Stompy

I see it this way: if you cannot come up with a logical reason why certain things are taboo, then they shouldn't be controlled or censored to begin with.

Why is swearing taboo? Really, it's just a word. What does it matter if you call feces "poop" or "shit"? Why does it matter if you say, "This fucking door won't open"?

Why is sex/nudity so taboo? It's all a part of our biological makeup like breating and eating. Why does naked David need to be censored? As if a 5 year old kid can't pull down his pants and see what's beteen his/her legs and question what it is... if they see a breast, why is that wrong? Let's say, for the sake of argument, that a child saw two people having sex. Why do we think it will ruin them for life? "OMG, our son just saw boobs on tv... what are we going to do?!"

Why are people so hung up on these trivial issues? There's no logical answer for any of it, so it needs to stop.

Violence makes more sense to control. I mean, you hear and see all kinds of crazy violence after 7 PM. CSI shows dead bodies all bloodied up and these same "crime" shows often show people getting shot. Why is it okay to feed those types of scenes to people, but it's not okay to show a nude woman taking a shower?

It's like anything else: if you don't want to see it, don't watch it. You KNOW what type of shows will show certain things. CSI showing violence - if you don't like violence, it doesn't take a genius to think, "Hey, maybe I shouldn't watch this show. Maybe Wheel of Fortune or a sitcom would suit me better." Or let's say that Desperate Housewives showed breasts/penis on occasion, you know damn well that watching a show like that could present you with these situations, so don't watch it. It's not really about what offends people, because they should be smart enough to stay away from the things that do offend them.

You KNOW that by listening to Howard Stern, you will most certainly be subjected to explicit sexual talk at times. You have to be pretty damn ignorant to not know that Howard Stern talks about such things, and he's a prime target for the FCC. The majority of his audience WANTS to hear these types of things, so saying, "well it's not fair to offend some people.." is absurd. Flat out, if you don't want to be offended, don't freakin listen to Howard Stern because you KNOW it's coming.. and when it does and you're still listening, you better keep that mouth shut because no one forced you to sit through it.

That's also why we have warnings and disclaimers on certain shows. Comedy Central shows completely UNCENSORED shows each and every saturday at 1 AM along with a warning. If you see the warning and continue to watch Chris Rock, or South Park the Movie, you really have no right complaining about it.

That's what I mean when I say this country is backwards and hypocritical. It baffles me as to why so many people can't think outside of the box and question these things.

__________________
I love lamp.

pan6467

KMA I think Mephisto does have a point. While yes, it is a small lunatic fringe that complains it appears they are listened to enough that allow the government to take control of situations. Perhaps it is because while the lunatic fringe speaks out there seems to be noone that truly has the power they have to demonstrate against them.

What amazes me are the people who cry there is too much government and yet they will gladly get the government involved in issues they want heard. What they need to think about is every time they get the gov't involved they allow more freedoms to be taken away or regulated.

Art, I respect you opinions and I believe anyone has the right in this country to demonstrate their cause whether it is against pornography or styrofoam or plastic army men. However, I strongly urge caution in these aspects for as I stated above, each time we demonstrate against something (and with the vast majority of people uncaring and unwilling to argue against the loss of rights, until it affects them and then it is too late), we lose rights and priveleges.

Granted today's world in many, many, ways is much bigger than the world of the past, but instead of regulating everything; temperence, understanding and acknowledgement of differences, is far more attractive then new laws. The problem we have in this country in reference to this topic is that people are more interested in what they want and not necessarily what is right for the whole.

I have always believed that nudity and non-seen referenced sex is far more appealing to me than the violence that is shown. To me showing children that the naked human body and sex is ok and not evil, immoral or disgusting, is far more important and better than allowing these kids to watch people get shot and killed and that is ok.

If the truth be truly exposed, I would venture to say far more people would be willing to watch sex than violence any day. It's in our advertising and sayings such as "sex sells". Yet, we have this group that makes sure the gov't regulates sex and doesn't touch the violence. Yet, violent video games are the biggest sellers.

What happens when you push sex out and say violence is ok, IMO, causes far more sexual crimes, far more perversion (because of the taboo idea), far more deviancy in regards to sex. And with the violence comes desensitization and copy catitis.

We need to find a middle ground a balance that works for the majority.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

alansmithee

What authority do you (or anyone else) have to say if someone has the right to be or not be offended? People have the same right to be offended by the nude suits as others can be offended by the Ten Commandments being posted in front of a court building, or a baby Jesus being put in a christmas scene. Honestly, the reaction this INVESTIGATION OF A COMPLAINT has gotten makes me think the FCC might be on to something.

alansmithee

Fox actually faced one of the largest fines ($1 million, IIRC) for a dating show that they aired.

KMA-628

Stompy -

I couldn't *gasp* agree more with your points.

However, there is always going to be a "backwards and hypocritical" segment of any population. It is unavoidable.

Maybe we would be better served if we didn't lend credence to their absurd opinions and just ignored them? They won't go away, but maybe they will decrease. Everytime we discuss some rumour or ridiculous notion, we further bolster the already convoluted behavior of these people.

KMA-628

What power do these people hold? By the very nature of their excessive complaining, they will ultimately dilute their own arguments. We could get rid of them a lot more quickly by not granting them the audience we are giving them. We give them the power, not the government, every time we publicize their rantings.

The fact that it is one tiny group making almost every complaint tells me there isn't a problem.

ARTelevision

As a general comment here, I'm chagrined at the lack of respect shown for people who may have a different way of looking at things than those who espouse popular libertarian and "freedom-of-expression" ideals. It's one thing to have strong feelings for one's own point of view. It's quite another to feel a need to deprecate and denigrate those who harbor positions different than one's own.

__________________
create evolution

mrbuck12000

this is why we live in a free country to have the freedom to change the f*#@king channel. if you don't like it don't watch it. end of story!!!

mrb

__________________
"There's an old saying in Tennessee -- I know it's in Texas, it's probably in Tennessee --that says, fool me once, shame on ... shame on you. Fool me ... You can't get fooled again." - G.W. Bush quoted by the Baltimore Sun - Oct 6, 2002

Mojo_PeiPei

Hypocritcal really...

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

Brooke

Yeah I am soo comfortable with a comittie deciding what is best for me as well. I wonder if they think it is okay for me to shower twice a day? The government already regulates how much water (the water I pay for) can go into my toilet.

We Americans need less agencies, more people having the balls explaning to their kids embaressing stuff, and in general more people being responsable for themselves. I guess if ART needs a government babysitter appropriatly regulating what he can and can not see that is good for him, but I prefer to judge for myself.

__________________
And so its over
Your fantasy life is finally at an end
And the world above is still a brutal place
And the story will start again

FoolThemAll

That's pretty much my only reaction here. Any other reactions are overshadowed. I might've been inclined to debate or even agree with the point being made, if not for the immense childishness exhibited by several posters in this thread.

__________________
I wonder if we're stuck in Rome.

FoolThemAll

My mistake. I do have one other reaction.

Perhaps it's due to insufficient investigation on my part, but I have yet to find a coherent argument as to why Janet Jackson's breast qualifies as 'free speech'. Help me out here.

__________________
I wonder if we're stuck in Rome.

OFKU0

Ebonics. Shaking it says it all.

__________________
" In Canada, you can tell the most blatant lie in a calm voice, and people will believe you over someone who's a little passionate about the truth." David Warren, Western Standard.

sob

May I assume from your comment that you do not have young children?

pan6467

Thank you for pointing that out Alan, I truly hadn't heard that. So I guess noone is above the FCC.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

pan6467

I agree somewhat but this group does have strength in that, people don't stand up to them. One thing growing up I saw was the "boycott) movements that showed small groups could carry massive weight. Politicians see these groups and their powerful lobbyists and since there isn't as powerful a voice trying to bring sanity, the politicians will tend to agree with those most outspoken (because they feel that is where the majority must lie).

A politician can't know what everyone believes he has to go by what the most vocal group says, his party and the lobbyists. Is it right for them to do so? I don't know how one can argue against it. To get heard above this group and others, there must be a more vocal group (or a group as vocal) that stands up to them.

So your last statement, IMO, is the problem. Too many people think this is just a small group and therefore do not speak up, and this small group gets shows banned, regulations passed, fines levied and complaints heard.

It's a vicious system, but as I said, if a group as organized and as vocal could stand up things may change. Until there is a big enough stink against this group it shall continue to get what it wants.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

MSD

I don't see why it's offensive. I don't think it's free speech, I think it's a body part. What is wrong with the human body, other than cultural taboos that have no basis in logic?

flstf

I have to agree that the fringe groups making these latest complaints do not represent most of us. However I find it ironic that I cannot (or will not from now on) see a woman's breast on a football halftime show but I can click over to the National Geographic channel or PBS and see all I want. Until recently I just assumed it was white breasts they were restricting, LOL.

ObieX

Well, I, for one, amd still waiting for Dick Chenney to be fined for swearing on TV. (remember that one) There were plenty of complaints about that one. I guess maybe next time he'll have to flash more nipple.

And as for the FCC, yes, as i recall, it is an illegal operation. Its opressive government like this that forced us to go to war with England way back when to gain the freedoms we've had stripped from us over the last century. Its amazing how we can go from a compltely free people in 1776 to the mess we have now, and it sickens me

Thre have been a lot of claims on this thread saying things like "the small lunatic fringes have no power" or "don't assume we're all lunatics due to the few that have no power". But when we allow what these people say to become policy and law they do have power, and the power that matters. When a company can be fined millions of dollars due to the complaint of ONE PERSON (yes, reread that, i said ONE PERSON) then something is seriously flawed. Joe Scmoe can get any show he doesn't like removed from television/radio, have a company fined millions of dollars, and have licenses taken away that cost well over $50 million for use of airaves revoked all because he doesnt like the word "boner" or "crap". And i for one say that IS crap.

Law is FORCE. And we should have only as many laws as it takes to keep some semblance of order, and nothing more. Just one hundred years ago it was legal to kill another man in a duel. Today a man can't even say the word "tits" on tv or radio. If they do they are fined hundreds of thousands, or even millions of dollars, and the company that allowed that man on television faces the same. Some may say that our forefathers didnt go to war and die just so i can say "tits". But those people are WRONG. They went to war and die so i can say any damn fool thing i want, and if someone doesnt like it then tough shit. (thats right i said shit, deal with it)

Live free or die! They are not just words to be brushed off.

__________________
We Must Dissent.

Mephisto2

Well, first of all, if it's "getting old" then don't read my posts and move along.

Secondly, I prefaced my statement with an apology as I knew it would possibly annoy some people.

Thirdly, unbeknownst to you and everyone else who read the initial post, I was drunk when I wrote this and my usual attempts to temper natural human exasperation were probably reduced.


I don't disagree.

Well, there's obviously enough to create a two page thread in the time it takes me to go out, get drunk with my friends, come home, read a story, post to TFP, get up the following morning and fly to Sydney...

All about 36 to 48 hours.

So it's obviously of sufficient enough interest to generate at least some debate. Feel free to move along yourself though...


I get so tired of hearing this kind of comment, bandied about as if America was the only country with freedoms. In fact, the US has more restrictive publicly accessible airwaves than most "Western" countries. But that's a whole different issue.

We're not.

What was the point of that last comment?


It's created a lot more debate than many other topics so far this week.


Mr Mephisto

mrbuck12000

you are correct, but if i did, that is why my cable company has given me enuf cheesy family, cartoon channels that that i can let them watch them instead. Or maybe no television at all. Read a book, play outside, take apart a puzzle. TURN OFF THE TV and learn different things. or talk to your children about sex/violence. this is so taboo in this society, but instead we decide to hide it on forums like this where we have the titty board...thats OK...What the F&#@K.

mrb

__________________
"There's an old saying in Tennessee -- I know it's in Texas, it's probably in Tennessee --that says, fool me once, shame on ... shame on you. Fool me ... You can't get fooled again." - G.W. Bush quoted by the Baltimore Sun - Oct 6, 2002

FoolThemAll

Things can be offensive even if they don't offend you personally. I like dead baby jokes, but they're clearly an offensive area.

I'm thinking that one possible basis is that it's not wise to overstimulate kids well before they're mature enough to handle the topic of sexuality, or their view on the matter could be unhealthily skewed. I just pulled that out of my ass, however. It may be BS.

The other reasons that come to mind are religious in nature.

Would you agree that public TV should be fined when they broadcast nudity without warning? What about cable TV, when the audience has no reason to expect nudity?

Would it be acceptable to ban nudity on public TV, but allow it with no restrictions on cable? (This is where I'm undecided, currently, leaning toward 'yes'.)

__________________
I wonder if we're stuck in Rome.

ARTelevision

I'd like to add that the natural and unclothed nude human body is not something that I see, in itself, as objectionable in any way.

I do find the uses it is put to in the course of selling, pandering, advertising and otherwise pushing small-minded and often perverse agendas upon the public at large is something that is best regulated as to age and other appropriateness. The forces at work to manipulate us operate by testing the limits of decency laws and regulations, nudging them away, or flagrantly ignoring them. Many of these corporations and individuals are powerful and amoral.

To think that they might have untrammelled "right" to foist their products on everyone, at any time, in any place, and on any medium is understandably objectionable to many good citizens.

__________________
create evolution

ObieX

Well no one forces you to wear a t-shirt that says "CocaCola" on it, or paint an exxon logo on your car, or stick billboards on your front lawn advertising K-Mart. TV and Radio need to make their money someplace. Some choose to run commercials, they can be annoying. Some choose to interrupt their programming every 15 minutes witha 30 minute plee for money (like PBS), which i personally find much more annoying (atleast commercials TRY to be entertaining). If someone offered to pay be $5000 to wear a cocacola t-shirt every day for a week i would probably do it. If someone offered to pay me $50000 a month to have a billboard on my front lawn for K-Mart, what the hell, i would do it. But no one would force you to do it. In america it is your choice. Just like it is your choice to turn off the TV when the commercials come on, or go to get a snack when PBS starts begging for money. No one forces you to watch them.

If all of a sudden all indecency laws were trown out a bunch of people may put naked folks in their commercials. And it may work for a while, sure. People would get to talking, peopel would watch the jiggle. But after a while it would lose its appeal and they would have to use anothr means to grab your attention. Because if everyone is naked, its no longer anything special and it wont catch your eye. As of right now its taboo, so even the thought that some female MAY have nipples under her sweater+undershirt+bra is appealing. BEcause rightnow, people never see a titty. People will sell their mother to see one. But once they're everywhere who would really care if they see one more pair jiggling on tv? Or some guy's wang flopping around trying to sell chicken nuggets. People may actually stop to think "hey, do i actually NEED this item?" Imagine that.

Ask a kid in france how cool a titty is. I'd be suprised if many really give a damn. They go to the beach and they're everywhere. They see their mother's boobs, they see their grandmother's boobs, they see their sister's boobs. MOST FEMALES HAVE bOOBES, and the vast majority have nipples. It's a fact, look it up.

__________________
We Must Dissent.

ObieX

I should probably mention that i don't mean to offend, and that my posts are directed at everyone who reads them. Also if i happen to put up a counter-arguement to something someone mentioned in their post it's more of an in general reply on the subject and not a jab at anyone personally. I take this subject VERY seriously, and my posts can seem harsh, but I'm not trying to insult anyone. I take the blatant oppression of anyone as a personal assault on myself. Be it the fining of one person for saying a word or showing a boob, or the fining of entire companies by the government for the allowance of free speech or having sexual organs. This is supposed to be the land of the free. Not the land of babysitters or censorship.

__________________
We Must Dissent.

Stompy

People need to lay off using "children" as an argument for everything. Just because people aren't good at monitoring what their children watch doesn't mean everyone else should deal with the consequences.

There's been something out for quite a while now called a VChip that lets you control what your children watch. If you don't have it, look into getting it. The TV rating system exists for a reason, use it.

If you don't want to get it, then be a better parent and monitor what they watch if you honestly believe a breast is going to scar them for life

Just wait till they hit their teens and *gasp* see them for themselves. What then? You're gonna go nuts.

__________________
I love lamp.

connyosis

I think this is a really good argument. For instance, here in Sweden, people just don't care very much if a breast och butt is shown on TV. Why? Because it's natural. Everyone has them. Nudity does not necessarily equal sexual situations. Swedes in general have the belief that violence is less damaging than a couple of boobs. With that said, I'd still wouldn't let my 8-year old (That is, if I had children) watch Sex and the city...

__________________
If atheism is a religion, then not collecting stamps is a hobby.

KMA-628

Your title and first sentence is what set me off. I didn't see anything prefaced with an apology. However, your BAC definitely shines light as this is not your usual way of introducing a topic. I have grown accustomed to your fixation on American politics, but I didn't expect you to label an entire country as mad based on some whiney group lodging a complaint. So, I withdraw part of my comments based on the new information you have provided.

I liken this to several other threads in here that are trying to paint ugly pictures prematurely.

/very suprised at the length of this thread, all because someone complained, not because anything actually became of the complaint.
//can't help but look, its like a car accident.

Stompy

First off, they shouldn't be watching a show that could potentially have nudity. Let's say a show at 9PM showed nudity, the parent should know better than to let their kid watch it if it really bothers them that much.

Another aspect is, how and why would it harm a child to see, for example, a nude woman in a shower? Like I said in another post, they can just as easily go to the bathroom and glance between their legs and wonder what the hell is goin on down there.

Those reasons shouldn't really matter, as religion shouldn't be shoved in the faces of others.

[quote]Would you agree that public TV should be fined when they broadcast nudity without warning? What about cable TV, when the audience has no reason to expect nudity?[quote]

If it's completely unexpected, then sure... but if it's a show that WARNS about these scenes, then no, because you know ahead of time the type of show you're watching. If you're watching sunday morning cartoons and all of a sudden some porn clip is shown, fine away. If you're watching some show on fox that shows a woman's breast, say, temptation island, then no, because why else would you watch that show? The whole premise of the show is about sexuality. You can't knowingly watch something like that then turn around and complain. (I'm not saying *you*, just people in general).

I see no logical reason why nudity or swearing should be censored period, as long as they're in their proper places.

I mentioned Howard Stern in a past post, but let's say he had a late night show on NBC that showed women topless... now why would you watch that show KNOWING what Howard Stern is all about, then get all huffy and pissed when breasts are shown? That's what the majority of his audience wants.

It's not like it's a sudden shock and surprise when he does something like that.

I feel that as long as proper warnings are in place, anything goes. If your show contains swearing, nudity, and violence, display a warning before and after each commercial break.. or, display the rating for the show in the lower left hand corner of the screen, so that way when someone flips to the channel, they can easily determine whether or not the show they are watching contains something that could potentially offend them.

__________________
I love lamp.

KMA-628

The only issue I have is when I get caught off guard, which happens often on network TV as they try and push the envelope as much as possible.

I have finally had to set rules as to what channels can be watched (customizable remote--great invention for kids).

Then, I got caught off guard by Nickelodeon.

I have young children who think talking about farting is funny and appropriate. In an effort to teach manners, I tell them that what they are saying isn't polite. Then what happens, Nick goes into a three minute tirade/spoof into farting, which practically negates any improvements I may have made with my kids.

There was a time when the whole family could sit and watch shows together in the evening. I look back fondly at the "special" night when I could eat my dinner on a TV tray and watch a network show in the evening with my parents.

Cosby Show?
Murder She Wrote?
Family Ties?
Dukes of Hazard?
Fall Guy?
TJ Hooker?
SWAT? (yeah, my dad is a cop, so cop shows where o.k. in our house)
etc., etc., etc. (sure they are corny now, but they were shows the entire family could watch, together, without worrying about content).

Can I do this now with my kids? Not that I am aware of. I enjoy several network shows, but there isn't one that I would let me kids watch.

In our house, movies are slowly taking over TV stations as I can be more sure of the content.

Mojo_PeiPei

Kids of today need G.I. Joe and Teenage Mutant Ninja turtles.

Teletubbies are members of the occult.

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

FoolThemAll

Taken together, I agree with this. The caveat: nudity, and to a lesser extent, swearing, is not expected on network TV. The same goes for quite a few cable channels. Effectively, I would consider that implicative of a ban, unless advance warning is given and given very conspicuously. They're not considered proper places.

I agree with the general idea of leaving it up to the parents, but I don't approve of leniency that makes it unreasonably hard for the parents to monitor the situation. Perhaps we agree here? We're close, at any rate.

For those that are still echoing the 'free speech' mantra, I'd still like to hear how Janet's breast constitutes free speech in any way, shape, or form.

__________________
I wonder if we're stuck in Rome.

Mephisto2

[QUOTE=Mr Mephisto]Sorry if I sound terse, but what the fuck is wrong with America?!!

Grown accustomed to my "fixation on American politics"?! Goodness, that pretty close to a condescending remark. Others are interested, but I'm "fixated"?

With regards to the actual topic at hand, let me offer this for further consideration.

This story absolutely refers to a silly complaint by a (right-wing?) interest group. Of course it should be reviewed by the FCC, as that is their job. Equally, of course it should not be considered reflective of the whole of America.

But, and this is a big but, the fact remains that America and American media ARE becoming more conservative. You simply cannot argue that fact. That's the underlying tenet of this thread. I believe it's ridiculous that the country that spends the same amount on hardcore pornography that it spends on foreign aid, that has the most violent entertainment media industry in the world, that is in the top 5 countries for murder with firearms (fourth after South Africa, Columbia and Thailand!) still goes mental because some singer's tit flops out on TV.

That is the issue. The inexorable "conservativization" of the US media.

So, perhaps the way I couched my original question was a bit provocative (no more provocative than you labeling me fixated, in my humble opinion), but the original story is useful as a foil with which to debate the issue.


Mr Mephisto

roachboy

and that, mr mephisto, is why i understand this kind of "dispute" as trivial in itself--a diversionary border dispute tripped by a far right religious group that is moving its way through the usual channels--this kind of thing functions as noxious in itself, but also to give a false impression of the slide rightward in american television (in particular), which has been underway for some time at (for example) the level of the leaking of conservative discourse into the frame of reference used by news writers to interpret information.

that seems to me the central political problem involving the dominant media in the states--the mechanisms are multiple, and quite well-known--the only thing they have in common is alot of funding.

given the above, the question of whether a cluster of fundamentalist protestant nitwits have decided that athenian and roman sculpture from--say--the 5th c. bc to the 5th c. ad are somehow offensive really is not that big a deal. what matters about them is not that they exist--such nitwits have always been around--but that they are now more organized than ever and are asserting their theocratic views on the rest of us along a number of fronts, including this one. and that they feel powerful enough to attempt to assert their views. which is in itself fine--but you have to fit them within the broader, increasingly reactionary climate that accompanies these stages of the decline of the american empire--without that, they would not matter.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

ARTelevision

Perhaps.
Perhaps not.

Why not acknowledge there are some of us who have atttempted to create a sensible rationale for the potential implications of the incident in question? We've broadened the discussion, as you know. Instead of marginalizing this, I'd suggest acknowledging the good folks whose opinions on the implications of this do not fall within the category of people who seem to be the focus of derision here.

__________________
create evolution

joeb1

Such as ARTelevision's website????

Is not some of the "pornography" on the site for your commercial gain? Or is it not a "pay" site? Or do you not consider yourself a commercial operation?

__________________
Disco Duck...

KMA-628

joeb1 -

I don't envy you for the can of worms you just opened. You will notice that what Art does and how he does it is very artistic. I would guess that by using the label "pornographic" that you stepped in a good one here.

Mr. M. -

Honestly, I was so set off by the title and the WTF part that I completely missed the "sorry" part. I even looked at it a couple of times and missed it every time.

First, I think I might disagree with the foreign aid comment. I haven't been able to find a good source for numbers, but most of the info I saw doesn't seem to back up that comment.

And yes, I used the "fixated" comment on purpose, as well as the loose Irish and Austrailian analogies. I wasn't being condecending, I was being pointed. Saying someone is fixated is hardly a derogatory remark. Especially when it is true.

As far as the "conservatization" of the American Media. Huh? I hardly think the entire media establishment is leaning to the right. If that was the case, the likes of CBS and CNN would shrivel up and die.

What you see involves popularity. Media outlets that lean to the conservative side are becoming more and more popular. Fox kills every other cable news outlet time and time again in the ratings. What does that mean? It means that Fox is providing a product that people want more than the other competing products. If Americans didn't want a news outlet like Fox, then Fox's numbers wouldn't be anywhere near where they are. They would be closer to the now defunct Phil Donahue Show on MSNBC.

But I really cannot see the increasing popularity of the likes of FoxNews as an indication that our whole media establishment is turning conservative. Especially when you have a fiasco like CBS and the "memo".

Now, if you are sitting extreme left of left (which many here are), than even Nancy Pelosi comes across as conservative. However, you will find that such an opinion will not hold any water with any decent number of Americans.

And, I will be pointed here, others show an interest our politics, your interest is considerably more. I am not saying you shouldn't say what you do or that you are wrong, I just have never seen a non-American go out of their way, time and time again, to point out the flaws in someone else's country. Again, I am not criticizing you for it, I am pointing out my own observation as you clearly stand out in this category. It is fairly safe to say that, if a new thread is created by Mr. Mephisto in the Politics Forum, there is a 90%+ chance that it will be anti-Bush in some way or another.

Usually I ignore such threads. This one got my attention because it tried to define my country based on a complaint of a fringe group.

While I welcome the debate, I hardly think that America as a whole can be labeled because of it. Also, I see no evidence, whatsoever, that America is becoming "conservative". I live here. If my country were becoming as conservative as some people would like to assume, I would be jumping for joy. As it were, I am not jumping, nor do I foresee any jubilant bouts of jumping in the future.

Heh, at least I am honest about it.

/could give two shits if a boob pops out on TV or not
//I censor the TV my kids watch for reasons other than nudity

pan6467

Anything, at any given time can be found offensive to anyone. There is someone above (sorry didn't want to pull a quote just for this) who thinks dead baby jokes are funny. That is his right. I find Sam Kinison to this day hilarious even though I've heard everything he's ever recorded about 1,000 times. That is my right.

I understand having to protect children but unlike any other "free" country that I know of we go above and beyond to pass laws against people's rights for "the children". Yet, we have the highest juvenile crime rate, the highest teenage homocide rates, the highest drug use among teens, the highest teen pregnancy rates and so on and so on and so on.

We feed our kids ritilin and other drugs because they are "hyper" and we just can't control them. We sit our kids in front of the television to babysit them and we don't pay attention to what they watch, but all of a sudden when we see something, offensive to us, we freak. We find nothing wrong with buying our children video games where they must kill graphically. I have yet to hear of (and I maybe wrong) a television show being fined for being too violent in nature.

My point is we are lazy when it comes to our kids. We are turning over how we raise them to the government, we use them to get what laws and control we want from the gov't.

These people who usually complain about the children and what they must endure, are in most cases the ones who vote down school issues. Think we have too many services paid for by taxes to help kids and believe most parents in lower incomes don't deserve children.

I find it all very hypocritical. It is the parents who must be held responsible not society and not the government.

If you can't find something on television for your children to watch at at 10PM, when they should be in bed, then buy a video, because with all the choices out there, there is no reason to cry to Uncle Sam to dictate what the rest of us can watch.

If your children can't listen to a radio at 8:30 AM because a few stations in your area have Stern and Stern wannabes on, you need to ask WHY aren't they in school (and when I was a kid I had far more to do than listen to a radio during breaks, like sleepovers, sleeping in, going outside and playing, socializing, etc) and why can't you turn the station? Why must society be punished for your beliefs?

Yet, I'm sure you have no problem letting those same kids play violent video games.

We have gotten so bad out here that a child can threaten the non-abusive but punitive parent, "If you punish me, I'll go to children's services and tell them."(direct quote I have heard a child say.)

I cannot help it that the complainers out there have no life and feel they must get their agendas shoved down my throat. They just have no right to dictate to me and to the majority what we can or cannot see or hear on our televisions and radios.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

Mephisto2

No problem.

I'll dig up the specific references when I get back to Perth. I'm in Sydney at present. In the meantime, the point is detailed in a book called Fifty facts that should change the world by Jessica Williams, ISBN 0-9729529-6-9 (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/AS...651205-6339312). An interesting read on many levels. It has copious footnotes to support each "fact". I'll post them when I return to Perth over the weekend.

Emphasis added.

I don't think I'm immature or pathological. Neither do I believe I'm neurotic. I also do not post exclusively on American politics.

Therefore, it is not true and it IS insulting. However, that's not the point. I had (perhaps naively) thought my engagement in this forum was welcome and that it was noted that I try to maintain a fair balanced point of view; notwithstanding my obvious political leanings. I go out of my way to correct myself when proven wrong or to apologize if my facts are presented in an partisan manner. I can refer, for example, to my thread on the US deficit where I took your criticism as entirely valid. I also note that you deigned not to reply to me on that thread (if memory serves me correctly).

Perhaps "conservatization" was the wrong term. Or at least, I didn't mean it in the political sense it has come to imply these days. By conservative, I meant in a social or sexual manner. CBS and CNN are not dying out, but they sure as hell are being more careful with any dipiction of the human form, reproduction, pregnancy and any other "sexual" subject matter than they were before Bush was elected.

What I see is media outlets responding to massive fines imposed by the FCC at the instigation of the Bush Administration. No more. No less.

It's nothing to do with news. It's got to do with the Administration trying to impose it's "mores" on the majority. Of course, that's just my opinion. One shared by many others "fixated" on US politics and society too you know.

Well, though this is not the point, let me answer that statement. If a conservative news station is getting increasingly popular and consistently outrating other stations... then by simply logical definition US media IS becoming more conservative. Anyway, that's not really my point so let's move on.

You've got to be kidding me, right?

I have consistently stated that the world benefits from the US. I admire your country greatly. I think it's a force for good in the world. It does a HUGE amount of good. And I have gone on record as saying that over and over again.

But I do find the current Administration is "damaging" America's reputation overseas. Many of the US boardmembers here agree.

So, because I'm not American, I can't comment on the current Administration? Or more accurately, that I'm prejudiced if I do? Don't you think that's a little bit restrictive of you?

Oh but you are. And if I stand out on this category, it's because as one of the "liberal" or "anti-Bush" posters, I go out of my way to see both sides and to accept when I'm wrong and when BushCo do good.

Personally, I don't think it is fair to say that. But, even if the figures agree, being "anti-Bush" is not the same as being "anti-American". If that was the case, you should also be criticising around 50% of your own countrymen and women.

No it didn't. It used a story to create debate on a real topic.

So you don't see a movement to "clean up the airwaves"? Hmmmm... maybe all the stories I'm reading are complete bunkum. Maybe the FCC didn't fine stations for trivial matters that, prior to Bush, would have warranted a rap over the knuckles. Maybe I, and the many people who agree with me in this thread, are mistaken.

Maybe.


Mr Mephisto

hokiesandwich

Dostoevsky can attest to the massive sum that nationalized/public artistic and cultural sites cost the people every year in France.

Simply put, humans in general have so much more potential, the pie has to be divided up between those who enrich lives and those who advance culture. At some point, culture is going to lose out in national policy circles. I'd rather have artists relegate the paintbrush to their evenings if it means we solve more serious social concerns like conflict, hunger, disease..art is a wonderful way to convey and evoke emotion, but it does little to feed the hungry.

Art will survive, and it will continue to progress, and there will never be a concensus as to what is acceptable. There must be limits on what is acceptable, however, and you cannot say that all the random nudity in Europe is because nudity is man's natural state, and that's a good thing to show when you're selling food. Nudity is evocative, no matter how "accepted" it is in one's culture.

I also don't see the US having mass media seizures like the UK does, for instance, when it deems material like metal music inappropriate (Read the booklet inside Metallica's "Garage Days Revisited").

word.