I don’t live there, so I don’t know for sure. But from what I understand, they get away with all kinds of stuff on Canadian and Western European TV (just to cite two examples). Bare buttocks and breasts, swearing galore. Some time back, I think it was on the Phill Donahue Show, they claimed that they even showed a sex act on UK TV. It was all simulated of course, and you didn’t see EVERYTHING. But still.
Anyone living in the United States knows, they don’t show anywhere near that amount of stuff here. But my question is simply this: How much stuff could they show on US TV if they ‘wanted’ to?
Truth be told, they do sometimes show bare buttocks. But what about bare breasts? And sex acts? And what about S- and F-bombs? You get the picture.
I know that the Supreme Court has interpreted the First Amendment to allow close to everything to just about everyone (excluding actual pornography and obscenity, whatever that is). But I think the FCC comes into play somehow–??? I trust you can see my confusion.
I assume you are only talking about broadcast networks like CBS or NBC, not cable channels like AMC or FX or premium channels like HBO. Because short of showing actual penetration, those networks already air pretty much everything you can think of.
No they don’t. They blur it because they want to. With the blurred nudity, it’s is 100% a family friendly show. Take away the blur and it wouldn’t be.
There is no requirement of law or government regulation that prevents any basic cable channel from doing anything HBO does. Naked & Afraid is legally allowed to go full naked, several FX shows recently broke the “Fuck” barrier within the past few years.
The reason the don’t is because edgier material drives away both advertisers and viewers in droves. Take away the blur and only creepy perverts self-identify as fans of Naked & Afraid. With the blur, come on kids, it’s starting, grab your popcorn!
There is the FCC, but that only regulates what goes out free over the air. The logic there is that there is no way to prevent over the air broadcasts from entering your home. With cable, or any pay service, you can simply choose to not pay for it and your kids won’t be able to watch it. So the FCC issues fines on over the air broadcasts that violate community standards. But not cable or streaming. Those aren’t free over the air.
There’s no law forcing cable channels to blur nudity, only broadcast channels have that restriction. Same thing with bad language and somewhat graphic violence, it’s all up to the network what they want to show unless they take it to the point that a judge will classify it as ‘obscenity’. The trick is that advertisers don’t tend to like a lot of controversy, and generally like shows with more viewers. With blurring, people are fine with their kids watching naked and afraid, and advertisers don’t worry that they’re sending a bad message. If the show had penises and vaginas flying free in the air, then most people wouldn’t let kids watch it, and advertisers would shy away, meaning a lot less money for the network. It would be completely legal to make an all-swearing, all nude cable channel, but no one thinks it would be very profitable, especially since it would be competing with online venues that don’t have the overhead that cable does.
Incidentally, I saw something on basic cable within the past 6 months or so (some prestige wanna-be show, like on the level of NOS4A2) that pushed nudity further than I’d seen before. Full “side nipple.” Topless is maybe 3 years away, I’m guessing.
But even if it were on HBO, Naked & Afraid would still blur all nudity.
C-SPAN 2’s “About Books” does not censor interviews. A second or two before someone drops an F-bomb (of which there is more than one), an N-bomb, an S-bomb, etc. a disclaimer will appear on the screen.
Public access TV was allegedly without limits from midnight to 6am, as were political ads at any time of the day.
That reminds me of another point: It would also limit the contestant pool. I think that lot of survival types don’t mind being naked in the woods or being shown blurred (which is basically wearing a pixel bathing suit), but would not be willing to go on the show if it meant unblurred images of their genitals and ass were being broadcast to the world. Same with some of the other nude shows, it becomes a much bigger deal for people involved.
Any cable channel can show anything legal (ie porn, etc.) any time it wants. There’s basically two tiers of cable channels, call them Basic and Pay. Basic channels censor themselves (blurring nudity, editing movies, etc.) more heavily so they’ll get included in a cable company’s main lineup. Pay channels don’t.
Per the FCC, broadcast stations can show anything legal between 10:00pm and 6:00am. They just almost never do it.
Some basic cable channels also apply the broadcast standards to themselves. For example, when Comedy Central shows celebrity roasts, it will censor some of the language if it runs it before 10:00pm but not on the same show when it runs between 10:00pm and 6:00am.
Back in the Mid-00s a network station, ABC or NBC aired Saving Private Ryan completely uncensored so all violence, cursing, and sexual references were left completely intact, it was commercial free too as part of the 60th anniversary of D-Day IIRC.
The USA is still much in thrall to the bluenoses. Big corporations, particularly now in the social media era where any random somebody can generate a viral PR disaster easily, clearly want to avoid controversy while selling cars, soap, whatever.
As to viewers … If you have a “family friendly” attitude you won’t watch an uncensored show. If you have a “who cares” attitude you’ll still watch a censored show. And if you’re actually seeking porn, you won’t watch a censored or an uncensored show because you’re too busy watching real porn.
So a decision to e.g. unblur Naked and Afraid drives away advertisers and viewers.
If the USA wasn’t so worked up about “Sexuality is evil because (my ill-informed Baptist preacher told me that) Jesus said so” then this wouldn’t be happening. Sadly we don’t live in that society.
If what you find weird is that we don’t live in that more enlightened society, I agree. But see here for more about why. 700+ posts in 33 days (so far):
Years ago, I saw on Masterpiece Theater a UK program called Traffik (Wikipedia says it aired in 1990), about the illegal drug trade, that showed very brief full-frontal female nudity. (I think the character was being strip-searched.) It also showed poppy flowers being processed into opium.
Being so beholden to advertisers is atypical in other parts of the world. The looseness of when to show nudity or swear is at different levels in different places but in America it’s so uptight that it’s bordering on the absurd.
The problem with Naked And Afraid is the only reason to watch is the nakedness, and you don’t get to see that. Beyond that it’s just another survival reality show. The contestants don’t care about their nakedness after the first day, the show’s been running for so long that it’s not attracting shy vulnerable people, so the whole point of the show is to see nudey bits - but you can’t. What’s weird is that despite this, the bizarre way US TV is so uptight, it’s still a popular show. The ridiculous contradiction is weird.
And also, you saying “What’s so weird about it?” and then listing a lot of stupidly weird stuff is also weird.
I used to watch the show regularly (drifted out of interest like I do with most shows, plus they seemed to be getting more staged like reality shows do when they’re not new) and enjoyed it because of the survival stuff and the fact that they’re starting with so little equipment. Watching people deal with environments and their lack of equipment is what was the draw for me, the nudity was just incidental (beyond the fact that butts look hilarious once you’ve watched people walk for a while). It was a fun and well-produced show, and had plenty of interesting action and drama, and the irony of watching someone being happy to eat half of a cooked snake as their only food for a week and bed down on branches while I’m sitting on a climate-controlled couch chowing down on pizza that someone brought to the door was amusing.
I honestly don’t understand why anyone would bother to watch the show just for the nudity if they didn’t blur. If you just want to see naked genitals there are a ton of free porn sites for it, that have better more close-up pictures that typically aren’t riddled with bug bites made by people actively trying to look good at various levels of makeup and production. I really can’t imagine that there is a huge group of people that want to see the junk of naked survivalists enough to tune in/record a show where that is the only draw, but that also will not just download free nude pics or vid from the internet or go to a specialty site that’s entirely dedicated to survivalist-themed porn.
SMDB seems to have a decent number of people who have weird hangups about using porn, but it’s not a representative sample of the TV market.
Aah, I get it. I know you’re from the UK but didn’t recall that as I was replying to you. The USA is weird to non-USA folks but seems normal, albeit stupid, to USAians such as myself. I wholeheartedly agree with your point: The USA as a whole is weird in the sense of “atypical”. And in the sense of “fu**ed up”.
What I meant by “How do you find it weird?” is more like “USA media censorship is a predictable consequence of USA culture; the causality is not a mystery. How are you finding parsing this out to be difficult?” Which admittedly is not what I actually said. Again having forgotten as I typed that one-liner that you’re UK-based. Sorry if I seemed argumentative or deliberately obtuse.
I suspect the (non-government) media in other countries are just as beholden to the advertisers. It’s all about the money. The difference is that advertisers in countries with less up-tight citizens are themselves less up-tight.
The problem with the bluenoses here is the advertisers & the public have to steer a very wide berth around them just because they might go ape-shit at something that’s otherwise pretty innocuous. So the bluenoses’ influence is out-sized both as to their numbers, and as to their true average tolerance for more risque entertainment.
The fact a lot of that outrage is manufactured by the religious media empires as a way to generate donations makes it all the worse. I suppose to a first approximation we could lay the whole thing at their feet. Like RW media, when generating outrage in your supporters is vastly profitable, pretty soon those supporters will find themselves fed a continuous diet of things to be outraged about. Things truthful or not.
Back in the 1990s, Chicago Hope on CBS showed bare female breasts, in a medical context. I think it was the episode called “Cutting Edges” (1995). I believe ER did the same, but can’t confirm. NYPD Blue on ABC was infamous for showing bare buttocks of male and female actors.
Some of this depends where in the US you are. Nudity appeared on US public TV back in the 1970s (Friedman’s play Steambath and an adaptation of Candide and I, Claudius, for instance) when you wouldn’t have seen it on broadcast TV.
When I lived in Salt Lake City, Utah, you could receive two different Public Broadcasting stations. KUED from the University of Utah showed PBS shows and movies intact, while KBYU in Provo censored the BBC/WGBH episodes of Sherlock Holmes and movies. Of course, KBYU was broadcast from Brigham Young University (and LDS Church School), while KUED came from the University of Utah (a secular state school). (Although Utah culture tends to be pretty restricted even at the University of Utah. I saw a production of Peter Shaffer’s Amadeus at the UU’s Pioneer Memorial Theater that had all of Mozart’s puerile obscenities cut. Which kind of ruins the point of the play – Salieri is supposed to be upset that Mozart is not only God’s Favorite, but it completely unworthy of the role, as evidence in part by his potty mouth.)
