Thank you for being a valued part of the CNET community. As of December 1, 2020, the forums are in read-only format. In early 2021, CNET Forums will no longer be available. We are grateful for the participation and advice you have provided to one another over the years.

Thanks,

CNET Support

General discussion

Super Bowl Stunt May Force Change In Broadcast Standards

Feb 7, 2004 1:23AM PST

Could'nt find a spot in the Boobie discussions to hang it on. 239 posts?? wow, must be some sort of record.

Anyway, thought the Janet Jackson Fans might be interested in this article. Those Jacksons sure know how to get publicity.

http://www.thebostonchannel.com/news/2828076/detail.html

Discussion is locked

- Collapse -
Re: Change In Broadcast Standards -- danger is going too far
Feb 7, 2004 7:18AM PST
- Collapse -
Re:Re: Change In Broadcast Standards -- danger is going too far
Feb 7, 2004 8:27AM PST

Noah's flood, the Holocaust, Pearl Harbor, Hiroshima, 9-11, Superbowl 2004...... am I the only one to think: "Over-reaction!!!!"???

It was inappropriate and uncalled for - but not worth this uproar. 9-11 did not bring America to its kness, this one single boob seems to have done it. Get over it, nobody was blinded by the display, nobody will turn down the wrong road of life because of it.

And to that woman (first in line of many, I assume) who's sueing...if your morals are so mimosical that Janet shattered them.... what about the morality of trying to steal undeserved and unearned riches????

Neither in the bible nor in the constitution do we receive the guarantee/promise/right to: ....Not Get Offended!!!

Which again brings me back to my earlier - unasked - question: How many of the "offended" allow their teenage daugthers to run around belly-button bearing and clad in boob-hugging t-shirts displaying and believing the message that sexuality conquers all - without teaching them (or just forbidding them) that it's not???

Look at it like you'd look at a fart in church - not pleasant, shouldn't have been there, but now worth wasting your breath over!!!

But that's just my opinion.

- Collapse -
Re:Re:Re: Change In Broadcast Standards -- danger is going too far
Feb 7, 2004 8:37AM PST

Its not about just a single Boob, its the whole damn cable industry invading our living standards and most of all our computers. They are the biggest spreaders of filth, crime and viruses out there.

Have a good day.

George

- Collapse -
(nt) Didnt't realize the boob was symbolical - my bad!
Feb 7, 2004 8:39AM PST

.

- Collapse -
Re: Change In Broadcast Standards -- danger is going too far
Feb 7, 2004 1:24PM PST

Hi, George.

So if you don't like cable, don't suscribe. Don't try to force your values onto the rest of us. My viewing life would be a lot poorer without "Sex in the City" and "Coupling" (the original BBC version, not the NBC atrocity that mangled the same scripts), but they're precisely the sort of shows you probably don't want to see. Neither, however, is anything close to pornography -- but nor are they for children.

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

- Collapse -
Since you bought up the British version of 'Coupling'
Feb 8, 2004 8:44AM PST

Do you think it belongs on broadcast tv?

Even more surprising, it's turned up on one broadcast PBS station. PBS was for a while was at least "safe for kids" at almost anytime, though a few shows, mostly old British sitcoms (which I enjoy) that normally came on a bit latter had lots of inneduo and double talk.

I was a bit surprised to find Coupling on PBS starting a few weeks ago though.

- Collapse -
Re: Since you bought up the British version of 'Coupling'
Feb 8, 2004 12:07PM PST

Hi, Roger.

Both K and I watch and enjoy "Coupling" very much -- and it IS on broadcast TV in Britain, which has many fewer channels than we do. That said, I'd say it's acceptable on broadcast TV here, but only fairly late at night (it was at least half an hour too early in the 8:30 Eastern time-slot, IMCO) and with a "Mature" rating. I'd say the same of "Whoopi," btw -- which we also enjoy very much.

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

- Collapse -
Isn't that exactly what you are doing? Forcing your values on the rest of us. (NT)
Feb 8, 2004 11:52AM PST

.

- Collapse -
Re:Isn't that exactly what you are doing? Forcing your values on the rest of us. Not at all!
Feb 8, 2004 12:10PM PST

Hi, KP.

You are free to turn a show off, and block it from your kids if you choose. The show being on the air doesn't force my values on you, because you don't have to watch. On the other hand, your banning the show imposes your values on me, because if it's not on, I CAN'T watch!

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

- Collapse -
(NT) Is someone forcing you to buy premium cable channels?
Feb 8, 2004 11:23PM PST

.

- Collapse -
The issue is ...
Feb 9, 2004 12:28AM PST

... with the improved content on cable, the broadcast channels are woefully inadequate these days. And as I've mentioned a few times by now, if you live in an area like mine, you can't even get good reception on the Big 3 + Fox. Yeah, kids watch too much TV, but don't you think they should be able to watch some for "mindless fun" like we did? Dave is the one trying to turn this into a censorship issue -- nobody is after your precious HBO series Dave! You and I both know that filtering at the level of the TV is not only a PITA but probably easily bypassed by the clever kid. Wouldn't it be nice if the channels themselves agreed voluntarily to adhere to broadcast standards? That those standards could be a little more agressively applied so that we can have a family hour and reruns of PG13 programming isIs there anything inherently wrong with that -- it would probably be a selling point to most parents for that to be the case. This way they don't have to waste precious time scrutinizing every little dang show just so they can catch a moment's break while the kiddie bells watch a show. It would be nice to have a basic cable package that didn't include MTV for example. And if that's not possible, it would be nice to know that some outfits might even promote themselves and kid and family friendly.

Evie Happy

- Collapse -
Re:The issue is ...
Feb 9, 2004 4:07AM PST

Many parents don't consider raising their children to be a waste of their precious time. Raising kids is a big time commitment.

Dan

- Collapse -
Yes, and those parents would like society to quit making it harder for them. (nt)
Feb 9, 2004 4:22AM PST

.

- Collapse -
I'd like society to make things easier for me, too. -nt
Feb 9, 2004 4:44AM PST

.

- Collapse -
Re:The issue is ...
Feb 9, 2004 4:14AM PST

It's been tried, Evie. Remember the "family hour?" You don't hear about it anymore because the ratings were so bad the networks gradually dropped it.

A lot of the shows that would be affected by such a change in standards are so dumb anyway that it might be a plus to see them gone. One peeve of mine is seeing movies "edited for content" on TV. My feeling (and I guess this is because I'm a creative person) is that if a station doesn't have the courage to broadcast a film as it was released, they shouldn't broadcast it at all. In some cases, if it's only a stray word or two, the effect isn't that bad, but have you ever tried to sit through a movie like 48 Hours (or what's left of it after the editing) on the USA network? It's unwatchable.

Then of course you get into the whole "who sets the standards" thing. I'm sure there are people who would like to see things turned back to the days when Lucy couldn't use the word "pregnant" and nobody could figure out how she got that way since she and Ricky slept in separate beds.

- Collapse -
Re:Re:The issue is ...
Feb 9, 2004 4:21AM PST
I'm sure there are people who would like to see things turned back to the days when Lucy couldn't use the word "pregnant" and nobody could figure out how she got that way since she and Ricky slept in separate beds.

I see you finally figured it out? Hows the kid doing anyway?
- Collapse -
Re:Re:Re:The issue is ...
Feb 9, 2004 4:31AM PST

LOL, I hope you're kidding. If you want "Leave it to Beaver," then tune in to TV Land.

My daughter is doing great. Something new happens every day. Other than her obsession with Barney, it's a constant joy.

Happy

- Collapse -
I am so glad...
Feb 9, 2004 4:39AM PST

...I'm not the only one who's suffered through Barney, LOL. In my sleep I sweetly dream of tearing apart purple dinosaurs, and that tune, that mind numbing tune, over and over again.

Thankfully Chrissy seems mostly beyond the Teletubbies, but once in awhile when bored will watch it again.

Actually I wouldn't mind reliving some of those old shows like Leave it to Beaver, but then I would have to get cable ;^)

My mother hates that Caillou cartoon. She calls him, "that whiney little bald headed kid". If I had carried on like that at his age I'd have been sitting carefully more often than not.

- Collapse -
Re:I am so glad...
Feb 9, 2004 4:52AM PST

Oh man, that's the worst, when you get one of those Barney songs in your head and you can't get rid of it. I'll tease my wife: "Hey, you know which Barney song I can't shake today?" And she'll shout "DON'T TELL ME!!!"

We had a couple of Teletubbies videos but I got rid of them once our daughter started talking. The Teletubbies talk in "baby talk" and I was afraid it would teach her some bad habits. I'm sure I was worrying too much but she doesn't miss them so no harm done.

It's nice to escape into an old "Leave it to Beaver" once in awhile but I can't imagine having all programming being that vapid anymore.

- Collapse -
Cable doesn't invade, you invite it and pay for it!
Feb 8, 2004 11:05PM PST

.

- Collapse -
True, but ...
Feb 8, 2004 11:33PM PST

... in many areas such as mine, if you don't invite and pay for it, you basically don't even get the broadcast channels. It's nice to have some TV for kids don't you think?

- Collapse -
I agree, but...
Feb 9, 2004 4:10AM PST

If you choose to take on the responsibility of having children, and you choose to take on the repsonsibility of letting them watch TV, and you choose take on the responsibility cable service into your child's house, then it pretty much makes you responsible for what they watch. Such personal reponsibility should not be abondoned in favor of one size fits all government regulations.

Dan

- Collapse -
It's not just this. This was just a trigger for America releasing it's pent up anger over all the immorality that's being pushed at us. (nt)
Feb 7, 2004 8:38AM PST

.

- Collapse -
Not me. (NT)
Feb 7, 2004 9:50AM PST

.

- Collapse -
I think the point was ...
Feb 8, 2004 12:17AM PST

... along the lines of the straw that broke the camel's back.

You are right about the clothing. Actually, it seems the tide might be turning. After several semesters of seeing tatoo adorned butt cleavage when my students sit on the lab stools, the dress on campuses seems to be a bit more modest. Still seeing the stuff in the stores but there are signs of hope.

It's sad that kids can't go to the mall without being bombarded by larger than life images of half naked people in suggestive positions (Victoria's Secret, Ambercrombie & FItch). You can't watch a show at family hour that isn't interupted by commercials for Viagra and herpes pills.

It used to be this kind of crap was containied to Jerry Springer. He was pretty much laughed out of running for Congress last cycle because of the controversial topics on his shows. Well MTV and its ilk are no better. If I were a parent, there would be no MTV in my home ... and as I watch TV thinking if I would have my kid sitting next to me, I question if I would even have the TV at all.

Evie Happy

- Collapse -
Re:I think the point was ...
Feb 8, 2004 12:41AM PST

I agree with you Evie. One thing for sure, Something has got to be done about these commercials. They did it with the cigarette ads.

- Collapse -
Hear, hear Evie, but the kids do eventually find stuff they
Feb 8, 2004 8:07AM PST

want to watch. In our case, its NOT Janet Jackson, MTV, or their ilk.

- Collapse -
Re:I think the point was ...
Feb 8, 2004 11:11PM PST

It's a good thing children have parents, that way the government doesn't have to raise them and control what they watch.

Dan

- Collapse -
Geez Dan ...
Feb 8, 2004 11:42PM PST

... nobody is asking for the government to raise and control their kids. Parents are just asking for a little help in THEIR ability to raise and control what their kids are exposed to. There used to be times and shows that parents could watch with their kids without having to turn the whole thing into some learning experience about rape, breasts, erections, etc.

It's funny. As a kid I never realized Three's Company was even controversial. We watched that show quite often together as a family and laughes our butts off. Compare that to all the boyfriend/girlfriend who has kids with who, trash on Friends at 8pm. Sex on Three's Company was all about innuendo/suggestion on a backdrop of comedy. It wasn't this "spongeworthy", masturbation betting, fighting over the last condom in the communal box type crap we are fed these days. I have no problem with Friends at 10pm or maybe even at 9pm. It doesn't belong at 8pm, and the locals are taking liberties with the content they put on earlier in the evening in the form of reruns of these shows that were never intended to air at that hour. Sigh Sad

- Collapse -
Re:Geez Dan ...
Feb 9, 2004 4:14AM PST

We all want someone else to shoulder part of our responsibilites, that's only human. But it's not a particularly admirable trait.

Dan