Quantcast

Comments about ‘Nudity, profanity and broadcast TV: The future hangs in the balance right now’

Return to article »

Published: Sunday, April 14 2013 7:45 p.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Phillip M Hotchkiss
Malta, Mt

Seeing they want to relax the regulations of TV. I will do as I have for over ten years I will avoid TV programs. Go with out TV. And you to will not miss it. It give me plenary of time to read. Reading you remember more then what you watch other's do

Hutterite
American Fork, UT

The problem is that, for all the hype these nanny groups get themselves into, they're among the few watching broadcast tv. Even the children they're supposedly 'protecting' via government interference don't watch it. And for the very few watchers among us who've attained sufficient adulthood so as not to take offense at everything, all they want to do is push broadcast tv into oblivion faster, and force us to pay for tv adults can watch. Back off, and turn off the tv if all you can do is be offended. We're always presching limited government; prove it.

JSB
Sugar City, ID

Is there any way we can get a list of the businesses that sponsor the most offensive programs? I have too much respect for my brain than to watch the mindless trash that is on TV so I don't have one, but I would be willing to boycott businesses that sponsor the filth.

Brian Utley
Freedom, IN

Some people legitimately disagree with the standards you are sponsoring. How are their interests advanced and protected? Demonizing nudity and other so-called indecencies runs counter to what the marketplace appears to be requesting. These adjustments in programming probably aren't arbitrary. What do some people see in the world that the Deseret News and others are not seeing? Could it be freedom of expression...instead of fear, guilt, and shame?

ParkCityAggie
Park City, Ut

Consider perhaps that the TV is not a babysitter to our children. With that in mind, if I don't like what I'm seeing or hearing, I can and I will change the channel. With those things said, no reason to petition the FCC. Unless of course you wish to have your moral standards enforced by the government, just remember the old cliche - it's a double edged sword. If you want to lead, do so by example, as soon as you start "restricting" or "prohibiting" something, you just invite backlash and raise the taboo level which makes it all the more enjoyable to those who you wished to censor in the first place.

Pete1215
Lafayette, IN

Wow, what we have on TV is with decency standards. There is enough of our english vocabulary still available as is, I don't think the writers are much constrained. I vote we keep our not-really-decent decency standards that we have.

JMH
Provo, UT

I am a conservative but I find it ironic that so many conservatives want the Government to step into their lives on this issue but get out of it in others. You have a simple solution if you don't like what is on TV: TURN IT OFF.

Albert Maslar CPA (Retired)
Absecon, NJ

Profanity, course language, direct sexual content and ill-disguised sexual innuendos have become the cultural norm on TV and entertainment, but big business advertising dollars dedicated to the promotion of sexual products, constantly barrages even the youngest to this travesty. Safe programming like even the World Series etc happily spend those advertising dollars. There is no safe family time.

cjb
Bountiful, UT

I agree there should be a safe harbor. There are other ways to get other content for those who want it.

This reminds me of how lobbying has corrupted the food pyramid. Originally the science dictated that it be something else. But because of lobbying, it was changed to its current form.

This article should have provided a link for those who want to comment.

DaveRL
OGDEN, UT

56,000 is a very small percentage of 300,000,000. I don't think such a small group should legislate their values on everyone else. A better solution would be simply to not watch or listen to those shows that offend you. If enough folks don't tune in advertisers will not advertise on that show...that's how a program gets taken off the air...problem solved.

SlopJ30
St Louis, MO

Why is it that every time an article appears about television, duly appointed representatives from the "I Don't Watch Filthy TV Because I'm So Enlightened" crowd show up, usually before anyone else, to tell us how awesome they are? It seems they're awfully fascinated with an activity they don't participate in.

As far as the quality of TV, it's simple-minded nonsense to label all TV (or all movies, or all music, or all anything) as trash or filth, etc. There are literally hundreds of options these days. You may not like what I like, but I doubt anyone can make a strong case that not a single program on the hundreds of channels out there is well-made, entertaining, or worthwhile in some way. If that's how you feel, you just haven't looked very hard.

Tators
Hyrum, UT

The problem with people who just say "just don't watch it. Turn it off", is that there are some very good shows and movies on tv... EXCEPT for the fact that many muddy up the waters by throwing in 4-letter words and "brief" nudity. Many of those shows won Academy and Emmy awards because they had great story lines and great acting. So yes, there are those of us that would really like to see those shows and movies (with our families) without having to be exposed to the relatively short smutty parts. To make it worse, the producers of those movies will sue anyone who even briefly edits them by removing the garbage parts. So yes, it really would be great if the standards committees did their jobs and maintained some decent standards... at least on network television.

It's an irony that in the past 50 years we've advanced so far technologically to help our society, yet continue to digress as a people with our general morals. We then reap the results with extreme violence in society, more divorces, more mental illness, etc. Are we really that blind and stupid to continue??

eastcoastcoug
Danbury, CT

I see at least 2 consequences with this ruling:

1- More TV programs will join the rush to be "edgy" and in the end will not be that much different from one another. It's quite easy to add sleaze, profanity, nudity, violence, etc. so the market will get even more crowded than it is. How will HBO differentiate itself? Programs that have quality writing, that actually educate, uplift and inform people will be the ones to differentiate. I currently have hundreds of channels and only a few I care about. I will probably soon join the millions who do without cable or satellite. This will hasten the move towards TV on demand.

2- Rudeness, coarseness, violence and lewdness will continue to grow until and whenever we brush up against it, or a major tragedy occurs eg. Sandy Hook or Aurora, we will argue about the causes of why we are so violent and uncaring for one another, without looking at ourselves and the way we spend money to "entertain" ourselves.

G L W8
SPRINGVILLE, UT

Tators: yes, we are that blind and stupid. Too many of us are on that freight train to you-know-where; others are clamoring to get aboard, others try to flag it down but get run over in the process.

SlopJo30: yes, there are hundreds, even thousands, of options available these days and most of them bad.

I mainly only watch the news on commercial channels. But even then, some of the female moderators dress like they want you fantasizing over their cleavage rather than listening to their reports. BYU TV--thanks for emphasizing the 'good in the world.' You may be our only hope left!

viejogeezer
CARLSBAD, CA

Is it possible to totally agree with the premise of the article and be concerned about increasing violence and sexuality on TV and still wonder why DESNEWS isn't more concerned about gun violence,20% of children in the US not knowing where their next meal is coming from, or 144,000 Americans dying in the last 4 years because they couldn't afford a doctor. I wonder, along with an early mormon general authority if we are not "straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel"

eastcoastcoug
Danbury, CT

@Brian Utley,

It's got nothing to do with fear, shame, etc. TV is all about money and not some higher form of expression. We're not advocating shutting down political expression or educational TV. This is about smut and violence that degrades and "peddles flesh" in the name of "expression". You know that.

@DaveRL,

50K is about the same number who took the time to tell the FAA that they thought it was inane to relax THEIR rules and allow knives of any size on planes. I see a strong analogy with this issue.

As for those of you who think we should just turn it off and not care about what others are watching, there are consequences to our society. We should care what gets marketed (it IS about money after all) in this country. We need to find positive ways (e.g. enlighten on consequences) to let others know we don't like what is happening.

JWB
Kaysville, UT

Having lived in Mississippi and having air broadcast stations from Mississippi, Louisiana and Alabama, we had a campaign in 1978 to push for more decency back then, and some of the stations responded back to me that if I didn't like their station's programs, I could go to other stations as the Networks decided what the stations had. I believe KSL is in that same bind with network broadcast programs as they are affiliated contractually to carry those programs, even with marginal decency. Over the year, for one reason or another KSL has changed Networks but the problem exists on all networks and all stations to a degree. Public television and radio are not exempt from those problems. You just have to cautious of what your family has access to and with cable or satellite networks they can even be more of a problem if one subscribes to certain networks or programs.

This situation has not gotten better with a government that wants to push all forms of morality issues that may be against what the majority want. You can't legislate kindness and morality, even though, I believe, the founding fathers had morality as their hope for America.

Bob A. Bohey
Marlborough, MA

This appears to be an issue that the folks who normally champion for less government intrusion into Americans lives are all for it in (this instance) because of their sensitivity to what is deemed descent. It's kind of like saying I'm all for less government except when I'm for more government. It's really hard to take someone like that seriously on anything.

Johnny Triumph
American Fork, UT

Looks like I'll use my time more wisely if TV degrades more...worse things can happen!

JBQ
Saint Louis, MO

The "violence is worse than the sex". Forensic shows sure beat "Perry Mason" or "Matlock" with the graphics. "The Vampire Diaries" had an early episode where two girls were in a living room and a vampire came in the back door. He ordered them to let in his friend. He then bit into one girl's neck and blood spurted symptomatic of the sexual act. He then ordered his friend to "make her suffer" in regard to the other because she resisted. So, where are the women's rights groups in regard to the exploitation of women?. This is the CW Network. Now, we have "Hannibal" (Lector)NBC to mimick "Dexter" on cable. The tv "powers that be" do not care about the old. They are after the money of the young and to exploit them. Credit card companies won't complain either. Isn't it about time that someone step up and castigate the FCC and those that appoint its governing board? Obama is the current head of the responsibility "food chain". However, I don't hear any Republicans saying anything either. It's all about "ka ching".

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments