Fox Censorship Of The Emmys

[BRNout]

I just saw the clip and my impression was :"Wow, that's it?!?" Very inoffensive comment, which was actually a pretty funny joke. The censors had really itchy trigger fingers, didn't they?

And, some were upset about Sally Field's ramblings getting censored? She used a bona fide curse word and was running long anyhow. She also seemed like she swallowed a bad ice cube - but that's another story. :

Censoring Ray Romano was much more offensive, as his comment didn't violate anything. Silliness, pure and simple.

 

[bk77]

Sally Field was censored because of the word "god damn". That can get a station fined. God is ok, damn is ok, but together it isn't. Much like ass and hole. Its that simple.

Actually this word was uttered on TV possibly for the first time, almost 35 years earlier in 1973 on "All In The Family" when Edith said it when Archie and Mike were fighting about Nixon and Watergate. This wasn't cut in syndication at all, nor was it when it was first shown in prime time or in daytime reruns on CBS.

the word "god damn" was also used on an episode of Real People back in the late 70s. I think it was either the late Skip Stevenson or John Barbour who did a story about some old man ( don't remember why Real People did a story on him ) but I do remember the old man walking into his teenage son's room screaming "you so so lazy..god damnit !!!".

Since Real People was rarely seen in syndication, I cant say if the word ( or even the entire segment ) was cut out or not.

My guess is that the word "god damn" over the years has become less acceptable. In the recent Simpsons movie there is a scene where Marge Simpson yells at Homer to drop "the god damn bomb". The audience was SHOCKED when they heard that !! I believe more so than that shot of Bart's penis, Otto the school bus driver smoking a bowl or Ralph Wiggins saying that he "likes men now".

On a similar note there was the phrase "Jesus F*cking Christ". Even though that phrase may have never been used on TV years ago it was used in a few movies back in the 80s mainly in those low budget horror flicks and grade z teenage comedies. I do remember going to a few concerts back then hearing it on stage, AC/DC was one I seem to recall.

Today I have grave doubts one can get away using that word anywhere, in movies, on stage or even out in public in Target.

 

[BRNout]

When I was a kid (not ALL that long ago), we were taught that GD was basically one step less than the "F word" and on the level with sh_t. In other words, a curse that's not meant for polite company. So, it stands to reason that this would not be acceptable language for a program that kids/sensitive audiences would be viewing on TV. It may have been late in the Eastern time zone - but it was still early out west.

Romano's use of "screwing" is different in that it is generally meant as a more polite substitute for "F_ing" and is a fairly common part of the lexicon. And, it has been for many years. So, I am not sure what was up with censoring that.

It was convenient for FOX to drop it though, since it was an off-handed remark about one of their biggest new shows. Hope that's not the reason for hitting the dump button. My inclination is that it wasn't and that the "commander" of the dump button had an itchy trigger finger - and was under orders not to let ANYTHING slip through. It was early in the show, so the manner of said button probably got a bit too excited to exercise that power!!

 

[mleach]

When I was a kid (not ALL that long ago), we were taught that GD was basically one step less than the "F word" and on the level with sh_t. In other words, a curse that's not meant for polite company. So, it stands to reason that this would not be acceptable language for a program that kids/sensitive audiences would be viewing on TV. It may have been late in the Eastern time zone - but it was still early out west.

Same here as well. However back in the 70s the GD word/words were somewhat considered not as bad as it is now. Today many people look at GD not only as being as bad as the "F" word but you have those who believe by using GD, you are actually cussing God.

Not only was GD featured ( as someone already pointed out ) on All in the Family, but I believe the word was used on Maude and Soap as well. I do know that the Eagles used that word in their classic tune Life in the Fast Lane back in 1977.
I dont remember if there were that many radio stations that censored that word or not.

Actually when one thinks about it, there are a LOT of words and phrases used in the past without as much as batting an eyebrow that would cause the censors to press the button today. Wasnt there a children's story years ago where the words "eat me" was used?

Years ago on You Tube I saw an old commercial from the 50's for Q-Tips. The ad said that Q-Tips was as soft as "p-u-s-s-y fur". Ah try using that word on TV or radio today !!

I think there was an episode of Mr. ED where Mr. Ed begs Wilbur to ride him "bareback" as in no saddle. Today "bareback" pretty much means sex without condoms.

 

[azumanga]

Same here as well. However back in the 70s the GD word/words were somewhat considered not as bad as it is now. Today many people look at GD not only as being as bad as the "F" word but you have those who believe by using GD, you are actually cussing God.

Which, in my opinion, is something I don't understand. Personally, when one says "God damn it!", I interpreted it as someone ordering God to condemn something to damnation -- it's not meant to slander God. But, many do take it as an offence.

Actually when one thinks about it, there are a LOT of words and phrases used in the past without as much as batting an eyebrow that would cause the censors to press the button today. Wasnt there a children's story years ago where the words "eat me" was used?

It seems like while the world is taking a step forward, we Americans are taking two steps backward. While Canada has approved gay marriages and working towards legalising pot, we Americans are working toward bring back the morals of "Father Knows Best" and "Leave it to Beaver". (Or, is it safe to say "Beaver" anymore?)

 

[genius]

Years ago on You Tube I saw an old commercial from the 50's for Q-Tips. The ad said that Q-Tips was as soft as "p-u-s-s-y fur". Ah try using that word on TV or radio today !!

What's wrong with Q-tips feeling like cat fur?  ;D Mrs. Slocombe of Are You Being Served? would be proud!

 

[mleach]

It seems like while the world is taking a step forward, we Americans are taking two steps backward. While Canada has approved gay marriages and working towards legalising pot, we Americans are working toward bring back the morals of "Father Knows Best" and "Leave it to Beaver". (Or, is it safe to say "Beaver" anymore?)
[/quote]

ah sure seems like it.

In many countries one can see quite a bit of nudity on REGULAR TV while here in America we have those who couldn't handle seeing a second of Janet Jackson's boob. Sometimes one wonders what goes into people's heads.

Last year I was working at an all-sports radio station in Virgina. One morning our host did a story about one of our local high schools expanding their "watersports" programsuch as swimming for example. Guess what? We received FIVE phone calls from people threatening to report us to the FCC for airing such "trash". We had no idea what the hell they were talking about. But like anyone else who was curious, we went online and did some research. We discovered that "watersports" besides swimming and water polo also meant the sex act where one takes a piss on another. Which brings up this. If these people were so "full of morals" and such, how did they know the other defination of the word "watersports"?

I have a friend who was born in 1969 and is a big fan if the Chicago Cubs baseball team. He was going to get "cub 69" on his license plate. Did he get it? Well no, because the local DMV said it was "too sexual". Cub as in slang for a young hairy gay male and "69" as in the sexual position.

The rate we are going well forget about those 7 dirty words, one day we may have well over 100 different words and phrases one can't say without getting someone in a tizzy.

 

[azumanga]

The rate we are going well forget about those 7 dirty words, one day we may have well over 100 different words and phrases one can't say without getting someone in a tizzy.

I bet there will be a time in the future where mass book burnings, even bannings, will once again become in style in the US. And one book that will be targeted is Webster's Dictionary.

Imagine "Laugh In" being rerun in the future and the phrase "Look that up in your Funk and Wagnalls" being bleeped out, because it has become an offensive phrase.

America is indeed a backward society, and as long as the Christian prudes are in charge, it's bound to go even more backward.

 

[BRNout]

The rate we are going well forget about those 7 dirty words, one day we may have well over 100 different words and phrases one can't say without getting someone in a tizzy.

I bet there will be a time in the future where mass book burnings, even bannings, will once again become in style in the US. And one book that will be targeted is Webster's Dictionary.

Imagine "Laugh In" being rerun in the future and the phrase "Look that up in your Funk and Wagnalls" being bleeped out, because it has become an offensive phrase.

America is indeed a backward society, and as long as the Christian prudes are in charge, it's bound to go even more backward.

I do not agree with you. First of all, the "Christian prudes" are not in charge at all and society in general is tolerant of more trash than one can shake a stick at. And, as an aside, why pick on Christians anyway - when there are global forces who want to move us back to 7th Century Arabia? The generality is not fair - or correct (by the way, I am not a church goer...just a cultural observer). Christianity has become a global punching bag and it is not fair.

Overall, TV is today's biggest proponent of "alternate" or "progressive" lifestyles. For examples, if anything, gay lifestyles are overrepresented on prime time TV. As are drug use, premarital sex and, lest we forget, violence (that one has been true for 50 years).

Look, I've watched a lot of TV from the late 60's, 70's and 80's. Yes, some little curse words slipped in more readily (which I am fine with, by the way). But, the overall content was quite innocent when compared with today's programming. Back then, they laid it between the lines - which made it all the more entertaining. Now, there are no nuances. It's all right in your face. Laugh In is like a kid's show when compared with pretty much any 8 pm network sitcom....so that's a very poor comparison. Get a hold of one of the DVDs and watch the show again. You'll see what I mean. Almost any sitcom from the 70's would probably be rated "TV-G" by today's standards.

One of my favorite shows is "Are You Being Served" which someone eluded to earlier. It was a brilliant show. It was also a show that involved some very mature sexual innuendo that was so masterfully written that you can watch it with little kids in the room and they won't get it at all. Yet they'll still laugh at the innocent half of the double entendre. The subtlety was magnificent. Amazing actors and equally amazing writers. Somewhere along the way, the writers lost that skill.

So, comparing today's society and the television shows that we watch to "Leave it to Beaver" is laughable. One look at a show such as "Family Guy" or at the fare of entire cable networks such as MTV, E!, Bravo or others show absolutely no resemblance to those days. Not to mention some of the very shows that are on broadcast networks (such as, ironically, FOX). Even the news channels take part in this by reveling in the most nasty details of various court cases, as if those constituted news. A lot of what's on is really quite profane. And, that seems to be what the market wants because it's pretty successful.

The real problem here is the ridiculous inconsistency. The FCC worries about seemingly innocent words while graphic violence, sexual oddities, in-your-face booty and irreverence of all sorts are the norm on TV. It is as STUPID as rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. And, probably even more useless. Yes, it seems absolutely absurd to cut words like "GD" or "screwing" when a quick flip of the remote to MTV (which your 12 year-old probably has on) will reveal far more salacious fare. THAT is what is B.S. about all of this. Worrying about such minutiae in the face of everything else that's going on. It's absolutely childish and oh-so-political. Meanwhile, the rest of what is on TV is clearly out of control.

America is hardly going back to the 50's. Quite the opposite is true.

 

[bk77]

The rate we are going well forget about those 7 dirty words, one day we may have well over 100 different words and phrases one can't say without getting someone in a tizzy.

I bet there will be a time in the future where mass book burnings, even bannings, will once again become in style in the US. And one book that will be targeted is Webster's Dictionary.

Imagine "Laugh In" being rerun in the future and the phrase "Look that up in your Funk and Wagnalls" being bleeped out, because it has become an offensive phrase.

America is indeed a backward society, and as long as the Christian prudes are in charge, it's bound to go even more backward.

I do not agree with you. First of all, the "Christian prudes" are not in charge at all and society in general is tolerant of more trash than one can shake a stick at. And, as an aside, why pick on Christians anyway - when there are global forces who want to move us back to 7th Century Arabia? The generality is not fair - or correct (by the way, I am not a church goer...just a cultural observer). Christianity has become a global punching bag and it is not fair.

Overall, TV is today's biggest proponent of "alternate" or "progressive" lifestyles. For examples, if anything, gay lifestyles are overrepresented on prime time TV. As are drug use, premarital sex and, lest we forget, violence (that one has been true for 50 years).

Look, I've watched a lot of TV from the late 60's, 70's and 80's. Yes, some little curse words slipped in more readily (which I am fine with, by the way). But, the overall content was quite innocent when compared with today's programming. Back then, they laid it between the lines - which made it all the more entertaining. Now, there are no nuances. It's all right in your face. Laugh In is like a kid's show when compared with pretty much any 8 pm network sitcom....so that's a very poor comparison. Get a hold of one of the DVDs and watch the show again. You'll see what I mean. Almost any sitcom from the 70's would probably be rated "TV-G" by today's standards.

One of my favorite shows is "Are You Being Served" which someone eluded to earlier. It was a brilliant show. It was also a show that involved some very mature sexual innuendo that was so masterfully written that you can watch it with little kids in the room and they won't get it at all. Yet they'll still laugh at the innocent half of the double entendre. The subtlety was magnificent. Amazing actors and equally amazing writers. Somewhere along the way, the writers lost that skill.

So, comparing today's society and the television shows that we watch to "Leave it to Beaver" is laughable. One look at a show such as "Family Guy" or at the fare of entire cable networks such as MTV, E!, Bravo or others show absolutely no resemblance to those days. Not to mention some of the very shows that are on broadcast networks (such as, ironically, FOX). Even the news channels take part in this by reveling in the most nasty details of various court cases, as if those constituted news. A lot of what's on is really quite profane. And, that seems to be what the market wants because it's pretty successful.

The real problem here is the ridiculous inconsistency. The FCC worries about seemingly innocent words while graphic violence, sexual oddities, in-your-face booty and irreverence of all sorts are the norm on TV. It is as STUPID as rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. And, probably even more useless. Yes, it seems absolutely absurd to cut words like "GD" or "screwing" when a quick flip of the remote to MTV (which your 12 year-old probably has on) will reveal far more salacious fare. THAT is what is B.S. about all of this. Worrying about such minutiae in the face of everything else that's going on. It's absolutely childish and oh-so-political. Meanwhile, the rest of what is on TV is clearly out of control.

America is hardly going back to the 50's. Quite the opposite is true.

I understand your point ( and the others too for that matter ), while it is true that the "Christian prudes" as you say are not in charge, sometimes though one does wonder. For example other than religious reasons I have not heard of a single reason why gay marriage should not be. Kids do better in homes when two parents are around? While that may be true but what about the millions of kids who live in homes where parents DO NOT get along?

Anyway, I doubt the country will be going back to the morals of the 1950s anytime soon. With more and more states allowing civil unions ( like the UK does ) and someone having an abortion today is not really a big deal. Plus even though I doubt we will see pot legal anytime soon in America I do see places turning the other way on the issue. For example in Denver I believe the voters there have a chance at making pot well "almost legal" as in while pot may still be illegal there, if you have an ounce or so In Denver the police there wont do anything so they can deal with more important issues like murders for example.

Myself I really don't understand the purpose of censoring dirty words anyway. Because of the children? OK, but today you even have teachers in schools that use four letter words in class. What about other family members? In public?

Its up to parents to say to their children which words are wrong or not, not the FCC.

 

[LKellerIII]

"In many countries one can see quite a bit of nudity on REGULAR TV while here in America we have those who couldn't handle seeing a second of Janet Jackson's boob. Sometimes one wonders what goes into people's heads."

The many thousands of stories on that famous "wardrobe malfunction" always censored Janet's boob...pixilated it - even in American print publications. My first exposure to a photo of her uncensored naked breast was in...The Economist - a politically conservative pro-capitalist news magazine published in London, where naked breasts are not considered obscene.

The irony is - of course - we could all see Janet's boob on the internet, which is nothing compared to the kinkiest porn, which anybody can see after a few seconds of googling.

Censors are fast on the trigger these days because FCC fines are so much bigger now...it just plain costs too much money to let that stuff slip by.

 

[dhett]

The difference is, here in America, if you want to see nudity, you can choose to see it almost anyplace. However, if you don't want to see nudity, it's not imposed on you. American TV offers a level of service to those who do not want the nudity, but it also offers several levels of service to those who do, but you choose to have that level of service. Those who constantly compare the U.S. to Europe always seem to be trying to take away choice. I've seen European TV, and a lot of it is trash. I don't want that here.

 

[sack]

The difference is, here in America, if you want to see nudity, you can choose to see it almost anyplace. However, if you don't want to see nudity, it's not imposed on you. American TV offers a level of service to those who do not want the nudity, but it also offers several levels of service to those who do, but you choose to have that level of service. Those who constantly compare the U.S. to Europe always seem to be trying to take away choice. I've seen European TV, and a lot of it is trash. I don't want that here.

Why is nudity so reviled in this country? Why can we not be as passionate about the violence on TV. European TV censors violence. Compare the murder rate in England or France to the U.S.A. Yes, the United States "kicks a**",, now aren't we all proud. We censor Sally Fields anti-war reference, but shootings and beatings are considered acceptable. So maybe the poster that spoke about the "Christian Prudes" being in charge is right. Christians (or at least their mouthpieces) abhor anything sexual, yet they dont seem to get as upset about violent content. Historically thats Christian, remember, the Christians are the ones that brought us the Crusades,, killing people because they won't subscribe to your religion.

 

[BRNout]

We censor Sally Fields anti-war reference, but shootings and beatings are considered acceptable.

For the second time, it wasn't the "anti-war" reference that got censored. It was the curse that preceded it. TV networks go out of their way to get anti-war opinions on TV. Let's not twist this into something it was not.

So maybe the poster that spoke about the "Christian Prudes" being in charge is right. Christians (or at least their mouthpieces) abhor anything sexual, yet they dont seem to get as upset about violent content. Historically thats Christian, remember, the Christians are the ones that brought us the Crusades,, killing people because they won't subscribe to your religion.

One quick look through what's on basic cable would prove the "Prudes" statement wrong. IF they were in charge, we wouldn't have about 85% of what's on now. If anything, there is an anti-Christian sentiment that permeates much of what's on TV.

BTW: Sack, you have a very poor understanding of history. The Muslims invaded present-day Israel and slaughtered and displaced Jews. Then, they invaded Europe, making it as far north as France before being repelled and driven back to where they belong. After that, the Crusades took place. It did grow out of a pre-existing antagonism, in addition to political expediency. The Crusades were not carried out as a mission of evangelicalism, they were to take back the Holy Land from the Muslims. Simple as that. They weren't converting people. It was an invasion to displace the Muslim armies (who had taken it over centuries earlier). Sure the Crusades were wrong, but then again it was 800 years ago. You had to go that far back to make your point.

If you want to see examples of real-life killing of people in today's world for not subscribing to a certain religion - look no farther than Iran or Saudi Arabia or even parts of Lebanon. Here's a shocker: Christians are victims of this, not perpetrators of it. A popular interpretation of the Koran involves "submit or die" - which is used to convert many by the sword.

Here's an idea: why don't you go whistling down a street in Islamabad or Khartoum and see how many open-minded friends you meet? Then you'll get the idea. Until you do a little traveling to other parts of the world (aside from Cancun or London), I think you can lay off of the religious angle and the Christian bashing. Please do us a favor and read something other than what's on the Daily Kos before trying to bring some discussion of world affairs to this board.

 

[bk77]

We censor Sally Fields anti-war reference, but shootings and beatings are considered acceptable.

For the second time, it wasn't the "anti-war" reference that got censored. It was the curse that preceded it. TV networks go out of their way to get anti-war opinions on TV. Let's not twist this into something it was not.

So maybe the poster that spoke about the "Christian Prudes" being in charge is right. Christians (or at least their mouthpieces) abhor anything sexual, yet they dont seem to get as upset about violent content. Historically thats Christian, remember, the Christians are the ones that brought us the Crusades,, killing people because they won't subscribe to your religion.

One quick look through what's on basic cable would prove the "Prudes" statement wrong. IF they were in charge, we wouldn't have about 85% of what's on now. If anything, there is an anti-Christian sentiment that permeates much of what's on TV.

While the so-called Christian Prudes may not be in charge as far as nationwide goes, well on a local level, yes they are pretty much in charge. Aren't there a few places out there where one can't get MTV,VH1, Logo or even Showtime on their local cable system because some town won't allow it because "this is a Christian area and those channels go against our values"?

There are many places out there that still have blue laws when it comes to buying liquor, clothes, or even a car on Sunday
and whenever there is an attempt to change it, those who want the bans stay in place bring up the Bible.

A nearby county where I live gave its voters a chance to vote on allowing Las Vegas/Atlantic City style casinos to open up there. The state required it. Did it pass? No because the those who ran the county brought up religion and how gambling is a sin and made those who felt the casinos should be needed to bring badly needed money into the area that if they would vote "yes" then they are slapping the face of God.

My sister for years worked in video rental distrubtion business and she has told me several times over the years that some counties in a few areas of the US still do not allow porn. Not only one can't buy it there but they can't order it from someplace else and ship it there either. They actually had a list of counties and post office zip codes where they could not ship anything "NC17" or "X" . Why? As she says someplaces are in the hands of a Christian governement.

And werent there a few local places that tried on their own to overturn Roe vs. Wade? I believe South Dakota came really close to ban most abortions. A few years back Virginia was considering a law passing making it next to impossible to get a divorce in that state, well commonwealth. I am sure ( I know it was in Virginia's case ) that those who wanted the laws to well become laws brought religion into it.

Seperation of church and state? Well one would not know it in some parts of the country.

 

[imhomerjay]

Why is nudity so reviled in this country? Why can we not be as passionate about the violence on TV. European TV censors violence. Compare the murder rate in England or France to the U.S.A. Yes, the United States "kicks a**",, now aren't we all proud. We censor Sally Fields anti-war reference, but shootings and beatings are considered acceptable. So maybe the poster that spoke about the "Christian Prudes" being in charge is right. Christians (or at least their mouthpieces) abhor anything sexual, yet they dont seem to get as upset about violent content. Historically thats Christian, remember, the Christians are the ones that brought us the Crusades,, killing people because they won't subscribe to your religion.

Your point about the mouthpieces is more accurate. I'm a proud left-wing Christian, and have no problems with sexuality and nudity. I find the prudish culture in which a breast is so obscene that a glimpse might scar someone for life to be pathetic. Even worse are the people who get so uptight about a human nipple that they scorn breastfeeding in any location but the stall in the women's restroom.

Don't judge all Christians by the actions of the unfortunate media whores (James Dobson, et al). We're not all anti-choice, anti-sex, pro-discrimination bigots.

 

[dhett]

Disclaimer: I am addressing the discussion in general, not imhomerjay specifically.

This issue has nothing to do with who's controlling government, what religion does what to whom, or anything else. It only boils down to this: those who want nudity, cursing and violence on TV can choose to get it. Those who don't want it shouldn't have it forced on them. Whether or not you agree with their point of view is irrelevant. Are you tolerant of it?

As for violence, the same organizations battling nudity and profanity on TV are also battling violence. That just doesn't get the press because it doesn't stick in the liberals' craw.

 

[imhomerjay]

What exactly is forced on someone on the TV? Mine comes with an off switch.

The "no choice" argument is a red herring. The fact that you can't get what you want isn't the same as being forced to view something you don't. I have the choice to watch or not, as does everyone.

As it relates to what is or isn't (allowed) on television, it does have to do with the government.

 

[dhett]

Ah, the old "off switch" plan. I was waiting for that to come up, because that's always the solution: deny choice. The off switch is no solution; any time I turn the TV on, I or anyone in my household could be subjected to that garbage. The TV rating system and V-chip were supposed to give control to parents, but it's too easy to get around. Broadcast rules are relaxed after 10 PM, but that's not good enough. You have several levels of television service with which to view your smut; but you also want to take away the only one I have.

 

[beauduran]

Ah, the old "off switch" plan. I was waiting for that to come up, because that's always the solution: deny choice. The off switch is no solution; any time I turn the TV on, I or anyone in my household could be subjected to that garbage. The TV rating system and V-chip were supposed to give control to parents, but it's too easy to get around. Broadcast rules are relaxed after 10 PM, but that's not good enough. You have several levels of television service with which to view your smut; but you also want to take away the only one I have.

I don't know if anyone wants to take away any of your choices. I think all of us on the "Let us choose what we want to watch" bandwagon would agree. However, I don't like the government making any decisions about what ANYBODY should or shouldn't see. If there are enough people in this world like you, who want more wholesome fare on TV, let the free market show that.

Fox(getting back to the original point about the Emmys), just like everyother media company is looking to make money. They make the most money by getting the highest ratings. They get the highest ratings by putting the most popular content on the air. If there are more people out there like you than me, then you will will have the most content to choose from. Now I don't know if there are more Americans out there like you or like me. But I do know that the ones like you are the more vocal and politically active ones.

And herein lies the problem. Years of letter writing campaigns where the validty is questionable at best, coupled with wealthy, idealistic activism from what appears to be a VERY vocal minority have led to the government, and the FCC in particular, acting like an out of control, power drunk bully when it comes to "decency." And that is where I take issue.

I don't have any problem with any network who wants to air any content they want, whether it be family friendly or adult-only. I just want the individual broadcasters to make that decision based on the marketplace. I don't want government making those decisions for them. Or for you or me.