anglagard

I was watching Dennis Miller last night and his panel was discussing the fallout over the halftime incident. They talked about the "E.R." censorship and then panalist Lawrence O'Donnell said that "NYPD Blue" has also been affected. He said they've been told by ABC to edit two versions of any show that has nudity (one with nudity and one without) and allow each affiliate the choice of which one to use.

This whole halftime thing is really starting to suck. Hopefully it'll blow over soon and things will get back to normal.

Red Dog

Oh for pete's sake. The DC affiliate better show the unedited one particularly if it is Jacqueline Obradors. If it is male nudity, I'll take the edited version thank you.

MrX

Rogue588

whew.

just in time too. Medavoy is scheduled for some ass showin'!

THANK YOU JANET!!

bigjim25

anglagard, which do you think our 2 ABC channels will show?

anglagard

bigjim25, how's it going? Yeah, I think we both know the answer to that question. Lucky for me, I have Directv with both east and west coast feeds of ABC. I think this crap will blow over soon and by next season, they'll only be producing one version of "NYPD Blue".

GeoffK

All I can say is:

The Shield Season 3 starts early march on FX. None of this network pandering to the conservatie media

Matthew Chmiel

I thought that the FCC didn't apply to cable? I'm sure The Shield will go unedited on FX.

UAIOE

People are STILL "upset" over the breast thing?


Part of a breast shows and people are crying like the world is ending but say nothing when Viagra commercials are on all the time discussing "erectile dysfuntion".

cracksky

**** censorship

Red Dog

This is only a guess but I have a bad feeling that the edited scene involves her. Acc'd to an article in USA Today Tuesday, the scene in question is in the March 2 episode, which happens to be Esai Morales's swan song. It has looked like all season that Rita and the LT are heading for a hook-up, so if it is going to happen, presumably it would happen when he resigns so they can then pursue a relationship. Again, only speculation, but I hope I'm either wrong or that my affiliate doesn't cave in.

Iron_Giant

I wonder what would have happened if a man was up on stage and flashed himself - he would have been arrested.

What would have happened if my wife was at our kid's school and flashed herself there, she would have been arrested.

What if Janet was at the same school and was singing on stage and did the same move, she would have been arrested.

Just becuase she is on TV and is a "Star", some people are saying get over it or do not censor. If she did this on purpose, she should have been arrested - there is no difference!

Draven

A man showing his chest on stage would have been arrested? Where do you live?

As for your other examples, no, she wouldn't necessarily have been arrested. I was naked on stage for a production of "Hair" and remained out of jail.

The problem with this is that people are claiming that the Super Bowl should be "family friendly." And that Jackson's breast has corrupted an entire nation of children.

UAIOE

Why is the Super Bowl all of a sudden a "family" program?

Are commercials shown that advertise beer?


You are saying it would be wrong to flash at a school...wouldnt it also be wrong to offer alcohol to small children at school as well?

Matthew Chmiel

I think he means if the man pulled out a specific part of his anatomy, not shown his chest.

Just cause parents let their kids watch the Super Bowl does not make it a family program. I saw parents take their young kids to films like Old School, American Wedding, and The Butterfly Effect; does that make it family entertainment? No.

The Super Bowl is usually targeted towards males 18 - 49. That's why we have tons of ads for beer, or food, or AOL with the stars of American Chopper. There are no ads on the Super Bowl targeted for the entire family... mostly ads targeted for males...

MJKTool

I always get a good chuckle when people here refer to the Superbowl as "family entertainment". Please.

bboisvert

Could you expand upon this a bit. What, specifically, makes the superbowl NOT "family entertainment"?

I wouldn't think twice before gathering up the family to sit down and watch a football game (or other sporting event).

I would be extremely disappointed to gather up the family to watch that pathetic bump-and-grind show that they put on at halftime.



Look, the overreaction (5 min. delay at grammys, editing ER/NYPD Blue) is ridiculous. But CBS/NFL screwed this up big time. 1 BILLION people were going to be watching the show. By definition, you want to put on a halftime performer(s) that will appeal to (or at least not offend) most ages/genders/demographics. People who don't normally watch MTV-type programming were understandably upset/surprised at the content.

Red Dog

I said it before and I'll say it again.....people actually watch Super Bowl halftime shows?

Iron_Giant

I did not say that it is "Family Entertainment", but there are laws (FCC, Local, state, gov...) in this country against public nudity. Would you like me to list all the laws on the books that make it against the law to flash yourself (male or female) on the public airwaves (or anywhere the general public/kids are gathering)?

Once again, if I broke the law the same way she did, I would be put in jail and might have to register as a sex offender for the rest of my life. If my wife showed her breast in a public park, she would also be booked for public nudity.

But, if an actress/singer does something like that (Flashing her self were kids would be watching), it is art and the rest of us need to get over it - or now it is sensorship if the station adds a five second delay.

I for one am glad it has happened, the Public has finally realized it was going to far and it looks like the public air waves might get cleaned up a little.

MJKTool

Sure very briefly, but Im not going to debate it as that was done in the Other forum. Now by "family entertainment" I assume we are refering family's with young children. Do we want these young prescious children seeing (too name a few)

1.) Football is a pretty violent sport by nature.
2.) Tons of beer commercials with women in skimpy clothes.
3.) Viagra commercials

This whole thing is apparently about morality, so why the hell are those 3 things ok to view by children, but not a shot of a partial breast? I dont get it.....wait yes I do. America has a short fuse for nudity. Just my opinion.

MJKTool

Her aereola was covered though? I've seen tons of other shows on TV where just about the entire breast was shown except that one little pink area....but no one made a fuss about it then.

Iron_Giant

Just my point, it is time the Public Air Waves get cleaned up a little (I do not want everything to be "Father knows best"). TV shows have been pushing it to the edge for years now, it is time to pull back a little more to the center, and I am glad this may have started it.

Josh H

Please tell this "pull back a little mor eto the center" thing for you also involves toning down violence, not just nudity/sexual content.

Red Dog

While you can quibble about breastgate at the Super Bowl (as there was no warning), shows with adult content already have a warning. If you object to the content, there is a non-governmental solution: the on-off switch and channel up/down button.

Rypro 525

oh and btw, there will only be cuts to the central and mountain showings of blue, but the east is uncut. central and mountain show it at 9 pm instead of 10pm. this was in usa today