Recommend good HBO series?

May I ask who "we" is in that sentence? I don't know which country you're from.

Izzythepush is in England, south.

Yes I have.

From what I've seen watching Peepshow and Shameless on the Netflix, I'm thinking the Beeb is pretty damn un-uptight for public airways.

Oh bloody hell, Shameless. I can't watch that.

(Don't worry, I'll never recommend anything of that ilk).

You have invited Ricky Gervais to some events, though. Americans know, do they not, that not all Brits wear bowler hats and carry a rolled umbrella.

The UK and Oz are both less inhibited than the US re TV. You guys seem to have to go to cable for similar.

Are you suggesting that there are no people in Oz who object to profanity and nudity? Profanity and nudity don't appear on the public air waves precisely because cable and satellite television are available. Before the mid-1970s, the "Big Three" (NBC, CBS and ABC), along with PBS and a handful of independent local stations were all the choices one had for television, unless one was on the Canadian or Mexican border. Then cable companies began to spread like a rash, and the prevelance of profanity and nudity increased, especially after Home Box Office started up. But there are a lot of "family values" types in the United States who don't want to see that on the television--so the open air broadcast networks still eschew those things, and everybody gets what they want.

It gets tedious to be constantly told how inhibited we are, or that we don't understand irony, or that we lack a sense of humor, or whatever, on and on and on, by people who don't live here and really don't know what the hell they're talking about.

We have cable etc., but we get profanity and nudity on normal channels...just after kid time and with warnings. For example there was no censoring of the Sopranos, Deadwood etc. when they were showing on free to air here. Cable has a lower take-up rate here.

Sure there are people who object, but they haven't affected the free to air networks much.

Get over yourself. It IS the truth that free to air TV here and in the UK is less censored. You seeing that as an insult is your problem. Some people from your country would see it as a sign of moral health. So it goes.

I get tired of your over sensitivity and tantrums.

It's not a tantrum to point out the snotty attitudes which people bring here. I don't see it as an insult, i just see it as boorish.

You don't have hundreds of people coming here to criticize Oz every day, easy enough for you to carp about sensitivity and "tantrums."

I get tired of your boorishness. You're a poorly behaved guest.

I think the right way to say it is "smeg you, dlowan!"

I'll second that. It is the truth.The frigging bleeping and the goshdarn euphemizing on American TV stands out among developed nations. Well, at least it stands out in contrast to Europe. I can't speak to Australia, Japan, and Canada.

Guest?

Idiot.

You are a poorly behaved person. Your tantrums infect most threads you post on.

I think you're a nice guy with problems, so I generally ignore your nonsense and focus on the good bits.

I'll just give you a miss for a while.

What's "Shameless"?

Thank you, i'll keep that in mind.

You do that. I have little interest in your "nice gal" with an attitude problem, so it should work out for us both.

Can't you see how silly it is to level such a criticism? The complaint is that a certain television venue in the United States is (quote) "inhibited" because they don't show something produced by another television venue in the United States. Any two national systems which one would want to compare, one being that in the United States, would simply be different, neither being better nor worse.

In fact, i would suggest to you that other television systems simply don't serve that segment of their potential audience who don't want profanity, nudity or sexually suggestive content. Of course, television is not state-subsidized in the United States, except for the paltry sums given to PBS. So people get what is produced when the object is to chase the advertising dollar, and the advertisers are going to want bland an inoffensive on the principle that it will have the widest appeal.

A few years ago, about the time of the invasion of Iraq, an American congresswomen said on TV, in deeply concerned tones, "War is heck."

But she was right . . . it is, it is ! ! !

Shameless?I think there's an American version of this drama series out now.
The British one is fairly disgusting (to sensitive souls like me.)

This link may not be of too much help, licencing difficulties and all that.

http://www.channel4.com/programmes/shameless

No. Terrestrial TV stations in the US are inhibited because the FCC inhibits them. The stations themselves do not wish to sanitize the language of what they're broadcasting.

For a recent demonstration, consider the case of Fox v. FCC. Someone said "****" during an awards ceremony. Fox broadcast the ceremony live and didn't get around to bleeping out the expletive. The FCC fined Fox. Fox sued the FCC, charging that the FCC was acting arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act. (They lost.) On remand, the appeals court for the Second Circuit decided that the FCC's regulations chill free speech through unconstitutional vagueness (PDF). The Supreme Court is reviewing this decision now.

From here I could digress into a full lecture, but I think I've made my point: There is no need for us to speculate that terrestrial TV is inhibited in the United States. We know that it is, because we can observe the FCC inhibiting it. Cable TV, by contrast, is not subject to these inhibitions, and consequently is free to keep the expletives in.


I duly note your suggestion, but dismiss it for two reasons. The first reason is the FCC's regulatory regime I just mentioned. It explains broadcasters' behavior all by itself. My second reason is that Germany has both public and private TV. Both are subject to the same regulations, which are permissive by American standards. You can see people swear equally freely in both kinds of channels. This suggests to me that any pressure from advertisers is minimal in this regard.