RoR: Forum

Adam, it appears from what I've heard and read, that it was not fear of the FCC that motivated TV stations to cancel the movie. After all, it had already been shown a number of times, with no FCC problems.

Apparently it was that the movie could be taken to be anti-war, and that made it inappropriate for Veterans Day.

Barbara

Post 1

Sunday, November 14, 2004 - 9:28am

That's most definitely not what I heard and read in the various interviews of the ABC affiliate chiefs. I've written about this affair here and here, at Liberty & Power Group Blog, as well as additional relevant comments here. I think that post-Janet Jackson, FCC actions have created a chilling effect on American media. And, in fact, as you suggest Barbara, prior to this year---for two consecutive years on Veteran's Day, when we were in the midst of the war---virtually all ABC affiliates showed this film with no problem. It is only post-2004 Super Bowl, in an atmosphere of FCC fines, that affiliates were worried about four-letter words.

(Edited by sciabarra on 11/14, 9:32am)

(Edited by sciabarra on 11/14, 9:39am)

Post 2

Sunday, November 14, 2004 - 10:43am

It's four-letter words and the chance of seeing boobies(!!!) that brings down the wrath of the FCC, not people being shot, stabbed, choked, run over, crushed, disembowled, trampled and spat upon every night on primetime TV. Odd how that works. You'd think the shot of some poor kid on Omaha Beach trying to stuff his guts back into his body would disturb people, but oh no...it's the poor kid stuffing his guts back into his body and saying "Fuck" while doing it that sends up the red flags.

Lesson? Boobs are worse than killing. Thanks Jesus. You prick. : P

EDIT: I just have to quote myself on the main page for that last bit. (pats himself on the back)

(Edited by Jeremy on 11/14, 11:10am)

Post 3

Sunday, November 14, 2004 - 2:48pm

The night they aired "Saving Private Ryan", ABC News had a feature story about why some of their affiliates are not showing the film, and the only thing they mentioned was fear of FCC fines. It went on to say how this was only a problem after Janet Jackson's "clothing malfunction" at the Super Bowl. Furthermore, it showed a clip of conservative radio talk show host talking about how it was not appropriate to air a movie with such graphic depictions of violence . . . hence, it was not just about swear words.

Having said that, it is sad that network TV should have any concerns showing what I think to be one of the best movies about World War II I have ever seen. It shows the price that we have to pay when we wage war to secure freedom. I have no problem having older children seeing it with parental supervision.

Post 4

Sunday, November 14, 2004 - 4:53pm

True, it wasn't just about bad words in this instance. And the guy holding his guts in SPR never uses any swear words, he just...well...you know. Anyways, what I was getting at was something that's been nagging me for ages and ages. Television censors have no problem at all with shows describing or displaying violent images of grim death twenty-four hours a day, but the thought of nudity or some criminal using a bad word makes them cringe. And I think the root cause for this contradiction is warped Christian "ethics", the holders of which have succeeded in using the leviathan of government force to white-out the bad stuff. Ahh, if only Janet had worn a bra! (my maleness notwithstanding, of course.)

Post 5

Monday, November 15, 2004 - 2:37am

Okay, Chris, since you heard interviews with some of the ABC affiliates in question, your information is more reliable than mine.

Barbara

Post 6

Monday, November 15, 2004 - 3:53am

But you know, Barbara, I would not doubt at all that some people might (falsely) interpret the showing of the horrors of war as "antiwar" in some sense... so I do wonder if there was some of that apprehensiveness present in the decision-making of affiliates. As I said, I didn't hear it in the interviews, but it would not surprise me in the least. (I say "falsely" because I don't think I'd call "Saving Private Ryan" an "antiwar" film per se; it is, however, a graphically realistic depiction of the horrors of war). Anyway, you've got me thinking... and am checking out a few additional sources as well.

Oh, and, yes, Byron, I saw that ABC News report: I was a bit perplexed about the "violence" factor, if only because the film has become a staple of the ABC line-up as a tribute on "Veteran's Day" for the last few years. Why weren't all these talk show hosts screaming about it last year or the year before that? It just boggles the mind.

Thank goodness for DVDs and cable/satellite TV, where you can see films uncut---and without commercial interruption.

(Edited by sciabarra on 11/15, 3:56am)

Post 7

Monday, November 15, 2004 - 10:00pm

Timothy McVeigh seems to have taken out the wrong building. I recently had occasion to visit the Federal Censorship Commission's web site -- vainly looking for a list of New York state radio stations -- and I never saw anything more poorly organized, uninformative or useless. If this is any indicator of their nature, then this government entity is a real incubus to deal with in any sense. It's a wonder as many t'v' stations decided to show the film as did.

Post 8

Monday, November 15, 2004 - 10:47pm

I think it is important that those of us who support Bush never forget the downside of the Republican philosophy. I know that Barbara always is aware of it.
I hope that Bush succeeds in his major economic and foreign policy objectives. But I sure don't want any more Republicans than we have right now, and think that the next two year election should probably give them a good slap. I'm pretty sure they will need it by then.

Post 9

Tuesday, November 16, 2004 - 7:02am