Author Topic: USSC to weigh in on policing TV  (Read 3037 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Sylvana

  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 1016
  • Gender: Female
Re: USSC to weigh in on policing TV
« Reply #15 on: January 12, 2012, 01:25:13 am »
I have a question for everyone who believes that the FCC should not be policing the broadcasts.
Can we all agree that there is content that is inappropriate for children to watch / listen to?

To me the argument for deregulation feels a little bit too much like, "well he is doing it so why cant I?". I feel that if someone purchases access to a different network they would have the right to police their own viewing, including what their children are exposed to. However I feel that any state affiliated network should remain policed. (to be honest I don't know much about all the different American broadcasters, but in South Africa we have a state broadcaster and a few independent ones.) Now I should also mention that with this policing though that they should not be hypocritical about it. As the example showed, they had to exclude swearwords from awards programming, but could show saving private Ryan. I feel the standards should be strictly formulated, including looking at violence, and implemented.

I just feel there should be an enforced standard that is considered acceptable for children on state broadcasting. With that said though, I also feel that the standards should be regularly re-assessed to move with the times. Languages change, as do attitudes towards what is acceptable and unacceptable.

Offline Osama bin Bambi

  • The Black Witch
  • Kakarot
  • ******
  • Posts: 10167
  • Gender: Female
Re: USSC to weigh in on policing TV
« Reply #16 on: January 12, 2012, 01:30:19 am »
If parents don't want their kids to see something on TV, that's their responsibility, not the TV channel's. No one is forcing kids to watch "inappropriate content" (a very vague term, by the way, because inappropriate means different things to different people). If you don't like what you're watching, or if a parent doesn't like what their kids are watching, they can turn the TV off. If it happens enough that the station starts losing revenue because they're losing viewership, then a smart exec will change that around.
Formerly known as Eva-Beatrice and Wykked Wytch.

Quote from: sandman
There are very few problems that cannot be solved with a good taint punching.

Offline RavynousHunter

  • Master Thief
  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 7912
  • Gender: Male
  • A man of no consequence.
    • My Twitter
Re: USSC to weigh in on policing TV
« Reply #17 on: January 12, 2012, 01:40:41 am »
Just as I see it.  Its not an issue of what's decent or indecent, its a matter of who should be policing what children see: the government, or their parents.  Personally, I think that if a parent doesn't like their kids watching something, they should set up a house rule that it shouldn't be watched.  Its their fucking jobs, if they're either unwilling or unable to do it, then fucking tough titty.
Quote from: Bra'tac
Life for the sake of life means nothing.

Offline Oriet

  • Homo sapiens scientia
  • Bishop
  • ***
  • Posts: 159
  • Gender: Female
  • Disabled Vet MtF Polyamorous Atheist Auspie
Re: USSC to weigh in on policing TV
« Reply #18 on: January 12, 2012, 11:11:28 am »
I have a question for everyone who believes that the FCC should not be policing the broadcasts.
Can we all agree that there is content that is inappropriate for children to watch / listen to?

To me the argument for deregulation feels a little bit too much like, "well he is doing it so why cant I?". I feel that if someone purchases access to a different network they would have the right to police their own viewing, including what their children are exposed to. However I feel that any state affiliated network should remain policed. (to be honest I don't know much about all the different American broadcasters, but in South Africa we have a state broadcaster and a few independent ones.) Now I should also mention that with this policing though that they should not be hypocritical about it. As the example showed, they had to exclude swearwords from awards programming, but could show saving private Ryan. I feel the standards should be strictly formulated, including looking at violence, and implemented.

I just feel there should be an enforced standard that is considered acceptable for children on state broadcasting. With that said though, I also feel that the standards should be regularly re-assessed to move with the times. Languages change, as do attitudes towards what is acceptable and unacceptable.
I see your point, and I largely agree. I just have one point of contention, and one point of how broadcasting is in the US.

Point of Contention: What is or isn't appropriate for children to see largely depends on the child in question and their parents. I agree that the younger a child is the less able they are to properly handle violence and sexual themes, but there is no hard and fast rule on what those ages are. I also feel it should be up to the parents to decide which programming is acceptable for their children to watch, and to not feel like the television is an acceptable baby-sitter. I mean, they've even made television programs that seems to be specifically for infants (just look up "Boohbah" on Google to see such an example, though I actually find it quite creepy).

Point on US Broadcasting: The US doesn't really have state broadcasting. The publicly available broadcasting stations, whether they require a fee or no, get their finances from corporations that pay to have their advertisements aired. The only real difference between broadcast television, which has no fee to view, and cable/satellite television, which does have a fee to view (sometimes content specific), is that broadcast television must maintain their own broadcasting towers, while cable/satellite television goes through a content provider who selects which channels they wish to provide.

Now, if there was state broadcasting I would say it is fully within the right of the FCC to regulate what content the state can air. I just don't feel it's the business of the FCC to regulate what private companies can air (aside from content that would otherwise be against the law) on the sole basis of personal morality or because they feel they know better than parents what children should watch during normal children's waking hours.
The Rules, get to know them.


Offline N. De Plume

  • Mysterious Writing Implement
  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 1936
  • Gender: Male
  • Nom, nom, nom…
Re: USSC to weigh in on policing TV
« Reply #19 on: January 12, 2012, 11:20:58 am »
Just about every device you can hook up to a TV nowadays has it's own parental controls anyway, So the V-chip thing isn't even that necessary.
I am under the impression that there is still a lot of ignorance on the availability of such controls, though. The fact that such controls are so prevalent means that they are not a selling point, and therefore, almost never advertised. So a lot of people purchase the product, never really read the manual, and never realize that the controls are there.

However I feel that any state affiliated network should remain policed. (to be honest I don't know much about all the different American broadcasters, but in South Africa we have a state broadcaster and a few independent ones.)
The US has no state broadcast. The very nearest we have is public broadcasting, which does receive limited government funding, but is mostly supported through private contributions.
-A Pen Name

Offline Sigmaleph

  • Ungodlike
  • Administrator
  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 3544
    • sigmaleph on tumblr
Re: USSC to weigh in on policing TV
« Reply #20 on: January 12, 2012, 06:08:44 pm »
I have a rather amusing mental image of the Supreme Court releasing a profanity-laden statement restricting the FCC.
Have an Onion.
Σא