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 -
We want the "living room" concept back.
Feb 9, 2004 4:32AM PST

The TV brings things into our living room and therefore it shouldn't have such objectionable content on it that the majority don't want in their living room. Hey, maybe you can try and orchestrate a TV buyback campaign in an effort to protect Trash TV from the will of the majority.

- Collapse -
My living room is fine, thanks
Feb 9, 2004 4:35AM PST

There's never anything objectionable on my TV for more than a few seconds. I consider that my individual responsibility. Why do you not exercise yours to the same degree?

Dan

- Collapse -
(nt) I did, no cable. I sacrifice some things I would like to view, but my kids are worth it to me.
Feb 9, 2004 4:42AM PST

.

- Collapse -
You go! I applaud your efforts and sacrifices. -nt
Feb 9, 2004 4:46AM PST

.

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

Hi Dave:

From what I can determine, unless I mis-interpreted this article, which I am Prone to do. It looks like our chosen Lawmakers will have to re-write the Constitution to give the FCC Authority to regulate Cable. Its back to the old money game and pass the buck I guess.

George

- Collapse -
I agree. Cable should also be regulated for decency.
Feb 7, 2004 9:49AM PST

Maybe the writers would have to go back to work to produce creative writing.

- Collapse -
Re: I agree. Cable should also be regulated for decency.
Feb 7, 2004 1:27PM PST

Hi, KP.

How typical -- you feel the right not just to decide what comes into your house, but into mine as well. That's not the American way -- to use the same rhetoric y'all do, why don't you go to Iran, where the government enforces religiously based decency standards on everyone?

-- 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 -
A little "much", Dave...
Feb 7, 2004 2:54PM PST

Dave, I realize that you disagree, but don't you think that that post was a little "much"?
If it were something like a library putting Hustler Magazine on the reading room magazine racks, you voiced an opinion that you didn't like the idea and then I said, "why don't you go to Iran, where the government enforces religiously based decency standards on everyone?" would you then say that my saying that was totally in-line?
I also happened to notice your use of the words "the same rhetoric y'all do". "y'all", Dave, trying to imply that this single member is but one member of some group, and therefore their opinion is invalid because in your opinion this "group" is in some way bad, inferior, (fill in your word of choice)?

- Collapse -
Re:Re: I agree. Cable should also be regulated for decency.
Feb 8, 2004 12:26AM PST

Ya know Dave, as cable TV becomes more prevalent, even the most "basic" of packages include objectionable material. In these parts it is almost an all or nothing deal with TV at all because without cable I think I can get two stations clear and maybe another couple fuzzy. Yes, there are certain filters -- and we all know how good kids are at circumventing these -- but from comments here and amongst friends, it has gotten to the point of where parents have to choose all or nothing in the cable market. How about a "clean" rating for stations? IOW, I could get a basic package with stations that maintained the decency standards of broadcast TV. Then you wanna watch filth you can subscribe to the MTV package. As it is right now, one of your favorite shows is on a premium channel -- HBO -- and I highly doubt such would ever be subjected to more regulation. That's the kind of station that such material belongs on. I could care less what you want to get wired into your home. I'm not for removing it from the air, and I don't think any of the others here are either. We're just asking for some exercise of "common" decency.

Evie Happy

- Collapse -
(NT) Message has been deleted.
Feb 8, 2004 1:37AM PST
- Collapse -
Pls delete above, I started a new thread for it instead. (nt)
Feb 8, 2004 1:40AM PST

.

- Collapse -
Re: I agree. Cable should also be regulated for decency.
Feb 8, 2004 6:02AM PST

Hi, Evie.

>>even the most "basic" of packages include objectionable material.<<
Objectionable to you, but most probably not to me. Here's an idea -- whay don't you watch what you want, and not worry about what I watch? That's called "choice," which is the basis of deomcracy, but seems to be anathema to much of the right. If you have your way, MY choice is greatly diminished. My way (the American way!) BOTH of us have a full range of choices -- and with parental control divices, you can't argue about your poor kids being perverted by inappropriate content. I do agree with the warnings, btw -- and I think the appropriate age ratings for TV shows should be included in TV listings, not just flashed on the screen at the start, when it's too late for an absent parent to do something abut it when a particular show has material that's a bit more mature than its norm.

-- 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 -
Re:Re: I agree. Cable should also be regulated for decency.
Feb 8, 2004 6:44AM PST

While I understand your points about limiting choices to others, I don't think asking for a cable package choice that included channels that more or less conformed to broadcast channel standards is limiting your choice. And that is what Evie last post, the one you're responding to, seems to be saying. Perhaps our interpretations differed.

I'm not against the optional channels carrying a more varied range, and the premium channels that you actually subcribe and pay extra don't have to be so limited.

Shrug, I've watched many a show that wouldn't be PG rated myself. I don't have premium channels now because they're not worth the extra cost to me. I have a lot of channels that I don't watch because my only other smaller package choice is about 5 local broadcast channels only. Or it use to be, I'm not sure it's even available anymore.

Broadcast channels, and many of the so called (or used to be called) superstations use roughly the same standards, Disney, Animal Planet, etc could be made an option for households that didn't want anything more.

Chuckling, of course, such a standard in the past would have required Fox (even broadcast stations) to have been limited to a concious choice considering how far it pushed the envelop a few years ago for broadcast tv.

roger

- Collapse -
That's the old mantra Dave, and it's getting a bit tired.
Feb 8, 2004 8:20AM PST

'If you don't like it, turn it off!'. Well, as you pointed out, the old capitalist system takes that argument and forces choice right out of the picture. In other words, TV will cater to the lowest common denominator, and my only 'choice' is to turn off the TV altogether. Sorry Dave, but broadcasts are public property and I have as much right to see what I want as you do. Perhaps more so if more people are in favor of my programs than are in favor of your programs. So, I don't want indecent material coming to my TV where my daughter can be exposed to it. I also want higher quality programming, and I will be in favor of anyone who can help me obtain that.

- Collapse -
Taking his approach...
Feb 8, 2004 8:31AM PST

...we should put out some liquor and cigarettes on the coffee table. Liquor and tobacco have high "sin taxes" on them and those selling them to minors face jail time but Cable porno and now the Super Bowl incident is readily available and it doesn't seem Janet Jackson will face any jail time. Hmmm, maybe it's only southern products that have to face those high "sin taxes"?

- Collapse -
Cable isn't public.
Feb 8, 2004 11:22PM PST

You have to go out of your way to bring it into your house and then pay for it. On the other hand, you could pay strict attention to what your daughter is watching and control it that way. You would be able to controll what she sees and not leave it to the government to do it for you.

Dan

- Collapse -
Re:Cable isn't public.
Feb 8, 2004 11:29PM PST

Perhaps true, but without cable here I think I could get CBS and NBC, and very poor reception possibly on ABC.

Would it really be too much to ask the cable companies to offer a package for those that wanted it that only included programs that followed the broadcast standards? which really aren't that strict anyway.

The rest of us could take the normal package that is you only option besides local broadcast now. Maybe even both would cost the same, just give someone the choice.

Shrug, oh well, probably not point to this discussion, everyone is just getting more set to opposing "the other side" with every post it appears.

- Collapse -
I think it would be great if the cable co's offered it.
Feb 9, 2004 4:16AM PST

I don't think it's good that big government regulators from washington force them to do it.

Dan

- Collapse -
You could also say that electricity distribution is not public, but
Feb 9, 2004 2:28AM PST

that doesn't keep it from being regulated. There is only one pipe in, right now, and, in return for the monopoly, the cable industry is regulated. Why should I be denied access to the frequency spectrum (don't get cable) just because someone else wants to pollute it with trash? That someone else can get their trash elsewhere such as, as others have suggested, an extra cost add on to the service.

- Collapse -
You're not denied it.
Feb 9, 2004 4:21AM PST

You're offered the choice to get it or not. If you choose to get it you are free to be responsible for what you watch and for what you allow your children to watch.

Dan

- Collapse -
You are denied the choice to have economical entertainment which is
Feb 9, 2004 5:38AM PST

free of the trash. That is why there should be regulated content for some basic packages.

- Collapse -
Re:You are denied the choice to have economical entertainment which is
Feb 9, 2004 5:51AM PST

No, that is why you should talk to your cable company about offering such a package, not calling on your government to require them to do it.

Aren't you a member of the "party of less government?"

- Collapse -
Sorry, that doesn't cut it. The FCC is much more likely
Feb 9, 2004 11:46AM PST

to respond to my needs and desires, and regulation of a monopoly is a perfectly acceptable form of government to me. If that doesn't fit your preconceptions of my 'party', maybe you should welcome me to yours.

- Collapse -
Feel the same about crime in general?
Feb 9, 2004 4:06AM PST

The same thing can be said. If you don't like crime coming into your house then buy a gun and stop it at the door, if you are there when it happens. Don't expect the government to help you do it, after all it's your house and family. Why should the government interfere with what other's want just because you object to it. If you don't want it at your house, then deal with it yourself and keep government out of it. You do believe in Freedom don't you? After all, what's a crime to you may not be a crime to someone else. Your neighbor down the street may be a communist and thinks you should equalize your personal wealth with him. Who are you to tell him he can't pursue his beliefs? If you don't want him sharing your wealth, then deal with it yourself. No need to have the government place restrictions and punitive actions against others who may not feel the same about personal wealth and the restrictiveness of capitalism.

- Collapse -
lol! Funny! -nt
Feb 9, 2004 4:23AM PST

.

- Collapse -
Wrong.
Feb 9, 2004 4:17AM PST

Take it outside the home. Do you think every waiting room, every hotel TV, every barbershop, every bus station TV, and many other locations where you can find free TV provided to the Public is always set only to open broadcast? Not in my recent experience. I can say that places like Best Buy where they sell television sets tend to display them using a closed video system, not connected to cable TV, but that's not true of so many other places.


My contention is that cable is different in scope now than it was 30 years ago. It has grown from a premium service, which it originally was considered, into a size that it should now be considered the same as open air broadcast, and subject to the same rules, regulations, and restrictions. There is nothing wrong with putting risque viewing back into the premium service it was before and where it should have remained.

The invasion is not of restrictions against the premium channels but of that questionable content invading the other.

- Collapse -
Right.
Feb 9, 2004 4:28AM PST

With the possible exception of the bus station, all of the locations on your list are private establishments. Whether or not you patronize them is your responsibility. If you leave, be sure to tell them why. Feel free to ask the management to change the channel. I do it in bars and restaurants on a regular basis with near 100% compliance.

Dan

- Collapse -
Re: That's the old mantra Dave, and it's getting a bit tired.
Feb 9, 2004 12:57PM PST

Hi, KP.

It's only tired to those who feel that they have the right to impose their own standards on everyone. What part of "if it's not on, I can't watch it" don't you understand? It's not a hard concept. Yet y'all claim to be for individual rights? By that you mean YOUR rights, not necessarily other people's!

-- 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 -
(groan) I'm not for the right to pollute the frequency spectrum. That's
Feb 9, 2004 11:07PM PST

public property, and it is rightly regulated. It should have broadcast standards. If what you want to see doesn't fit those standards, well that's the price of living in a 'republican democracy'. You have lots of ways to access the material you want ranging from renting or buying it to opting for an additional cost cable option. I don't see where you have a right to demand that the entire spectrum be poluted for your benefit.

Frankly, I thought the Democrat side was all for government regulation. I guess that's true as long as YOU aren't the one being regulated.

- Collapse -
Watch all the filth you want ...
Feb 8, 2004 7:59PM PST

... makes no difference to me. My point was that for many households, basic cable has become the equivalent of broadcast TV -- I get cable or pretty much nada. I don't have a cable box, that would cost me an extra $60/year. My TV works fine and were I a parent I wouldn't appreciate being told I have to buy a new one to keep inappropriate material out of my living room when I would just like some decent entertainment and educational programming. Nor would I appreciate having to spend valuable time studying this comprehensive TV guide novella when I should be able to reasonably expect family friendly viewing during "family hour". I repeat, here, and in many areas around the country, the number of standard broadcast stations available is next to nil. I either have cable, or pretty much stuck with nothing.

It would impair your choice not ONE iota for cable to offer a regulated "broadcast standard" package. Nobody is asking for HBO to be censored. Nobody should feel their freedoms are attacked if MTV were not included in a broadcast package.

Your American way is apparently whatever Dave wants. OK then, let's bring back the smoking commercials only this time the Virginia Slims gal can go topless because "we've come a long way baby!" Your attitude is like the librarians who insist that filters will damage our children more than the porn they can access by hopping on the net. When I was a kid, I spent just about every Sat or Sun morning at the public library either watching a film, going to a book reading or browsing the stacks for stuff to take out for the week. Mom didn't have to be there looking over my shoulder at every turn because back then it seemed folks had a better understanding of what belonged in a children's section or activity and weren't so willing to sacrifice their childhood's to the selfish whims of adults.

Evie Happy