RuntheDamnBall Posted July 22, 2006 Share Posted July 22, 2006 Story Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted July 22, 2006 Share Posted July 22, 2006 Story 727178[/snapback] When did the president cuss on TV? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UConn James Posted July 22, 2006 Share Posted July 22, 2006 When did the president cuss on TV? 727180[/snapback] At the G8. The feed for that press conference-type thing was broadcast. Probably on something akin to C-SPAN. Then again, that gets into a whole argument of, "If no one is watching, is it really a 'broadcast'?" In my perview, soldiers talking about a war should be allowed to say whatever they want on a documentary about it, FCC, Michael Powell, and the Religious Right be damned. What do they think the TV-14 L,D stands for? The "Safe Harbor" zone of 6am-10pm goes a little too far into the pm. If your 12-year old is still up at 10pm, kids hearing swears isn't the biggest parenting problem in your house. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuntheDamnBall Posted July 22, 2006 Author Share Posted July 22, 2006 At the G8. The feed for that press conference-type thing was broadcast. Probably on something akin to C-SPAN. Then again, that gets into a whole argument of, "If no one is watching, is it really a 'broadcast'?" In my perview, soldiers talking about a war should be allowed to say whatever they want on a documentary about it, FCC, Michael Powell, and the Religious Right be damned. What do they think the TV-14 L,D stands for? The "Safe Harbor" zone of 6am-10pm goes a little too far into the pm. If your 12-year old is still up at 10pm, kids hearing swears isn't the biggest parenting problem in your house. 727191[/snapback] Exactly. Or is it, parental responsibility=bad, in this case? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted July 22, 2006 Share Posted July 22, 2006 Story 727178[/snapback] That was a private conversation over dinner......this is a nonstory, and why news has become a laughingstock Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted July 22, 2006 Share Posted July 22, 2006 At the G8. The feed for that press conference-type thing was broadcast. Probably on something akin to C-SPAN. Then again, that gets into a whole argument of, "If no one is watching, is it really a 'broadcast'?" 727191[/snapback] Not to mention the argument, "If the president doesn't know he's being broadcast, can we blame him for saying things on a broadcast?" This isn't Janet Jackson at the Superbowl; Bush and Blair quite reasonably thought the conversation was private and the mic was off. As for this particular case...the FCC can shove their rules up their ass. It's a !@#$ing documentary on !@#$ing soldiers, and the coarse language, believe it or not, goes a long way towards conveying the absolute sh------- nature of warfare. They didn't cut the nudity out of Schindler's List when they aired it in prime-time...because it was an important part of the story, not salacious. Ditto the profanity in a documentary about war. But on the other hand, as I think about it, sanitizing it shows what the soldiers are fighting for better than anything else I can think of: they're fighting for the rights of uptight neo-Puritanical Americans to make Victorian England look like a Roman orgy. That in itself is an important point to get across...so by all means, cut the profanity. In fact, cut out any images of guns, knives, blood, dirt, dust, grime...just have all the soldiers sitting in a big circle in a flower garden singing camp songs, because I think it's important in this documentary to portary the completely unrealistic view of the world the neo-Puritans have... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted July 22, 2006 Share Posted July 22, 2006 Not to mention the argument, "If the president doesn't know he's being broadcast, can we blame him for saying things on a broadcast?" This isn't Janet Jackson at the Superbowl; Bush and Blair quite reasonably thought the conversation was private and the mic was off. As for this particular case...the FCC can shove their rules up their ass. It's a !@#$ing documentary on !@#$ing soldiers, and the coarse language, believe it or not, goes a long way towards conveying the absolute sh------- nature of warfare. They didn't cut the nudity out of Schindler's List when they aired it in prime-time...because it was an important part of the story, not salacious. Ditto the profanity in a documentary about war. But on the other hand, as I think about it, sanitizing it shows what the soldiers are fighting for better than anything else I can think of: they're fighting for the rights of uptight neo-Puritanical Americans to make Victorian England look like a Roman orgy. That in itself is an important point to get across...so by all means, cut the profanity. In fact, cut out any images of guns, knives, blood, dirt, dust, grime...just have all the soldiers sitting in a big circle in a flower garden singing camp songs, because I think it's important in this documentary to portary the completely unrealistic view of the world the neo-Puritans have... 727219[/snapback] its a strange world we live in, and the more we cover up, the more we see how strange it actually is. Political correctness does nothing but sustain that which it seeks to destroy. By covering up that which is wrong, we do not expose our children to what is wrong, allowing us to teach them it is wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaJoe Posted July 22, 2006 Share Posted July 22, 2006 Anything goes with Bush in public, at least with Clinton he groped women in private, Bush groped the German Chancellor in front of the cameras. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UConn James Posted July 22, 2006 Share Posted July 22, 2006 Not to mention the argument, "If the president doesn't know he's being broadcast, can we blame him for saying things on a broadcast?" This isn't Janet Jackson at the Superbowl; Bush and Blair quite reasonably thought the conversation was private and the mic was off. 727219[/snapback] The FCC rules follow that old standard of "I know it when I see it." Some cases, it's ruled to be accidental (e.g. when an anchor (Lester Holt, iirc) let one fly when a monkey unexpectedly jumped on him during a segment), other times not. Combine this with the "major league a--hole" and the "Go F--- yourself" that caught open mics and the old axiom 'Do as we say, not as we do' is alive and well. One could argue for the expectation of privacy b/w Bush and Blair (I personally think this open mic incident was done on purpose to send that message to Syria). Then again, there's this story where the weather guy had an expectation that the tape wouldn't air and he was fired for it. No FCC fine expected, but that's not b/c one couldn't be issued, but rather that no one called in other than to laugh. So the solution is we need to add a Ned Flanders-ese to high school core curriculms.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted July 22, 2006 Share Posted July 22, 2006 So the solution is we need to add a Ned Flanders-ese to high school core curriculms.... 727231[/snapback] Some folks might think thats okaley-dokaley Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuntheDamnBall Posted July 23, 2006 Author Share Posted July 23, 2006 That was a private conversation over dinner......this is a nonstory, and why news has become a laughingstock 727215[/snapback] It's not a nonstory to people who are working on documentaries. I happen to be, and IMO it's bull sh--. It's not a nonstory to viewers, either. Look, I'm saying the President doesn't live in a lily-white world where no one swears or hears bad words, words that might corrupt a child to the point where they become President of the United States or meet some other awful fate. Nor did these soldiers, and I'm sure they've got something a lot more poignant to share than that they wished their opponents in war would stop "doing sh--." News is a laughing stock because what Paris Hilton had for dinner is news. News is a laughing stock because it is becoming MORE censored, MORE geared toward generating spectacle and excitement and less towards informing the people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted July 23, 2006 Share Posted July 23, 2006 News is a laughing stock because what Paris Hilton had for dinner is news. News is a laughing stock because it is becoming MORE censored, MORE geared toward generating spectacle and excitement and less towards informing the people. 727465[/snapback] Its turning into a half assed reality show. For years people worried about whether Big Brother was watching. Then everyone turned on CBS and started watching Big Brother. Might as well just take Bush, Hillary, Pelosi, Blair, and whoever else and just lock them in a small house with cameras everywhere so they'll stop being nice and start being real. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted July 23, 2006 Share Posted July 23, 2006 It's not a nonstory to people who are working on documentaries. I happen to be, and IMO it's bull sh--. It's not a nonstory to viewers, either. Look, I'm saying the President doesn't live in a lily-white world where no one swears or hears bad words, words that might corrupt a child to the point where they become President of the United States or meet some other awful fate. Nor did these soldiers, and I'm sure they've got something a lot more poignant to share than that they wished their opponents in war would stop "doing sh--." News is a laughing stock because what Paris Hilton had for dinner is news. News is a laughing stock because it is becoming MORE censored, MORE geared toward generating spectacle and excitement and less towards informing the people. 727465[/snapback] Sorry- I see complete political agenda in this....and I'm not a big Bush fan either. I have no problem with him cursing in a private conversation. This is a prime example of the ridiculous world of 24 hour "news" its not news, its not really even press....its CNN as part of the world of entertainment, which afforded no freedoms that I don't have Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blzrul Posted July 23, 2006 Share Posted July 23, 2006 sh--, we can't even !@#$ing curse on this board. Why the !@#$ are we held to a higher !@#$ing standard then a rich stupid !@#$ing fratboy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted July 23, 2006 Share Posted July 23, 2006 sh--, we can't even !@#$ing curse on this board. Why the !@#$ are we held to a higher !@#$ing standard then a rich stupid !@#$ing fratboy? 727569[/snapback] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted July 24, 2006 Share Posted July 24, 2006 At the G8. The feed for that press conference-type thing was broadcast. Probably on something akin to C-SPAN. Then again, that gets into a whole argument of, "If no one is watching, is it really a 'broadcast'?" In my perview, soldiers talking about a war should be allowed to say whatever they want on a documentary about it, FCC, Michael Powell, and the Religious Right be damned. What do they think the TV-14 L,D stands for? The "Safe Harbor" zone of 6am-10pm goes a little too far into the pm. If your 12-year old is still up at 10pm, kids hearing swears isn't the biggest parenting problem in your house. 727191[/snapback] I must be a horrible parent then. I have a 3 year old who's up until 9:30-10 every night. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UConn James Posted July 24, 2006 Share Posted July 24, 2006 Now I'm hearing that the FCC is scouring tapes of past sports events to find if any obscenities got on the air in the background. Does it comfort you that they're spending time and money to make sure some drunk Braves fan's words to the ref don't go unpunished? Does one have an expectation of privacy in the nosebleed section? Apparently not. Yet the Current Occupant can let 'em fly. Bono can let out an f-bomb at the Golden Globes.... Oh wait.... No, we changed our minds. No. No, he can't. BTW, the fine for an obscenity just went from $32,500 to $325,000 in the Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act that Bush signed last month. Where else can one more easily simulatenously legislate morality and display one's hypocracy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattyT Posted July 24, 2006 Share Posted July 24, 2006 Anybody know how the government is spending with the FCC fines? Does a platoon in Iraq or Afghanistan get new body armor everytime somebody says "sh--" on TV? If so, I'm going to go out of my way to get into more live TV shots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon in Pasadena Posted July 24, 2006 Share Posted July 24, 2006 I must be a horrible parent then. I have a 3 year old who's up until 9:30-10 every night. 727914[/snapback] Same here. At first I tried the "tough guy" method on my son (also 3 years old) and shut him up in the bedroom at a reasonably early hour. Every evening, after much wailing ensued, he'd quiet down. Upon checking him, I found he was NOT sleeping; rather he was reading his dinosaur books. For hours. He wasn't getting to sleep any earlier, and he was missing out on family time, and most important, it was getting to where he knew more dinosaur names than me, which is completely unacceptable. So now we all turn in around 10:00 Oh yeah, as for the topic: I could give 2 ***** if somebody cusses in a documentary about war. Edit: hey whatever happened to the stevestojan filter? Did I miss the memo? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ch19079 Posted July 28, 2006 Share Posted July 28, 2006 "They teach us to drop fire on people, but we can not write !@#$ on our planes because it is obscene." -apocalypse now- A great movie, that makes you think... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts