yes, the FCC outlines what is or is not considered obscene or indecent material, but they do NOT employ censors–
so i’m still curious… who are these “censors”?
I see what you mean. I think that the answer is: we are. The FCC sets the rules. If the public sees something they don’t like, they report it to the FCC who then reviews and, possibly, takes action. I doubt that the FCC has people who monitor all gazillion channels looking for offenses, or that TV channels send the FCC their material first, but I’m guessing.
Another answer could be “people employed by the TV channels”. It is possible that they employ their own censors, but I’m guessing again.
i agree-- i think we are the ultimate “censors” too. Also, i seem to recall that broadcasters (and cable-casters) have Standards and Practices departments that review programming and decide what content does or does not line up with that particular media outlet’s standards.
this is not censorship as i understand it, but rather a effort by the outlet to conform to their own standards and maintain a certain uniformity of product, thus enabling viewers to have a reasonable expectation of the “naughtiness quotient” offered.
writers and producers know going in that certain material is pushing the envelope-- if S & P decides it’s over the edge they aren’t censoring–merely upholding the broad or cable-caster’s SELF-IMPOSED standards.
as far as i know, the FCC has no specific words or images that they censor or disallow from the media. they leave it up to current community standards (not necessarily the same as a broadcaster’s standards) to determine what is obscene or indecent. therefore the FCC, like the media outlets, does not practice censorship of programming.
I understand your point, but I think you’ve got the facts wrong. The networks employ their own Standards & Practices people, sure, but in an effort (so far largely successful) to keep the government a step away. However, the FCC does issue fines for the use of crude language (Howeard Stern gets fined with some regularity); that absolutely is censorship of the classic type. (Although I take no position on whether it is proper or not.)
–Cliffy
If you define censorship as being solely a government activity, there isn’t any going on in any of the examples given. If you define it as one group requiring or forcing upon another the alteration or removal of artistic material deemed offensive, then the standards and practices departments of the various networks certainly fit the bill. They censor material every time they tell the producers of one of their shows what they cannot show or require the alteration of material deemed inappropriate.
Which isn’t to say this is neccesarily a bad thing. A network has every right to decide what content it feels is appropriate to broadcast. But it is censorship when they alter or remove content produced by another.
Cliffy–
specifically which fact do i have wrong? i’m sorry-- I just don’t see how issuing fines is censorship-- the only way the FCC could censor is if they saw the material ahead of time and then removed or demanded removal of portions they deem inappropriate. As far as I know, this does not happen
The power to tax is the power to destroy – broadcasters know that certain things they say will lead to governmnet-imposed sanctions, so they don’t say them. That is pure censorship; the fact that it’s post-hoc is not relevant, as it is still the coercive power of the state that is limiting broadcasters’ choice due to the government’s view of what is proper.
–Cliffy
OK…I don’t get this. 
Let’s not forget about the Simpsons episode when they’re staying at the Coral Essex Hotel. Unfortunately, several neon letters from the sign are on the fritz, blinking in and out…
And my all time favorite: when E! channel’s Wild On Ibiza (I think) forgot to blur out the topless women at the beach. Not intentional, but hilarious. And not just one woman, either. It went through two commercials, with topless women walking everywhere!
I have another entry from the Simpsons. Sorry, I don’t have the episode name, and couldn’t find it with a quick search.
Anyway, the episode opens with the Comic Book Guy eating Marsmallow Peeps: “Ninety-eight, gulp ninety-nine, gulp one hundred! Ah, if only the real chicks would go down so easily!”
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHH!!!
I’m pretty sure you’re getting Simpsons confused with Revenge of the Nerds II: Nerds in Paradise, where the nerds, in a fiendishly clever scheme to draw attention to the Hotel Coral Essex where they were having a nerd party, shorted out the “el”, “C”, and “Es”. Party people came runnin’ and the nerds entertained all!
There was a Simpson’s episode much like this, however, (perhaps a nod to the film?) in which Marge takes Lisa, Maggie, and Bart to a sleazy Motel with a name (I can’t recall it now) that was emblazeoned with neon letters that blinked out to spell something rude, but not necessarily censor-worthy.
Could I BE more vague?
~Ferry, probably not helping ^^
I beleive it was the Sleep Eazy Motel, with the neon lights burned out to spell Sl— Eazy Motel.
I have seen Wild On tons of times, and they usually don’t blur out anything. Once in a while they do, however. I haven’t figured out a pattern to it though.
Family Guy is so full of these moments, but my favorite must be the end of the episode where Peter discovers his black ancestry. It has the head cheerleader of the cheerleading team after she’s been tied up in the bathroom. Quagmire opens the door, looks at her and exclaims “Dear diary… jackpot!”
In fact, the whole episode was pretty outrageous (and hilarious). From the scene where Peter starts to fantasize during the game, to the “Day in the life of an Irish man” and “Day in the life of an Irish woman”, it’s a wonder they chose to censore Weinstein and show that one.
Of course, this issue goes way back. A nice example from the works of Dashiell Hammett: the censors disliked the term “gooseberry lay”, not realising that it just means stealing laundry from clothelines (“lay” = old word for criminal scam). However, they let through “gunsel” - Wilmer in the movie version of The Maltese Falcon is described as one - thinking it meant a gunman, but in fact it means a catamite.
There was an episode of “Family Guy” that particularly stands out in my memory. Peter and Lois were in their bedroom discussing the various problems troubling their kids in that particular episode. As they are talking they are getting dressed. Peter puts on leather pants, a studded leather collar and a leather mask with a zipper for a mouth opening. Lois is putting on a black leather merry widow, knee high leather boots and elbow length leather gloves. They finish their discussion of the children and Lois says “Now remember. The safe word is “banana split” (or something like that).” and she hauls off and punches Peter in the face. I don’t know that it should have been censored but it certainly shocked me.
Fazhoul
We must not be talking about the same thing… E! Channel’s Wild On, where Brooke Burk hosts it (used to, anyway)… She travels to different places…
It’s on commercial cable, so they have to blur out nudity. Trust me, if they didn’t, I’d never get any work done.
Huh?
cat·a·mite (kt-mt)
n.
A boy who has a sexual relationship with a man.