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
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.
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.
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?
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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??
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.
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!
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"
@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.
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
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
Looks like I'll use my time more wisely if TV degrades more...worse things
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".
It's simple.If it gets worse, we will cancel the Dish.
They say the Devil is in the details, I believe the Devil really is and owns
broadcast media in all its forms.
Government and the FCC have not pushed for more decency. They push for more
liberal programming in all cases. Decency involves all types of programming
that is pervasive. The PG-13 programming is very general and even liberal on
the definitions they have used for 30 years to put in all types of what I would
call R rated type material. Money does buy a lot of favors and
pushes the agenda of Congress and the President. As we know, the Supreme Court
through their Senatorial processes and nomination by the President come into the
Court with their own bias that can appear to be persuaded in certain
circumstances. The shift of people and parties to a certain agenda is
influenced by their next vote, either in Court or Senate and even at the ballot
box. Advertisers and sponsors also influence the producer, networks
and directors to put in their own agenda items at the expense of what the book
actually put in the script.
Anybody catch Game of Thrones or Mad Men last night?The best TV is
found on cable/satellite, where the FCCs "decency" rules are already
All part of the plan with regards to sexualizing the youth of America.The filth continues to pour out of hollywood and the bar is continually
I've never watched a lot of TV, and my wife and I have been pretty
selective about the programs we did watch. However, for economic reasons,
I've cut the cord to cable TV and am watching air-air TV. There are quite a
few TV stations in the SL area, and we have pretty good choices of programs. I
enjoy getting HD air-air TV since we didn't pay for HD cable TV.
@Bob A. Bohey"This appears to be an issue that the folks who
normally champion for less government intrusion into Americans lives are all for
it in... It's kind of like saying I'm all for less government except
when I'm for more government."-----------And the
folks who normally champion for more government intrusion into American lives
now want less government intrusion because of their insensitivity to morals and
decency, the negative effects on children, etc. It is hard to take those who
want more garbage etc. on TV seriously when their own standards are changed to
fit their own agenda. If you want your smut nobody is stopping you - you have
plenty of options. For those who want the option of decency without being
flooded with garbage, we want that option too. It's kind of
like saying, "I want more government except when I want less
government". Yes, that logic seems to work against both sides. So instead let's make the moral standards the argument, shall we? In all
fairness, you can have your garbage, just let me have a choice to be entertained
G L W8: "yes, there are hundreds, even thousands, of options available these
days and most of them bad."This took me right back to my dad
railing about the horrible state of modern music (the 80's, at the time)
and how it was all "modulated noise." So I asked, him, on multiple
occasions, if he could name more than a couple of bands or songs he specifically
objected to. Of course, he couldn't. He had his straw man and his
generalizations and that was all he needed. You comment is more of
the same. "Most of them" are "bad"? First of all, I'll bet
you lunch that you can't tell me thing one about the content of 90%+ of the
programs you'll find by pulling up a Dish menu. Then there's the
matter of what "bad" means. Far too many people in these discussions
confuse taste with morality. Your dislike of a particular program doesn't
mean it's harmful to society. It just means you dislike it.
@eastcoastcoug"1- More TV programs will join the rush to be
"edgy" and in the end will not be that much different from one
another."No, they won't. The article says that they are not
changing the standard for deliberate or repetitive use of these things. Scripted
shows will not have it at all. What this would change is something
incidental that the network couldn't really control. Like that Janet
Jackson halftime show. Or a swear word being caught on a microphone of a
reporter by a fan or athlete at a sporting event.
"it would like to ease up on enforcing existing decency standards for
broadcast television and radio by only punishing the “deliberate and
repetitive use” of profanity and nudity."This means that
no scripted shows will change because it'd be deliberate instances.
Every channel just needs to show Little House on the Prarie, Lawrence Welk and
The Waltons reruns. Nothing else. And byu football games.
It's the principle of the thing. The real issue isn't concerning the
media and whether or not profanity should be displayed to toddlers (although I
do believe that's wrong). It's experimenting with the public and
finding out how much they can get away with. This is a baby step toward even
more drastic actions. And it sounds to me like the 50,000+ comments they have
already received aren't being given much consideration, no matter what they
My wife and I have gone 5 years now without having our TV hooked up, I
can't say we miss it one bit. We still watch movies, and one day we may
even get Netflix, but it's quite liberating to not have TV in our home.
@ hutteriteWhy is it that the seemy, the vulgar, the adult and the
profane always want their rights but there is no right for the innocent, such as
children and grandchildre, as well as youth (and adults for that matter), such
that they can avoid all the gargabe in society? Why does freedom always mean
kinky, obscene and lewd? The persons that want to swim in the
sewage certainly have that available to them; why does everyone else to avoid it
have to "turn it off?" I am seriously asking. Let the perverter
viewers be the one who have to "turn it on" at their own expense, but
fiscally and morally. I saw a movie review that said "PG-13,
Profanity, Nudity, Sexual Content, Violemce and Abusive Behavior." Why
would anyone ever want to waste their money on such questionable and filthy
viewing? And yet the movie critics say "mild language" when they really
ought to say "raw language." Time for fantasyland (Hollywood) to grow
some morals but don't look for that to ever happen......ever!
25 years ago I lived in Europe - my kids grew up there. One day I was watching
a children's tv program with them. One of the commercials announced that
that evening there would be a show about "a day in the life of a
prostitute." It shows full frontal nudity - and, mind you, this was during
a children's program. Advertisements for show gel - a naked woman in the
shower - are a common occurrence. If people don't think that this
won't happen here, they are awfully naive.
no question it is only a matter of time - short amount of time - before NBC,
ABC, CBS have R rated programming complete with the 'F' bomb and
sexual scenes sparing nothing. I suspect you are going to have to have some sort
of filter to watch the superbowl with your family going forward ...but I'm
certain the left will attempt to block any filtering of content as well. I
haven't watched NBC, CBS or ABC for years just because the programming is
trashy but I suspect it is about to get alot worse. It feels like America is
turning into "Pottersville" and no cooincidence with Barack Obama being
Oh, dear, the sky is falling, filth filth filth, devil devil devil. If you lot
could find a way to monetize hand-wringing, you'd be rolling in it.I'll say it again: if you can't find anything to watch that
suits your standards, you simply aren't trying very hard. If you have
transceneded the desire to watch TV anyway, why are you mingling with we, the
I am not in favor of the proposed changes, but it should be pointed out that the
AFA statement was very misleading. It makes it sound like the FCC is proposing a
changing of the standards to allow constant nudity and obscene language 24 hours
a day, which is not the case. However, if the enforcement policy is allowed to
change, I'm sure it won't be long before the AFA's
sensationalized version actually does become true.
We need the TV standards of the 50s on EVERY CHANNEL including HBO, Showtime,
etc!Get the filth out of our homes!
What is wrong with the FCC? There is so much smut, profanity, nudity and
everything else degrading on our TV that it is getting to the point we watch
only a few select channels. It is not good for children to watch more programs
anymore...it pollutes their innocent minds and that is not good....there is
nothing good from violence, profanity and leud dress. The moral balance in our
country is pathetic and sad. Someone needs to stand up to the FCC and let them
know we don't want them to ease anymore restrictions...we've had
Background:In 2001, the FCC put out a policy statement that it would
no longer punish fleeting and isolated uses of expletives. But during the next
few years, the FCC changed its stance, warning Fox over curse words uttered by
Cher and Nicole Richie on awards shows and fining ABC for fleeting nudity on the
drama NYPD Blue. The new toughness also came amid Janet Jackson's
high-profile "wardrobe malfunction" during the 2004 Super Bowl halftime
show.Fox and ABC challenged the FCC's actions, and the 2nd Circuit
Court of Appeal vacated the regulatory agency's policy enforcement as
"arbitrary and capricious." In 2009, the dispute went to the Supreme
Court, which reversed the 2nd Circuit but failed to make a broad ruling on the
First Amendment challenges brought by broadcasters. The dispute was sent back to
the 2nd Circuit, which again found that the FCC was wrong.
My wife and I have a lot of friends who watch "Glee" and "How I Met
Your Mother."We watched a few episodes of each and neither show
impressed us, so we don't watch them.That's our choice.Some of my co-workers are really big fans of the shows "Tru
Blood" and "Breaking Bad." My wife and I figured any HBO program
with the word "Blood" in the title isn't a show we'd care to
watch, but we gave "Breaking Bad" a try. We didn't like it so we
don't watch it.That's our choice. We decided
to investigate a show called "Lark Rise to Candleford" which aired on
the BBC from 2008-2011. WE LOVE IT! And while there's only 40 episodes, the
show is amazing, so we watch it via KUED and Netflix. That's
our choice. We also watch Downton Abbey and Psych. Again, that's our choice. I have no problem with having some
FCC regulations, but ultimately, just like movies and books, my wife and I
choose to be our own regulators. We're think we're smart enough to do
so without too much help from the government.
For those complaining about the FCC monitoring and preventing indecency, and
berating those who'd like the previous standard enforced, be aware that the
airwaves belong to the citizens of this country. They are a public trust. The
FCC's mandate is to maintain and protect the public airwaves so they serve
the people. As a result, there are regulations that prevent individual stations
the networks from boosting the volume during TV spots, or promoting a certain
political candidate without providing equal time for the opponent. The previous
decency standard served that public well in that it provided for a period of
time in the evening when families could sit down together and watch TV and not
have to worry about inappropriate material.The FCC's
guardianship of the public airwaves is no different that the BLM or Park Service
regulating what can happen within the bounds of another public trust: public
lands and waterways. If you really want the FCC to back away from decency, then
I suppose you're OK to eliminate regulation of public land use, including
mining, drilling, four-wheeling, pollution of streams and lakes, etc?
Didn't think so.
Ours has become a Godless society.
Do we digress as a society in our moral values or have those who have been
entrusted with being the guardians of those values merely failed to do so. I am
more inclined to think the latter - so - turn off the TV if you don't like
what on and go take care of the poor, the sick and afflicted - like you were
We have basically given up expecting Network TV to edit out what we don't
want to see. It'd be nice if standards didn't loosen up so much, but
I think that ship has sailed.We decided to turn on Comcast filters.
Any show above PG requires entering a passcode. As a result the kids don't
watch anything but channels like ESPN, Disney, History, Discovery without us
present. We finally got Netflix on TV and they watch some kid shows there.We're finding they spend more time reading, and also probably too
much time on the computer. Still trying to figure out what we're ok with,
and I expect that to be ongoing.
There is an entire generation of kids watching TV unsupervised because their
parents are working, or busy, or don't realize what their kids are
watching. That is tragic, but it is still the truth. What do you want them
watching, they aren't adults. I have followed the principle of 'Turn
it off if you don't like it' and that has essentially led to . . . . I
don't have a TV. There are plenty of places out there you can find adult
level entertainment for free. Shouldn't there be at least one place that
you can also find family friendly entertainment without having to buy expensive
devices to block out most of the shows? And what happens when you miss one.
STOP crying that you don't like people having morale standards. If you
want to live someplace without morality and values that is your own business,
but this is my home too.
I DVR most shows, we rarely watch TV live. But if I don't skip all the
commercials we see ads for shows during prime time that I would rather my child
not see! You want swearing and nudity, get cable and pay for those channels.
By dont relax broadcast standards! And yes, I was one of the 50,000 who filed
Even more reason not to watch regular TV anymore, and to not bother with any
kind of cable subscription. We haven't subscribed to cable TV for years. We
get all our TV from internet sites (netflix, hulu, and also many sites which
have old and newer TV shows available to watch for free). It's cheaper and
better than cable TV. Having a Roku box allows us to easily get programs on the
BYU channel, which are very worthwhile. If the TV networks want to continue to
lower their standars to appeal to the lowest common denominator, then let's
just cut the cord and stop patronizing them.
"Don't watch if you don't want to see/hear it" doesn't
work. You can be watching a g-rated TV show and an indecent ad will appear with
no warning. We wouldn't allow food to be sold if it contained even small
amounts of lethal poison. Indecency is poison to the mind (and soul). Go on
the internet and check out the website "Fight the New Drug."
To "ksampow" I think that you are on to something.Isn't
it ironic that the same people who want to legislate salt, sugar, and fat intake
because of health concerns are the same that want to allow the FCC to relax its
rules to allow more garbage on TV?This reminds me of ancient Rome
and their idea to entertain the people so that they will be passified and not
realize that their nation was starving and crumbling around them.
Broadcast TV broadcasts a great deal of garbage without profanity and nudity.
However, I'm not sure why people assume television that includes profanity
and nudity automatically translates into garbage. I'm often puzzled when
people dismiss rated R movies without considering the actual content. A rated R
movie can be far more uplifting and/or insightful than a PG rated movie devoid
of profanity and nudity. I think people should be more upset with the quality
of programming that currently exists, and not worry so much about shows that
contain profanity and nudity. Obviously, you simply need to keep those shows
away from young ones, but such is the case with programs that already exists,
and such is also the case with the commercials that push sex and materialism.
Well let's see: there's radio and the internet, dvd's, tapes,
books. I don't think we really need TV do we? Even with 150
channels it's an expensive option with, too many times, nothing much worth
watching. On the internet you can now even choose what products you are willing
to see advertised, and with dvd's can completely avoid commercials. You
can build a library of videos, educational and recreational, that will not
offend your standards or be the usual inane and mind numbing stuff.Even with TV you can opt to watch programming without commercial
interruptions. That'a partly why I actually like much of the fare on
Public TV, and you pay only what you can afford - or nothing at all, and they
don't have to bow to public pressure and can broadcast classic drama,
classic comedy, educational and cultural options. You can pick and choose from
up to 30 or 40 channels "out of the air" nowadays - well in many areas
I lived in Europe and ended up adopting the directive to turn off the tv.
However, I like to watch tv and I like to watch tv with my eleven-year-old son
sometimes. I'm glad that there are a few things in America that I can
still watch with him. The warnings in the upper left-hand corner are worthless
if the FCC is not going to enforce some standards to protect my rights and the
rights of my son to not be exposed to indecency for temporary wardrobe
malfunctions and temporary profanity.
"...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.
Please write the FCC! Use your own words rather than some boiler-plate message
for you to sign your name to. 59,000+ comments is nowhere near enough to
convince the FCC that we are serious about protecting our community
standards.If we can't return broadcasting standards back to
decent levels innocent children will continue to suffer, both directly and
indirectly as a result of the growing plague of porn addiction.
@ApacheNaiche - Getting there! It's tough, because people want to hang onto
irrational beliefs that have been holding back human progress for years.
"Godless society"? Yes, please.
Zabivka - just curious about exactly where you would propose we humans should
progress to that a belief in god has been keeping us all from?