F the CC

[Toddy]

Something like 19 ABC affiliates in at least eight states (affecting 35% of the US population, apparently) refused to broadcast the special Veteran's Day broadcast of the uncut version of Saving Private Ryan last night, due to worries about FCC reprisals. WTF? All this just because of Janet Jackson's boob? This is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever seen. Er, not seen. And a pretty good indication of where the US is headed over the next four years when it comes to forcing broadcasters and publishers to self-censor.

So, in the United States of Jesus... Real war=A-OK! Fake war with lots of cussin' and fake bloodlettin'=Evil and subject to massive fines and complaints!

[Midnight Son]

Yup, the movies in Jesusland suck too.

[Tim Partlett]

How about the full director's cut of the Passion of Christ on Christmas Day?

[RichardC]

Er, not seen. And a pretty good indication of where the US is headed over the next four years when it comes to forcing broadcasters and publishers to self-censor.

Did I hear right that the problem wasn't the violence, but people saying 'Fuck'?

[Qenan]

It's OK to blow people up, so long as they don't cuss...

[Brian Rucker]

"We train young men to drop fire on people. But their commanders won't allow them to write "fuck" on their airplanes because it's obscene!"

--Col. Kurtz

[Midnight Son]

How about the full director's cut of the Passion of Christ on Christmas Day?

There are better S&M movies available......... :lol:

[Silverlight]

Something like 19 ABC affiliates in at least eight states (affecting 35% of the US population, apparently) refused to broadcast the special Veteran's Day broadcast of the uncut version of Saving Private Ryan last night, due to worries about FCC reprisals. WTF? All this just because of Janet Jackson's boob? This is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever seen. Er, not seen. And a pretty good indication of where the US is headed over the next four years when it comes to forcing broadcasters and publishers to self-censor.

I don't remember for sure, but according to what I've read, ABC did exactly the same thing last year (i.e. a big playing of SPR), and the FCC intentionally denied every single complaint that came in.

ABC's affiliates therefore know full well that the FCC is extremely unlikely to do anything, or accept any complaints that come in. Hell, ABC offered to pay any fine that the FCC levied, just to try to defuse the issue, and the affiliates still refused. They're trying to score political points by claiming that they're afraid for their free-speech rights.

[Jason McCullough]

Guess who those 19 stations are owned by! Did you say "Sinclair?" That's right, the same holding group that was planning to run a one-hour smear job on Kerry right before the election is now engaged in some sort of complicated head-fake with the FCC.

[Jakub]

As you can see from the topic, Brett's been playing too much GTA:SA.

[Jamie Madigan]

Guys, do you really want Saving Private Ryan shown on national broadcast TV during a time when many children may see it? That movie is wonderful, but it's HARSH. Even if they hacked out the whole beach storming scene, most kids would be horrified by what's left. Heck, I was horrified by parts, but at least I can cope with it. Younger viewers probably couldn't.

If this is question of not airing it more for the language than the violence, then that's a legitimate complaint, but the bottom line is that it's not appropriate for broadcast TV during prime time (I assume it was prime time. Wasn't it?).

[Jason McCullough]

Then how come their objection wasn't "not suitable for broadcast television?" They're complaining about the FCC wacking them, not refusing to air it because they think it's objectionable.

[Jamie Madigan]

So... The FCC (or fear of their wrath) is keeping them from airing it because the FCC doesn't think it's appropriate for braodcast television? Half dozen of one, six of the other.

[Lunch of Kong]

Guys, do you really want Saving Private Ryan shown on national broadcast TV during a time when many children may see it?

Hell yeah. I'd love for this generation of children to grow up with a psychological aversion to war.

[Jason McCullough]

So... The FCC (or fear of their wrath) is keeping them from airing it because the FCC doesn't think it's appropriate for braodcast television? Half dozen of one, six of the other.

But the FCC isn't stopping them. Out of all the ABC affiliates, the only ones that think the FCC is going to get pissy afterwards and come after them are 13 Sinclair-owned stations. Seeing how Sinclair's stock price is tanking and they've got some bizarre political shit going on, not amount of cynicism is too much here.

[chet]

Our abc affiliate is not owned by sinclair, but they blocked it. And instead of playing any of the hundreds of acceptable war movies - midway, longest day, patton, etc - they played matlock reruns.

But i don't get that the FCC would not say they would or wouldn't fine them before hand because that according to them would be censorship. WTF? They knew the movie, it wasn't a live broadcast where something could slip in, why not just say it?

Chet

[Nick Walter]

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/loc...home-headlines

According to this article the Sinclair stations aren't even a majority among the ABC affiliates refusing to broadcast the movie. 9 out of 20-something. So pinning this on Sinclair in some bizarre attempt at conspiracy theory just don't fly.

I think the stations are right to be nervous of the FCC, they've been a lot more publically agressive since the outrage over the Super Bowl nonsense.

[Duality]

Guys, do you really want Saving Private Ryan shown on national broadcast TV during a time when many children may see it? That movie is wonderful, but it's HARSH. Even if they hacked out the whole beach storming scene, most kids would be horrified by what's left. Heck, I was horrified by parts, but at least I can cope with it. Younger viewers probably couldn't.

Shouldn't that be left up to parents?

But yes, it all has to do with the language, and not the violent content ...

The highly acclaimed Steven Spielberg drama, which is recommended for mature audiences by the motion picture industry, contains language that the FCC has recently deemed as inappropriate within the "safe harbor" of programming prior to 10 p.m.

From a news release by Milwaukee's local ABC affiliate.

[Euri]

I was under the impression that a lot of stations wouldn't run it because they didn't know if the FCC would fine them or not. They asked and just weren't given a real response.


Who has a list of where it did and did not play? I think it played here last night, (KOMO 4) but I didn't actually tune in to make sure. TiVo is usually pretty good at last minute schedule changes if something does or does not air.

[Silverlight]

But i don't get that the FCC would not say they would or wouldn't fine them before hand because that according to them would be censorship. WTF? They knew the movie, it wasn't a live broadcast where something could slip in, why not just say it?

The FCC isn't actually legally allowed to say it until the broadcast goes on the air, because making a pre-broadcast judgement would be tantamount to allowing a broadcast to be prevented before the fact instead of merely penalized afterwards. Even when there are constitutional free-speech restrictions, the government cannot actually legally censor you - they can only prosecute you afterwards. The FCC would be opening itself up to serious legal problems by pre-emptively making an official declaration that a broadcast is okay.

The reason I don't buy the affiliates' story is because they know all of this already. The FCC can't give them an official response in either direction, but they're seizing on the FCC's silence to try and make a point.

[Jason McCullough]

Ah, is actually isn't all Sinclair according to this:

http://www.floridatoday.com/!NEWSROOM/localstoryN1112PRIVATERYAN.htm

My bad, NPR was sayin' last night.

[Jamie Madigan]

Shouldn't that be left up to parents?

Sure. But part of a parent's arsenal should be knowing if ABC prime-time programming is going to be horrific. We may expect it to be insipid, churlish, or patronizing, but not horrific, frightening, or graphic. And I'm not just talking about toddlers here. Many pre-teens or younger can be pretty wiley about watching stuff unsupervised. You can say "it's the parents' fault!" all you want, and it often is, but they shouldn't have the deck stacked against them.

[Toddy]

The reason I don't buy the affiliates' story is because they know all of this already. The FCC can't give them an official response in either direction, but they're seizing on the FCC's silence to try and make a point.

But what point is that, exactly? What do these affiliates have to gain by taking shots at the FCC? How are they scoring political points? Your idea might hold water if ABC itself was saying "We can't show this movie because of the political climate around the FCC right now." But how do individual stations and small chains gain from taking this stance?

Seems to me like they preempted SPR last night because of the reason they cited -- they were afraid of being hammered with fines by the FCC, in wake of Nipplegate (which, by the way, took place three months after Veterans's Day last year, so you can't say that this is the same thing as last year with SPR).

I just don't get the US preoccupation with naughty words. Here, we get Sopranos episodes, uncut, in prime time, and nobody utters a peep.

[Midnight Son]

ABC put up lots of warnings ahead of time. It seems that most parents would have been properly informed.

[Jason McCullough]

Well if you realllllly want to be cynical, apparently advertising revenue for showing network programming has to be shared with the network, but local programming doesn't.

[Silverlight]

But what point is that, exactly? What do these affiliates have to gain by taking shots at the FCC? How are they scoring political points? Your idea might hold water if ABC itself was saying "We can't show this movie because of the political climate around the FCC right now." But how do individual stations and small chains gain from taking this stance?

Seems to me like they preempted SPR last night because of the reason they cited -- they were afraid of being hammered with fines by the FCC, in wake of Nipplegate (which, by the way, took place three months after Veterans's Day last year, so you can't say that this is the same thing as last year with SPR).

I assume they're trying to score political points against the FCC because it's the only rational explanation I have.

Nipplegate didn't change the political climate, it just provided a test case from the other side of the line, as it was known. If you had asked people before last year's Super Bowl about whether a Janet-Jackson-like incident would fly with the FCC, the odds are good that the answer would be "no". And that's exactly what happened.

What's more, ABC made it abundantly clear that it was willing to absorb all of the financial risk from the affiliates, something they would not have offered if they actually thought the FCC would have a problem with it. I'm willing to bet more on ABC's lawyers than the affiliate's lawyers, and I don't see why the affiliates would think differently.

Since the affiliates have no compelling reason not to put on Saving Private Ryan as in previous years, I'm forced to assume that the affiliates simply wanted to make a problem.

[Silverlight]

Random additional point:

If the FCC actually fines anyone for the SPR broadcast that most of the affiliates put on, then I am fully in agreement with cursing the shit out of them, because they'll deserve it. Until they actually do, they've done nothing wrong or illegal, and acted as they are legally supposed to do in saying nothing.

[Nick Walter]

What's more, ABC made it abundantly clear that it was willing to absorb all of the financial risk from the affiliates, something they would not have offered if they actually thought the FCC would have a problem with it. I'm willing to bet more on ABC's lawyers than the affiliate's lawyers, and I don't see why the affiliates would think differently.

Since the affiliates have no compelling reason not to put on Saving Private Ryan as in previous years, I'm forced to assume that the affiliates simply wanted to make a problem.

Where are you getting your info on ABC covering the risk? None of the articles I've read have mentioned that and it seems like a fairly big fact for them to omit.

[Silverlight]

The Boston Globe's story of Nov 12:

ABC spokeswoman Susan Sewell acknowledged that the network refused to allow affiliates to push the start time past 8 p.m., saying ABC wanted the movie "to run in pattern across the country." She said ABC was offering to pay any fines levied by the FCC and noted that the film had been broadcast in 2001 and 2002 and had also survived an indecency complaint before the FCC.

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel's story of Nov 11:

ABC has told its affiliates it would cover any fines, but Cole, of Citadel, said the network could not protect its affiliates against other FCC sanctions.

The New York Times story of November 11 doesn't mention ABC's fine offer, but it's also Reuters's copy, which would explain why many newspapers don't mention it.* It does mention the FCC response to requests for assurance though:

Janice Wise, spokeswoman for the FCC's enforcement bureau, said they had received calls from broadcasters asking if the film would run afoul of the rules. Wise said the commission was barred from making a prebroadcast decision ``because that would be censorship.''

*[size=2]No, I'm not claiming bias on Reuters's part, they probably just missed it.[/size]

[Nick Walter]

Ahh, thanks for the links Silverlight.

After researching it a little more, it looks like the FCC can respond to an indecency complaint with fines, revocation of license, or "sanctions" that the affiliate must meet in order to renew their broadcast license. So ABC didn't offer full protection but I still think that the affiliate stations are doing this to publically discredit the FCC a bit.

Which is fine by me, I don't like govt regulation of content :D