# Who should regulate broadcast TV programming?



## Nick (Apr 23, 2002)

Who do you think should be responsible for protecting children from inappropriate television content? In this poll, please indicate which entity or group you think should bring oversight of TV programming coming into your home.



> "A couple of years ago a group of individuals and organizations started promoting the use of parental controls and supporting those who prefer individual control of TV content as opposed to increased government regulation. TV Watch - now representing more than 4 million American viewers - has now gone on the offensive in a battle with Washington activists trying to get lawmakers to regulate the images being shown on TV across the country.
> 
> TV Watch says that television has come a long way with today's audiences using broadband, DVRs, VOD, iPods and cell phones to expand and enhance their TV experience. These new technologies mean consumers have more selection than ever, and maybe more importantly, more control over what they see on TV.
> 
> ...


----------



## Cholly (Mar 22, 2004)

Ideally, it's up to the parents/caregivers. Unfortunately, children can visit a friend's home, where the parents/caregivers don't monitor what their children watch. Also, if the kids have their own bedroom TV, as is common, the parents may not know what the kids are watching. 
That being said, the broadcasters do a very poor job of keeping "adult" content contained to late prime time hours. Daytime soaps, talk shows, and reruns of late night dramas are available for kids to view. It's all about the money and the broadcasters have shown that they don't give a damn about whether their program content is unsuitable for children.
Since broadcasters won't restrict content not suitable for children, and parents/caregivers really can't, it's probably up to Big Brother (the government), and that could open a whole can of worms.


----------



## djlong (Jul 8, 2002)

Nick said:


> Who do you think should be responsible for protecting children from inappropriate television content?


Parents. First, last and almost always.

IT'S PART OF THE JOB DESCRIPTION!


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Parents bear the ultimate responsibility but cannot do it alone. They need the support of the government to make sure that programs are properly rated and encoded so that when they set their parental locks and VChip settings those settings are accurately followed.

Parental control is more than just setting the locks on a receiver/TV and walking away - they still need to be involved in what is being watched for themes, content and number of hours (especially with programmers looking to "beat the rating" as many have done with theatrical movies). But parents need the locks to work - blocking what they tell the system to block and leaving unblocked what they tell the system to leave unblocked. A lock system left unused doesn't help parents.

I don't want the FCC alone to make the decision on what is "good" or "bad" --- they need the advice of parents, sometimes through other groups. But they do hold the licenses and are the only ones to do the "smack down" of any programmers that choose to offend.


----------



## HIPAR (May 15, 2005)

The only viable options are parents and government. 

Those who participate here tend to recoil against Government interference with their TV viewing .. myself included. Regulations cannot work unless they are decoupled from politics. Nothing is decoupled from politics these days.

Has anyone out there actually used the V-Chip?

--- CHAS


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

I voted for Parents, but I would add one qualification to that...

The problem with ALL of the current rating systems for TV and movies is that they really are not reflective of the actual content. Also, studios attempt to skate the rules to just slide in under a lower rating to get a bigger audience, even if they are pushing the envelope for that level. So not all PG-13 movies are created equal and you don't know if you are seeing a just-barely PG-13 movie OR an almost R movie.

Ultimately parents should take responsibility... BUT I feel like the industry should help out and we need something like the nutritional information we have on foods. I am free to eat whatever I like, but the food has to be labelled so I can make an informed decision on what I'm eating. Same for TV and movies, there should be some kind of information available that accurately reflects the content so a parent can decide if it is appropriate for his/her children beforehand without having to block out time to preview it before letting the kids watch.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

They have added a tagline under the rating to help in this area (for example one PG rated movie I saw last year was rated PG for "thematic elements"). It would be nice to have a more complete guide available - without needing to find a website that you can trust and go there.


----------



## FTA Michael (Jul 21, 2002)

Depends on what you mean by "broadcast" TV. If you're talking about the OTA stuff that any kid with a $20 B&W set can watch in his garage, then I'm okay with letting the FCC spell out _clear_ rules on what's allowed and what's not, perhaps depending on the time of day.

If you're talking about anything else, such as cable or satellite, those already have parental controls built in, and the parents should be the ones to decide what's okay.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

I forgot to mention that... I am for differentiating between OTA and pay TV as well. I am fine with OTA having more restrictions for content than pay TV, since it is free to everyone who can plug up a TV, and thus harder to restrict even if you are trying as a parent to watch what the kids are watching.

I do not offend easily myself... but I find even those little blurbs "thematic violence" or "partial nudity" or "Sexual content" to be less than informative about the actual movie content. There is such a range for these kinds of things.

Also, interesting to note that a PG-13 movie can be quite violent as long as there is no sex... An R movie might only contain one little bit of sex to get that R rating. And there is no way to really know from the blurb how much of either is actually in the movie. You might reasonably assume a war movie would be violent... but a dark comedy could be violent in places too, and it's just not always that obvious.

And while I don't offend easily... there are things I would rather not see. I have a thing about knives and blades and needles, for instance... and have to look away when any of that is going on. Shooting violence is more tolerable, as is fist/kick fighting scenes... but just one scene in a hospital of someone getting a shot and I'm not so good with that... but I rarely find all of this described in advance.

For the sexually squeamish... there is also a difference between sex for sex sake, and romantic scenes... One has purpose in the scene and means something to the characters, while the other is just there to be there... and even someone who is offended by sex scenes in a movie might be ok with a tastefully done romantic scene that contains more nudity than a needless sex-for-sex sake scene that is barely visible.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Many of the cable networks are pushing themselves as if they were broadcast networks. They are in direct competition against OTA networks. Most have chosen to "self regulate" and do their own edits and bleeping. This varies widely but once one watches for a while one can find what cable networks "censor" too much and which ones don't "censor" enough (for each individual's preference).


----------



## Steve Mehs (Mar 21, 2002)

Children need protection from pedophiles, abusive parents and poisonous toxins like alcohol, they do not need 'protection' from a TV.


----------



## padd54 (Jan 6, 2007)

Keep the goverment out of it.
The parents need to take resposibilty.
Kids don't need tv's in their rooms just like they should use computers in the family room.
There is so much I could say.
Bottom line, stop depending on goverment to fix everything.


----------



## Steve Mehs (Mar 21, 2002)

I've had a TV in my room since I was 6, I've had a computer in my room since I was 10. First website I ever visited was porn.com, I saw Childs Play on HBO when I was 7. When I was 9 I played Mortal Kombat on Sega Genesis. I'm now 21 and haven't shot anyone and get this I haven’t even been arrested yet...


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Steve Mehs said:


> I'm now 21 and haven't shot anyone and get this I haven't even been arrested yet...


Another ticking time bomb heard from.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Steve Mehs said:


> I've had a TV in my room since I was 6, I've had a computer in my room since I was 10. First website I ever visited was porn.com, I saw Childs Play on HBO when I was 7. When I was 9 I played Mortal Kombat on Sega Genesis. I'm now 21 and haven't shot anyone and get this I haven't even been arrested yet...


I'm a firm believer that "bad" books and violent video games and "bad" movies don't turn good kids bad. I'm not sure we know what turns kids "bad" just yet... but it is too easy to blame others and other things... It isn't always the parents' fault either, as sometimes kids just go "wrong" despite the best efforts and surroundings.

I also find it extremely interested that the first violent video games were developed by adults who did not have violent videogames to play when they were kids! So that explanation should go out the window fast... Entertainment is entertainment, and while I enjoy watching Freddy vs Jason on DVD, I am sure I would lose control of most bodily functions in a very embarassing way should I ever see such a spectacle of real-life violence first-hand!

That said... I do believe some kids are too young to be exposed to some things... and parents should take responsibility for that. I do not want government "controls" as much as I would like to see better information on entertainment, like TV and movies. There are many movies/shows that advertise themselves as one thing, but when you sit down to watch find other things in them.

If you aren't into cursing and don't want your kids exposed to lots of it, then you knew not to take them to a Richard Pryor live performance... but he was a known commodity so a parent could make that call. Other parents were ok with it, and their kids could handle it... But there are many times you may think you are going to a family event, only to be surprised at some non-family content... and even if it doesn't offend you, you might not want your kids or your grandmother in the room!


----------



## kenglish (Oct 2, 2004)

Give us proper definitions of the ratings, perhaps with some (future) subcategories.....I'm talking about adding definitions of "violent content" or "language", etc. Require these categories to accurately depict what is in the program, then leave it up to the parents to set their V-chip.

I'm talking about things like, let me decide if my kids can view "subtle" bad language...hearing the "bad guy" use a few choice words, to reinforce that he's the evildoer, while excluding something like an adult standup comic whose act is mostly bad language. They might be mature enough for one, but not ready for the heavy stuff. Or, a category for sexual content that's only alluded to, but block them from something that's much steamier.

Not every household has kids, so why deprive adults of much of their programming. Just rate it properly, and give the adults fair warning before they sit down to watch with kids in the room.

The Janet Jackson thing wasn't any worse than what you'd expect on late night MTV, but the fact that it wasn't "expected" (or, people weren't forewarned) is what made it inexcusable.


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

HIPAR said:


> Has anyone out there actually used the V-Chip?
> 
> --- CHAS


Yea, I don't get it. As consumers we pay for the chip to be installed on TV's. All DBS boxes and most cable STB's include a way to limit viewing. Use the tools that are available now in the homes, besides the parents just watching that the children are doing.

BTW, while watching the New Orleans/Eagles game yesterday Fox showed one yound lady in the stands wearing a t-shirt that had "F*uk the Eagles" on it, they left it on the shot for 3 to 5 seconds. Guess someone wasn't really watching in the truck what they were sending out.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

kenglish said:


> The Janet Jackson thing wasn't any worse than what you'd expect on late night MTV, but the fact that it wasn't "expected" (or, people weren't forewarned) is what made it inexcusable.


Janet was on broadcast TV during the afternoon/early evening. What she did would have likely passed on SNL (broadcast TV outside the safe hours). The silly thing is she didn't show anything. I've seen more skin on Entertainment Tonight (early prime time airings) when they show the "ladies" walking into awards shows and other events. Topless women with sequins (mostly) masking their skin - but the full shape of the breast completely visible. What is the difference if the breast is covered by cloth or by sequins? What image are we being protected from? The curve? A particular spot on the breast?

We have all seen bra commercials that show much more than Janet revealed. And they air those without warning. (Not to mention the other personal/medical commercials that fill our airwaves.) Janet's show was nothing.

Unfortunately her flash of a covered spot on her breast became the focus of the complaints, which SHOULD have been focused on the lyrics being sung and the prior performer, Kid Rock. If you want to argue whether or not Janet's display was expected one need to ask why anyone who was offended by what they barely saw (even in HD) was still watching after Kid Rock's display and the lyrics leading up to the moment. THAT should have offended them enough to mute or change channels (even during the Superbowl).

I suppose that it didn't help that immediately following halftime the announcers returned talking about someone showing "too much skin". What didn't make the telecast (but was replayed on the RSNs and other channels) was a non-nude "streaker" advertising for a casino who, initially dressed as a ref, made it to center field then stripped to a speedo and danced/ran around until he was clotheslined by a player. That was good TV, but we didn't see it.


----------



## Steve Mehs (Mar 21, 2002)

I missed that SuperBowl halftime show, I had it muted with my back toward the TV surfing the net  Had I known what would was going to happen I would have watched it.


----------



## kenglish (Oct 2, 2004)

I just wonder if they could have covered their backsides by saying: 
"The Superbowl Halftime Show is being produced by MTV, and may not be suitable for all audiences. Therefore, we have rated the show PG, for mature audiences. You are welcome to send the kids out of the room, or make yourself a snack. Thank You."


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Complaints about female nudity are a very interesting thing to me. As noted, commercials and entertainment programs routinely will show a scantily clad in bikini or lingerie on TV with no apparent outbursts of complaints. Some women wear see-through materials as well...

I'm also completely confused as to how a topless woman on TV is considered unacceptable BUT a woman with pasties covering the nipples is fine to show during the later hours on TV... Think about it like this... Men and women both have breasts, with women being usually more noticable in this area... but the one part that seems obligatory to cover (the nipple) is the part that is virtually the same on men and women... and men go topless all the time on TV without pasties.

I could understand if it was just "no topless women" as a decision... but the whole pasties thing confounds me. When it is apparently ok to show every part of the breast except the one part we could pretty well imagine what it looks like... what's the problem?


----------



## Steve Mehs (Mar 21, 2002)

That's logical thinking, what you have to realize is the uptight and morally righteous don't understand that, they don't think logically we do. Anyone who thinks the Janet Jackson issue is anything but no big deal has serious issues.


----------



## Nick (Apr 23, 2002)

Breasts are beautiful, but they are banned as "obscene". Go
figure. :shrug:

But brutal assault, murder, rape and sensesless heinous acts
of all kinds are ok to show on tv? I think we have it backwards. 

But regardless, it's the parents who are ultimately responsible
for what their children watch on television. Parents would not
allow their child to wander in a bad part of town, no more than
they should they allow their child to view inappropriate content,
whether on tv or on the Internet.


----------

