![]() |
Art, I do agree with you that all avenues don't have to be the same...
but what the broadcasters are now saying after the success of Sopranos, Sex in the City, The Sheild, Nip/Tuck that they cannot compete because the cable industry has a different standard and they are loosing market share. I do agree that they are losing market share due to programming alternatives, but then again, they do need to be wise about their programming which I think that Viacom has done with CBS - MTV - SHO, they have different standards, but still complement each other and have different avenues to bring the edgier content. ABC doesn't have anything in their portfolio that would allow them to do so. ABC also has a family image to maintain which is part of their core value system. |
Quote:
It's the black man/white woman thing. Here is the breakdown of race and relationships: white on white - best black on black - fine white man, black woman - ok, since it's what the white man wants black man, white woman - get the rope |
Quote:
Wow, tell me that isn't the way most Americans saw it. The race issue never even entered into it for me till you mentioned it (or someone earlier in this thread). Are your race relations really that bad in the US? |
I don't think its really that bad but there are a lot of people who think that way. Black man/white woman is definitely more taboo than white man/black woman
|
Quote:
Here's where the race thing came up... Shut Up Tony Dungy... Quote:
|
Sure they can make us watch a million different viagra like commercials (trying explaining to your kid what a four hour hard on is..) but we can't see the small of a woman's back? C'mon now - this is america, the land of free speach. Go to any other country and naked people are running all over the TV at all times of the day.
Guess its time we revert back to our Puritan days... |
this is getting out of hand. i'm sure i'm not the only one who's noticed that TV and radio broadcasters are seriously starting to fear the FCC, to the point where it's affecting our every day media exposure. Not a day goes by when I don't hear a DJ (including both local and syndicated) on my commute being forced to rephrase something due to the fear of being fined. And what these DJs are trying to say is something that I wouldn't even think twice about saying in my friends' company. Something like "He doesn't have the balls to do that." A phrase like that is absolutely part of the average american's vernacular, yet it can't be said on the radio, because "balls" is apparantly an indecent term.
Ab-fucking-surd. I can agree that there should be some regulation, but it should only be applied to the stuff on the fringe of mainstream media. The FCC is completely missing that mark... |
ESPN had an interview with Terrell Owens tonite, towards the end of the interview, it was funny, but also truly sad that this is what it's come to, he made some comment about, who are they playing next Sunday, doesn't anyone want to talk about the game?
|
I watched a couple of times waiting to see something offensive. I'm still waiting. I saw more skin on Elmer Fudd growing up than I did in that opening sequence. I'm also trying to figure out what was racially offensive about the ad.
The only thing offensive about that ad was Terrell Owens acting. |
With cheerleaders in the game, the promo can't be considered more promiscuous. However, there is a different tone to each that may make the promo stand out more.
|
I personally agreed with Tony Dungy when I heard his statement. It was the whole tone of the ad I found racially offensive, like it was something straight out of Mandingo. And as for the content, I think it was the placement that was more problematic to most people. For an extreme example, it would be like slipping porno footage into a documentary about the auto industry. It is out of place, and not what people are tuning in to. It's not like a whole show where people know what to expect, it was during a totally unrelated TV broadcast. And as for cheerleaders, their outfits aren't designed to appeal on the same salacious level.
All that being said, I think it is being way overblown, and is a way for the various media outlets to bring attention to themselves. Mark Cuban (owner of the Mavs) pretty much hit it dead-on (Cuban also got in a little trouble with the NBA for saying the Kobe case was good for the league). This was a way for ABC to get cheap publicity and the network in general to try to push the boundary a bit. |
Viacom has a clue!
link
Quote:
|
I don't have a problem with most of what's shown on tv, as long as I have an idea beforehand. In the case of this, a highly charged sexual situation is paced right before a sporting event. There is not prior connection between the two, historically. What if next time, a player opens his locker and finds the team mascot with his head cut off in there? Let's bring in the CSI guys to solve the case before the game. See, it is not appropriate for the venue. If parents want their kids to not watch violent football games and instead watch desperate housewives, they can do that. Just don't mix the two together.
|
Hubby and I every evening watch "Around The Horn", "Pardon The Interruption" and "I, Max". They all have different thoughts on this, from "who cares" to "it's wrong". My feelings are along the lines of some of the coments on these shows, there is no way that ABC and the NFL didn't have any prior knowledge about that spot. I'm sorry, but when it comes to the networks and the kind of money they deal with, there is no possible way the right hand didn't know what the left was doing. Someone else stated, and I agree, that this was just a publicity ploy to promote two of ABC's interests.
I really don't care because far worse has been done and shown on network t.v. in the past. Ever since the Janet fiasco the networks and the FCC have turned into even more strict puritians. I just don't understand how they can now enforce rules banning things that they have been letting on air for years now. Hello hypocrites! Sometimes I wish we were more like some european countries, where nudity is considered natural and normal (which it is!) The only thing about the "NFL Desperate Housewives" spot that bugged me was the "Desperate Housewives" part. Aren't there enough sheep that "flock" to soap's during the day? Do we really need a prime-time soap taking up space ala "Dallas" or "Dynasty"? Reality t.v. has just about run it's course, but I'd rather watch it anytime than the soapy "Housewives" (and I watched very little reality t.v. to begin with). Ali |
Quote:
Its the blindsided thing again. Its not that the add was pornographic, but that football is often a family time thing, and as such you shouldn't have to be explaining to your children why a naked woman was jumping into the players arms. And ABC new full fucking well what they were doing. They figured any fine would be worth all this free plublicity. Would the same add be ok durring an episode of sponge bob? |
The real problem lies in the hands of good 'ol T.O. He was the one who taped for the scene, and if it was "such a disappointment" to the Eagles, shouldn't he be held accountable for allowing something like that to be aired? Personally, I didn't mind the ad at all. I thought to myself, Man, T.O. is a lucky SOB!
|
Quote:
PS: I'd watch "Topless Survivor" :thumbsup: |
All times are GMT -8. The time now is 05:53 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
© 2002-2012 Tilted Forum Project