WWII documentary may incur indecency fines

Reuters ^ | 07-27-06 | WestVirginiaRebel

[WestVirginiaRebel]

LOS ANGELES (Reuters)-The U.S. government's crackdown on media indecency could prevent World War Two veterans from sharing their stories in an upcoming TV documentary series by Ken Burns, the head of the Public Broadcasting Service said on Wednesday.

Noted filmaker Burns' highly anticipated seven-part series "The War" features salty language used by servicemen and others. If the explecitives make it to air, they could lead to crippling fines for the offencing stations as a result of a new law signed last month by President George W. Bush.

[RWR8189]

I stand up for morality and decency every single day, in my own home.

If you don't want to see or hear the smut on tv yourself, make use of the power switch.

[RWR8189]

The "public" airwaves are a problem unto themselves. I certainly have no love for government monopolies.

The "public" airwaves should have been privatized eons ago.

[Zhang Fei]

And as for the "Would Ken Burns want our children watching it?" question posed by another poster - given the subject matter...probably not. If a kid hasn't heard the F-bomb before, he's too young to watch what an A-Bomb does. That's not an anti-nuke sentiment, btw...just common sense.

First off, I don't want to see it on the public airwaves, any more than I want to be subjected to sights of people crapping in public or running naked through the streets.

Second, the children angle has to do with trying to avoid having kids pick up bad habits. The average parent doesn't want kids having sex at age 7, so he gets ticked off if television broadcasts get too sexual. He doesn't want kids cursing from an early age, so he doesn't want TV broadcasts full of expletives. (Note that the average parent really doesn't have to worry about his child taking up the bad habit of dropping atomic bombs. At least in this reality).

This is really about democracy vs the marketplace. There are probably enough consumers like you who want to watch dreck to fill the airwaves with it. At the same time, a majority of the people want the dreck to be filtered out - if the consumers who like this kind of stuff really want it, they can get a cable subscription and watch it on A&E.

[Zhang Fei]

I stand up for morality and decency every single day, in my own home. If you don't want to see or hear the smut on tv yourself, make use of the power switch.

I do - every day - by turning the TV on. As far as I'm concerned, people who have to see and hear smut every day can turn on their DVD player and pop in the latest rental. If you really, really have to see and hear it on broadcast TV, I recommend that you vote in a politician who shares your preference for smut.

[muir_redwoods]

"I'm sure bleeping some freaking words would ruin, just ruin the entire program."

It sure would sound stupid

[kingu]

Agree or disagree, the rules about colorful language have been in effect for, what, fifty years? Ken Burns knew this, left it in anyway, and now the real question is how many PBS stations will not be showing this series due to fear about fines.

Personally, I'd flip the bird to Burns, delay it by an hour, edit out the words and play the series, and let Burn's lawyers make a very interesting court case out of it. But that's just me. Colorful language doesn't harm me, it certainly wouldn't shock anyone in my household, but the honest truth is that so much of Burn's work recently has absolutely bored me that I'll probably just record it and fast forward through a lot of it.

Which is unfortunate.

[RWR8189]

I'll vote for the politician who believes in small government and personal responsibility.

I don't want to see our hear it on tv either, but I don't need the nanny-state to come in and make decisions for me or others.

[Zhang Fei]

I'll vote for the politician who believes in small government and personal responsibility. I don't want to see our hear it on tv either, but I don't need the nanny-state to come in and make decisions for me or others.

This is about personal responsibility. If someone wants to see smut, he should have to rent a video to do so. The politician isn't making a decision for me. I am making the decision that he should keep this stuff off the airwaves. Or I'll vote for somebody else. It's no different from laws preventing people from crapping on the sidewalk or exposing their privates to me. I could simply avert my eyes, but I'd prefer it if they could be arrested for doing so.

[dirtbiker]

Or just have them use words like caca, doodoo and poopoo!

To quote the late comedian, Redd Foxx: "Yes, I said $hit! So what? I'm 46, I feel like a damned fool saying 'doodoo'."

[Once-Ler]

I don't know of any President who ended a term with less government, and fewer laws. Do you?

The kids at Waco might think freedom of religion is better observed today. Americans who wanted to buy a bayonet mount for their rifle in 95 probably appreciate the end of the AWB. People who were promised a middle class tax cut but received an increase could argue that monetary freedom is a fundamental freedom with which most other freedoms become fully functional.

And on the one over-riding issue of today...the survival of America from islamic terror, there is no comparison. Clinton gutted the military and spent the money on socialism. He wasted expensive missiles and other resources in a war against Christians in Yugoslavia. He didn't trust our soldiers to carry bullets in Mogadishu. He loathed the military and it showed in the way he treated our defenders. I do believe Clinton looked forward to Osama's attacks to divert attention from the corruption and scandal...some people seem to forget what a scumbag Clinton was and like him as a politician. Not me, and I'm very thankful Dubya has brought honor and dignity to the Whitehouse. Have you noticed how none of the adminstration has pardoned terrorists, blamed Rush Limbaugh for the actions of a mass murderer in OK, accepted Chinese donations, rented the Lincoln bedroom, committed suicide, jerked off on their secretaries or even recommended masterbation education? Those don't fall into the context of freedoms but they count for something.

Many of governments intrusions have been because of judicial activism. The positive effects of the Roberts court will be felt for generations. Again no contest.

It is debatable whether America was stronger and better in 1992,2000, or today. What is indisputable in my opinion is President Bush is far superior to President Gore or Kerry.

After Libertarian candidate Badnarik received 0.34% of the vote in 04, he bravely fought for the freedom of Ohio taxpayers to shell out 1.5 million for a recount. Even though John Kerry rejected a recount Michael Badnarik teamed up with freedom champion and Green Party candidate David Cobb. When asked why he pushed for the recount he said he got "about two dozen passionate requests to do so from Libertarians in various states."...well then I guess that would be just about all of his base.

[Yankee]

Some clever editing by the PC crowd can make this palatable for even the most delicate pantywaists in today's society.

Consider the following:

Original Sound bite:

Bataan Death March Surviver:"They gave us shit to eat. Some rancid gruel made from rice and crawling with cockroaches. The Jap bastards were slowly starving us.".

Edited for wimps:

WWII Anglo Aggressor:"They prepared us meals of rice, with an innovative source of added protein. Our Asian hosts, though being of questionable parental origin, closely rationed our portions in an effort to prevent obesity, a condition which inflicts one in three Americans.".

[rlmorel]

Okay. There have been rules since...forever...about language on broadcast television, right? When have networks ever been allowed to use curse words liberally on the air? Never, right? There have been allowances in context (Saving Private Ryan, etc.)

Personally, I am glad that there are limits on this.

If networks were given free reign to broadcast any language or content they wanted to, network television would be unwatchable (oh, wait...they already are unwatchable...) in a short period of time. They would make all content as salacious as possible in order to boost ratings.

I'm sorry. The networks are like children, and must be treated as such. They cannot be trusted to police themselves, "nanny state" labels by people notwithstanding.

[dakine]

Very good!

[Lonesome in Massachussets]

I not so sure I want a bowdlerized version of World War II.

[RWR8189]

And if your scenario played out a vaccum would form from the disaffected viewers and new stations or programs would emerge to serve this audience.

A free market solves its own problems.

[DustyMoment]

If the explecitives make it to air, they could lead to crippling fines for the offencing stations as a result of a new law signed last month by President George W. Bush.

Something is wrong here. These typos and the fact that the link isn't working are unsettling. I have reason to question the veracity of the story. This is supposed to be the product of "professional" journalists who don't make these types of mistakes, NOT the pajamahadeen.

[libertylover]

Gosh, all the way to the 2nd paragraph before blaming Bush. Sigh.

The overall language is so bad that my wife pointed out that they frequently bleep out words on her favorite channel...The Cooking Channel (Food Network)!

[lawdude]

What idiot parent actually thinks Little Johnnie and Janie hasn't been exposed to and regularly uses the 'f' bomb?

[John W]

Search Google News, its true.To me this is just another government sideshow.They've all-and I mean ALL-spent almost five years now trying to distract us from their failure at Job 1 by doing a lot with the lesser jobs.

[#1CTYankee]

Ask the FCC to screen it and find out if they need to change the dialog, would it be acceptable if shown after 9:00 with a warning about foul language?

I think this is just an attempt by PBS to bring up how (They feel) the guidelines are blurry and the FCC's actions have been inconsistent.

Remember Schlindler's list?