Originally Posted By YourPalEd Wait are you discussing the x rated version of veggie tales or some other movie?
Originally Posted By friendofdd I don't see this as being any worse than if a program such as "Lost" or "I love Raymond" or "Star Trek" Or "Cosby" were shown in reruns and they deleted the last few seconds of the show.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 <"Who is we?" My point is one person's religion is another person's fairy tale. The "we" would be the non-believers of a particular religious slant.< so you broadcast NONE of it, no religious material, or even remotely tied to religion. So I guess Narnia will notbe shown on NBC. Franky this is bull from a station that will show you someone taking bullet holes in their head in a TV cops show, and sexual content out the wazoo and political programs..where does the censorship stop. My suggestion to someone who doesn't buy into the fairy tale as it has been called - Turn the freakin channel.. there's plenty of stuff on, maybe someone would like to watch this stuff as they have for years.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 I everything ' offensive' ( which I have a hard time believing here for veggie Tales) - to someone is pulled off the air - then the screen will be blank. Is that what we want ?
Originally Posted By Shooba >>My suggestion to someone who doesn't buy into the fairy tale as it has been called - Turn the freakin channel<< No kidding. I have zero interest in religious programming so I would simply choose not to watch this, with or without the excised material. Of course, NBC's "censorship" here is minimal (the bulk of the show still airs) and was done in accordance with their own standards and in agreement with the show's creator. Once again the religious right feels the need to find ways to be offended and play the persecution card. I wonder if their response to things on TV that they find objectionable is to simply change the channel? Not bloody likely (and I do acknowledge that shows with violence and sex etc. should not be aired in the early hours of network TV).
Originally Posted By HyperTyper >>> I can understand the furor here, but there's somewhat of a credibility problem with Bozell. EVERYTHING offends him. No, that's an extreme exaggeration. The only thing they've complained to the FCC about are things like the F-word on award shows, and, of course, Janet Jackson's wardrobe malfunction. And those are things which do not belong on public airwaves, especially during times when kids are up and viewing. >>> While I don't see what the big deal is with NBC broadcasting this, the whole story seems like it reveals the hypocrisy of the far right. They demand things be censored all the time - as soon as the shoe is on the other foot, we hear all about freedom of speech. This isn't a freedom of speech issue. NBC has the right to take out what they want. People are disgusted because NBC finds something like THIS offensive, and all the other rubbish they pump-out not. Questioning someone's values and judgement isn't questioning their right to speak. >>> What it comes down to is the religious far right (be it Christian in this country or Muslim extremists in others) is so sure of themselves and their truth that they just expect everyone else to go along for the ride. Not so. People have done their own thing for years, and it's a choice. What this is, however, is a movement to endorse anything BUT religion, which is mocked and silenced. Are you saying the Christian right rules the airwaves? On what planet???? Religion aside (and there are a lot of non-religious people who are disgusted with the garbage on TV), there are serious problems with the slant in modern media, where excess and indulgence are celebrated, and restraint, integrity and principle are portrayed as square and old-fashioned. There has been a definite and measurable downward trend in the media in terms of themes and messages. Self-indulgence is way up, responsibility is way down. One doesn't need faith in God to see that ... or be bothered by it. >>> I would also point out that the creator is not the one who is outraged, it's some other group. Well, of course. He's going to make money either way. >>> Once again the religious right feels the need to find ways to be offended and play the persecution card. Again, this isn't persecution. It's a ridiculous stripping of a simple religious reference out ... indicative that there is an effort by the media against religion. It certainly won't stop religion. But this certainly supports the argument that media DOES have an agenda, and they are not always out to give people "whatever they want." Again, that's OKAY. It's their judgement, and they're welcome to it. It's their business. But it's perfectly reasonable to point-out the ridiculousness of their logic. By the way, since my first post, I have actually remembered a 'good' family program that I find interesting and tolerable. "Wife Swap" which doesn't sound like a family show at all, but actually shows parents and kids learning to rid themselves of poor habits and attitudes, and adopting smarter, kinder, more loving patterns of behavior in the home. It's entertaining, insightful, and usually ends on a good note. Usually. I like it. So kudos to ABC (and Disney!) for that.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder Some background on Bozell: <a href="http://www.mediaweek.com/mw/news/recent_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002652454" target="_blank">http://www.mediaweek.com/mw/ne ws/recent_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002652454</a> "Virtually none of those who complained to the Federal Communications Commission about the teen drama Without A Trace actually saw the episode in question, CBS affiliates said as they asked the agency to rescind its proposed record indecency fine of $3.3 million. All of the 4,211 e-mailed complaints came from Web sites operated by the Parents Television Council and the American Family Association, the stations said in a filing on Monday. In only two of the emails did those complaining say they had watched the program, and those two apparently refer to a “brief, out-of-context segment†of the episode that was posted on the Parents Television Council’s Web site, the affiliates’ filing said. “There were no true complainants from actual viewers,†the stations said. To be valid, complaints must come from an actual viewer in the service area of the station at issue, the filing said." <a href="http://www.reason.com/hitandrun/2005/11/does_brent_boze.shtml" target="_blank">http://www.reason.com/hitandru n/2005/11/does_brent_boze.shtml</a> "In a new Progress and Freedom Foundation report, Adam Thierer points out that the FCC's official counts of broadcast indecency complaints have been greatly inflated by two littled-noticed methodological changes: When a single organization sends a flood of computer-generated messages, each counts as a unique complaint; ditto for copies of the same message sent to different offices at the FCC. As PFF notes, "The FCC in recent years has increased its fines for broadcast indecency and has cited rising complaints as a reason." Yet in 2003 more than 99 percent of indecency complaints came from the Parents Television Council, Brent Bozell's pressure group. The proportion was similar in 2004, if you leave out the complaints related to Janet Jackson's nipple. "The FCC now measures indecency complaints differently than all other types of complaints," Thierer writes. "In so doing, it permits a process whereby indecency complaints appear to be artificially inflated relative to other types of complaints. Journalists, policy makers, social scientists, and others should weigh this disparate treatment when considering the significance of the reported figures."
Originally Posted By DlandJB Hey producers of 'VeggieTales' -- pull your show, prove to the world how much it means to YOU!>>>> If I remember correctly, the original producers/creators of Veggie Tales sold the rights to the program because they were virtually bankrupt, despite the popularity of the tapes.(It was the feature film that sunk them.) The people who now own it are only in it for the money. Too bad, because the shows were/are wonderful for the most part. When we were kids (in the Stone Age) there was a kids show called "Davey and Goliath" which was a stop action animation/claymation show about a boy and his dog and it was overtly Christain. No one seemed to mind. I think it is sad that a show like Veggie Tales is a threat to any one.
Originally Posted By fkurucz >>It was the feature film that sunk them<< I thought that movie was a bad idea. The movie itself was OK, we even bought the DVD, but the Veggies lack mask market appeal. They had their niche and got too aggressive.
Originally Posted By ecdc "so you broadcast NONE of it, no religious material, or even remotely tied to religion. So I guess Narnia will notbe shown on NBC." Whoa, vbdad. I never said that and I certainly don't believe it. Since I'm going to be misconstrued by others, I'll go on record right now: I think NBC is wrong to cut these episodes. Show it all, or don't show it. I was just returning to a favorite theme of mine: the religious right in America. The idea that the religious right, of all groups, would get up in arms over censorship on television is beyond laughable. Just two weeks ago the AMA fought hard to have a documentary on 9/11 pulled because firefighters use naughty language. I'd say having a 110 story building collapse around you and your friends is ample reason to use some salty language. My larger point is, and always remains, that the religious right likes to pick and choose what's ok based on their personal beliefs. Nothing wrong with that - we all do it. But they seem to be confident enough in their beliefs that they want laws passed so the rest of us can be forced to believe it too. They don't want certain things on television; they don't want certain things in schools; they don't want certain things in government. But now the shoe is on the other foot: something they do want is being censored. It's hard not to enjoy the irony of watching them talk about freedom of speech. I've long said that religious groups, more than most, should be most protective of freedom of speech and the right to do and believe what you want. You never know when you're going to be in the minority. I'd be just as opposed to government passing laws against private religious practice as I am against the religious lobby trying to have the government endorse religious beliefs.
Originally Posted By ecdc "This isn't a freedom of speech issue. NBC has the right to take out what they want. People are disgusted because NBC finds something like THIS offensive, and all the other rubbish they pump-out not. Questioning someone's values and judgement isn't questioning their right to speak." You're assigning motive to NBC that isn't there. NBC is a corporate business; it doesn't find anything offensive. It finds what sells and what doesn't sell. They feel like with this intact it won't sell. End of story. I think they're probably wrong. But they aren't trying to make some devilish statement on religion, though the religious right is very good at making themselves victims and circling the wagons to sustain their persecution complex. Unless you're suggesting Rupert Murdock is a flaming liberal who uses Fox to stamp out family values with violent shows like 24? I'd add, sex and violence doesn't always sell, either. It's easy to get up in arms about those topics, but there's plenty of examples of shows with ample amounts of both getting cut. They get cut because they aren't good shows, not because TV networks have a conscience. Same deal here. "Not so. People have done their own thing for years, and it's a choice. What this is, however, is a movement to endorse anything BUT religion, which is mocked and silenced. Are you saying the Christian right rules the airwaves? On what planet????" Nope, I'm not. Never said it and I don't see how you could construe that from my post. What movement is this to not endorse religion? Who is behind it? Why? What's their motivation? The reality is, as I noted above, this is about the Christian right's persecution complex and need to be victims. Nobody's out to get them; they just act that way when they don't get their way (see evolution in school, abstinence only in school, violence and sex on TV, etc.). Indeed, I'd say it's clear it's the other way around. There's no strong movement anywhere that can be identified as going after Christians. But how many organizations like Focus on the Family, AMA, etc, genuinely are out to legislate morality and their belief system on others? These are the groups that want to have it be their way or the highway. If you don't like what's on TV, change the channel. Instead, these groups want to make it so they don't ever have to change the channel to find something that they might actually disagree with. "Religion aside (and there are a lot of non-religious people who are disgusted with the garbage on TV), there are serious problems with the slant in modern media, where excess and indulgence are celebrated, and restraint, integrity and principle are portrayed as square and old-fashioned. There has been a definite and measurable downward trend in the media in terms of themes and messages. Self-indulgence is way up, responsibility is way down. One doesn't need faith in God to see that ... or be bothered by it." This is more of the same strawman. Conservatives are experts at inventing issues to get steamed about and citing them as evidence that society is going to hell in a handbasket. Just because you have your definition of garbage doesn't mean it's mine. Personally, I'm astounded at the lack of values and perspectives so many Christians seem to display in this country. They need to stop and examine the word "value" before they toss it around so carelessly. What do they "value". Apparently it's no naughty language on television and no boys kissing. They scream and yell about Janet Jackson's blink-and-you-miss-it boob yet seem to turn a blind eye to the suffering of Katrina victims and dead soldiers in Iraq. They proudly proclaim George W. Bush as their president because he prays and has sex with his own wife in the White House, but apparently their New Testament hasn't been opened in a while to see what Jesus really talked about. Bradley Whitford pointed out on Bill Maher last night that Jesus was called the Prince of Peace, not the Prince of Botched Wars Against Nations that Never Attacked Us. So you have your perspective on television. That's fine. Mine is that all the hand-wringing couldn't be more misplaced on something so meaningless and unimportant as television while their are real people throughout the world suffering.
Originally Posted By ecdc their=there. I have got to be the worst offender of misusing those two words.
Originally Posted By YourPalEd <<<there was a kids show called "Davey and Goliath" which was a stop action animation/claymation show about a boy and his dog and it was overtly Christain.>>> I remember it was originally shown only on sunday mornings, then sunday afternoons, and then other days years later. "Wow, climbing up this hill, was a great idea goliath. You can see the entire town from up here. Look at all the church steeples! Look at all the churchs. I never knew there were so many. There's one, two, three, mumble, mumble, why i count 8." "9 if you include the temple over there davey, that's a house of worship too, you know."
Originally Posted By Shooba >>No one seemed to mind. I think it is sad that a show like Veggie Tales is a threat to any one.<< But has anyone come out and said it's a threat? We're talking about a small edit to the show here. It's not like they refused to run it or anything...
Originally Posted By jonvn Networks broadcast religious based material all the time. Every Easter, they trundle out The Ten Commandments. We also get Bible stories, and every sort of xmas special at the end of the year, too. So, it's not strictly religious material that they censor. So, obviously it is something else that was in this movie (which I've only seen a few minutes of, and that was enough) that was changed. Networks change and edit things to suit their audience. If the movie contained offensive or other material that would be reasonably considered to offend a large segment of the population, then they will edit. I do see this also as an irony as well, as someone else pointed out. Religious right nuts want everything else THEY don't like edited. Take ten seconds out of a program they don't like, and it's a crisis. There should be no editing of anything, far as I'm concerned. If NBC doesn't like the material they are presenting, they should not present it. This goes for all types of material, and the government should not be intruding on what NBC wants to show, and what people want to watch. Be that as it may, NBC edits everything, and it is their network. If the people who made this movie didn't want this to happen, they could have modified the contract that sold the broadcast rights. They didn't do that, so tough cookies for them.
Originally Posted By HyperTyper SingleParkPassHolder, you are clearly doing your best to discredit Bozell, but you didn't even include a description of the incident that prompted his organization's action, and the related complaints. You make a point, about people not having even seen the episode in question, but it's a limited point. Yes, the FCC has rules for complaint counting. However, does one need to actually see an incident to voice their displeasure with it? Do we need to actually view an incident of child abuse to voice opposition to it in our society? You can attack the logistics of people's complaints, but facts are facts. If Janet Jackson actually did flash her audience, if Hollywood stars are on the record cursing in the most vulgar way on live TV, then certainly Bozell, the PTC and anyone is justified in objecting. If you dispute their views, dispute it on the facts in question, not on whether the complainants sat down to watch the vulgarity in question. The point is some of us don't WANT to watch it. You don't need to sample the poison to know it's bad. >>> My larger point is, and always remains, that the religious right likes to pick and choose what's ok based on their personal beliefs. Nothing wrong with that - we all do it. But they seem to be confident enough in their beliefs that they want laws passed so the rest of us can be forced to believe it too. But look what we're talking about here ... it's broadcast television. Any kid over the age of two can go turn it on, even with conscientious parents who are just taking a shower or on the phone. People who peddle vulgarity need to at least be responsible in the medium of presentation they choose. You may make an argument for the 9/11 film, but is broadcast TV really the best venue? Why not keep it on video, so parents can control the viewing, and/or more sensitive audiences can avoid it? The religious right is NOT seeking to ban, by law, all naughty language, sex, violence, etc. They know it's protected. They're only trying to keep such content restricted to a time and place that doesn't leave young people easily exposed. That can't be said of the left, who involve the ACLU to actually ban, by law, religious expression in public society, in the schools, etc. They protect every other kind of anti-religious message in such settings, but religious ideas are facing hostile legal action with no constitution basis. We're not talking about government endorsement of religion ... merely simple messages of faith (which is the basis FOR our laws protecting speech, by the way). Please don't demonize the right. There are those on both sides who use 'censorship' to advance their agenda. I get that, most do. But the "VeggieTales" debate isn't about censorship. It's about a network's judgement, which isn't entirely honest or consistent. >>> You're assigning motive to NBC that isn't there. NBC is a corporate business; it doesn't find anything offensive. It finds what sells and what doesn't sell. I used to feel the same way. No longer. "Family films" like Disney's (The Lion King, Beauty and the Beast) traditionally make far more money than your typical R-rated blood or sex fest, or a vulgar PG-13 teen comedy. Raunchy films also get beaten-out by other general-audience films like Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings, Narnia, etc. Yet far MORE money gets spent (and lost) on R and PG-13 films that advance messages of casual sex and glorified violence. Why does Hollywood keep throwing money away on trash that actually loses money for them? I have no idea, other than they like what they like, and they're going to keep making and pushing it, whether it's financially successful for them or not. They've got their losses covered by the occasional blockbuster they put out, the far majority of which are NOT rated R. >>> Does anyone really mind if they remove the brocolli? Well, I like brocolli. But asparagus is of the devil.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 <I wonder if their response to things on TV that they find objectionable is to simply change the channel? Not bloody likely (and I do acknowledge that shows with violence and sex etc. should not be aired in the early hours of network TV). Well I can only speak for myself- but I sure as heck do not consider myself part of the religious right - but I absolutely utilize turning the channel. With 200 channels on our dish - I simply block some....now I could care less that there are available for others...there are shows in Korean / Spanish / Chinese culture - there are different religious shows on Sunday...and all kinds of paid for programming -- and I don't want any of it censored-- so in my case it is not the far right whining, it is a moderate who is concerned about where the censor ship stops.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 <I think it is sad that a show like Veggie Tales is a threat to any one. < now if the veggies were naked and running around in adult sexual situations, or murdering each other graphically-- then NBC would have no problem slipping them right into their prime time schedule.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 <My larger point is, and always remains, that the religious right likes to pick and choose what's ok based on their personal beliefs. Nothing wrong with that - we all do it. But they seem to be confident enough in their beliefs that they want laws passed so the rest of us can be forced to believe it too. < The only problem with this argument is it is not ONLY the religious right who is offended by this type of censorship...yes they may complain the loudest and try and use some of this for political reasons, but a large portion of America would be offended that public tv channels can show our kids how to murder others in high school, how to use drugs and make it acceptable, how adult sexual situations creep down into childrens worlds etc etc...but mention God ( and before someone asks - Allah , Buddah and all other religious entities fall into the exact same realm - this is not a Christian thing) - and suddenly networks are worried about content. What mallarkey
