Saving Private Ryan too indecent for TV?

What do you think about the world?
Post Reply
User avatar
Brotha
Almost 1337
Almost 1337
Posts: 943
Joined: September 6, 2002, 5:31 pm
Location: Houston, TX

Saving Private Ryan too indecent for TV?

Post by Brotha »

What a load of crap.

http://money.cnn.com/2004/11/11/news/fo ... tm?cnn=yes
NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - ABC affiliates in at least eight states will not televise the network's broadcast of the World War II film "Saving Private Ryan" because they fear repercussions from U.S. regulators.

Affiliates in Alabama, Georgia, Iowa, Massachusetts, North Carolina, Ohio, South Carolina and West Virginia said they were worried about running afoul of the Federal Communications Commission in Washington.

WOI-TV in Des Moines, Iowa, for example, said it decided to pre-empt the Academy Award winning film, which depicts several violent battle scenes and contains foul language, over concerns about possible fines by the FCC.

"Would the FCC conclude that the movie has sufficient social, artistic, literary, historical or other kinds of value that would protect us from breaking the law?" WOI-TV President Raymond Cole said in a statement appearing on its Web site. "With the current FCC, we just don't know."

Janice Wise, spokeswoman for the FCC's enforcement bureau, told Reuters it had received calls from broadcasters asking if the film would run afoul of the agency's indecency rules. Wise said the commission was barred from making a decision before the broadcast "because that would be censorship."

"If we get a complaint, we'll act on it," she said.

But at least one watchgroup group that has urged the FCC to levy harsher fines for questionable programming said the broadcast should go ahead.

The group, the Parents Television Council, said in a statement on its Web site that "context is everything."

"We agreed with the FCC on its ruling that the airing of "Schindler's List" on television was not indecent and we feel that "Saving Private Ryan" is in the same category," it said. "In both films, the content is not meant to shock, nor is it gratuitous."

WOI-TV's Cole noted that the station is still concerned even though it has shown "Saving Private Ryan" in prime time on two previous occasions.

Since those broadcasts, however, the FCC has taken a strong stand recently against obscenity and profanity -- especially after the raunchy half-time show during the last Super Bowl telecast. Fines also have been levied for radio shows hosted by "shock jocks."

Another affiliate, WSB-TV in Atlanta, said it asked ABC for permission to air the film after 10 p.m. and to have the option to edit some of the scenes.

"ABC would not allow that, nor would it give permission for us to edit out the graphic language," said WSB-TV General Manager Greg Stone in a statement.

"With no options available regarding the preparation of the movie or altering the start time, we decided to pre-empt the network on this night," he added.

Instead, WSB-TV will air several programs produced by its staff.

A fellow affiliate, South Carolina's WSOC-TV, said in a statement on its Web site that ABC's contract with Steven Spielberg prohibits stations carrying the film to edit its content.

WSOC-TV said it made its decision to withdraw "Saving Private Ryan" amid the war in Iraq and concerns about FCC penalties.

In addition, Sinclair Broadcasting Corp.'s six ABC affiliates will not air the program, according to a spokeswoman for affiliate WGGB-TV in Springfield, Mass. Sinclair affiliates in North Carolina, West Virginia, Ohio, Alabama and Massachusetts were also affected.

ABC, a unit of Walt Disney Co. (Research), has said it is proud to air the 1999 film again.

"As in the past, this broadcast will contain appropriate and clear advisories and parental guidelines, and, as customary, we will provide advance screenings for ABC affiliates and advertisers," the network said in a statement.
Freedom of speech makes it much easier to spot the idiots.
User avatar
Akaran_D
Way too much time!
Way too much time!
Posts: 4151
Joined: July 3, 2002, 2:38 pm
Location: Somewhere in my head...
Contact:

Post by Akaran_D »

Can you blame the stations for refusing to air it?
Wit the FCC gnashing at its bit, I'd be nervous about doing it too.
Akaran of Mistmoore, formerly Akaran of Veeshan
I know I'm good at what I do, but I know I'm not the best.
But I guess that on the other hand, I could be like the rest.
User avatar
XunilTlatoani
Star Farmer
Star Farmer
Posts: 379
Joined: September 6, 2002, 2:37 pm
Location: Lakemoor, IL

Post by XunilTlatoani »

Talk about gray area...

So, if the FCC tells the broadcasters beforehand that what they air will be fined, it's censorship. But having broadcasters pull a show because they're scared they might get fined isn't censorship?
Xunil Tlatoani - Gnome Arch Lich (Retired)
Keepers of the Elements

Tlatoani - Gnome Warlock
Light of Dawn (Lightbringer Server)
User avatar
Marbus
Way too much time!
Way too much time!
Posts: 2378
Joined: July 4, 2002, 2:21 am
Contact:

Post by Marbus »

The FCC serves no purpose and should be done away with...
User avatar
Xouqoa
Way too much time!
Way too much time!
Posts: 4105
Joined: July 2, 2002, 5:49 pm
Gender: Mangina
XBL Gamertag: Xouqoa
Location: Dallas, TX
Contact:

Post by Xouqoa »

FCC stands for Federal Censorship Commission, right? Right?
"Our problems are man-made, therefore they may be solved by man. No problem of human destiny is beyond human beings." - John F Kennedy
User avatar
Skogen
Way too much time!
Way too much time!
Posts: 1972
Joined: November 18, 2002, 6:48 pm
Location: Claremont, Ca.
Contact:

Post by Skogen »

Xouqoa wrote:FCC stands for Federal Censorship Commission, right? Right?
It SHOULD stnad for that. What really pisses me off is that the FCC is an appointed body, not elected!
User avatar
Aruman
Almost 1337
Almost 1337
Posts: 683
Joined: July 3, 2002, 8:53 pm

Post by Aruman »

Janice Wise, spokeswoman for the FCC's enforcement bureau, told Reuters it had received calls from broadcasters asking if the film would run afoul of the agency's indecency rules. Wise said the commission was barred from making a decision before the broadcast "because that would be censorship."

"If we get a complaint, we'll act on it," she said.
To me that says the FCC only investigates or acts on complaints.

The people who may do the complaining are the instigators if they were to complain about Saving Private Ryan content that is aired. The FCC would only be doing what they are supposed to when people/organizations make a complaint.

Also, Spielberg didn't leave ABC much room to avoid such situations:
A fellow affiliate, South Carolina's WSOC-TV, said in a statement on its Web site that ABC's contract with Steven Spielberg prohibits stations carrying the film to edit its content.
User avatar
Moonwynd
Almost 1337
Almost 1337
Posts: 919
Joined: July 11, 2003, 5:05 am
Gender: Male
Location: Middle of nowhere

Post by Moonwynd »

I have always believed that the content of signals open to anyone with an antenna should be regulated. However cable television and the like are accessed via a service provider that one must pay/subscribe to. The FCC should have no say in what is on non broadcast channels (a whole different topic)

I know that as one of the big networks, ABC and their affiliates are accessible via good old fashioned rabbit ears. With the FCC coming down hard I can see why some of the affiliates are a little jumpy.
Hesten
Way too much time!
Way too much time!
Posts: 2620
Joined: April 29, 2003, 3:50 pm

Post by Hesten »

Hmm, that means that its ok to send people to war, but its not OK for them to see one of the better movies about how war is?
"Terrorism is the war of the poor, and war is the terrorism of the rich"
User avatar
Aruman
Almost 1337
Almost 1337
Posts: 683
Joined: July 3, 2002, 8:53 pm

Post by Aruman »

Hesten wrote:Hmm, that means that its ok to send people to war, but its not OK for them to see one of the better movies about how war is?
It's the language at issue, not the imagery if I am not mistaken.
Homercles
Almost 1337
Almost 1337
Posts: 628
Joined: July 8, 2002, 3:52 pm

Post by Homercles »

and its not the government saying you cant air this movie. Its indivual stations that are afraid the airing of the movie will bring complaints, which the FCC will be forced to listen too and then judge wether the complaints are legitimate. If deemed legit then fines could be forthcoming.

No complaints = no worries

but this country has become to pussified and people are afraid the "f-word" will cause people to lose all their morals and walk around fucking and shitting at everybody they come across.....so I would expect there to be complaints

So rather than risk a fine because of a few pussified complaints, some TV stations are choosing not to air the movie


It has absolutely nothing to do with sending people to war.
User avatar
Seebs
Way too much time!
Way too much time!
Posts: 1158
Joined: June 5, 2003, 3:00 pm
Gender: Male

Post by Seebs »

They are pulling it and replacing it with less offensive shows. NYPD Blue and WIll and Grace reruns will be in its stead.

Oh, and I believe there will be a special 30-minute presentation of Ellen Degenital eating a quart of rice pudding out of Rosie O'donald's twat.

Tasteful!
Seeber
looking for a WOW server
Voronwë
Super Poster!
Super Poster!
Posts: 7176
Joined: July 3, 2002, 12:57 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA

Post by Voronwë »

especially considering it has aired on national TV a few times.

anyway, i think it is mostly a way to try to publically embarrass the FCC, which they deserve, in my opinion.
Aaeamdar
Almost 1337
Almost 1337
Posts: 721
Joined: July 8, 2002, 2:18 pm
Gender: Male
Location: Los Angeles
Contact:

Post by Aaeamdar »

Its amusing to see the people so firmly intersted in keeping in place those willing to enforce their version of morality crying because a law (or rather a set of laws) put in place to "protect" innocent viewers from profanity and sex is now preventing the national broadcasting of something they like.

It's your price for voting against freedom. Enjoy it.
User avatar
Aruman
Almost 1337
Almost 1337
Posts: 683
Joined: July 3, 2002, 8:53 pm

Post by Aruman »

Aaeamdar wrote:Its amusing to see the people so firmly intersted in keeping in place those willing to enforce their version of morality crying because a law (or rather a set of laws) put in place to "protect" innocent viewers from profanity and sex is now preventing the national broadcasting of something they like.

It's your price for voting against freedom. Enjoy it.
/shrug. Go buy the DVD if you want to see it anytime you like. Like I did.

Why wait for it to be broadcast.
User avatar
Xzion
Way too much time!
Way too much time!
Posts: 2567
Joined: September 22, 2002, 7:36 pm

Re: Saving Private Ryan too indecent for TV?

Post by Xzion »

Brotha wrote:What a load of crap.

statement.
[/quote]
You voted for bush, quit your godamn bitching, conservative pussy
-xzionis human mage on mannoroth
-zeltharath tauren shaman on wildhammer
User avatar
Kylere
Way too much time!
Way too much time!
Posts: 3354
Joined: July 3, 2002, 6:26 pm
Location: Flint, Michigan

Post by Kylere »

LOL

The FCC has been the ass forever, remember they were going after Stern the entire time Clinton was President. Selective memories seem to be the overriding factor here.

I blame the 700 Club more than anyone else.
She Dreams in Digital
\"Led Zeppelin taught an entire generation of young men how to make love, if they just listen\"- Michael Reed(2005)
User avatar
Aslanna
Super Poster!
Super Poster!
Posts: 12479
Joined: July 3, 2002, 12:57 pm

Post by Aslanna »

Aruman wrote:Also, Spielberg didn't leave ABC much room to avoid such situations:
A fellow affiliate, South Carolina's WSOC-TV, said in a statement on its Web site that ABC's contract with Steven Spielberg prohibits stations carrying the film to edit its content.
Which, in my opinion, is a good thing. If I were him I'd have the same policy on that. I also wouldn't let them chop it up and make it fullscreen.
Have You Hugged An Iksar Today?

--
User avatar
Winnow
Super Poster!
Super Poster!
Posts: 27728
Joined: July 5, 2002, 1:56 pm
Location: A Special Place in Hell

Post by Winnow »

Saving Private Ryan is a pretty intense movie. The opening battle scene played in a theater is very disturbing.

There's nothing wrong with the movie besides it potentially giving teenage kids, that might end up watching it, serious nightmares.

We all know that there are many parents that suck ass and won't know or will let kids that are too young to watch this have access to it. A perent that's out of touch with movies and content could very well call in an voice their displeasure if they happen to turn the TV on, after missing a warning at the beginning of the movie, and the first thing that they see is the guy's arm being blown off or the guy missing a face on the beach.

I'm all for pr0n being broadcast on the major networks as well but the Howard Stern groupies that push the limits just to cause trouble cause movies like SPV not to be aired. Why can't we have bukkake in prime time? I'm as perverted as the next VVer but somehow I can grasp that there's no need for excessive sex, gore or liberalism to be broadcast over the airwaves.

This is another case of liberal whining that I can empathize with but also see why the liberals caused this themselves by cheering on Howard Stern's retardedness.

I don't think Saving Private Ryan is being held back from the public. It's aired all over the place. Spielberg wants to preserve the movie in it's original form and that's admirable but it also means that it shouldn't be shown on the major networks.
User avatar
Animalor
Super Poster!
Super Poster!
Posts: 5902
Joined: July 8, 2002, 12:03 pm
Gender: Male
XBL Gamertag: Anirask
PSN ID: Anirask
Location: Canada

Post by Animalor »

Personally I think it's sad when works like SPR, which depicts a horrible time in our history, is not broadcast because the broadcasters fear repercussion from the government.

I don't believe that the FCC is obselete, It's mandate however needs to be redefined.

Accepting any complains from the public on offensive material is not the right way to do it.
Post Reply