TV Censorship

How bout not sitting your kid in front of the tv like a babysitter? Or limited tv time? Maybe parents shouldn't put tvs in their kids bedrooms.

The ratings are entirely arbitrary which makes them useless.

Of course they aren't saying it's the end all-be all. They'd be laughed out of the business if they did. But they are arguing (just as you have) that there is little need for government regulation because they have alternatives in place.

And Fishin' - I see your point about the vchip limitations and that ratings are decided by the producers, and that's a really solid point. The thing is, you know someone is on the producer's butt (like legal teams and publicists) so they're going to want to choose a rating that will be most appropriate I would think - thus making the ratings not so arbitrary - just not chosen by one organization.

No no - I think the point of the TV Watch stance is that there should not be such tight government regulation - not because there are alternatives like vchips - but because the parents, instead, should be the governing body over what their kids watch. Does that make sense? Things like the vchips, the rating explanations, etc - those are all things to help parents if they need them - but the overarching message is that parents should be parenting, not the government.

If that is true then why are they greatly exagerting the extent of the government regulation? Between 1990 and 2004 there were a grand total of 75 fines PROPOSED (not actually levied!) by the FCC for a grand total of some $4.5 million. 87% of that total was directed at 5 specific RADIO broadcasts. The Janet Jackson Superbowl show accounted for an additional 4% of the total. That leaves a whopping total of some $440K in fines against all other broadcasts - Radio and TV -over a 14 year period for an average of some $31K a year. That's less than my town of some 5,000 people takes in in traffic fines each year. Where is that "tight government regulation"???

In 2004, the FCC issued a record $7.9 million in fines, including a $550,000 fine against Viacom Inc., which owns CBS, for the 2004 Super Bowl halftime show featuring Jackson.

fishin' wrote:

If that is true then why are they greatly exagerting the extent of the government regulation? Between 1990 and 2004 there were a grand total of 75 fines PROPOSED (not actually levied!) by the FCC for a grand total of some $4.5 million. 87% of that total was directed at 5 specific RADIO broadcasts. The Janet Jackson Superbowl show accounted for an additional 4% of the total. That leaves a whopping total of some $440K in fines against all other broadcasts - Radio and TV -over a 14 year period for an average of some $31K a year. That's less than my town of some 5,000 people takes in in traffic fines each year. Where is that "tight government regulation"???

Fishin' - I did some research too and according to an AP article dated Aug 24, 2005 called "Congress Yet to Pass Indecency Law" - the number of fines is drastically higher - the AP reported that:

Quote:

In 2004, the FCC issued a record $7.9 million in fines, including a $550,000 fine against Viacom Inc., which owns CBS, for the 2004 Super Bowl halftime show featuring Jackson.

Where did you get your information?

The way I see it - is right now there's enough regulation and efforts for stricter regulation that content is already being affected - like I said before - TV Watch's website has a list of recent programming that has been altered or withheld due to threats of fines etc. It was pretty shocking to me and quite an eye-opener, personally, to this whole censorship issue.