"Saving Private Ryan" subject to fcc control?

[Corvid]

I have heard that some twenty abc affiliates will NOT air "Saving Private Ryan" out of fear that the fcc under powell will fine them for showing excess violence and swearing.

Can anyone confirm this?

oh.... happy veteran's day.

[tiffany]

I have heard that some twenty abc affiliates will NOT air "Saving Private Ryan" out of fear that the fcc under powell will fine them for showing excess violence and swearing.

Can anyone confirm this?

oh.... happy veteran's day.

Yes I heard this too. They are afraid since the Jackson boob fest of getting sued. The first 20 minutes of the film is very vile in language and action they state.

So blame it on the head of the FCC. Isn't that good ole son of Powell.

Free speech down the tube. Police state armored trucks/tanks are on the way to squash your rights.......I'm afraid!

[Foxyred]

Corvid,

I was just astonished when I JUST 5 minutes ago heard the very thing you posted from our talk show host on my Canadian am radio station. He is non to impressed either.

Happy Veteran's Day United States and Remembrance Day Canada. They played the bagpipes this morning and that was it for me. Tears wash ashore.

[daboodaddy]

It makes one almost wonder if the "Jackson Boob Fest" was deliberate to cause a problem-reaction-solution sceneario to move towards acclimatizing the people to more and more censorship.

Trashing freedom of speech and expression is indecent, not "Saving Private Ryan", or Human anatomy.

BTW: The stations owned by Citadel Broadcasting Company are the alleged culprits.

[Bellisima]

or Sinclair Broadcasting control?

http://www.chattanoogan.com/articles/article_58500.asp

Bart Whiteman: Climate Of Fear
by Bart Whiteman
posted November 11, 2004

It didn’t take long to start, and you have to wonder if it will ever end. Several ABC affiliates are pulling the television broadcast of the movie Saving Private Ryan fearing a possible backlash and fines from the FCC for letting the show air. There is a fair amount of graphic violence and some foul language in the movie, since it appears that not all soldiers actually talk like John Wayne when under fire and some battle wounds are actually a little ugly.

The networks regularly air a wide variety of soft porn reality shows that somehow pass unscathed under the FCC’s austere regard, as well as more and more drama shows based in Las Vegas, where the women in particular always seem to be missing at least one piece of clothing, but an artfully-made movie (directed by Steven Spielberg) with a very powerful dr


So what is going on here?

Is this really an effort to protect the oh-so-sensitive eyes and ears of the American public, or just another attempt to keep them stupid? With all the warnings about the movie’s content that have already been broadcast anyone with half a brain could figure out whether or not this is something they could handle. In fact, it has already aired at least twice before. Why the panic now?

Let’s see, what has happened recently?

It would seem that something other than concerns for decency is afoot. Someone is using the FCC to help create a climate of fear within our hallowed shores. If Saving Private Ryan cannot air, what can? It’s a shame that so much glop makes it through to every home in America, but a few decent, intelligent items don’t have a chance.

What is further intriguing is the fact that the ABC affiliates that are pulling the show are mostly owned by Sinclair Broadcasting Corporation, the same bozos who did some pro-Bush censorship and promotion of their own during the campaign with regard to airing material that might give the impression that some people are actually suffering because of the war in Iraq. You would think that Private Ryan would be their baby and that they would defend its broadcast, not yank it and claim it’s all the FCC’s fault.

Maybe Sinclair doesn’t want the American public to see and consider a graphic display of the fact that some of our own soldiers actually get killed when we go to war right about now.

The whole thing smells from every angle.

The FCC, not wanting to be seen as responsible for anything at all, has said it can’t give anyone the green or red light on this thing prior to broadcast. They only react “if someone complains,” which nowadays would mean about every nano-second. They also haven’t told Sinclair Broadcasting to “get a life.”

This whole brouhaha only further points out how whacked out our current real war is. When Saving Private Ryan first came out, it was considered to be pro-war, but we didn’t have a hot war going on. That’s one of the reasons it was denied a Best Picture Oscar by the Hollywood establishment. It still came close to winning, though, and it did manage to take home five Academy Awards. Now, it would appear that some people are thinking it is anti-war just because it shows it like it is, and we do have a hot war going on. I suppose this is why the American public has apparently decided it can abide with the idea of perpetual warfare for the time being simply because it is taking place out of view.

This is psychopathically delusional.

So, now we have the FCC scaring some people into silence over the prospect of fines and sanctions, or being used by others to do the same thing, and we have certain corporate interests trying to control or withhold the information stream to the American public to further their own ends. In all cases, the American public suffers and is treated like a bunch a boobs there for the manipulating.

I think the American dietary intake, which is not exactly glorifying the idea of nutrition right now, can withstand whatever horrible gastric consequences Saving Private Ryan might lead to. It might even wake a few people up, and that’s exactly why some people don’t want you to see it.

Bart Whiteman
[email protected]

[SETIsLady]

Well since my business happens to be online media business. I will share with you a piece that was sent to me today.

Patriotism and a Four-Letter Word

A media critique by Wayne Friedman, Thursday, November 11, 2004

TO ALL THOSE TV PRESSURE groups that helped the FCC become a reactionary organization, those that egged a response to Janet Jackson's half-time Super Bowl escapade and to Howard Stern -- I can only say: I hope you're happy. Now the fun really starts.

ABC stations in 35 percent of the country won't air "Saving Private Ryan" because of some profane utterances. The FCC has networks jumping due to the stricter rules - in which radio and television could be quick to get fines for improper content.

When ABC ran "Ryan" in 2001 and 2002 there was one complaint from a media religious pressure group. But few had anything to say against the highly regarded movie from director Steven Spielberg. Technically the FCC forbids vulgar language on broadcast stations between 6 a.m. and 10 p.m., but the FCC ruled that the movie wasn't "indecent" in 2002.

Even this time around, the Parents Television Council deemed it acceptable because the language was used in proper context. "Ryan" is scheduled to run at 8 p.m. tonight.

So now what?

We can't turn back the clock on any of this - including the 'morality' vote that supposedly helped the Republicans continue their stay at the White House last week.

And all this could mess with business - the advertising business. Stations are antsy to air any provocative programs. Advertisers, as a result, will be nervous to buy any programming with the slightest content infraction.

That's not a thriving business position for broadcast stations. The advertising market isn't secure right now - especially heading into a non-political, non-Olympic year.

If voters wanted to scare television programmers, they are doing a great job. But that cuts both ways. Consumer products companies will be loathe in making risky marketing decisions; that can keep sales low. And if companies can't grow revenues, they won't be able to hire people for jobs, which in turn, would help turn the economy around.

"Saving Private Ryan" is a tough, graphic portrayal of the lives of World War II soldiers on D-Day. In the light of what is going on in Iraq, it's a great tribute today -- Veterans Day -- as well as a thought-provoking piece about what war is really about.

Yet stations are paranoid to air it, bogged down with fears that a regulatory agency - one from the federal government that also sends troops to war -- could fine them.

And, apparently, this all stems from patriotism.

[spaceprophet]

I'm watching it right now on ABC. Blood, guts, and the F word in all it's glory.

You won't hear a peep out of the FCC. War movies are exempt I think. Just not boobs.

[Lakesider]

What would happen if, in this case ABC, said they would air this movie (which they are in some markets) and made it clear beforehand that if the FCC fines them then you get your lawyers and we'll get our lawyers and see you in court!

Could the FCC outlast ABC in court?

Would the courts rule in favour of ABC saying they could air such a movie without the threat of heavy fines?

I can understand the FCC flexing their muscle against radio stations that may not have the resources to do legal battle with the FCC but tv networks would be another story.

[fabzilla]

Let me start by giving my thanks to Corvid. Doesn't it seem kinda odd that ABC is airing this and ABC affiliates are creating the hub bub? Last time I checked complaints to the FCC must be logged before any action is taken against anybody. How can there be an action plan against its airing before it airs? There can't unless this is another move by the media machine to try and regain some "clout" with the folks. They've all taken it on the chin pretty hard thanks to the free thinking people who have finally started paying attention to all the b.s. they've been ramming down our throats for years.

[Conspiracy Theorist]

It aired here in the Miami/Ft Lauderdale area.

The FCC tends to enforce it's standards selectively. This is why Howard Stern can get record fines for things that Oprah can say with impunity.

It's not entirely without rhyme nor reason, though. It's a matter of context. If you use profanity or violence for their own sake, you're going to be fined if there are complaints. If the terms are used in an "educational" context, or a matter of artistic context required to portray a serious situation, you'll get a pass. No one can say "Private Ryan" is gratuitous in any way.

If the same terms are used in a comedic context, as are done in Howard's case, they're fair game for the FCC. And, I guess the Janet Jackson fiasco was an effort to shock. On the other hand, I'd argue it had artistic value and should have been allowed.

[Cherry Kelly]

Several stations did not carry the movie because of the profanity issues and being afraid they'd get sued. Some asked to show the movie one hour later in the evening - but not sure what happened there IF they did or not.

Its the fear of lawsuits. So why not just move these types of shows to after 8pm starting time slot. ((I saw the movie in the theater and on tv.))

[daboodaddy]

Charleston, SC showed the movie. ABC made a very wise move by having a D-Day survivor and Sen. Mc Cain (Republican, and War Hero) give the intro to the film.

[Devastated]

Guess what? Translators and editors are now being spied upon and censored for working with material from the Mid-East!!!:mad:

To read PEN's March 4th letter to the Treasury Department, click here: http://www.pen.org/freedom/pressrel/ofac.html
To read the press release for the September 27th suit, click here: http://pen.org/corefreedoms/78.html
And for Salman Rushdie's declaration on OFAC, click here: http://www.aaupnet.org/ofac/Rushdie3495_001.pdf

LETTER FOLLOWS
November 9, 2004

John W. Snow, Secretary of the Treasury

Richard Newcomb, Director, Office of Foreign Assets Control

U.S. Department of the Treasury

1500 Pennsylvania Avenue NW

Washington DC 20220 United States

fax 001 202 622 6415

re: OFAC regulations in countries subject to US trade embargoes

Dear Secretary Snow, Dear Mr. Newcomb,

A series of rulings of the Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control assert that books and translations of books from writers in embargoed countries are subject to licensing requirements of trade sanctions regimes. Now a US translator or publisher must seek special permission to translate, publish or promote a Cuban, Iranian or Sudanese writer--or risk heavy fines or a jail sentence.

These rulings run contrary to the spirit of freedom of expression, and they are not in keeping with the tradition of the United States. For example, I remember well that during the Cold War US translators and publishers took an admirable role in promoting the voices of dissent from Soviet countries.

Recently Iranian Nobel prizewinner Shirin Ebadi discovered that her plans to publish a book in the United States would likely run afoul of these regulations. She is well-known and is pressing suit. However, she represents many more writers, mostly far less well-known and with fewer resources, whose voices may simply never be heard because no translator or publisher wants to risk the possible punishment.

As a Vice President of a worldwide organization of writers dedicated to freedom of expression, as a former chair of the Women Writers Committee of this organization, which monitors and defends the situation of writers with fewer resources, and as a citizen of the United States, I protest these regulations. I recommend that they be reviewed and rewritten to be commensurate with the intention of the US Congress, the Bill of Rights, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and with greater openness toward writers in difficult situations.

Sincerely,

Lucina Kathmann

International Vice President

International PEN

[Ninerism]

Corvid, YES. And it is psychopathically delusional, since we are endorsing sending military men against their will to go to fight a war that millions had protested before it began. So, likely the movie will disturb millions who see that wars do have horrible consequences, and the soldiers get terribly wounded, maimed and killed, and thus, the movie could be easily construed as being ANTI-WAR, just as I thought was the case when this mysterious ban became known to the public.

Obviously, the PTB want only good things known about our wars raging in Afghanistan and Iraq, so there is the necessity to sanitize those wars, and y'know, NOT SHOW ANY FLAG-DRAPED CASKETS, either. Remember that incident?! Well, got to make the boys at home eager to go to other nations to fight more wars, eh?

Let's call it: THE FLAG-DRAPED CASKET SYNDROME. Freedom rings in Iraq, we hear tell, coming soon to a local theatre, too.

Ninerism