Saving Private Ryan

[ddollevoet]

I live in a suburb of Atlanta, GA and last night Saving Private Ryan was not aired here because it was deemed indecent. TV stations were afraid to air it as the FCC would not give them a definitive answer as to whether or not the movie met their standards of decency. Erring to the conservative side, the stations pulled the movie to avoid possible fines.

TV Stations Cancel 'Saving Private Ryan'

I came to the realization today that I am now against free television (with the exception of children's programming on PBS). If I subscribe to certain cable television networks, they can air pretty much anything they want, not what the FCC wants.

I'd like to see ABC, NBS, CBS and FOX move away from their advertising supported model and to a subscription based model. In my opinion, this would ultimately lead to a menu of viewing choices for the general public. Each household could then determine what level of programming meets their approval. I may be biased, as I now have to pay for local channels through my satellite provider anyway.


After thought: Would any of this be going on if Janet Jackson / Justin Timberlake wouldn't have pulled their stunt during the Super Bowl Half-Time Show?

[ThaSaltCracka]

I agree with you, and all I want to say is SPR is one of my favorite movies of all time.

[namknils]

A few years back my grandmother was flipping through the channels and saw something she didn't like. She then called the cable company and was furious when she found out that wouldn't let her cancel MTV. I assume that she saw some kind of spring break special.

I think there needs to be some way of picking exactly which channels you want to get from your cable provider. I guess there is something like this now with all the parental controls and everything.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
I think there needs to be some way of picking exactly which channels you want to get from your cable provider

[/ QUOTE ]

That's a business model that probably wouldn't work. People pay for $40/month for cable because they get 100 channels (even though they only ever watch 15.) They wouldn't pay $40 for 15 channels.

[tolbiny]

it could work if you only paid for the cahnnels you wanted- this would drive some channels out of buisness, but as long as they aren't the national geographic/history channel/comedy central i am happy.
Ohh, and lifetime too, reruns of the golden girls and goodfellas. Anyone know why lifetime runs goodfellas every couple of weeks?

[Oski]

This whole thing was a political statement, nothing less. These affiliates were never afraid of the FCC, here. Instead, they are trying to stir things up by making a statment against the broad-reaching (no, not talking about Janet) regulatory powers of the FCC, that have seemed to grow recently.

[astroglide]

if it went to an a la carte system the smaller channels would fail. companies literally force cable/sat providers to buy their channels in blocks (e.g. i'll give you espn but you have to take the gardening channel) to keep them afloat. that's part of the somewhat recent dish network issue where they didn't have comedy central.

[benfranklin]

[ QUOTE ]
I assume that she saw some kind of spring break special.


[/ QUOTE ]

Or anything else in their regular programming.


[ QUOTE ]


I think there needs to be some way of picking exactly which channels you want to get from your cable provider. I guess there is something like this now with all the parental controls and everything.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sure it is cheaper for the cable company to provide packages of channels. If you don't like something, don't watch it. The main complaints about this are from parents who don't want to make any effort themselves to monitor and control what their children watch.

[elwoodblues]

But that's not what people want. They want the 100 channels so that on the off chance that they might find a show they want to watch (one time) on an obscure channel, they don't have to pay for it.

I work for a company that provides online databases for legal research. One of our offerings is contains all the new sources we have (literally thousands of sources.) People use that one, not because they think they will find a lot of value in Gastroenterology Week or Geelong News, but rather, on the off chance they find an article from one of those sources when looking it is something they wouldn't already have (if they only search in the Wall Street Journal, New York Times, etc.)

Part of the value comes from the top channels. The other part comes in the collection of channels.

[elwoodblues]

It certainly was a political statement. But it raised a very real question that should be addressed (probably in the Politics forum.)

Do we want the government deciding when to fine for violating FCC rules based on what they consider the value of the content. Saving Private Ryan, says the FCC, is more valuable than the NFL half-time show. I don't want them to have that power.