure out by context what the word being said is. You know what it is, you've heard it before, but somehow hearing it again on TV and radio is going to damage you? And beyond that, almost any subject no matter how vulgar, degrading, or misogynistic is OK... just so long as you don't say one of a handful of words. I know if I had kids I'd sure as hell rather them hear the "s" word than watch certain sitcoms on CBS.
Edited by lobosrul - 11/29/12 at 2:39pm
post #40 of 164
Thread Starter 
I have an example that illustrates the creeping of bleeping. Nobody has yet given an answer to why the television industry has migrated from editing out swear words to LOUDLY using HIGH-BLEEPS instead. For example, Leno until 2000 did not use bleeps to cover swear words; the producers simply edited them out.I don't have an example from Leno, but here is one from Rosie from 1997 where the producers of the show edited out Halle Berry saying butt when describing what was "on display" when the wind blew her up her skirt when she forgot to wear her g-string:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A_F73Yw6MPo&lc=JDhW9FPMu1GAf8utCL8dkFz5QjReHMqCosZ6Uj3LYvE

The word 'butt" is edited out at 4:39-4:40
Edited by igreg - 1/23/13 at 1:04am
post #41 of 164
post #42 of 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by igreg View Post

I have an example that illustrates the creeping of bleeping. Nobody has yet given an answer to why the television industry has migrated from editing out swear words to LOUDLY using HIGH-BLEEPS instead. For example, Leno until 2000 did not use bleeps to cover swear words; the producers simply edited them out.I don't have an example from Leno, but here is one from Rosie from 1997 where the producers of the show edited out Halle Berry saying butt when describing what was "on display" when the wind blew her up her skirt when she forgot to wear her g-string:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A_F73Yw6MPo&lc=JDhW9FPMu1GAf8utCL8dkFz5QjReHMqCosZ6Uj3LYvE

The word 'butt" is edited out at 4:39-4:40
a 1997 episode of Rosie? Cool, let me take a look at that clip real quick.

post #43 of 164
Now...the bleeps used in Arrested Development actually added to the comedy. So much so that they left them in on the DVD releases. As well, when AD's "4th season" hits Netflix in the spring, the new eps will also obscure profanity with bleeps.

The AD episode where Buster unleashes an obviously obscene & very long tirade about his mother has a solid minute (if not more) of bleeped dialog. The looks on the faces of his siblings during it is priceless, and goes a long way towards assisting the imaginations of viewers wondering what was being said.
post #44 of 164
In this age of digital television, where any given broadcast can carry a number of different audio tracks, perhaps viewers should be given the option to hear the uncensored audio program.
post #45 of 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by machpost View Post

In this age of digital television, where any given broadcast can carry a number of different audio tracks, perhaps viewers should be given the option to hear the uncensored audio program.
We have a V-Chip, but no broadcaster makes proper use of it to present uncensored content because viewers can't be depended upon to use it. The first time someone picks the wrong channel, the whole thing would be smacked down in order to protect little Joey or Sally from accidently hearing a curse word they've likely heard out of their parent's own mouths.
post #46 of 164
Thread Starter 
I have nothing against removing the swear word, but why bleep it? Surely there is a better way of letting us watch a show without this constant noise? At the VERY least, if you must, just must, just have to, just feel compelled to bleep a word do it with a more innocuous sound.Why not have silence instead of a bleep? That was the norm until this century.

When you get down to the rules, the FCC is only allowed to enforce indecency laws during 6 a.m. – 10 p.m. local time. Leno, Kimmel, et al. can use profanity with impunity.

Does anyone know what caused the producers of television to go from editing out swear words rather than bleeping them out? Why the change? And it is not a sporadic change, it is a universal change.

I challenge anyone to find a non-live program that edits out swear words anymore.

Prior to 2000, you had a hard time finding shows that use the bleep censor. Who made this decision? I want name(s).
Edited by igreg - 1/26/13 at 3:55am
post #47 of 164
When I was a kid there was a Radio Station in Detroit (WRIF) that would edit a song that contained a "Bad Word" by playing that word BACKWARDS. For example The line in Pink Floyd's Money that said "Don't give me that do goody good Bull (Expletive Deleted) would go "Don't give me that do goody good Bull "Gibberish"). A friend of mine found that out when he played that part backwards. From that time on every time a song had "Gibberish" on it we'd all laugh knowing it was a word we didn't DARE say in front of our parents!
post #48 of 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by borntocoast View Post

When I was a kid there was a Radio Station in Detroit (WRIF) that would edit a song that contained a "Bad Word" by playing that word BACKWARDS. For example The line in Pink Floyd's Money that said "Don't give me that do goody good Bull (Expletive Deleted) would go "Don't give me that do goody good Bull "Gibberish"). A friend of mine found that out when he played that part backwards. From that time on every time a song had "Gibberish" on it we'd all laugh knowing it was a word we didn't DARE say in front of our parents!
I used to do sort of that same thing when I would DJ school dances (I was an AV geek in school, so I didn't get many dates but I was always the first one asked to DJ - go figure).

When I started do it, I had to run the record off to reel-to-reel tape to edit it and all I would do is reverse the word.

Later, when CD Burners were available and I picked up an early model, I used software to flip the word, split it, then flip the back half (now the front half) back to normal. Finally I would insert a louder drum beat or some other sound from the music over it to disguise it further. So, for example, in the case of Alanis Morissette's "You Oughta Know", the f-word would sound like "cuff", somewhat drowned out by a drum beat.

I always hated using the actual "clean" versions of the music that would simply blank out the swear because it sound like something was wrong with the sound system.
post #49 of 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by igreg View Post

At the VERY least, if you must, just must, just have to, just feel compelled to bleep a word do it with a more innocuous sound.Why not have silence instead of a bleep?
If you'd prefer something less cacaphonous than a bleep or a buzz, OK, but silence is a bad idea.  When a profanity is completely muted out, the viewer gets an audio dropout and can't be sure that the signal or his/her equipment didn't fail at that point.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by NetworkTV View Post

I always hated using the actual "clean" versions of the music that would simply blank out the swear because it sound like something was wrong with the sound system.
Exactly.
 
post #50 of 164
I want to add, in my house the penalty for being caught swearing (or using the Lords name in vain!) was a teaspoon of Tobasco Sauce, and NO Milk or Water for 30 Minutes! eek.gif
post #51 of 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by borntocoast View Post

I want to add, in my house the penalty for being caught swearing (or using the Lords name in vain!) was a teaspoon of Tobasco Sauce, and NO Milk or Water for 30 Minutes! eek.gif

Punishing a child with Tabasco Sauce is tantamount to child abuse. You or anyone who would do that over a mere word or speech should be punished with jail time.
post #52 of 164
Just watch out for....soap poisoning.... wink.gif


Quote:
Originally Posted by mscottc View Post

Punishing a child with Tabasco Sauce is tantamount to child abuse. You or anyone who would do that over a mere word or speech should be punished with jail time.
That's a wee bit extreme.

While the act might come under the definition of not being a good idea (it's a good way to make a child develop a food phobia), people eat Tabasco sauce every day, sometimes in large quantities. It's not a toxic substance and isn't going to cause any physical harm. Discomfort, yes, but harm, no. Tabasco sauce is an irritant, not an acid or solvent. It's like ingesting too much pepper.

Now, there are certain hot peppers that can injure you if mishandled, but those aren't in the average off the shelf hot sauce brands.

I will agree that it's on overreaching punishment, but far less overreaching than you're call for jail time as punishment for it.

There's plenty of real, dangerous abuse out there to keep child services and the court system busy. Having worked in the news industry, some of the cases I've seen would make your average spanking look like a downright reward. The worst was a case where a step father poured bleach down the throat of a child for crying over being hungry. The kid survived, but the burns required dozens of surgeries just to allow him to swallow and eventually speak again.

That's a case for jail time.
Edited by NetworkTV - 1/26/13 at 8:21pm
post #53 of 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by NetworkTV View Post

Just watch out for....soap poisoning.... wink.gif


That's a wee bit extreme.

While the act might come under the definition of not being a good idea (it's a good way to make a child develop a food phobia), people eat Tabasco sauce every day, sometimes in large quantities. It's not a toxic substance and isn't going to cause any physical harm. Discomfort, yes, but harm, no. Tabasco sauce is an irritant, not an acid or solvent. It's like ingesting too much pepper.

Now, there are certain hot peppers that can injure you if mishandled, but those aren't in the average off the shelf hot sauce brands.

I will agree that it's on overreaching punishment, but far less overreaching than you're call for jail time as punishment for it.

There's plenty of real, dangerous abuse out there to keep child services and the court system busy. Having worked in the news industry, some of the cases I've seen would make your average spanking look like a downright reward. The worst was a case where a step father poured bleach down the throat of a child for crying over being hungry. The kid survived, but the burns required dozens of surgeries just to allow him to swallow and eventually speak again.

That's a case for jail time.


That was 40 years ago, and after having to do it once, it served as one HECK of a deterrent. On the other hand If I suspected a word was "dirty" I Could ask them if it was good or bad without getting punished (although I was given a STERN warning NOT to get caught using that word, OR ELSE). eek.gif Bear in mind Child Protective Services weren't as "sensitive" as they are today, just as corporal punishment was once allowed in schools. And yes, there was a time I thought the sole use of Tobasco was to punish those who got caught swearing. One day, I saw my Father put Tobasco on the open-face Cheese and Bacon Sandwiches he was serving us, and when I said "Dad! I didn't do anything wrong today (I was eight-years-old at the time)!" He explained what it was really for, learning it's primary use was to put a "zing in the flavor"! smile.gif

PS Most of you know about how I feel about Today's TV, so I won't delve on it except to say If those 'ED Pill" Commercials were on at that time, and my Dad saw one of them aired at a time I was watching alone or together He would have had a HISSY FIT!!! He would have called the Cable Company (If that was available in my community at the time) to cancel the subscription, ten he'd BAWL THEM OUT!mad.gif He then would have called (and "FLAME") the TV Station, mad.gif the Network, mad.gif and the Company that made the brand of the offending product. mad.gifmad.gifmad.gif
Edited by borntocoast - 1/26/13 at 9:03pm
post #54 of 164
One of the reasons for bleeping instead of silencing is that people will think something is wrong with the audio, that it keeps cutting in and out and will call their TV provider to complain.
post #55 of 164
Thread Starter 
More unnecessary censorship. On tonight's Leno (2/11/13), they had a parody of the hacking of Bush's e-mail where he sent dollars to a Nigerian prime, with the text reading, here is my bank routing number BLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEP. The loudest, most obnoxious, prlonged bleep this side of the Jeff Probst show. If the networks feel compelled to use a bleep rather than a more pleasant sound, at least have the courtesy to make the bleep less intrusive ala Nancy Grace, who by the way is another advocate of unnecessary censorship, censoring what was uncensored live EARLIER in the day, despite the presence of WARNINGS through the program. Another example.....a couple days ago CNN placed a very high-pitched, prolonged bleep over the word redacted! This is would be hilarious if it wasn't so sad. No-talent producers just finding more and more ways to TRY and get bleeps into their programs. WTF.

Jeez, today after work, within two seconds of turning on my television after work I was hit by three bleeps in succession before I could change the channel.

Also, a big by the way.....nobody here has yet to explain why Leno went from ZERO bleeps before 2000 (profanity was edited out) to ubiquitous bleeps today.
post #56 of 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by igreg View Post

More unnecessary censorship. On tonight's Leno (2/11/13), they had a parody of the hacking of Bush's e-mail where he sent dollars to a Nigerian prime, with the text reading, here is my bank routing number BLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEP. The loudest, most obnoxious, prlonged bleep this side of the Jeff Probst show. If the networks feel compelled to use a bleep rather than a more pleasant sound, at least have the courtesy to make the bleep less intrusive ala Nancy Grace, who by the way is another advocate of unnecessary censorship, censoring what was uncensored live EARLIER in the day, despite the presence of WARNINGS through the program. Another example.....a couple days ago CNN placed a very high-pitched, prolonged bleep over the word redacted! This is would be hilarious if it wasn't so sad. No-talent producers just finding more and more ways to TRY and get bleeps into their programs. WTF.

Jeez, today after work, within two seconds of turning on my television after work I was hit by three bleeps in succession before I could change the channel.

Also, a big by the way.....nobody here has yet to explain why Leno went from ZERO bleeps before 2000 (profanity was edited out) to ubiquitous bleeps today.
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzz... Much ado about nothing. rolleyes.gif
Edited by BoilerJim - 2/12/13 at 4:42am
post #57 of 164
Some of the crawls for upcoming episodes are so large & intrusive, I find myself watching the crawl as the real show & get upset when the crawl slithers away & my show is gone!
post #58 of 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by igreg View Post

More unnecessary censorship. On tonight's Leno (2/11/13), they had a parody of the hacking of Bush's e-mail where he sent dollars to a Nigerian prime, with the text reading, here is my bank routing number BLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEP. The loudest, most obnoxious, prlonged bleep this side of the Jeff Probst show. If the networks feel compelled to use a bleep rather than a more pleasant sound, at least have the courtesy to make the bleep less intrusive ala Nancy Grace, who by the way is another advocate of unnecessary censorship, censoring what was uncensored live EARLIER in the day, despite the presence of WARNINGS through the program. Another example.....a couple days ago CNN placed a very high-pitched, prolonged bleep over the word redacted! This is would be hilarious if it wasn't so sad. No-talent producers just finding more and more ways to TRY and get bleeps into their programs. WTF.

Jeez, today after work, within two seconds of turning on my television after work I was hit by three bleeps in succession before I could change the channel.

Also, a big by the way.....nobody here has yet to explain why Leno went from ZERO bleeps before 2000 (profanity was edited out) to ubiquitous bleeps today.
When watching Jay Leno, a bleep is way low on my list of things wrong with it. His corny monologue should be one long bleep.
post #59 of 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by igreg View Post

Also, a big by the way.....nobody here has yet to explain why Leno went from ZERO bleeps before 2000 (profanity was edited out) to ubiquitous bleeps today.

 

This is beyond simple. It attracts attention and or plays as funny (entertaining). If one wants to see it performed as an art form check out Craig Ferguson.

post #60 of 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by curtlots View Post

Some of the crawls for upcoming episodes are so large & intrusive, I find myself watching the crawl as the real show & get upset when the crawl slithers away & my show is gone!
I totally agree with this one. Bleeps come and are gone in an instant. Crawls are intrusive, take up valuable screen space, and seem to go on forever.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: HDTV Programming
AVS › AVS Forum › HDTV › HDTV Programming › The Creeping of Bleeping