ABC Censorship loving fools

[SysOpt]

So I was watching Phenomenon on ABC tonight and that "Everyday is a winding road (http://www.cdnow.com/cgi-bin/mserver/SID=1848978029/pagename=/share/ensotrack2.html/itemdescriptionid=819131/disc=01/track=01/source=MP2/mpeg=2/mp2.mp2)" song started playing on it, and guess what they did, they edited the phrase "Everybody get high, everybody get low.." out of it! And they did a poor job of it too. I guess our minds, and those of our children, are just too fragile for such a suggestive phrase like that...

[This message has been edited by SysOpt (edited 02-20-2000).]

[oblivion]

I caught a glimpse of it and I was thinking the same thing........

[RobRich]

I believe that this is getting out of hand. One night I can be watching one of my favorite, but severely perverted, shows: "Whose Line is it Anyway?" and the next night they edit out some little lyric in the background music of a movie because it might offend someone or be a bad influence. I think they need to get their priorities straight.

That's about as bad as this garbage on Fox called "So You Want to Marry a Millionaire". What type of sick marketing genious is coming up with stupid junk. I think that if something on TV offends you, just flip the channel, THEY DO MAKE REMOTES (esp. for lazy people like me that find it hard to walk 4 feet to the TV http://www.sysopt.com/forum/smile.gif ). I understand the children issue, but the parents need to step in a take some responsibility ever now and again. Then there's the one's that completely hate a show, but continue to watch it episode after episode. Kind of like Howard Stern's demographics. The average person who likes the show listens to it for about an hour, the person you hates the show listens over 2 hours. Really wierd.

Just my $0.02, which that with my opinions still gives you $0.02 http://www.sysopt.com/forum/smile.gif

Robert Richmond

[This message has been edited by RobRich (edited 02-19-2000).]

[narayan]

Television networks are required by law to air a certain amount of PSA's at no charge to the government. These are obviously not profitable to the networks. One solution provided by the White House is to have scripts for T.V. shows approved for content. If a script for a show meets certain guidelines (anti-drug, anti-gun, anti-etc...) they are allowed "credit" for the airtime reserved for PSA's, therefore opening a slot for advertizers. The White House is approving what is on T.V. I did not see the movie on ABC, so I can only speculate that the line in the song being edited would be for that purpose. http://www.sysopt.com/forum/frown.gif

[Vincent22]

narayan,
You are right on the money and MONEY is the key word. Not only do the PSA's get combined with the script, therefore freeing the network to sell to "real" sponsors, but millions of dollars of the "War on Drugs" budget is going directly to the networks to compensate them for their inclusion of the desired content of the approved scripts. The networks are running to the whitehouse with thier drafts and hoping in some way to accomodate.

Even on the sports talk programs when an athlete talks about a prior drug problem...the network is rakin in the cash...wonder what else is gettin approved? Are there dollars earmarked for political agendas as well? hmmmmm that's thilly ithn't it?

[NoCtrl]

Hey . . . you . . . get off of my girl, whoops.

As I recall, girl got changed to cloud in order for that Rolling Stones song to be deemed acceptable for teenage consumption in the US. This, during the sexual revolution. What a joke.

[socalgal]

It's all about control. Control is Power, Power is Control.

The governments of the world, the powers that be (look at Alpha's post!) want to control what we hear, see, say, do, think.

They want to control our input and our output. They want to examine the output (data, voice) to keep us under control, under their power. It's dangerous (to them) for us to think for ourselves, to control ourselves.

Our freedoms are eroding.

Is a Matrix-Enemy of the State like world starting to sound familiar here?

[This message has been edited by socalgal (edited 02-20-2000).]

[Wiz]

it is pure corpocracy....

[Paul V]

As a fan of imported movies and TV shows (especially Japanese anime), censorship is VERY alive and strong and pisses me off all the time.

Some of it makes it just fine, and some is so censored as to make it look like a different series.

People are so afraid of things warping kids minds it's not funny. I recall a school art museum trip in which we forbidden to enter one whole hall because one painting had a nude woman in it.

As a side not to that idea, isn't it funny how those who believe strongest that nudity and seeing a nude body is evil tend to be devout christians, the same folks who claim that humans are God's best creation and made in His own image? So we are made in God's own image but we had best cover that image because it's sinful. That always seems paridoxical to me...

I think that we, the people, need to stand against censorship of art. Write to ABC, write to those who sponsored "Phenomenon" and tell them we're not going to put up with this censoring.

[chipbgt]

I hope your not trying to say christianity and the execs at ABC are one in the same..not even close. I dont know any christians who feel seeing an nude body is exactly evil, I think it might just be the way its presented sometimes....pornography has nude bodies in it, but I dont think you would encurage your children to go watch it. While I may agree with some censorship (the painting of Mary and the body parts and dung...I mean, come on, is that really art?) But I agree that blurbing out some lines of a song is kinda silly...If parents cared enought hey woudl turn off the tv all together, no one forced them to buy one. Be responsible for your actions!

I feel like I should sing "its a beautiful day in the neighborhood" right now http://www.sysopt.com/forum/smile.gif

wont you be...my neighbor

[Paul V]

No, I'm not comparing christians to ABC execs except that they are both censoring art.

And nudity and pornography are not the same thing. You can have nudity without pornography and in fact can have pornography without nudity.

And I do know people who think any form of nudity is awful and sinful. There were people who were boycotting Barnes and Noble a few years back for having art books in which there were photographs of nude people.

Censorship of art is one of the first signs of a bad society, I would say, as we've started.

[Paul V]

It is pretty vague as to how to define art.

Art, in my opinion, is using a medium to express a message. The purpose is to get an idea across, to stimulate thought. Not that every work of art accomplishes this well. Soem pieces of art are not very good. Some novels are badly written, some paintings are badly painted, etc. They're still art, just not good art. Even the "**** Christ" is art as it is made to communicate a message. If you know the story of the artist and the reason behind his work, then you understand it better. But as the message is not clear and self-contained it's not really that good of art.

Pornography is meant to sexually excite, wheras art is not. Nude photographs, nudism in film, etc. is there to make a point, to communicate something, not to be a sexual stimulant, or, in some cases, not ONLY to be a sexual stimulant. Sometimes films (I forget the one I'm thinking of, but it's a quite good film) juxtapose a scene of eroticism with an only slightly different yet totally nonerotic scene and have a very harsh transition, and it really provokes thought.

I suppose art is something that is mentally stimulating, not strictly physically stimulating.

[chipbgt]

Thats cool. I dont want you to think I'm angry over anything I have said. But since people have a right to freedom of expression, Others have a right to express there opinions on it. The reason I agree with that particular picture being up is because it was in a publicly funded museum, and some people didnt like the idea that there money was going toward this purpose. I am all for art but I dont think its fair to use my tax money on something I disagree with on a personal level.

And ABC has been messed up for years so this is no surprise....

[Paul V]

I do agree with you to some extent, and I am not mad at you nor did I get the impression that you are mad at me.

The one thing is, then who decides where public money goes to? Voting on each and every piece of art is far too time consuming. And if you start putting control of art museums in the hands of the general populace then there will be a lot more censoring of art than now appears. Putting committees in charge vitually guarantees deadlocks as it's impossible to get people to agree on art.

Plus as most ever art museum is publically funded, removing offensive pieces from them is pretty much destroying any hope of exposure they have and is limiting the messages that art can express.

I personally choose to support art, even art that I detest. Because I may hate the message, but I won't deny anyone the opportunity to express their message even if I hate it, even if it's really bad art.

[chipbgt]

I will!

Art is nice, but there are for more important needs that my money could be used for. If I could have the option of choosing if my money went to fund a, say, battered womens shelter, or an art exhibit, im going with the womens shelter because it will have a greater impact. Sorry to say, but Art is not what sustains life.

Also, The "I won't deny anyone the opportunity to express their message even if I hate it, even if it's really bad art" line is a little hard for me to swallow. It sounds nice but its just as dangerous as censorship. Just as we agree that censorship can get way out of hand, on the other end of the spectrum anyone could get any kind of funding for any kind of self proclaimed art.

My real conconern is...its your money, you earned it, if your at least gonna stand by and let the Gov take it then fight them tooth and nail over what they are going to use it for. its only fair. If enough people want to see the painting with private parts and **** all over it, then they can fund it themselves.

[Wiz]

Please remember that ABC is owned by the Disney Corp. Have you ever checked go.com, also owned by disney? Try searching for anything that is on the fringe of being NON-PC... You will get an Adult Content Alert. Oh well...

[SysOpt]

Yeah it's because it was in a "family" timeslot I guess, on Saturday night... I don't mind them editing out gratuitious language sometimes, but they went too far in editing a verse from a song.. It's not like it was Alannis Morrisette's song with the verse "and were you thinking about me, when you fuc*ed her, etc", but rather a pretty harmless phrase.

[pickel]

There's so many people on "BAD Trips" out there feeling sorry for themselves that they do not want anyone to fly high. I'm still on my "Magic Carpet Ride" from way back in 1967 ,soaring above losers and hitters trying to bring you down. My philosophy... If they can't take a joke F..K UM

P.S. Even if they can take a joke, F..k UM anyway

[This message has been edited by pickel (edited 02-20-2000).]

[chipbgt]

but some would argue that pornagraphy is a form of performance art.