Fearful TV fails Private Ryan
November 12, 2004 4:08 AM Subscribe
Self-censorship in the US, continued. "Fear" seems to be the key word. More than 20 American TV stations last night boycotted a Veterans Day screening of war picture Saving Private Ryan because of fears that they would be censured by a newly aggressive television regulator over the movie's violence and graphic language.
Mr Cole said fear of punishment from the FCC - and a belief among broadcasters that last week's elections revealed growing conservatism in the US - had forced the stations into caution.
"We're just coming off an election where moral issues were cited as a reason by people voting one way or another and, in my opinion, the commissioners are fearful of the new congress," he said.
This post was deleted for the following reason: double double with cheese
You're right eustacescrubb, it's a double post. Sorry. Didn't see it.
posted by acrobat at 4:58 AM on November 12, 2004
posted by acrobat at 4:58 AM on November 12, 2004
DP or not, it's post-facto, not anticipatory: I.e., we know it happened, and we know how many, now.
What's interesting is that it's almost comical to imagine the FCC fining anyone for showing this flick. It just wouldn't happen, even though it's a really disturbing (though very good) flick. But the replacement flick, Coming to America, would probably get censured, even though it's much less disturbing.
The scenario could be seen as a gauntlet.
posted by lodurr at 6:41 AM on November 12, 2004
What's interesting is that it's almost comical to imagine the FCC fining anyone for showing this flick. It just wouldn't happen, even though it's a really disturbing (though very good) flick. But the replacement flick, Coming to America, would probably get censured, even though it's much less disturbing.
The scenario could be seen as a gauntlet.
posted by lodurr at 6:41 AM on November 12, 2004
More than 20 American TV stations last night boycotted a Veterans Day screening of war picture Saving Private Ryan because of fears ...
Methinks that if someone backs away from doing something because of fear, then it is not a boycot.
posted by Ayn Marx at 6:59 AM on November 12, 2004
Methinks that if someone backs away from doing something because of fear, then it is not a boycot.
posted by Ayn Marx at 6:59 AM on November 12, 2004
Okay, let's see how stupid they were: how many of the stations that did show it is the FCC fining?
posted by rushmc at 7:11 AM on November 12, 2004
posted by rushmc at 7:11 AM on November 12, 2004
Not to worry, though. In advanced, liberal democracies films get shown without fear. When America gets liberated you will also be enjoying these freedoms without fear.
posted by acrobat at 7:12 AM on November 12, 2004
posted by acrobat at 7:12 AM on November 12, 2004
It's not a "boycott". A boycott is when you use the power of the marketplace to protest something--see the definition for more information and the interesting origin of this eponym.
A network affiliate choosing not to show that evening's network programming simply isn't a "boycott".
While we're on the subject of vocabulary misfires, let me say that I'm pissed off that people refer to Kerry supporters' disappointment with the outcome of the recent US presidential election as "sour grapes".
That's not what "sour grapes" means at all--"sour grapes" is when you don't get something you want, and you then proceed to disparage it as a way of salving your feelings. Very few of Kerry's supporters have said "Well, I didn't really want him to be President anyway", which would be "sour grapes" (from Aesop's fable of the fox and the crow).
posted by Sidhedevil at 7:18 AM on November 12, 2004
A network affiliate choosing not to show that evening's network programming simply isn't a "boycott".
While we're on the subject of vocabulary misfires, let me say that I'm pissed off that people refer to Kerry supporters' disappointment with the outcome of the recent US presidential election as "sour grapes".
That's not what "sour grapes" means at all--"sour grapes" is when you don't get something you want, and you then proceed to disparage it as a way of salving your feelings. Very few of Kerry's supporters have said "Well, I didn't really want him to be President anyway", which would be "sour grapes" (from Aesop's fable of the fox and the crow).
posted by Sidhedevil at 7:18 AM on November 12, 2004
This is a chess move, pure and simple. A lot of bluehairs are going to be sending letters to the FCC over this - people who voted republican and are socially conservative but still think this movie should have been aired.
Which was exactly the intent.
ABC wants to know where the FCC is going to draw the line, and they think that it may not be as beholden to the interests of the ultraconservatives now that Bush is in his second term.
They never, even at the beginning, intended to air Saving Private Ryan. They only wanted to spark exactly the kind of "censorship" outrage that's going on. A great deal of the reason is that they also want to ensure that their new hit, "Desperate Housewives," doesn't get in trouble for indecency.
posted by u.n. owen at 7:19 AM on November 12, 2004
Which was exactly the intent.
ABC wants to know where the FCC is going to draw the line, and they think that it may not be as beholden to the interests of the ultraconservatives now that Bush is in his second term.
They never, even at the beginning, intended to air Saving Private Ryan. They only wanted to spark exactly the kind of "censorship" outrage that's going on. A great deal of the reason is that they also want to ensure that their new hit, "Desperate Housewives," doesn't get in trouble for indecency.
posted by u.n. owen at 7:19 AM on November 12, 2004
Except that ABC DID air Saving Private Ryan, and it was the third time that it has aired on a network unedited. Only the 20 affiliates chose not to air it (and ALL affiliates aired it the first two times).
I do think you have a point that this was all about manipulating and mobilizing public opinion and taking the offensive with the FCC, though.
posted by rushmc at 8:41 AM on November 12, 2004
I do think you have a point that this was all about manipulating and mobilizing public opinion and taking the offensive with the FCC, though.
posted by rushmc at 8:41 AM on November 12, 2004
« Older Diabetes cure? | Don't Fuck The South Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by eustacescrubb at 4:37 AM on November 12, 2004