Saving Pvt Ryan on SOME ABC stations tonight

[jrydberg]

Having worked at a television station, I think I can say that this is clearly a protest aimed at drawing attention to the FCC. The movie has already been shown on broadcast TV by ABC. No fines were issued then, so it would be extraordinarily difficult to make the case that fines could be legitimately issued now. I don't blame the TV stations for protesting, but that's what it is... they don't fear an FCC fine over Saving Private Ryan. They fear it over other things and are using this to highlight that.

 

[Doug123]

Originally posted by jrydberg
Having worked at a television station, I think I can say that this is clearly a protest aimed at drawing attention to the FCC. The movie has already been shown on broadcast TV by ABC. No fines were issued then, so it would be extraordinarily difficult to make the case that fines could be legitimately issued now. I don't blame the TV stations for protesting, but that's what it is... they don't fear an FCC fine over Saving Private Ryan. They fear it over other things and are using this to highlight that.

That was all pre-Janetgate, and before the election of Bush.

 

[septbride2002]

Having worked at a television station, I think I can say that this is clearly a protest aimed at drawing attention to the FCC. The movie has already been shown on broadcast TV by ABC. No fines were issued then, so it would be extraordinarily difficult to make the case that fines could be legitimately issued now. I don't blame the TV stations for protesting, but that's what it is... they don't fear an FCC fine over Saving Private Ryan. They fear it over other things and are using this to highlight that.

Was it shown uncut and uneditted - that might make a difference. Otherwise I totally agree with you. It is a sign of protest one that I don't mind in the least bit. The FCC should not be in the business of picking and choosing who gets fined and who doesn't. Which is basically what they have been doing thus far.

~Amanda

 

[Geoff_M]

That was all pre-Janetgate, and before the election of Bush.

Bush was President in 2001 and 2002 when the film was shown without so much as a negative "peep" out of the FCC.

 

[Geoff_M]

The FCC should not be in the business of picking and choosing who gets fined and who doesn't. Which is basically what they have been doing thus far.

As it has done since the inception of the FCC... I love this notion that somehow the FCC has suddenly gone off "the deep end".

 

[phorsenuf]

This is a statement (and explanation) from our local station. A bunch of Hooey!


WMUR Programming Note
'Ryan' Will Not Be Shown

POSTED: 9:54 am EST November 11, 2004

We've got a programming change on WMUR tonight we want to pass along to you.

WMUR-TV and our parent company, Hearst-Argyle Television, have decided not to air the movie "Saving Private Ryan." The plan to air the movie tonight was a fitting tribute -- on this Veterans Day -- to those who serve and have served our nation.

But some recent decisions by the Federal Communication Commission have established some new legal standards that make airing movies such as "Private Ryan," which is recommended for mature audiences only, inappropriate before 10 p.m.

We asked ABC for permission to run the movie at 10 p.m. ABC said no, leaving us no choice but to cancel the movie. If we aired the program tonight, we could face stiff fines and put our broadcast license in jeopardy.

So, instead of airing "Saving Private Ryan" tonight, we'll be airing a special high-definition edition of "New Hampshire Chronicle" from 8 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. and the movie "Far and Away" from 8:30 p.m. to 11 p.m. That's followed by News 9 at 11 that will include a tribute to our veterans on this Veterans Day.

As always, we do welcome thoughtful comments from our viewers and the communities we serve.

 

[jrydberg]

Originally posted by Doug123
That was all pre-Janetgate, and before the election of Bush.

That's irrelevant.

 

[Doug123]

Originally posted by Geoff_M
Bush was President in 2001 and 2002 when the film was shown without so much as a negative "peep" out of the FCC.

I stand corrected regarding the first time it aired on tv. I stand by the Janetgate part, though.

 

[Geoff_M]

phorsenuf,

Translation...

WMUR Programming Note
'Ryan' Will Not Be Shown

POSTED: 9:54 am EST November 11, 2004

We've got a programming change on WMUR tonight we want to pass along to you.

WMUR-TV and our parent company, Hearst-Argyle Television, have decided not to air the movie "Saving Private Ryan." The plan to air the movie tonight was a fitting tribute -- on this Veterans Day -- to those who serve and have served our nation.

We've decided to use the withholding of this film as a way to protest the FCC's recent decision about the airing nudity and profanity in a superfluous and casual manner on the publicly controlled airwaves. We know full well that the FCC has approved of the unedited airing of this film in recent years under the current administration, but we hope (by our pulling of the film) our viewers will develop the false impression that the FCC would actually consider fining us this year and raise a stink with the FCC. Refusing to air this great tribute to our fighting men and women was the best way would could think of to generate publicity for our cause of being able to air titilating nudity and profanity for the sake of itself if we want to do so.

So, instead of airing "Saving Private Ryan" tonight, we'll be airing a special high-definition edition of "New Hampshire Chronicle" from 8 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. and the movie "Far and Away" from 8:30 p.m. to 11 p.m. That's followed by News 9 at 11 that will include a tribute to our veterans on this Veterans Day.

As always, we do welcome thoughtful comments from our viewers and the communities we serve.

 

[phorsenuf]

LOL...maybe you should submit that explanation to the TV channel and they can post that instead! LOL

 

[EltonJohn]

Originally posted by CheshireVal
Our local station isn't carrying it.

Ditto here, and I'm writing a complaint.

 

[septbride2002]

As it has done since the inception of the FCC... I love this notion that somehow the FCC has suddenly gone off "the deep end".

Which is wrong! I don't care if they did it since their inception or if they just started doing it now. You can't randomly charge stations when they don't even know they are doing something wrong! They need to have clear and concise guidelines so that the stations can adjust programming accordingly.

I was not implying the FCC went off the deep end - if you are going to quote me then please don't add your own insinuations.

~Amanda

 

[RadioNate]

I think with Saving Private Ryan the F word seems to be a problem. After the Bono incident the FCC ruled that regardless of context the F word was considered indecent. This was AFTER the two previous unedited airings of Saving Private Ryan. So the FCC changed the rules. One of the owners opting out (either Cox or Citadel) asked the FCC for clarification and a waiver so the could show the movie without the possibility of fines. The FCC wouldn't grant a waiver or clarify so they pulled the program.

I read several articles from on my Yahoo news page, if you need specific sources. ETA one of the articles
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=494&e=1&u=/ap/20041111/ap_en_tv/movie_canceled

What some people fail to understand is that the FCC has no clear cut guidelines as to what is ok and what isn't. As seen with radio and Howard Stern what gets fined for airing Jacksonville may not get fined for airing in NYC. It's all very subjective.

In my experience, knowing people in the radio and tv business, I totally agree that "Janetgate" and the resulting uproar has had a cooling effect on both radio and tv stations. Everyone I know in the media businnes is scared of now getting fines for stuff that has always been ok.

While it is the FCCs job to monitor public content. They are now fineing things that used to be ok. They are also fining with little consistancy. Look at the Clear Channel Stern fine or the CBS Janet fine. Why weren't any other owner but Clear Channel fined for Stern even though all his affiliates and the Infinity O&Os aired the exact same content. Same with Janet why were only the CBS O&Os fined and not any affilites.

The fines have also dramatically increased since "Janetgate."

Do I think all the ABC affiliates should air Saving Private Ryan, yes. I also agree that it isn't "family viewing" and I don't care. I also don't want only family viewing on my TV. Just to make my position very clear, I didn't care, wasn't offended, didn't think it was indecent, and don't even care that my 3 year old saw Janet's breast.

That being said, I do think these station have cause to think twice about airing something with graphic violence and language. The climate has changed in the last year. And IMO it's a real shame.

 

[Figment22]

Originally posted by Doug123
With his "morals for America" flag waving, Bush used the Janet Jackson incident in an attempt to install a conservative's view of what should and should not be portrayed in today's media. It has -- as is evidenced with stations refusing to air "Saving Private Ryan," even though they did so previously -- had a cooling effect on the market.

Those that didn't complain about the atmosphere created by the Bush Administration after the Jackson incident, should not be complaining now.

This may not be so far off target:


Cole [of Citadel Broadcasting which owns 3 midwest stations that are boycotting the film] cited recent FCC actions and last week's re-election of President Bush as reasons for replacing "Saving Private Ryan" on Thursday with a music program and the TV movie "Return to Mayberry."

"We're just coming off an election where moral issues were cited as a reason by people voting one way or another and, in my opinion, the commissioners are fearful of the new Congress," Cole said.


This was excerpted from a related article appearing on my Earthlink homepage so I don't know if it's available to everyone but I'll link it anyway.

http://start.earthlink.net/newsarticle?cat=0&aid=D869S5KG1_story

 

[Geoff_M]

Which is wrong! I don't care if they did it since their inception or if they just started doing it now.

Sorry, but the frequencies that the stations use and the licenses they hold are in the public domain. Just like you aren't free to do what you want in the town square, the same goes for the public airwaves. It's there for all to see. If people have a problem playing by the rules, then they can go for the private subscription route like Mr. Stern.

You can't randomly charge stations when they don't even know they are doing something wrong! They need to have clear and concise guidelines so that the stations can adjust programming accordingly.

The findings of the FCC aren't "random" and I think stations have a pretty good idea of what they can, and can't do... despite what the protesting affiliates may claim. Do you think any of the stations protesting honestly thinks that the FCC would fine them or pull their licenses for showing SPR, as in previous years? Did the FCC once say it was OK to flash breasts during musical entertainment and later decide to fine stations for such behavior? Better yet, would you bet that the stations that do show the flick will get a nasty-gram from the FCC?

I was not implying the FCC went off the deep end - if you are going to quote me then please don't add your own insinuations.

My comment was aimed at the preception that this hub-bub was a change of direction at the FCC triggered by the election of Bush. That at some point in the past stations were free to use profanity and nudity withough interference from the feds.

 

[RadioNate]

Originally posted by Geoff_M
My comment was aimed at the preception that this hub-bub was a change of direction at the FCC triggered by the election of Bush. That at some point in the past stations were free to use profanity and nudity withough interference from the feds.

Bush or not, the rules HAVE changed since Janet. Bush did appoint the current FCC leadership. What about ER, which has shown woman's breasts without fine or NYPD Blue who has shown Dennis Franz's naked rear end as well as other nudity without fines. Stern has been doing his schitk for years without fines.

I agree that their should be standards for the public airwaves but the FCC has changed the rules without telling broadcasters what they've been changed to.

 

[Mimi Q]

We have two ABS affiliates on our cable system, WLOS in Ashville, NC and WSB in Atlanta, GA. Neither one are showing the movie.

 

[chadfromdallas]

American Censorship sucks.

I was looking forward to it.

Dang WFAA!

 

[Royalbear]

I haven't read all the posts, but here is my thought:

I know what PVT Ryan is about. I can choose to not watch it. I know that Desperate Housewives has some raunchy scenes, I can choose to not watch it.

However, during the superbowl, I never had the chance to make the decision for myself. JJ's thing was out there during a half time show when it was least expected. I would not have been horrified if it was announced: JJ will be flashing her incredibly ugly **** with its weird ring during half time. I would have simply turned her off.

Don't take away my choices. Just give me the choice. That's what I think the FCC is trying to accomplish, albeit with a little strong backlash.

 

[chadfromdallas]

Originally posted by Royalbear
However, during the superbowl, I never had the chance to make the decision for myself. JJ's thing was out there during a half time show when it was least expected. I would not have been horrified if it was announced: JJ will be flashing her incredibly ugly **** with its weird ring during half time. I would have simply turned her off.

To America:

It was a ****. Get over it.