'24'. Violent content. Complaint not upheld.
September 30, 2003 3:38 PM   Subscribe

'24'. Violent content. Complaint not upheld. The British Standards Council (BSC) publish their findings on a regular basis, as they explain which complaints by members of the public regarding the 'offensive' content of some programmes on TV and radio have been upheld or not. This is fascinating for two reasons -- we get to see what people actually moan about and also how the various stations have to justify their output -- some seem more successful at it than others... [pdf format file via Whedonesque]
posted by feelinglistless (11 comments total)
However, in the Commission’s view scenes showing a porn actress inserting a variety of chocolate confectionary in her
vagina, although partially obscured, had been explicit and prolonged and had exceeded acceptable boundaries.

Now that's entertainment..
posted by zeoslap at 4:20 PM on September 30, 2003

It's the Broadcasting Standards Commission, not the British Standards Council.
posted by Mwongozi at 4:33 PM on September 30, 2003

Wow. The webmaster for the Broadcasting Standards Commission's really got that whole "minimal" riff down pat, doesn't he?
posted by kaemaril at 4:37 PM on September 30, 2003

Canada, Australia and New Zealand all have some kind of broadcasting comission that allows you to all complaints online.
posted by X-00 at 4:48 PM on September 30, 2003

A lot of the complaints seem to be variations on the theme tv/radio is not conforming to the standards that I hold, and I want something done about it!

Intolerant twits.
posted by Blue Stone at 4:51 PM on September 30, 2003

Yep; it's a waste of time in my view. They waste much of their time fielding daft complaints about swearing etc that are rarely upheld, but provide no vehicle for complaining about factual inaccuracy and bias (e.g. alarmist programmes about the Internet) unless you happen to be personally maligned.
posted by raygirvan at 5:15 PM on September 30, 2003

The Canadian Broadcast Standards Council "What's New" section is a good example of just how fucked up the world is. All these "Standards" bodies are just societies for the losers of the world. For all the people who can't get a job in HR. Nobody cares what they do. It's just a place to ship all the loonies to. "Oh you have a complaint about the colour of the news studio? Well you must phone the Broadcast Standards Council my dear"
posted by carfilhiot at 6:37 PM on September 30, 2003

On the Buffy episode "Seeing Red":
The Panel took the view that the cumulative effect of homosexual references and violent sequences which included fighting, an attempted rape and a shooting had meant that the episode strayed from the fantasy element that audiences would have expected and had gone beyond acceptable boundaries for the time of transmission.

Y'know, it would've been easier just to say, as many of the fans did, "What the hell was all that?"
posted by Katemonkey at 3:41 AM on October 1, 2003

Obviously got myself mixed up with the Canadians.
posted by feelinglistless at 10:23 AM on October 1, 2003

(In reference to "Seeing Red") So if fiction gets too close to reality, and starts looking like the news reports which played just a couple hours earlier, then censorship is "upheld." What do they mean by "upheld" anyway? Or am I missing something? The 'rape' wasn't even a rape. Buffy can more than take care of herself. She practically threw Spike across the room. If anything it was a scene of female empowerment. She said no she meant no, and the ramifications of that scene involved Spike journeying to get his soul back which was pivotal. Censoring that episode would be like removing from the book "Of Mice And Men" the scene where Lennie accidently killed Curly's wife. Come to think of it that scene in Steinbeck's novel was more disturbing than Seeing Red, but no less pivotal to the plot, comparatively.

(In reference to "Fear Factor") No animal rights activists were harmed in the making of these complaints. I'm concerned, and want something done about that. I wanna see contestants on Fear Factor try to survive for five minutes or more in a small glass enclosure filled with animal rights activists. Fail to complete the stunt, you're eliminated, but if you do succeed, you move on to eating steamed environmentalist intestines and get that much closer to the cash!
posted by ZachsMind at 12:09 PM on October 1, 2003

« Older The Texas Transportation Institute released their...   |   Magnificent Obsessions: Vaseline Glass Newer »

This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments