Nudity, profanity and broadcast TV: The future hangs in the balance right now

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • jeanie orem, UT
    April 27, 2013 4:54 p.m.

    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?

  • zabivka Orem, UT
    April 21, 2013 8:02 a.m.

    @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.

  • John C. C. Payson, UT
    April 18, 2013 12:46 p.m.

    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.

  • equusrider Bluffdale, UT
    April 18, 2013 11:00 a.m.

    "...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 Sherrod

    The 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.

  • sls Columbia, MO
    April 17, 2013 9:16 p.m.

    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.

  • Gildas LOGAN, UT
    April 17, 2013 6:51 p.m.

    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 you can.

  • Mr.Glass Salt Lake City, UT
    April 17, 2013 5:02 p.m.

    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.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    April 17, 2013 1:23 p.m.

    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.

  • ksampow Farr West, Utah
    April 17, 2013 1:15 p.m.

    "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."

  • dtlenox Olympia, WA
    April 17, 2013 10:39 a.m.

    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.

  • Lindsay Payson, UT
    April 17, 2013 8:50 a.m.

    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 an opinion,

  • Indi135 162 S Marble Canyon Dr., UT
    April 17, 2013 8:51 a.m.

    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.

  • offenderforaword South Jordan, UT
    April 17, 2013 7:40 a.m.

    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.

  • TA1 Alexandria, VA
    April 17, 2013 5:23 a.m.

    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 supposed to.

  • ApacheNaiche PINETOP, AZ
    April 16, 2013 7:34 p.m.

    Ours has become a Godless society.

  • aceroinox Farmington, UT
    April 16, 2013 1:30 p.m.

    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.

  • ClarkHippo Tooele, UT
    April 16, 2013 1:09 p.m.

    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.

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    April 15, 2013 6:34 p.m.


    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.

  • suzyk#1 Mount Pleasant, UT
    April 15, 2013 4:37 p.m.

    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 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 enough.

  • SouthernBaptist Jackson, TN
    April 15, 2013 4:24 p.m.

    We need the TV standards of the 50s on EVERY CHANNEL including HBO, Showtime, etc!

    Get the filth out of our homes!

  • infoman Cedar Hills, UT
    April 15, 2013 4:24 p.m.

    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.

  • SlopJ30 St Louis, MO
    April 15, 2013 3:55 p.m.

    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 rabble?

  • patriot Cedar Hills, UT
    April 15, 2013 3:10 p.m.

    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 president.

  • ipr Spanish Fork, UT
    April 15, 2013 2:55 p.m.

    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.

  • toosmartforyou Farmington, UT
    April 15, 2013 2:26 p.m.

    @ hutterite

    Why 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!

  • andyjaggy American Fork, UT
    April 15, 2013 1:24 p.m.

    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.

  • Harmony Tooele, UT
    April 15, 2013 12:56 p.m.

    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 say.

  • Ernest T. Bass Bountiful, UT
    April 15, 2013 11:42 a.m.

    Every channel just needs to show Little House on the Prarie, Lawrence Welk and The Waltons reruns. Nothing else. And byu football games.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    April 15, 2013 11:08 a.m.

    "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.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    April 15, 2013 11:09 a.m.


    "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.

  • SlopJ30 St Louis, MO
    April 15, 2013 10:42 a.m.

    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.

  • Utes Fan Salt Lake City, UT
    April 15, 2013 10:33 a.m.

    @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 without garbage.

  • Allen Salt Lake valley, UT
    April 15, 2013 10:26 a.m.

    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.

  • Anti Government Alpine, UT
    April 15, 2013 10:14 a.m.

    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 lowered.

  • Mukkake Salt Lake City, UT
    April 15, 2013 9:42 a.m.

    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 ignored.

  • JWB Kaysville, UT
    April 15, 2013 9:35 a.m.

    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.

  • Someone Pinch Me WEST VALLEY CITY, UT
    April 15, 2013 9:21 a.m.

    They say the Devil is in the details, I believe the Devil really is and owns broadcast media in all its forms.

  • Aggielove Cache county, USA
    April 15, 2013 9:16 a.m.

    It's simple.
    If it gets worse, we will cancel the Dish.

  • JBQ Saint Louis, MO
    April 15, 2013 9:17 a.m.

    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".

  • Johnny Triumph American Fork, UT
    April 15, 2013 9:09 a.m.

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

  • Bob A. Bohey Marlborough, MA
    April 15, 2013 9:04 a.m.

    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.

  • JWB Kaysville, UT
    April 15, 2013 8:43 a.m.

    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.

  • eastcoastcoug Danbury, CT
    April 15, 2013 8:33 a.m.

    @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.


    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.

  • viejogeezer CARLSBAD, CA
    April 15, 2013 8:28 a.m.

    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"

    April 15, 2013 8:26 a.m.

    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!

  • eastcoastcoug Danbury, CT
    April 15, 2013 8:22 a.m.

    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 Hyrum, UT
    April 15, 2013 8:03 a.m.

    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??

  • SlopJ30 St Louis, MO
    April 15, 2013 7:17 a.m.

    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.

  • DaveRL OGDEN, UT
    April 15, 2013 6:34 a.m.

    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.

  • cjb Bountiful, UT
    April 15, 2013 6:32 a.m.

    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.

  • Albert Maslar CPA (Retired) Absecon, NJ
    April 15, 2013 6:21 a.m.

    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.

  • JMH Provo, UT
    April 15, 2013 6:19 a.m.

    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.

  • Pete1215 Lafayette, IN
    April 15, 2013 5:53 a.m.

    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.

  • ParkCityAggie Park City, Ut
    April 15, 2013 12:49 a.m.

    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.

  • Brian Utley Freedom, IN
    April 14, 2013 10:14 p.m.

    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?

  • JSB Sugar City, ID
    April 14, 2013 9:35 p.m.

    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.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    April 14, 2013 8:13 p.m.

    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.

  • Phillip M Hotchkiss Malta, Mt
    April 14, 2013 8:13 p.m.

    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