Published: Thursday, April 18 2013 12:00 a.m. MDT
Has the FCC made a decision?This editorial gives the impression that
it has. The FCC is asking for public input. Maybe
people should also let Fox know they object to their lawsuit against the FCC for
imposing a fine when they aired expletives.
We've grown up since Fred and Wilma had to have separate beds. And for
pete's sake quit trotting out the children all the time. They're not
watching broadcast TV anyway, and if they are shouldn't they have some
parental guidance, and maybe go to bed sometime before 11. Our encroaching
societal maturity doesn't necessarily mean everything is 'more
It's ironic that people who think they invented freedom of expression are
so afraid that it might actually be exercised.
"...the amount of obscenity now found in fiction, films and television is
“realistic” only for some select groups, though, by being presented
as normal, it is becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy, as people speak in the way
the entertainment media tells them is normal.)" Andrew SherrodThe media is TEACHING our kids what to accept as normal. Violence, sex, foul
language, disrespect and "I want it NOW!" attitude. This issue is not
going to be solved by: "just watch something different" The grass roots
of this problem is about what it is doing to our society as a whole. And we ALL
need to care about that.
Hutterite:[And for pete's sake quit trotting out the children all the
time. They're not watching broadcast TV anyway,]Indeed, most
are watching 2 Girls 1 Cup.
@ Hutterite:;I really liked your comment on the Montana Hutterite colony
seeking religious freedom. I quote you."it’s hard to find an
adult hutterite who hasn’t experienced a traumatic, even limb removing
accident, and far too many CHILDREN die in farm and industrial related accidents
on colonies."And you say "for pete's sake quit trotting
out the children all the time" The children whether Hutterite or otherwise
need to be "trotted out. Children are the future of this society. How we
protect them or not will ultimately make or break us as a society. "How i
Met your Mother" IS on primetime. and kids are watching it. "Two and a
Half Men" IS on primetime and kids are watching it. Ive seen enough of these
shows to know my kids will NEVER watch them. Not all homes have cable or direct
TV or satellite. I dont. We are a society that has become fascinated with
watching people do unspeakable things to each other primetime TV. What does that
say to our kids. This is NORMAL an OK??????
If DesNews' editors (and owners) are so upset about the prospects of nudity
and obscenities on a form of media (daytime television programs), then they
should get out of the business of broadcasting network television and
advertising films containing that material.Until they do, this
opinion piece comes across as disingenuous.
Safe conclusion DN, safe conclusion. The lowering of standards certainly is not
advocated to decrease profanity and vulgarity.
The difference between the world now and that of yesteryear is that we now live
in a culture of hate. It is not so much that people have changed,
but that the people in charge have changed. It is the TV commercials that
clued my mind. Commercials used to be about tooth paste and refrigerators and
were aimed at ordinary people. Today’s commercials are about gold and
silver, expensive vacation spots and expensive cars. They are now aiming at the
rich and powerful and their hoard of money.
Don't watch TV or only watch Ch 11, KBYU.
What is network public TV? Is it a new competitor to Netflix?
Those who push for broader standards often do so as a fight against
"restrictions." In reality, television without moral standards is the
most restrictive of all. A large swath of the nation may choose not to watch for
fear of offending their children or inviting language and behavior into their
homes that otherwise would not be welcomed or allowed. When strict decency
standards are applied, all audiences are served. We can't imagine many
viewers reacting to a program by saying they wished it had more profanity or
nudity. Those who yearn for such things certainly have no end of choices beyond
the public airwaves.It is interesting how many ridicule the thought
of preserving standards of decency. It is getting more difficult to stand for
decency with out receiving ridicule. Those who would preserve standards decency
are accused of denying other freedom.
If filth is what you want, there are plenty of places you can get it. It is far
more available than clean entertainment. There is no reason people
shouldn't have to pay for their filth and violent entertainment. They
don't need it for free on over the air TV. In fact it should be taxed
proportional to the public damage which happens at the hands of those who are
fueled by it. Remember, Ted Bundy said he got is start with Playboy and Hustler,
of the late 60's. That would be soft core porn by today's
standards.Broadcast TV is considered a public service with it's
weather alerts, public service announcements, amber alerts, etc. If it becomes
so unfriendly to families by its disturbing content, it cannot serve those
purposes because it will be turned off in homes of decency.
I have asked this question before: Is there any way we can get a list of the
sponsors of the most filthy TV programs? I'd be willing to boycott if I
knew who to boycott. This may be more effective in cleaning things up than
complaining about the filthy shows.
2nd Amendment is sacred, 1st amendment, not so much.Much like
religious text, people like to only pay attention to the parts that they believe
are important, and then interpret them to fit their agenda.Also,
Channel 5 shows plenty of filth and violence, why is that?
@ Ernest T. Bass 4/18 at 5:59p"Don't watch TV or only watch
Ch 11, KBYU."So, kbyu isn't tv?The lyrics to
Family guy's FCC song running through my head as I read replies from the
"base" here in Utah that can only be described as puritanical.
Right to bear arms shall not be infringed...right to fee speech shall have no
law that abridges it...ahh not so much conservatives? What part of unabridged
don't you understand? Personally I don't think unabridged means all
speech of any kind is permitted, nor does unifringed mean society can't put
reasonable restrictions on types and capacitites of guns. But that's just
me and the Supreme Court and 90% of the rest of Americans.
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments