FCC consider "license revocation" for CBS/VIACOM

The Ku Klux Klan is not a genocidal organization. They're just in favour of apartheid--sort of like what Saddam Hussein had in Iraq with the Sunnis dominating the Kurds and Shi'ias (and I bet you were against that war also ). And I'm not saying that the KKK is right, but I am saying that anyone who values freedom of speech is required to allow the KKK (and the Black Panthers) the ability to speak their peace (however outrageous it may be to some).

By the way, are you in favour of the death penalty, c@t? I sort of had you pegged as a bit of a pinko.



I disagree. By bearing her asymmetrically formed bosom , Ms. Jackson imposed a "corrupting and dangerous idelogy" [sic] on all Superbowl half-time show viewers: an ideology of promiscuity and sexual exhibitionism that is not appropriate for mainstream society and family viewing.

Now, enabling freedom of speech is one thing, but enabling unrestricted freedom of speech is another--and this is a delicate balancing act, I think. For example, I have no aversion to Janet Jackson bearing whatever part of herself she wants to, say on adult television or in a saucy nightclub. However, on a television programme where children may be watching or adults who aren't expecting this, I think it's inappropriate. In fact, it's just about as appropriate as saying that Black Entertainment Television (BET, an African American channel in the USA) should be forced to allow the KKK to have the "Anti-Negro Hour" in prime time.

So, in short, freedom of speech is important, but so is mild censorship in order to allow people the freedom to choose what content they are exposed to. People in the USA know where to get porn, nudity, etc., and they can easily get it. People in the USA also know where to get football and clean, family viewing. I think the distribution channels of these things need to be kept "pure" in order that people can be sure that when they choose certain forms of media they won't be surprised by unexpected content. After all, you'd be pretty disappointed if your porn movie had 30 minutes of a newscast from BBC News 24 in the middle of it instead of that extra sex scene. Analogously, I am disappointed when my football game has unexpected nudity and sexually suggestive singing. And I don't think that's an unreasonable viewpoint on my part. Does anyone think I'm being unreasonable in thinking that people have a right to choose what they will be exposed to when they watch TV?

What was missing from the Superbowl event was disclosure from the performers of their intent, and a disclaimer to warn family viewers.

Since the network would NEVER have agreed, one can only surmise that Jackson and (I have to assume) Timberlake conspired to cause a publicity stunt David Blaine himself would be proud of. To$$er that he is.

Ergo they should face the music for their actions, so to speak.

This knee-jerk reaction you speak of will take your right to INFORMED choice away from you altogether. Why on earth haven't you see that yourself?

And maybe in the UK from what Ofcom says:
Programme Code > Section 1

[..]
1.2 Family Viewing Policy and the Watershed

Material unsuitable for children must not be transmitted at times when large numbers of children may be expected to be watching.

However the ITC accepts that, even though some children are always likely to be present in the audience, the likelihood varies according to the time, subject matter and channel. The majority of homes do not contain children and viewers have a right to expect a range of subject matter.

The necessary compromise is embodied in the ITC's Family Viewing Policy which assumes a progressive decline throughout the evening in the proportion of children viewing, matched by a progression towards material more suitable for adults.

Within the progression, 9pm is normally fixed as the time up to which licensees are responsible for ensuring that nothing is shown that is unsuitable for children. The earlier in the evening a programme is shown, the greater the care required.

Not all daytime or early evening programming will be suitable for very young children. Licensees should provide sufficient information, in terms of regular scheduling patterns and on-air advice, to assist parents to make viewing choices.

After the watershed, and until 5.30am, material more suitable for an adult audience may be shown. However, care should be taken in the period immediately after the watershed. There should be a gradual transition and it may be that a programme will be acceptable at 10.30pm for example that would not be suitable at 9pm. Decisions will also depend on the nature of the channel and the audience it attracts. Material which is particularly adult in tone should be scheduled appropriately and clearly signposted.

Particular care should be taken over programmes of special appeal to children which may start before the watershed but run beyond that time; and with programming during school holidays, when children will be part of the audience throughout the day and may also go to bed later. Dates of school holidays vary across the UK.

There is evidence that children find violence which resembles real life more upsetting than violence in a fantasy context but any sequence which might unsettle younger children needs special care. Particular distress can be caused where such violence occurs in a domestic setting and scenes of serious domestic conflict whether or not accompanied by physical violence or threat, can cause fear and insecurity. News bulletins should take account of the Family Viewing Policy (see 1.7(ii)).

While it is accepted that stylised violence can be entertaining and often humorous in comedy and in animation, more serious representation, for example, in children's drama, should always be editorially justified and should ensure that the consequences of violence are treated appropriately.

Bad language (including profanity) should not be used in programmes made for children (see 1.5).

Unless otherwise stated, any reference in the Code to 'children' means those aged 15 or under. A reference to 'young persons' means those aged 16 or 17 and a reference to very young children means those aged four or under.

[..]

1.4 Feature Films and Other Acquired Material

Where a British Board of Film Classification (BBFC) Classification exists for the version of a film or programme proposed for transmission, it should be used as a guide to scheduling. A BBFC video classification, rather than the cinema classification, should always be the guide where one exists.

The following basic rules apply except where satisfactory security mechanisms are imposed: (see 1.4(ii)), when rules (a), (b) and (c) do not apply).

a) No '12' rated version should normally start before 8pm on any service.

b) No '15' rated version should normally start before 9pm (or 8pm on premium rate subscription services, contents permitting).

c) No '18' rated version should start before 10pm on any service. This rule may be relaxed if the classification was made more than 10 years ago and the film is now clearly suitable for earlier transmission.

d) No 'R18' version should be transmitted at any time.

e) No version refused a BBFC certification should be transmitted at any time.

These are minimum requirements. In particular, many '15' rated films will not be suitable for as early as 8pm even on a subscription channel if, for example, they include graphic scenes of drug taking, sexual intercourse or higher than usual levels of violence. Where no BBFC certification exists and the licensee relies on this Code for guidance, special consideration should be given to the interests of children.

Questions arising from particular BBFC decisions should be taken up with the BBFC but the final responsibility must always rest with the licensee. Licensees transmitting to countries other than the UK should take local time as a guide, using the most westerly time zone in the transmission area.

Maybe you're right. But I sometimes enjoy being part of an angry mob .

Yeah, but the Powell's are making it like they owned it.



as for Janet's 'boobie-gate', i guess it's the time that we should try to make our mind more mature. guys can be topless, why can't female do so? it's really weird that it's a taboo for people talking or showing their bodies, not in an sexual way.

it sends out a message that women should have rights whether they want topless, but they don't need guys to help or make them topless. it's an insult to women in that way.

also, such decision is caused by extreme conservative christians. some of them even support 9-11.

I agree that it's an insult to women, but I'd hardly say that anyone short of terrorists and the pathetic people that sympathize with them would be so cruel as to support 9-11. Or are you talking about the comments that said that 9/11 was punishment for immorality?

I'm utterly baffled as to why 9/11 has even been mentioned.

I don't think he knows what he's talking about, to be honest.

This is all quite unbelievable. What's more harmful to children, a tiny bit of human flesh exposed, or the umpteen fast food commercials shown during the coverted Superbowl ad breaks?

I'm all for heavy handed regulation, if you want quality television from commercial broadcasters then it's needed to hold them up to standard.

But, this is taking the concept just a bit too far.

Something was shown briefly which broke the broadcasting rules, it was immediately corrected, CBS had no idea that it would happen, apologised for the event and distanced themselves from MTV.

I don't see that any official action is necessary, but if it is, a rap on the knucles is all that's needed. Not considering 'licence revocation'

And I do find it laughable that the American regulator finds this unacceptable, but not the rest of American TV.

Can someone clear up a point for me? How can CBS loose their licence? My understanding was that 'the network' is essentially just a big programme maker, and then local stations are affiliated to it in order to get access to their programmes. Stations are only bound to a network by contract, and once that's expired are free to try and join another network, or go independent. This is also how I thought it was possible for (relatively) new networks like UPN and Fox to materialise. In that case, surely only the station itself is licenced as a broadcaster?

But how can CBS be the subject of possible 'licence revocation' now? What licence do they have to be withdrawn?

Ah, but the Superbowl wasn't in primetime here. It was in the middle of the night. Still, if it had happened in primetime, say, after 8pm, I doubt OfCom would have taken action.

The tits, of course!

All that anti-McDonald's clap trap is commie talk !!