TV Censorship, Should i be Offended?

steve remchak · **Posted:** Mon Mar 23, 2009 10:37 pm

3 to 1 it's less than 5 responses with 65 views but i digress.

WRAL & WRAZ routinely censor prime time network broadcasts by muting the sound of portions of episodes apparently offensive to someone in control of bottom-line dollars.

while i believe they only force their archaic hand of morality upon re-run programming, it still thoroughly pisses me off. i don't always catch first run programming and i would have liked to have heard the "maple syrup" joke this evening.

i can only guess that the local CBS / Fox affiliate has a more vocal Temperance & Fire-n-Brimstone constituency than it has an audience that actually cares enough to protest the blatantly offensive nature of their censorship.

JDM yohe, V-Tech FTW. just so as to stay peer group topical, yah know. :twisted:

http://www.mp3tube.net/musics/Talking-H ... ler/75427/

Carl Fisher · **Posted:** Mon Mar 23, 2009 10:44 pm

www.tivo.com or better?

steve remchak · **Posted:** Mon Mar 23, 2009 11:07 pm

sure i could roll over and accept the local censorship Carl, but it is a nationally broadcasted show.

should the local affiliate be allowed this much control over what we all watch? WRAL is merely a franchise of the national network IMO. should they be allowed to pass judgement upon the viability of national programming?

obviously they are legally entitled to censor what they air over their network. i find this legal abuse of opinion offensive to say the least.

Jason Mauldin · **Posted:** Mon Mar 23, 2009 11:10 pm

Any chance they were showing a rerun of a show that originally aired at a later time? They seem to let the 9:00PM shows get away with a lot more than the 7:00PM shows.

steve remchak · **Posted:** Mon Mar 23, 2009 11:12 pm

Jason Mauldin wrote:

Any chance they were showing a rerun of a show that originally aired at a later time? They seem to let the 9:00PM shows get away with a lot more than the 7:00PM shows.

it did come on at 8PM Jason. but i believe it was only 30 minutes earlier than it would have normally aired.

Arthur McDonald · **Joined:** Fri Aug 29, 2003 1:54 am **Posts:** 2052

I don't know what show (or joke) you're talking about, but in my opinion, the broadcast networks and their local affiliates have a responsibility to provide programming that is appropriate for all ages. They have no idea who is watching at any given time, and should plan their programming accordingly. Simply cutting the volume for a few seconds of particularly (presumed) vulgar dialog doesn't cut it.

MikeWhitney · **Joined:** Wed Aug 20, 2003 9:15 pm **Posts:** 4724

Send them an email and tell them that you're pissed off and are planning to only watch TV shows that you download from BitTorrent from now on.

The beauty of free market capitalism, and a thriving pirate community, is that you can tell any traditional company you don't like to f*ck off.

To answer your question, no, you should not be offended. Just take this as an opportunity to explore your options. If you want the TV stations to change, make sure they know you are exploring your options. If enough people do this, they would change to maximize profit.

And to answer the undercurrent question, NO there should NOT be additional laws about what should or should not be said on TV. Leave it up to the stations and the viewers.

steve remchak · **Posted:** Tue Mar 24, 2009 12:40 am

Arthur McDonald wrote:

I don't know what show (or joke) you're talking about, but in my opinion, the broadcast networks and their local affiliates have a responsibility to provide programming that is appropriate for all ages. They have no idea who is watching at any given time, and should plan their programming accordingly. Simply cutting the volume for a few seconds of particularly (presumed) vulgar dialog doesn't cut it.

so if i am reading your respone correctly Art, you agree that censorship is wrong as i have suggested, especially when relegated from a secondary point of view, as in the local affiliate.

so, given that opinion, is the national network putting out content that is not acceptable to the citizens of the greater Raleigh/Durham viewing audience or is the local affiliate simply deciding what is acceptable for its presumed audience.

personally, i don't like anyone telling me what i should read, listen to, or watch soley because they disagree with the content.

steve remchak · **Posted:** Tue Mar 24, 2009 12:58 am

MikeWhitney wrote:

Send them an email and tell them that you're pissed off and are planning to only watch TV shows that you download from BitTorrent from now on.

The beauty of free market capitalism, and a thriving pirate community, is that you can tell any traditional company you don't like to f*ck off.

To answer your question, no, you should not be offended. Just take this as an opportunity to explore your options. If you want the TV stations to change, make sure they know you are exploring your options. If enough people do this, they would change to maximize profit.

And to answer the undercurrent question, NO there should NOT be additional laws about what should or should not be said on TV. Leave it up to the stations and the viewers.

i agree Mike, but i do believe Capital Broadcasting Corp has way more support for their conservative beliefs and programming censorship than i or anyone else could ever dissuade.

oddly enough CBS primetime seems to me to be the most cutting edge of the major networks. at least in their sitcom line-up. i suppose this is due to their being third of the big three for so long.

and i have actually been uncomfortable while watching at least one sit-com with my 14 year-old daughter. but if memory serves me correctly, given my experiences when i was her age, she is already up to speed on the topic of the particular show we were watching.

Arthur McDonald · **Joined:** Fri Aug 29, 2003 1:54 am **Posts:** 2052

steve remchak wrote:

Arthur McDonald wrote:

I don't know what show (or joke) you're talking about, but in my opinion, the broadcast networks and their local affiliates have a responsibility to provide programming that is appropriate for all ages. They have no idea who is watching at any given time, and should plan their programming accordingly. Simply cutting the volume for a few seconds of particularly (presumed) vulgar dialog doesn't cut it.

so if i am reading your respone correctly Art, you agree that censorship is wrong as i have suggested, especially when relegated from a secondary point of view, as in the local affiliate.

so, given that opinion, is the national network putting out content that is not acceptable to the citizens of the greater Raleigh/Durham viewing audience or is the local affiliate simply deciding what is acceptable for its presumed audience.

personally, i don't like anyone telling me what i should read, listen to, or watch soley because they disagree with the content.

You misunderstood me. If the local affiliate deems content from the network provider to be inappropriate for its audience, then certainly it should bleep it, or edit it, or better yet, show something else instead. The broadcast medium does not let the broadcaster (network or local affiliate) decide, or verify, who receives the content. That means that the onus is on the broadcaster to ensure that the content does not harm the recipient. If, as an individual, you wish to receive more stimulating programming, you have ways to do that without requiring the rest of the community to actively filter it out.

To close, let me ask you something - Did Rodney, Stephen and Mike pay you to distract me from the task of getting my car ready for this weekend's autocross?

steve remchak · **Posted:** Tue Mar 24, 2009 1:30 am

Arthur McDonald wrote:

steve remchak wrote:

Arthur McDonald wrote:

I don't know what show (or joke) you're talking about, but in my opinion, the broadcast networks and their local affiliates have a responsibility to provide programming that is appropriate for all ages. They have no idea who is watching at any given time, and should plan their programming accordingly. Simply cutting the volume for a few seconds of particularly (presumed) vulgar dialog doesn't cut it.

so if i am reading your respone correctly Art, you agree that censorship is wrong as i have suggested, especially when relegated from a secondary point of view, as in the local affiliate.

so, given that opinion, is the national network putting out content that is not acceptable to the citizens of the greater Raleigh/Durham viewing audience or is the local affiliate simply deciding what is acceptable for its presumed audience.

personally, i don't like anyone telling me what i should read, listen to, or watch soley because they disagree with the content.

You misunderstood me. If the local affiliate deems content from the network provider to be inappropriate for its audience, then certainly it should bleep it, or edit it, or better yet, show something else instead. The broadcast medium does not let the broadcaster (network or local affiliate) decide, or verify, who receives the content. That means that the onus is on the broadcaster to ensure that the content does not harm the recipient. If, as an individual, you wish to receive more stimulating programming, you have ways to do that without requiring the rest of the community to actively filter it out.

To close, let me ask you something - Did Rodney, Stephen and Mike pay you to distract me from the task of getting my car ready for this weekend's autocross?

i do believe Art, that it is more a reciprocal agreement rather than a cash outlay.

but i must say i disagree completely with you opinion that a local affiliate has the responsibility to censor what its national office portrays as the party line.

the local affiliate by doing so, assumes it knows best what its local audience wants to see without taking umbrage with the source of the material and in actuality its own source of being. at best that is hypocritical behavior.

Carl Fisher · **Posted:** Tue Mar 24, 2009 7:54 am

steve remchak wrote:

the local affiliate by doing so, assumes it knows best what its local audience wants to see without taking umbrage with the source of the material and in actuality its own source of being. at best that is hypocritical behavior.

What if the local affiliate's opinion of what the local audience wants is the result of feedback from their local audience? Wouldn't that make it OK? I would think so. And I believe you said the local audience probably does support this a few replies back. A station's most valuable asset is its viewers, so wouldn't they want to keep as many of them happy as possible? This is free market stuff- I thought you liked that.

As for the "offending" material being part of the broadcast stream that they are bound to, there have certainly been times when local stations have chosen to air something else instead of broadcasting a controversial program. But, short of that, bleeping or blanking the sound at certain times during an otherwise popular program seems like a pretty simple and reasonable measure.

Wes Eargle · **Joined:** Mon Oct 27, 2003 9:47 am **Posts:** 3683

I think that Steve is referring to the Old King Clancy. I just thought that there was an audio issue with the broadcast, not censorship, but then again, I had taken my foil hat off earlier in the night.

http://www.hulu.com/search/How+I+Met+Yo ... pe=episode

It'll probably be up later today.

steve remchak · **Posted:** Tue Mar 24, 2009 9:12 am

Carl Fisher wrote:

steve remchak wrote:

the local affiliate by doing so, assumes it knows best what its local audience wants to see without taking umbrage with the source of the material and in actuality its own source of being. at best that is hypocritical behavior.

What if the local affiliate's opinion of what the local audience wants is the result of feedback from their local audience? Wouldn't that make it OK? I would think so. And I believe you said the local audience probably does support this a few replies back. A station's most valuable asset is its viewers, so wouldn't they want to keep as many of them happy as possible? This is free market stuff- I thought you liked that.

As for the "offending" material being part of the broadcast stream that they are bound to, there have certainly been times when local stations have chosen to air something else instead of broadcasting a controversial program. But, short of that, bleeping or blanking the sound at certain times during an otherwise popular program seems like a pretty simple and reasonable measure.

the squeaky wheel gets the attention Carl. people that might share my opinion are less likely to pursue the issue with the local affiliate than the crowd that finds the material offensive IMO.

case in point, the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit issue. i think it is a stupid concept but i'm not about to rant to SI about it. However, that issue probably generates more hate mail to SI than anything else SI reports on. is the swimsuit issue moraly reprehensible or obscene? not in my opinion but many subscribers feel differently about it.

and as you have said, if it is a free market decision, don't watch the show if you find the dialogue offensive. if no one watches, the show will be canceled.

and yes Wes I too have often wondered if it was simply an audio glitch, but it happens at just the precise moment of many punch-lines way too often. :roll:

clinehall · **Posted:** Tue Mar 24, 2009 9:41 am

Sorry, but catch me up, WRAL muted the sound while the chick was talking about Canadian Sex acts??????

I'm a Libertairian, I think I am making it official by saying that, therefore I don't think you can inforce your morality on any one else. As the airwaves are viewed as public I guess I believe let anybody put out what ever they want and we as the buying public can decide what we want to view . I guess WRAL is with in their rights to edit content but if I was an advertiser I would be very pissed. I watch How I met your mother to see that kind of witty humor, would I watch it with my 7 year old kid, no but I also don't look to the government to monitor my childs tv habits by restricting what times vague reference's to sex acts (that I don't even know what they are talking about!!) are aired. I will make sure my DVR is set to the Greenville affiliate of CBS all the time now.

Steve, if they can censor this THEN THEY CAN SENSOR HANNITY & THAT BLONDE CHICK THAT GETS ALL YOU LIBS PISSED OFF (CAN'T REMEMBER HER NAME)

oH this could be too fun, ive got to get to work.

THSCC Forums

TV Censorship, Should i be Offended?

Who is online