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

The Creeping of Bleeping - Page 4

post #91 of 138
3/1/13 at 12:42pm
The sad part about this argument is that the crux of it can be posed on a variety of topics in the good old USA. A select few dictating what the what the much larger group get to see, hear, or do.
Reply
Reply

AVS Top Picks

post #92 of 138
3/1/13 at 12:47pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by ratm View Post

The sad part about this argument is that the crux of it can be posed on a variety of topics in the good old USA. A select few dictating what the what the much larger group get to see, hear, or do.
Are you saying we should do away with all laws, rules, and regulations? That sounds like a great plan. rolleyes.gif
Reply
Reply
post #93 of 138
3/1/13 at 1:00pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by BoilerJim View Post

Believe it or not, not all people use the f-word or similar words in front of their kids and not all people use disgusting language either in the home or out of it. I'm not so naive as to believe my kids never heard "such talk" outside our home, but they sure as heck never heard it inside our home. I like to feel that we brought up our kids "the right way" and, coincidentally, they have done the same. So mute it or bleep it. I don't want to hear that crap when kids are around.

Don't even begin to characterize "Jill Six Pack" as a model for all mothers. I've been married to the same woman for a long time and NEVER heard her say the f-word or saw her drink a beer.

Hoooooookay rolleyes.gif

How about not letting your children watch television that you feel is inappropriate for them, and let others decide what they can or can't handle hearing. Its very easy to do these days with technology.
Reply
Reply
post #94 of 138
3/1/13 at 1:18pm
I agree. I censored many things when my son was younger and I watched my mouth. It's called being a parent and I have been called the worst, most terrible mom in the world a few times. When that's said I know I'm doing my job smile.gif. Oh, and my drink of choice is tequila shots wink.gif.
Reply
Reply
post #95 of 138
3/1/13 at 2:26pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nayan View Post

I agree. I censored many things when my son was younger and I watched my mouth. It's called being a parent and I have been called the worst, most terrible mom in the world a few times. When that's said I know I'm doing my job smile.gif. Oh, and my drink of choice is tequila shots wink.gif.
Sounds like you and my wife are cut from the same mold. By the way, she isn't a prude, just doesn't like beer (tasted it in college and spit it out) or coffee. She will, however, have an occasional glass of wine or something a bit stronger on occasion. smile.gif
Reply
Reply
post #96 of 138
3/1/13 at 3:22pm
I hate bleeping. It's not really that annoying in an of itself, it's that it takes a tiny bit of extra brainpower to peice back together what the person said, even though anyone with half a brain can figure it out, so the censorship is pointless.

My other beef is why we can have a Quentin Tarantino movie rated R, but yet softcore pornography is completely off-limits. We have screwed up standards here in the US for what is appropriate and what is not. I'd rather they just make an 18+ rating, and let anything [legal] fly under that, and push all the super violent stuff, like Tarantino up there too. Seriously, we can't deal with sex, which is a natural human activity, but yet it's OK to take highly unnatural weapons and go shooting people's heads off endlessly?
Reply
Reply
post #97 of 138
3/1/13 at 3:51pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by BiggAW View Post

I hate bleeping. It's not really that annoying in an of itself, it's that it takes a tiny bit of extra brainpower to peice back together what the person said, even though anyone with half a brain can figure it out, so the censorship is pointless.

My other beef is why we can have a Quentin Tarantino movie rated R, but yet softcore pornography is completely off-limits. We have screwed up standards here in the US for what is appropriate and what is not. I'd rather they just make an 18+ rating, and let anything [legal] fly under that, and push all the super violent stuff, like Tarantino up there too. Seriously, we can't deal with sex, which is a natural human activity, but yet it's OK to take highly unnatural weapons and go shooting people's heads off endlessly?
We certainly agree on this one. 1950's cowboy Western "violence" is one thing, but what we see today even in PG-13 movies is just asinine. Violence has gotten so graphic & gory that I no longer go to some movies I'd otherwise love to see. I also agree with you about our somewhat puritanical attitudes on sex and nudity, although I don't think we need a steady diet of that either.
Reply
Reply
post #98 of 138
3/1/13 at 5:18pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by BoilerJim View Post

We certainly agree on this one. 1950's cowboy Western "violence" is one thing, but what we see today even in PG-13 movies is just asinine. Violence has gotten so graphic & gory that I no longer go to some movies I'd otherwise love to see. I also agree with you about our somewhat puritanical attitudes on sex and nudity, although I don't think we need a steady diet of that either.

We already have a steady diet of sex and nudity, it's just banished from TV for the most part (excepting HBO), and pushed onto the 'net.
Reply
Reply
post #99 of 138
3/1/13 at 6:21pm
The reason for the prevalence of violence on television is, supposedly, because it's the one thing the FCC doesn't regulate. The FCC restricts content based on its linguistic and sexual content, but violence isn't monitored in the same way. Since television content must, as with most forms of entertainment, always try to become more graphic and sensational in order to get noticed, the violence in television programs has been steadily rising. It's hard to shock people these days, so crime dramas and medical dramas have to have exceptional levels of gory detail to (theoretically) get anyone to watch them.

Since the networks are all competing with each other in the ratings and having an underperforming show can cause significant decreases in advertising revenue, networks aren't willing to take risks with more tasteful programming when they already know that debauchery will get them good numbers from Nielsen. It would be nice if the double standard of disallowing language and nudity while permitting violence would be dropped, but there is sadly little chance of regulatory change in this matter.
Reply
Reply
post #100 of 138
3/1/13 at 9:36pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aleron Ives View Post

The reason for the prevalence of violence on television is, supposedly, because it's the one thing the FCC doesn't regulate. The FCC restricts content based on its linguistic and sexual content, but violence isn't monitored in the same way. Since television content must, as with most forms of entertainment, always try to become more graphic and sensational in order to get noticed, the violence in television programs has been steadily rising. It's hard to shock people these days, so crime dramas and medical dramas have to have exceptional levels of gory detail to (theoretically) get anyone to watch them.

Since the networks are all competing with each other in the ratings and having an underperforming show can cause significant decreases in advertising revenue, networks aren't willing to take risks with more tasteful programming when they already know that debauchery will get them good numbers from Nielsen. It would be nice if the double standard of disallowing language and nudity while permitting violence would be dropped, but there is sadly little chance of regulatory change in this matter.

Your logic is flawed when it comes to cable channels. The FCC's regulatory powers extend only to over-the-air broadcasters, who transmit their programs via the publicly owned spectrum. The cable channels self-censor, and they chose to do it with obscene words but not violence.
Reply
Reply
post #101 of 138
3/1/13 at 9:55pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by dattier View Post

For most of the complainants in this thread, when they air their opinions, I'm still left unsure whether the particular poster is objecting to

1. the amount of profanity on television,
2. the threshold for deciding something needs bleeping,
3. censoring a profanity instead of airing it,
4. the use of a noise instead of silencing the audio,
or
5. the particular noise used to mask a profanity in contrast to some other replacement sound that the poster would find less cacaphonous,

because most of them haven't made clear what they'd rather hear: inoffensive language in the first place, the original word untouched, silence, a different replacement sound?  We know what you don't want; what do you want instead?

Thanks for the interest and questions. Two through five are my objections, but principally four through five. I would think most people do not want to hear the bleeping noise for hours on end, just like they don't want to hear fingernails on a blackboard. I would like to see silence instead of bleeps; that was the standard for 90%+ of obscenity on television prior to 2000 and 99.9 % prior to 1990. Also, if networks feel compelled to use a noise rather than silence, use a less high-pitched, less penetrating noise. I can hear a loud high-pitch bleep (all bleeps are not the same; for example, the bleeps on Jeff Probst are among the worst) while reading a book in a bedroom far removed from my speakers when I cannot even hear the television otherwise.

I would suggest a more innocuous sound like a car horn or farm animal (Craig Ferguson does this sometimes, but not with the rabbit) or editing the word to other than a swear word, or a voice saying something like "censored" with the same loudness as the speech that proceed it, or any sound that is not high-pitched, penetrating, and louder than the words that proceeded it.

By the way, nobody here knows how the transition occurred from editing out silence to bleeping. Nobody knows why Leno decided to go from sound edits to bleeps after 2000. Heck, even Howard Stern chastised his viewers when they swore in the 90's. Know the swearing is common even in the family hour. It is no longer a mistake but purposely done and promulgated.
Reply
Reply
post #102 of 138
3/1/13 at 11:35pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by igreg View Post

Your logic is flawed when it comes to cable channels. The FCC's regulatory powers extend only to over-the-air broadcasters, who transmit their programs via the publicly owned spectrum. The cable channels self-censor, and they chose to do it with obscene words but not violence.

This was discussed earlier in the topic. Cable channels choose to censor themselves so as to not offend their sponsors and potentially lose revenue from advertisers who withdraw their support so as to not be associated with "unseemly" programming. Since advertisers' standards regarding what is acceptable regarding language, sex, and violence are already established in the realm of FCC-regulated OTA channels, it is only natural that cable channels would emulate a pre-existing model, rather than trying to define separate standards for their content. It saves them the trouble of doing their own market research to determine how the boundaries of good taste are perceived among advertisers and viewers in the absence of mandatory censorship.
Reply
Reply
post #103 of 138
3/2/13 at 12:22am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aleron Ives View Post

This was discussed earlier in the topic. Cable channels choose to censor themselves so as to not offend their sponsors and potentially lose revenue from advertisers who withdraw their support so as to not be associated with "unseemly" programming. Since advertisers' standards regarding what is acceptable regarding language, sex, and violence are already established in the realm of FCC-regulated OTA channels, it is only natural that cable channels would emulate a pre-existing model, rather than trying to define separate standards for their content. It saves them the trouble of doing their own market research to determine how the boundaries of good taste are perceived among advertisers and viewers in the absence of mandatory censorship.

But the prior forum member raised the issue of violence and the FCC. Why don't the cable channels censor violence for fear of losing revenue?

According to the prior poster and several others, violence is worse then obscene words. In fact, that seems to be the prevalent opinion.

Further, the definition of "unseemly' programming with regard to obscenity and sex is expanding with no abatement without effecting advertising revenue. In fact, you could argue that broadening the limits of censorship is increasing viewership. The model is outdated. The cable channels that have the insight to blow it apart will reap untold financial benefits.
Edited by igreg - 3/2/13 at 12:28am
Reply
Reply
post #104 of 138
3/2/13 at 12:03pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by igreg View Post

But the prior forum member raised the issue of violence and the FCC. Why don't the cable channels censor violence for fear of losing revenue?

Violence is allowed OTA, so it will be present on cable, too. Most cable channels only censor the same things that get censored OTA.
Quote:
Originally Posted by igreg View Post

According to the prior poster and several others, violence is worse then obscene words. In fact, that seems to be the prevalent opinion.

The observations of a few posters on a TV forum on what constitutes offensive content are hardly enough to constitute a representative sample of viewer preferences on a national scale.
Quote:
Originally Posted by igreg View Post

Further, the definition of "unseemly' programming with regard to obscenity and sex is expanding with no abatement without effecting advertising revenue. In fact, you could argue that broadening the limits of censorship is increasing viewership. The model is outdated. The cable channels that have the insight to blow it apart will reap untold financial benefits.

That's just speculation, and most networks seem content to support the current risk-free model, rather than branch out and potentially lose revenue by offending people. While it may be true that providing more uncensored content will draw more viewers initially, if the content is just following the typical "be more shocking than the competition to get noticed" trend, the viewership gains won't be permanent and may cause more harm than good in the long run.

There is no question that the FCC's censorship standards are outdated, but they sadly do still mirror some of the country's rather peculiar Elizabethan standards of what is considered proper.
Reply
Reply
post #105 of 138
3/2/13 at 2:23pm
And understand we are talking about what is allowed after 10 PM which is other countries like the UK is 9 PM. BTW, there was an attempt a couple years back by the networks (lead by FOX) to get the rules changed but they were rebuffed. Stations knew they were losing viewers to premium channels and now they're losing them to streaming.
Reply
Reply
post #106 of 138
3/4/13 at 9:20am
Like I've said before, the problem with sex and violence on TV is, there's too much violence and not enough sex. rolleyes.gif
Reply
Reply
post #107 of 138
3/4/13 at 3:04pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Conrad View Post

And understand we are talking about what is allowed after 10 PM which is other countries like the UK is 9 PM. BTW, there was an attempt a couple years back by the networks (lead by FOX) to get the rules changed but they were rebuffed. Stations knew they were losing viewers to premium channels and now they're losing them to streaming.

Yep - in the UK we have the Nine O'Clock watershed. However there is an acceptance that it's relative - some content is too strong for 5 past 9 but would be more suitable at 5 past 11.
Reply
Reply
post #108 of 138
3/5/13 at 12:52pm
There is a 10 PM rule here probably because the midwest has shows an hour earlier. But the rule isn't as liberal as the UK's.
Reply
Reply
post #109 of 138
3/5/13 at 5:40pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Conrad View Post

There is a 10 PM rule here probably because the midwest has shows an hour earlier. But the rule isn't as liberal as the UK's.
What makes you say it's not as liberal as the UK? The only real difference is that broadcasters here don't really take advantage of the rule the way broadcasters in the UK do.
Reply
Reply
post #110 of 138
3/6/13 at 7:55am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeremy W View Post

What makes you say it's not as liberal as the UK? The only real difference is that broadcasters here don't really take advantage of the rule the way broadcasters in the UK do.

The FCC has never really defined what exactly is allowed after 10PM:

The FCC, however, does have enforcement responsibilities in certain limited instances. For example, the Courts have said that indecent material is protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution and cannot be banned entirely. It may be restricted, however, in order to avoid its broadcast when there is a reasonable risk that children may be in the audience. Between 6 A.M. and 10 P.M. (when there is the greatest likelihood that children may be watching,) airing indecent material is prohibited by FCC rules. Broadcasters are required to schedule their programming accordingly or face enforcement action. Similarly, the Commission has stated that profane material is prohibited between 6 A.M. and 10 P.M.

Finally, the courts have ruled that obscene material is not protected by the First Amendment and cannot be broadcast at any time.

http://www.fcc.gov/guides/fcc-and-freedom-speech

What is the exact difference between obscene and indecent? No one really knows; there is no clearly defined definition. It seems the major networks are pretty reluctant to test the waters, and risk a huge fine.

On the flip-side: in the UK all television content, including cable, is regulated before 9PM (except pay per view I think). In the United States only over the air broadcasts are regulated by the FCC.
Reply
Reply
post #111 of 138
3/7/13 at 7:22am
Quote:
Originally Posted by lobosrul View Post

What is the exact difference between obscene and indecent? No one really knows; there is no clearly defined definition.
If I'm not mistaken, it goes somthing like this:

Indecent: non-socially acceptable behavior, like full nudity where you can be seen by others, excessive profanity, racist behavior (not related to historical depictions, etc) or other acts that would offend a large percentage of people.

Obscene: usually explicit material that clearly shows sexual acts or inhumane behavior. So, porn would be considered obscene as would clearly showing a live animal or person being carved open on screen instead of cutting away or simply showing the result.
Reply
Reply
post #112 of 138
3/8/13 at 12:29am
Thread Starter 
I HAVE SEEN IT ALL NOW!! I decide to watch Kimmel because both Leno and Letterman are reruns. Promptly Kimmel has a bleep in the monologue; I turn the channel and decide to turn back in 20-30 minutes to catch is guest, Kobe Bryant. So I turn over and see a shot of The Today Show and thought maybe I got the wrong channel, but then hear a BLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLEEEEEEEEEEEEP coming from one of hosts. I think that is odd, then I hear about five more before I can turn the channel, and find that he has a segment called unnecessary censorship where he fires off DOZENS of rather loud, high-pitch bleeps. Freaking unbelievable.
'
I predicted the trend years ago when members of this forum didn't even see it coming, but even I didn't see this kind of proliferation of bleeping. It is officially no longer the creeping if bleeping, it is THE FREAKING ONSALUGHT OF BLEEPING. Somebody should kick Kummel's ass and the producer who put this segment on the air.
Reply
Reply
post #113 of 138
3/8/13 at 12:41am
Quote:
Originally Posted by igreg View Post

I HAVE SEEN IT ALL NOW!! I decide to watch Kimmel because both Leno and Letterman are reruns. Promptly Kimmel has a bleep in the monologue; I turn the channel and decide to turn back in 20-30 minutes to catch is guest, Kobe Bryant. So I turn over and see a shot of The Today Show and thought maybe I got the wrong channel, but then hear a BLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLEEEEEEEEEEEEP coming from one of hosts. I think that is odd, then I hear about five more before I can turn the channel, and find that he has a segment called unnecessary censorship where he fires off DOZENS of rather loud, high-pitch bleeps. Freaking unbelievable.
'
I predicted the trend years ago when members of this forum didn't even see it coming, but even I didn't see this kind of proliferation of bleeping. It is officially no longer the creeping if bleeping, it is THE FREAKING ONSALUGHT OF BLEEPING. Somebody should kick Kummel's ass and the producer who put this segment on the air.



This particular segment on Kimmel was already discussed in the first page of this BLEEPING thread. And then you responded to that post so you must have read it. Ring a bell?
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDon View Post

Posts edited to remove obvious profanities. Do NOT circumvent the profanity filters.

igreg, I realize this is a thorn in your side and you've littered a dozen other threads with your complaints about beep tones. On my show, I prefer to use barnyard animal sounds, instead, but there isn't always time. I can throw a beep from a phone caller and turn the call around to air with only 12 seconds leeway. To do anything else requires more time.

To that end, in three decades on the air, nobody.. NObody has ever complained about my use of tones to cover profanities. The only complaints I've gotten was for a bit I used to do in the late 80s and early 90s where we'd take stuff off of TV that wasn't profane, but beep it so it sounded as if it was. 20 years later, Jimmy Kimmell does the same bit. He calls it "The Week in Unnecessary Censorship." Sadly, I don't get royalties for this. But had to cease due to complaints from parents.

I think the number of people who are annoyed by tones vs silence in profanity editing is going to be almost nil.
Quote:
Originally Posted by igreg View Post

I didn't use any profanities in my replies. It has been acceptable to use, in place of a swear word, the word with symbols covering part of the word. Has the AVS policy changed?

If I find no interest in the thread on bleeping, I will not continue with the topic.
Reply
Reply
post #114 of 138
3/8/13 at 4:30pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by squeakybirnbaum View Post



This particular segment on Kimmel was already discussed in the first page of this BLEEPING thread. And then you responded to that post so you must have read it. Ring a bell?

First time I had actually encoutered it. Worse than any text can convey.

I am not the only one irritated by bleeps, and not the only one who hates the sounds of the bleep.

Why have the bleep so high-pitch and so loud? Now, some programs still have a bleep, but they make it a “soft” bleep. I’ll see if I can upload an example to YouTube so producers could use it if they just feel it is necessary, and refuse to use any sound other than a bleep

Right now, and this has happened on a few occasions, I will fall asleep while watching television and be awoken by a bleep. Now should a censored word be so freaking high-pitched I can not only hear if from several rooms away, but enough to wake me up? If it is high-pitch enuogh my ears will ring momentarily from the sound. From someone that experienced tinnitus contiually for a year or so, I don't want to experience it again, even if but for a short time.

Check back on some of the comments in this thread for others who do not like the bleep, and some who find the sound itself annoying. Then check the following:

Can the Bleep Censor Be Annoying?
Bettina R. Smith, Yahoo! Contributor Network

Feb 4, 2011 "Share your voice on Yahoo! websites. Start Here."
In most cases when we tune into television, whether it is the COPS show or other reality shows, there is this very annoying sound that makes the flesh crawl. What is it exactly?

http://voices.yahoo.com/can-bleep-censor-annoying-7786356.html?cat=9


Bleep Free TV
I'd rather hear the profanity than that annoying bleep!

As much as I like reality television and trashy daytime talk shows, one thing that I cannot stand is when they bleep out the bad words every 5-8 seconds. The conversations can be very difficult to listen to, if not completely annoying, when people are arguing or talking at the same time because it is steadily being interrupted by the bleep tone.

http://www.halfbakery.com/idea/Bleep_20Free_20TV

Article has a good idea:

Being that most TV sets are equipped with SAP (secondary audio programming) I suggest that they continue to run the bleeped audio on the main audio signal but for those of us who don't mind hearing profanity should have the option of switching their TV into SAP mode in order to hear it raw and uncut.


Should swear words be bleeped out on television
by Sharon Copeland
Created on: February 10, 2010

This will not be viewed as a very popular opinion, and it might even offend some people. I don't want to hear the bad words, but I hate hearing the bleeps…..think the "bleep factor" is just plain annoying.

http://www.helium.com/items/1738139-swear-words-bleeped-out


Does Bleeping Profanity on TV Make Any F---- Sense?

Reality programming that features real people speaking their minds has become so prevalent that harsh language -- or bleeped-out swearing -- is relatively common. Watching Gordon Ramsay on Fox's "Hell's Kitchen" or "Kitchen Nightmares" sometimes resembles taking a hearing test.

http://adage.com/article/media/bleeping-profanity-tv-make-f-king-sense/136089/


Parents Television Council Calls For Crackdown On Pixelated Nudity And Bleeped Profanity

Did you know there was a 2409% rise in the use of bleeped profanity between 2005 and 2010?

http://consumerist.com/2012/08/22/parents-television-council-calls-for-crackdown-on-pixelated-nudity-and-bleeped-profanity/


DingoEnderZOE2
06-04-2012, 07:26 PM

No kidding. So annoying. I yearn to live in a world where SWEAR WORDS are treated as just that: WORDS!!! No need to censor them...Or if you're gonna beep them out at least make the beeping noise be something fun like a clowns honk.

http://forums.g4tv.com/archive/index.php/t-182427.html

Is anyone else annoyed by those bleeping bleeped up bleeps?
I mean it would make sense if they bleeped out accidental swear words in Sword&Laser or Written by a Kid, but TableTop is so rife with swear words, they make up half the show. And half way through the latest Flog (Gunstar Hero) I began worrying I may be developing tinnitus.

http://www.geekandsundry.com/forums/discussion/351/down-with-self-censorship-bleeps/p1


Oh, and by the way, the common response of, “Find another program to watch" doesn’t apply. There is not a single network that does not have bleeping profanity. Your local news has it; CNN? Dozens of times a day. Example: Saturday morning, March 9: Expletive bleep tirade on CNN: 10 bleeps in 10 seconds. More bleeps in 10 seconds than in the decade of the 90's. Even MeTv has it.
Edited by igreg - 3/9/13 at 3:59am
Reply
Reply
post #115 of 138
3/13/13 at 1:16pm
Thread Starter 
More unnecessary and gratuitous censorship. HLN is showing the Jodi Arias trial, and since they are inserting commercials it is several minutes delayed; yet, they do not censor ANYTHING. Then, in the trial recess, the program host says, while reviewing testimony that happened only 30 MINTUES prior, "Here is my favorite part", and they play the part and you hear four bleeeeeeeeeeeps. WTF? Freaking unbelievable. Again, not the creeping of bleeping, but the onslaught of bleeping.
Reply
Reply
post #116 of 138
3/13/13 at 9:15pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by igreg View Post

HLN is showing the Jodi Arias trial, and since they are inserting commercials it is several minutes delayed; yet, they do not censor ANYTHING.
The fact that it's delayed doesn't mean they can easily censor it. When they pull out a clip and edit it, they can and do censor it.
Reply
Reply
post #117 of 138
3/14/13 at 10:48am

So you're the one that's watching HLN these days?

Reply
Reply
post #118 of 138
3/14/13 at 11:27am
Quote:
Originally Posted by igreg View Post



Why have the bleep so high-pitch and so loud?

this is a rhetorical question, right?
Reply
Reply
post #119 of 138
3/15/13 at 11:34am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rammitinski View Post

So you're the one that's watching HLN these days?
I think the master control operator has to watch it, too.... wink.gif
Reply
Reply
post #120 of 138
3/15/13 at 2:55pm
I think 'Tinski is counting only people who watch it without having to be paid to.
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: HDTV Programming

AVS Top Picks

AVS › AVS Forum › HDTV › HDTV Programming › The Creeping of Bleeping