...though it does make me want to cry.
From CNN/Money
NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - ABC affiliates in at least eight states will not televise the network's broadcast of the World War II film "Saving Private Ryan" because they fear repercussions from U.S. regulators.
Affiliates in Alabama, Georgia, Iowa, Massachusetts, North Carolina, Ohio, South Carolina and West Virginia said they were worried about running afoul of the Federal Communications Commission in Washington.
WOI-TV in Des Moines, Iowa, for example, said it decided to pre-empt the Academy Award winning film, which depicts several violent battle scenes and contains foul language, over concerns about possible fines by the FCC.
"Would the FCC conclude that the movie has sufficient social, artistic, literary, historical or other kinds of value that would protect us from breaking the law?" WOI-TV President Raymond Cole said in a statement appearing on its Web site. "With the current FCC, we just don't know."
Janice Wise, spokeswoman for the FCC's enforcement bureau, told Reuters it had received calls from broadcasters asking if the film would run afoul of the agency's indecency rules. Wise said the commission was barred from making a decision before the broadcast "because that would be censorship."
"If we get a complaint, we'll act on it," she said.
It's an interesting question.
It's the responsibility of government to rule on the acceptability of what's presented in a public medium. Greatest good for the greatest number, and all that. They can't censor, but they can and should offer an informed opinion. To say, in effect, 'we won't give guidance on how we'd rule, but we will come after you later if someone complains' -- well, that seems just plain rude. My gosh -- even the IRS offers guidance on how they'd likely rule. Not every time, but in significant cases, yes. I think that when you're at a point where you aren't sure if something would be viewed as legal or not, that qualifies.
Not playing 'Gotcha!'
.
2 comments:
I think that deciding not to air the movie because they don't know if that would open them up to proscecution or fines isn't censorship. I think its self-defense. They didn't know if it was ok or not, and they chose caution.
My objection is that reasonable, intelligent people (I know: television executives? Reasonable? Intelligent? Work with me, here...) can't decide if a film that's already gotten a rating from an agency charged for doing that is appropriate for broadcast -- and the agency that has that responsibility at a global level won't give them a clue. The furor over Janet Jackson's nipple -- does anyone really believe that was an accident? -- was absurd, but at least it was a dialogue. This is a 'nope, ain't gonna tell ya until ya screw up, son'. Speed traps are models of open law enforcement compared to that.
Ah, the Mallard Fillmore defense!
I do understand where you're coming from, and though we apparently disagree, I don't think you're wrong. (See, there I am, proving my liberal roots again.) I was talking with my wife about this while we were having tea tonight, and she made the same points, pretty much, that you did. I won't argue the point, lest I become like the guy in the bar who keeps coming after you, wagging his finger in your face, saying Yabbut, Yabbut....
Thank you for writing. It helps me to hear different opinions. I have reluctantly found over time that (are you sitting down?) I'm not always right!
Take care.
Post a Comment