• Get involved.
    We want your input!
    Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.

    After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
    If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.

    After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
    https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/

    Thanks in advance and have fun!
    RadioDiscussions Administrators

Should it have been deleted?

L

larryb1

During live coverage of the plane accident in NYC, Channel 4 was airing, live, the reaction of one of the lucky passengers who was visibly shaken, but happy to be alive. During his explanation of his personal account of the incident and the other passengers, he used the "shit" word, with it going out on the air. No one reacted from the station until the end of his narration, where the newsperson at the site apologized to the viewers and stressed the nature of "Live television".

The story painted by this passenger was vivid and the language added a sense of realism to the story, in my opinion.

But, in terms of broadcasting, is WNBC Channel 4 to be held accountable for this blurb and should they have censored it before making air? What do you think? Would you take the chance of letting raw material air in real time with the attitude of the FCC today?
 
i think even by broadcasting standards, WNBC 4 would NOT have censored the piece - this was a NY story on a NY station, and let's face it, for us New Yorkers, it was such a "Miracle on the Hudson"; this man was speaking from his heart, he wasn't doing it for show, he was real about the whole thing....
 
It's not so much the attitude of the FCC as it is the attitude of hypocritical, pseudo-puritan viewers who get their panties in a wad every time they hear a "bad word" go out over the air. Of course, the FCC is happy to oblige once those complaints come in.

But no, this is not something that should have been censored, and as they said on the air, this is the nature of live television.
 
larryb1 said:
During live coverage of the plane accident in NYC, Channel 4 was airing, live, the reaction of one of the lucky passengers who was visibly shaken, but happy to be alive. During his explanation of his personal account of the incident and the other passengers, he used the "shit" word, with it going out on the air. No one reacted from the station until the end of his narration, where the newsperson at the site apologized to the viewers and stressed the nature of "Live television".

The story painted by this passenger was vivid and the language added a sense of realism to the story, in my opinion.

But, in terms of broadcasting, is WNBC Channel 4 to be held accountable for this blurb and should they have censored it before making air? What do you think? Would you take the chance of letting raw material air in real time with the attitude of the FCC today?
Click to expand...

Did Sue Simmons ask what the F*** he was doing? ;D
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom