Rod Serling was the creator of The Twilight Zone and a TV-R faculty member at Ithaca College.
He was also, arguably, the most gifted writer that television has ever seen as is evidenced by his six, count them-- SIX!-- Emmy Awards.
(By the way, five of those awards are in the display case outside of Park Auditorium and the 6th one is on display in the library).
Way back in 1959, he gave an interview about "TV censorship" to Mike Wallace-- from "60 Minutes."
(As an aside, you'll notice a few things about the video. First, Rod Serling smokes on camera. That wouldn't happen today. Second, he uses the word "sponsor" repeatedly. Today, we would say "advertiser." Finally, you'll also notice other minor differences compared to today-- including his vocabulary).
Your online assignment is to watch Rod Serling's video about TV censorship, Seth MacFarlane's video about the same topic, and Seth's take on FCC censorship as portrayed on Family Guy.
Based on what you've read in the text and on the blog--and taking into account the videos-- what are your own thoughts on TV censorship?
Should the broadcast TV networks (NBC, CBS, FOX, NBC, CW) have to follow rules about what they can put on the air? Or should they have full First Amendment protection the way other media do?
Rod Serling talked a bit about "pre-censorship." How much of a role do you think that plays with today's television shows?
Post your reactions here (250 words or so) as comments.
The assignment is due by Tuesday, April 28 , 2015 by midnight PDT.
Here's the Rod Serling interview:
Here's Seth MacFarlane talking about the topic 50+ years later:
And here is Seth MacFarlane's take on the FCC's censorship rules as portrayed in an episode of Family Guy:
Based on what I’ve read and seen I would say that Television censorship is something that is much more complicated than it first seems. My own personal take would be that Television censorship should only exist during the day when children would be watching. I say this because children are very impressionable and it wouldn’t be hard for these children to find shows that may potentially affect them negatively if FCC regulations didn’t exist during the day. For primetime Television I do not believe that we need to have censorship. So many people disagree with that idea and I don’t understand why other than the fear of “corrupting” the youth. The big factor that is rarely entertained is that just because censorship would not exist for this block of time it does not mean that all of these shows will suddenly become “filth” or “raunchy”. I think that censorship really can hinder writers such as the great Rod Sterling who expressed his concern with Television censorship and how it affects him. Broadcast Television networks should be able to have full First Amendment protection during primetime hours of television. I think that today’s shows such as Family Guy are very held back by FCC regulations to the point where writers actually wrote an episode about the characters fighting the FCC. I don’t know any other writers besides the writers for Family Guy who would go on to write a musical number about how the FCC screws them over. The kind of negative feedback that the FCC gets is just too high to not be changed in some way. We cannot just continue to let a government organization dictate what is broadcasted on Television.
ReplyDeleteCensorship is something that will forever be found in the entertainment world, but I think that it is something that will be constantly evolving. Personally, I believe that censorship should be to in place to protect what children are exposed to when they are at a young and venerable age. In todays society, more and more has been able to said and expressed without being censored then it has in the past. As the country and society starts to become more and more accepting of controversial topics, I feel as though the laws on censorship will also change. I do not think that censorship should be totally disregarded in primetime television, but believe that the FCC could be a little easier on the shows and what they can talk about. Much of what interests our society today is said to be “vulgar,” and I believe that the FCC needs to be keep up with the current feelings of society and not censor things that a society such as ours can handle or want to see.
ReplyDeleteI believe there should be regulation, major networks should not have the freedom to air what they please, but I feel as though the FCC should be censoring according to the attitudes of the viewers. Regarding Pre-censorship, I think that this it plays a big roll in what writers are willing to put into their scripts and stories. Pre-censorship limits the creativity of show creators and doesn’t allow for the writer to truly express his or her feelings into what they are making. I feel as though as time goes on and our society progresses, censorship will become more relaxed. Shows such as Family Guy is a great example of a trailblazer in that category that is leading the way for less regulation and de-censorship of television.
The idea of censorship within the media is very complicated, as I believe there are certainly times where it seems necessary, yet other instances when it seems to be hindering creativity. While it is important to limit the exposure of inappropriate material to young children, older audiences do not have to be protected by what they see or hear when watching TV in the same way. However, as our society continues to grow and change in terms of what we deem acceptable, so does censorship. While censorship still plays a large role in the subject matter shown in TV shows these days, it is important to recognize that many of the scenes we see in shows today would never have been allowed on TV even just a few years ago.
ReplyDeleteI think broadcast TV networks should have full First Amendment protection, as it is clear that most of the shows on the five major networks continue to be held back by the censorship. It is not a coincidence that TV shows on cable networks such as HBO or Showtime seem to be higher quality programs, as they continue to attract huge talents due to the creative freedom they are allowed. I do believe that while the FCC tends to be strict, audiences are to blame as well. Both Rod Serling and Seth MacFarlane allude to this during the videos we watched as they describe how at least someone will always be offended by something they see on TV. While the FCC tries to limit how much offensive material is shown, it is impossible to please everyone. I believe “pre-censorship” plays a very large role in today’s television. Because of the FCC, most writers will shy away from topics that could be considered inappropriate or offensive. This infringes upon creativity and causes people to continue to play it safe. “Pre-censorship” prevents people from discussing important topics as they are simply afraid the FCC will forbid them from putting their material on TV.
Censorship is the media is a very complicated topic that is constantly evolving with society because society in this country constantly changes their beliefs on what is "acceptable" and what is not. My own personal opinion is that television programs should be censored at times when children could be watching them. Children are very impressionable and they shouldn't be influenced to some inappropriate things that some adults find humor in. But I believe after 10 PM television shows and networks shouldn't be forced to censor things and should proceed at their own risk of losing advertisements slots if they were to air inappropriate material that would turn away viewers. Adults enough of a sense that if they don't like something they see on television, to turn the channel and to make a mental note not to watch that show or network again. Children often do not have that sense which is why censorship should be required during the day and early evening hours. But I also think that what should be “censored” is an extremely controversial issue and this is where we run into a lot of problems. Every person has a different opinion on this because no two people think the same things are appropriate and not. Censorship could hinder a great show like Rod Serling pointed out but limited censorship runs the risk of shows going overboard and crossing the line with the content. I think the FCC has too much power in the aspect of determining what should be censored and what shouldn’t be. It also feels like they flip a coin to decide in some cases that are borderline. I think a set of criteria should be made so there are no arguments and the shows and networks know exactly what to expect. This will make the censorship process a lot less painful for both the FCC and the networks and shows.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe idea of censorship in the media is as ubiquitous as it is complicated. The topic is constantly evolving, as new subjects become taboo and others become openly discussable in the public forum. Usually the media is the body that ensues these changes and is almost never the body that champions the charge for greater freedom of expression as is evidenced by censoring and pre-censorship. Now, perhaps more than ever, Rod Serling’s words about pre-censorship ring true in the world of media. Advertising dollars are what drive the entire industry and attempting to oppose any decently large amalgamation of people’s values is a risk writers and especially networks are just not willing take. Advertisers simply do not want to have their product associated with a controversial television show, and without that support no matter how popular the show may be it will fail in the eyes of the networks. Some may say that television censorship has progressed but this is only in accordance with societal changes reflected by the industry in terms of issues such as showing positive female role models and same sex marriage. However, in terms of the ability to speak freely the world of television has truly regressed. In an age where assembly is feasible for any group of people with Internet and a complaint is an email account away, it has simply become even more risky to say anything that could be viewed as offensive. Take Top Gear for instance; the show is funded in the UK by tax dollars and not advertising revenue so the BBC does not take into account its advertising revenue, only its audience. A show that received hundreds of thousands of complaints a year due to the rambling of its politically incorrect host, who by the way acted as an equal opportunity offender not targeting any particular group, still managed to stay on air due to the broadcast system in place there. In America, however, a show like this could never have lasted for even a single season as advertisers would refuse to back it due to its controversial content and the FCC would have immediately cracked down on the offensive content. In this day and age, although censors are still necessary they should be loosening not tightening when it comes to speech. These censors should focus less on what is being said and more on the context in which it is said.
ReplyDeleteCensorship is something that will always have to be changed and updated as society’s views of it change. It started out to prevent young children from viewing adult content, but there are definitely ways that viewers have gotten around that. While it should be used to protect young children, it is parents who ultimately decide whether or not their children watch certain programming. So as people’s views change, censorship for television will have to also. Eventually, as society becomes more accepting of controversial material shown on television, I believe the FCC will have to be accepting of at least some of the content.
ReplyDeleteIn terms of primetime television, I feel that the networks should have a little more freedom when it comes to what can be aired but I do not think they should be given full approval to air whatever they please. The rules that the FCC has made and will make should all depend on the viewers feelings and if they can handle these networks delivering controversial material then it shouldn’t be frowned upon. If there has been success and an audience in a show like Family Guy on FOX there’s no reason why any other network shouldn’t have the same ability to talk about certain content.
In terms of Pre-censorship, however, I feel that for shows similar to Family Guy that it really can stifle creativity. There is so much that has to be taken out, but it shouldn’t be to the point that it affects the story too drastically. As Seth Macfarlane said, it still remains to be all subjective where you can demonstrate one thing that can be deemed inappropriate but are not allowed to demonstrate other things that are completely similar. Therefore, if they are already showing content on television that the audience can handle, the FCC should focus on the fact that people are willing to see what is shown on shows like Family Guy and that it should be the audience’s choice whether or not they see certain content. Whether or not the FCC agrees, society will eventually want to see the things that Family Guy and other shows have been holding back for years anyway. Family Guy has gotten away with a lot already and it’s almost a matter of time before everyone other network and its programming follow and I believe that they have a right to show things with the audience’s best interest in mind.
TV censorship seems to have no clear definitive meaning. It’s all about “what ifs” and how far someone can analyze the symbolic nature of an action or a particular word. I do believe that it makes sense to be aware of what you put on air. I also believe that it depends on the type of program. If we’re talking about news and sports broadcasting, I understand how you need to be serious with what you are saying and promote censorship so you don’t offend anyone. As for other shows like Family Guy, censorship is pointless. As they do talk about a offensive subject, they find ways to go around the censorship rules. These rules could be easy to work around or a disaster to be caught disobeying. But, what are they trying to hide? If you don’t like the show, don’t watch it. If you are a responsible parent, you wouldn’t let you own child see it. Why should it be up to the government to decide on what times certain shows can be aired and what can be said on television? In contemporary society we are informed through advanced technology on how inappropriate the world can be before we even reach the age of adolescence. But, this is what the world is and we are living in it. As Seth MacFarlane states, “FOX has fingers on average American’s and not on anyone elses in the network”. In other words, censorship is only based on an average American’s viewpoint - what about everyone else? Especially in today’s non-traditional society, there are more open minded people in the world who are accepting to different viewpoints. The government is taking control on what society sees and hears in order to not have any complications. On broadcast television, it makes sense. As for television shows, let the creative mind speak.
ReplyDeleteWhen Rod Serling mentions “pre-censorship” it makes me melt with rage. A talented writer has to dull their creative ideas in order to be safe under the rules of censorship. The First Amendment was made for a reason, why change that due to censorship? Personally, I believe that only in specific situations due to broadcast (since it isn’t a narrative), scripts should be written how the artist sees it with nothing holding them back. Art is a way to free your mind - not to contain it because the censorship law tells you to do so.
ReplyDeleteAfter watching the three segments posted on the blog about censorship, I have come to a few of my own conclusions. First, I believe that there is no actual definition for censorship. What one person might find offensive, another might find absolutely hilarious, and someone else may not even catch the joke. There cannot be any clear conclusions made on censorship, due also to the fact that society is changing and so are its values. The fact that Rod Serling in 1960 and Seth MacFarlane are saying similar things but both connected to their specific time period says a lot about censorship in this country. I believe that broadcast TV networks should have full First Amendment protection like newspaper, radio, and other broadcast media outlets. I believe that while some people believe that censorship is needed in order to avoid conflict and controversy, that sometimes controversy is needed to start conversations that have been brushed under the rug. On NBC, CBS, FOX, ABC, and the CW, there are a slue of shows that are challenging social norms such as Blackish and Fresh off the Boat, both having to do with race and minorities. I believe that censorship has gotten better since controversial programs such as these are on the air, however I believe that censorship is still an issue in this country and the fact that some people aren’t allowed and aren’t comfortable saying how they feel screams volumes about our censorship laws. Additionally, I believe that Rod Serling touching upon “pre-censorship” is still relevant today. As Seth McFarlane touched on, the person who comes in to censor programs usually will take the funniest thing on the page and have a footnote about how it is not that appropriate to say on air. While many things still get through, the “pre-censorship”, I believe, hinders on writers talent and growth.
Sarah Johnson
ReplyDeleteMedia Industries
Censorship
4/23/15
Jack Powers
After reading the texts and blogs, and watching the videos regarding censorship, it has become very clear to me that censorship is something that has not really been messed with other the past fifty years. As I was watching Rod Serling’s interview it became apparent that we as a country have not really changed our expectations and rules when it comes to the notion of censorship. Unfortunately, because we haven’t made huge progress regarding what we can and can not say on television, we’re kind of stuck in a rut.
Being a Television and Radio Major at Ithaca College I am very split on my views regarding censorship. As a content creator, a huge part of me wishes that we could have the total freedom to say whatever we wanted to a mass audience. But as an audience viewer, I know that just because one has the freedom to say whatever they want doesn’t mean that one necessarily should. Due to the fact that broadcast TV networks are aired to the masses and dominate the television playing field, I think that to save themselves the trouble they should follow certain rules about what they can and can’t say for not only legal purposes, but it would just be a lot more simple. In my opinion, it’s easier to not say anything that could offend a large mass of people then to say it and have to spend all of the time, money, and resources on trying to cover damage control. What is interesting about all of the interviews is that in each one they addressed that the type of censorship that takes place is based on the audience, not those doing the censoring. In Rod Serling’s interview he mentioned the concept of pre-censorship. He defined it as the prior knowledge that a writer has regarding areas of controversial topics, A.K.A areas that they shouldn’t delve into. I think that pre-censorship still plays a major role in today’s process of writing and producing television series, but I think it’s more of a subconscious thing when it comes to the writers of the shows. Due to the fact that we’ve become accustomed to being so careful and unoffensive I think we as writers already have a preconceived notion of what’s ok to say on television and what isn’t.
All in all, although a great amount of time has passed since Rod Serling’s television era and the modern television era, one thing remains the same. Offensive, controversial, and risky topics are still not allowed to be shown on television in the way that writers often wish they could be. Perhaps one day we will see the censorship rules and regulations lighten up and decrease, but until then censorship will continue to be present.
After watching the three videos I realized censorship is more complex than I initiall¬¬y thought. At first I thought that the FCC should really censor that much of what is on TV, outside of shows that are watch by a younger audience because children are impressionable and what they now can greatly impact how they view the world. In contrast, adults have already built their own view of the world, which is subject to change, but not as drastically as a child’s view. Adults also have complete control over what they watch on TV; no one is going to tell them that they have to watch something or they cannot watch something else. If they take offense to something a show decides to air, they can choose to stop watching the show. If enough people stop watching, the show will realize that its losing audiences, and start censoring itself when writing episodes based on what viewers will watch. I think that TV networks should have full First Amendment protection for what they put on the air because outside or protecting the innocence of children, many of whom don’t watch primetime shows, there is not real reason to limit what the should be able to show. I think that pre-censoring plays a large role in what writers decide to put in an episode. This limits writer creativity and prevents important topics from being discussed. If show creators are unwilling to write episodes that they think may be stopped by the FCC, its impossible for TV to be used as a method to bring cultural awareness to a wide range of issues.
ReplyDeleteCensorship has an immense stigma in American television culture, however it is of course necessary in our society to a certain extent. For example, children's programming must be censored so that they are not being exposed to material that is inappropriate or harmful for them to view. Despite this, however, I found Rod Serling's point about the Lassie show very interesting. I agree that censorship can be taken too far, and can possibly prohibit audiences from learning and enjoying new material because it has the potential to offend, such as in the Lassie case in which puppy birth was deemed inappropriate. I do think that censorship is evolving and that this sort of incident is not as likely to occur in present day. Children are highly influenced by the media, and thus it is important to keep their greater well-being in mind regarding censorship, even though this is a fine line to navigate sometimes. As for adult shows that air late at night, I think censorship is needed to a much lesser extent than for children since adults have the ability to determine what they think is acceptable and appropriate for themselves. I found the Family Guy musical number particularly intriguing since it accurately displayed some of the ridiculousness associated with the FCC’s power and regulations. The FCC’s purpose is to interpret the meaning of the “public interest” and serve accordingly, which is a virtually impossible task since there isn’t usually one consensus about controversial matters. This is what causes the FCC to sometimes “over regulate” or ban words that may not make a show any more offensive than it already is. As referenced in the panel discussion, episodes of shows can be incredibly offensive sometimes, and often get away with more than they should. If the FCC didn’t exist to regulate some of this content, what would the TV experience be like? There is no easy solution, but both the creative side of TV and the FCC are needed by society, just unfortunately, often conflict by nature of their goals.
ReplyDeleteAfter watching the interviews and family guy parody on censorship and the FCC and thinking about my own views on TV censorship I think that there needs to be a happy medium for censorship. There is definitely content that should not be shown to the public however censoring something because it goes against someone’s political views should not be allowed. There are many things that could be viewed as strictly offensive and I do not think that this content should be allowed over the airways because it doesn’t stand to prove a point it just exists to bring other people down. As for Rod Serling’s interview when he talks about having to take elements out because they won’t generate high ratings or because people from various regions around the country don’t agree with the viewpoint.
ReplyDeleteI think pre-censorship definitely exist in the industry because if you take a look at the shows that exist so many are similar and so many are unwilling to take risks for fear of loosing viewers. In an ideal world shows could go out on the edge and not be afraid to makes political or societal statements however because TV has become such a business if views are controversial they cannot be shown. Hopefully in the future pre-censorship will go away and more topic will be able to be shown on air.
Censorship is a very controversial topic within our society and it is something that that molds the way we view media. Censorship is something that has constantly changed and evolved with our developing first world country. Some places in the United States are much more liberal and believe censorship is bad for our country. Others believe censorship can be useful, especially when used to shield our younger generations from things too harsh for their eyes. When it comes to television censorship people have very diverse views, some thing gore and blood should be censored and others think sex and drugs should be. One thing that bugs me about censorship is that the news can show a real live person being hung on national broadcasts but you have to wait till after 10 PM to hear explicit comedy. My personal opinion on this is that I believe there should be zero censorship on television. Children can and have seen worse stuff on the Internet and there is no stopping that. I don’t think there will ever be completely no censorship for television programs but what I am saying is that the rules should be more lenient than they currently are. Broadcast TV networks will always have to follow rules about what can and cant be shown but I believe we are working towards a more liberal country where censorship will be looked down upon and laughed at. I think that pre-censorship plays a major role in todays shows and I think that when this is not practiced TV programs will have better ratings and be more interesting.
ReplyDeleteCensorship is something that will always be around the television world. Since T.V is readily available to anyone at anytime so the you can not just put whatever you want on the screen because some content is not appropriate for some ages of viewers. I think that they should follow the rules, but the rules have to be across the nation and not just city by city or state by state. However, if the channel is not broadcast T.V I think that the cable channels should have more give when it comes to censorship because you subscribed to those channels. However I agree with the law that the censorship laws are more strict between the morning and afternoon hours because kids are usually watching T.V during those times. However, once it gets past eleven the censorship laws should be a little more lenient. If something in a show is pushing the limits of censorship, but it is necessary to tell the story then the FCC should try to let it pass. I think that a writers creativity should be a little constricted because of censorship on broadcast T.V. If a writer really wants the banned content in his show he/she should broadcast his show on a different form of media where they would allow that certain content. I think that a T.V program should not feel pressured from advertisers to not show certain content. Also advertisers shouldn't limit what shows they advertise on based on the content. I think viewers don't automatically assume the product with the show it is advertised. Censorship will always be a thin line to walk and will always have gray area. Television shows will just have to adapt to the always changing censorship laws and try to keep possible obscene content outside of the story lines.
ReplyDeleteAfter watching Rod Serling and Seth MacFarlane’s interviews about censorship and “Family Guy”’s interpretation of the FCC and censorship, I believe that society tends to over-censor a lot of content on TV because they are fearful of losing viewers/ratings. While I completely understand their justification in this, I think that if networks did less censoring on programs, more ratings would come in because the programs would be honest and genuine and actually attract viewers. I feel that censorship is just an idea and like many things, cannot be proved. For example, when Seth MacFarlane mentioned the topic of religion being discussed, for some, they may become insulted at the use of the Lord’s name in vain. However, for other viewers, who may not be very religious or religious at all, for that matter, they would find no problem in it. Another example that sticks out in my mind is when Rod Serling spoke about “Lassie” and how the birth of a puppy was considered inappropriate for television. That example especially blows my mind because we have programs, such as “Jersey Shore” and “The Real World” on television today, and those are much more inappropriate than seeing a dog giving birth to puppies. In my opinion, the miracle of life and birth is educational—drinking, partying, and hooking up with people is not. In addition, I also believe that today’s television programs that do actually have certain material censored is pretty unnecessary, such as banning nipples from being shown, but a naked body without nipples being considered acceptable. Censorship should be used more on children’s programs and on family-friendly channels only, rather than every television program. Since children up to the age of 18 are easily influenced, if programs on TV are suggesting raunchy material with content that’s deemed inappropriate or potentially harmful to their well-being, then I feel it should be more carefully censored or monitored. However, programs that mostly attract adults and people over the age of 18 should not be censored. You are considered an adult at age 18, can make your own decisions and should not be told when and what you can and cannot watch. Television, like many other types of media, is a form of expression and allows creators, writers, producers, etc. to showcase their creativity and thoughts. While some may not necessarily AGREE with their thoughts, I think they are entitled in sharing their opinion in whatever form they feel necessary, as long as it does not cause harm to society. This completely falls under the First Amendment law in my opinion and should protect the writers of the show and allow them to say/show whatever they want. The First Amendment does not protect people from being offended by another’s thoughts/feelings, and certainly does not protect people from being exposed to different ideas. Censorship is a personal idea and if parents are offended by the content of a particular show, then I feel that they are responsible and should be the ones to decide if the program can be watched in their house. Just like Freedom of Speech, people have the right to exercise their freedom of “watching shows” and can make their own decisions based on what they deem offensive or inappropriate.
ReplyDeleteAfter watching the videos of Rod Serling and Seth MacFarlane talking about TV censorship as well as what we’ve discussed in class I now have a fully developed opinion of the topic. First of all, I do believe that the rule of shows being able to keep swear words and disregard some censorship of certain things after 10:00pm is a good idea simply because it protects what some children may be exposed to when they turn on the television. I think the point of censorship is to keep a certain level of innocence to what our eyes and ears are exposed to in the world. I agree that broadcast networks should have to follow the rules about what they can put on the air because I wouldn’t want my own child to hear something that I haven’t approved of without knowing. As for the topic of pre-censorship I think that is one of the most influential thing for writers of today’s television shows. If I wrote a script for a television show and had to go through the process of changing everything about it because I wrote on a controversial topic, it would be hell. I completely understand why writers would shy away from writing about things that people watching would have issues with. The point of television shows are to be watched by the average person and to get high shares and if it doesn’t get that, it’s cancelled. Unfortunately, there could be better television shows if they didn’t have to go through censorship, but it also holds a level of respect and innocence for viewers.
ReplyDeleteNow that I’ve watched both interviews of Rod Serling and Seth MacFarlane and the clip from Family Guy on TV censorship, I have an even better understanding on the topic. I still believe that TV censorship should exist during the hours when kids might be watching television. More Americans would be upset with what’s shown on television if their children were exposed to inappropriate content without their approval. However, I also believe there should not be censorship during primetime television. Americans do enjoy shows that touch on various topics, including controversial ones; so the writers of shows that air during primetime should have the freedom to explore any topic they desire. It’s nearly impossible for a show, even with the regulations of the FCC, not to offend at least one person who watches it. Not everyone can be pleased. Getting rid of the FCC’s rules and pre-censorship would benefit television shows because the writers would be able to write without the fear of not getting their script approved. I think writers would still be smart when it came to creating a script that would draw in a large audience and high shares, even without the FCC’s rules. They know what viewers want to see, so they’ll provide them with it.
ReplyDeleteBased on what I have read and learned I think that having censorship for broadcast television networks is a good thing, for the most part, even if the full right to the First Amendment is taken. I think that it is the right thing for broadcast networks to only allow certain topics, words, and images be shown on television. Although I think everyone should have the right to free speech, I think that in order to protect children from accidental exposure and indecent content there has to be some regulation on what the networks can air. However, when it comes to specific topics I think that there should be more leniencies. For example, when it comes to news most outlets are not allowed to show images of war with people who are seriously injured, and I think that in order to tell a true story all stations should be allowed to show those images. I do, however, believe that when it comes to blatant and unnecessary profanity it should not be allowed on primetime shows, as children and young adults should not be exposed to such things. Another thing that must be understood is that the country and society are changing and are more accepting of certain topics and I think that the FCC censorship regulations should change along with society. Overall, I feel that major networks should not be allowed complete freedom and that there should be regulation, however I believe that the FCC should be censoring content according to the attitudes of its viewers.
ReplyDeleteWhen Rod Serling talked about “pre-censorship” you could tell that it played a major role in the content he created and I would assume that it still has an affect to today’s television. Serling mentioned that censorship is enforced because of the network, “agenecy”, “sponser”, and even the viewer. I think that showrunners still have to deal with these issues otherwise their programs will not get produced or watched by as many people as possible.
The creators of broadcast entertainment media in the United States face a challenge not seen in other forms of entertainment, censorship. Television writers and producers are constantly being hounded by tastemakers at multiple levels, including the Federal Communications Commission, the production studio, and even themselves to make sure that their content will be “appropriate” for audiences. Censorship is incredibly prevalent in American broadcasting, with the determination of what’s okay to be put on air being left up to a small group of people who are in charge of representing the political and social views of the whole country. In some cases, writers avoid creating content revolving around some topics altogether in what’s called “precensorship.” For these writers, censorship is encroaching so far upon their creative minds that their views are never shared because they are not deemed to be appropriate by studios and sponsors. This issue with this is that what may be tolerated by audiences in one area of the country have the potential to be very different from the values held by audiences in another part of the country. With censorship, content creators are tasked with creating a version of their vision that has been at times heavily watered down. In the end, the product that is pushed to air could very well not carry the message intended by the writer. This attempt to appeal to mass audiences, while profitable for networks and sponsors, opposes the freedom of speech upheld in the first amendment. I believe that because what is said to be appropriate for broadcast on network television is so ambiguous; there should not be any censors as it is not possible to appeal to everyone. For this reason, non-network channels such as HBO and shows on the internet are popular because they are able to address the issues and use dialogue that may not pass the censors of network TV.
ReplyDeleteI think that dealing with content that the FCC wishes to cover up is a very shaky ground. We live in a progressive society in which a lot of things that don't seem right to certain people is completely fine with a whole group of other people. I don't think that there really should be as much censorship as there is, or at least that the censorship given is fair and equal to all groups of people. That being said, males and females should have the same ability to do or say specific things on TV shows when targeted for an appropriate audience.
ReplyDeleteI feel like we live in a society where there shouldn't be sex shaming, gay shaming, race shaming, or word shaming. Progressively speaking, these are things that should be shown on television, to help prove that these things ARE okay and that everyone should accept a woman who likes having sex, and understand that sometimes people swear and have sex and drink and literally just carry about their lives. I think if we could accept that everyone lives their life in different ways, then there really would be no need for censorship at all. But, since there are so many people who don't live progressively, we have to deal with all the crap censorship given.
After watching these three videos, I believe that there should be censorship, but only to a certain extent. For example, if a young kid finds out about Family Guy and starts watching it, it could harm them by exposing them to graphic language and other things. So, having these kinds of shows being showed late at night or on adult channels is important. However, censoring some of the lines in shows because of religious and political views seems a little extreme to me. I get that the networks don’t want to have these opinions on the shows that they pick up because they might lose viewers, but I don’t believe it would have a direct impact on their network. Anyone that watches Family Guy clearly knows how to take a joke and not take something seriously. So, having censorship for explicit language is important but only for kids shows. I don’t believe there has to be strict guidelines for censorship on adult shows. I mean, that person can simply just change the channel and watch another show. It’s not like the show will introduce something new to these adults that’s going to affect them. In Rod Sterling’s interview, he mentions how in one of the shows, they had to cut out a certain part because it was associated with Nazi Germany’s gas chambers. That does seem a little bizarre to me because they made the show to educate people on what went on there. But on the other end, I do see how these businesses don’t want their name associated with these gas chambers. As for pre-censorship, I believe that it destroys a writer’s creative process. If a writer wants to create a show on a certain topic, but knows that its most likely going to be censored or not allowed, then they’ll disregard that topic fully.
ReplyDeleteAmong the various entertainment mediums pre censorship is a controversial issue. Today we live in a society when content revolving around sex is somewhat glorified. A large young demographic is aware of content that I did not acknowledge at their age. Prior to taking this class I did not have a view toward this topic. However, after watching the Rod Serling video along with the Seth MacFarlane video I now have an opinion. I believe that pre censorship although it infringes on first amendment rights is necessary. Society is a very interesting subject due to society becoming more accepting of different controversial content. The FCC is very strict and could loosen up due to a more accepting society.
ReplyDeleteMajor networks should not be excluded from pre censorship. It is hard to satisfy all with today’s television content. While some are enjoying the material others are offended by it. This is why we rely on pre censorship to build a safe barrier. All writers should create scripts with appropriate content for all to enjoy during majority of the day.
I love the idea of the safe harbor, and I believe it’s crucial to pre censorship. It is also a way to allow networks to show indecent programs. The safe harbor is active from 6am-10pm. 10pm is a good estimation that children will be asleep and away from risky material. For example cartoon network is for children from approximately 6am-10pm, and after 10pm strikes it transitions into adult swim. Adult swim features shows like Family guy and more. Pre censorship is necessary however to a certain degree.
In this day and age censorship isn't taken as seriously as it was forty plus years ago. In Rob Sterling’s interview, he mentions how sponsors play a big role when dealing with censorship. He brings up an example of a show called “Judgment of Nuremberg”, in which the show explains the gas chambers that were a playing card for the Nazi’s during World War II. He explains that there was a line that included the phrase “gas chambers”, however, this line was deleted. The reason for its deletion was because it said, “gas”, and the sponsors didn’t want the American audience to associate their gas with the same kind of gas that the Nazi’s used, even though there was no relation towards there gas. Rob Sterling describes his dislike towards the situation, because the audience is missing the chance to learn about something so crucial such the tragedy that came along with the gas chambers, and this is because the sponsors wanted to get rid of the line.
ReplyDeleteToday, censorship does not play that same kind of role. MacFarlane’s show Family Guy is a perfect example of what is acceptable today in television. Yes, shows and television do not hesitate to put risqué content that would be seen as atrocious if it were to air forty something year ago, but the censors today care more about the “average American.” Seth MacFarlane stated this while being interviewed about the FCC and censorship.
When comparing both views on censorship, it is very clear what both sides had and has to deal with. During Sterling’s time, he had to deal with sponsors who didn’t want to be seen in a negative light, as oppose to MacFarlane, who has to deal with the average American. One has to make sure a small group is happy, and the other has to make sure their audience is happy. I think that during Sterling’s time censorship and the freedom to air whatever one wishes was more limited than during the present time. Today, there is more freedom, but there are still limitations on what one can air.
After watching these three short clips I have a better understanding of why there is so much controversy with TV censorship and the FCC regulations. As many have said, I also agree with the idea that specific time periods throughout the day should be more censored than others such as when kids are more frequently watching. I think that it is a big concern in the entertainment industry today about what children should and should not be exposed to however, the extent to which the FCC regulations go about it might be a bit extreme. An older audience does not need this kind of protection from inappropriate language and content, which is causing networks to have to limit their originality. As society continues to grow and alter its views on what they consider to be acceptable, it is difficult to define what censorship really is. Society as a whole does not have the same opinions, sense of humor, values, etc. which makes it challenging for networks to appeal to all. I think that the FCC regulations for censorship should come in affect at crucial times when children are watching television but should not be applicable for every time slot. I think that the full First Amendment like the newspaper and such should protect broadcast TV networks. It is no secret that these networks’ creativity is limited due to regulations from the FCC as opposed to HBO and Primetime shows. Both Rod Serling and Seth MacFarlane touched on similar censorship issues, which makes it clear that these issues still exist today 55 years later. Rod Serling mentioned that networks are forced to avoid themes in their programs that later won’t get them in trouble with the FCC which is something that networks are still dealing with today. In Seth MacFarlane’s interview he stated that “censors at Fox have their finger on the pulse of the average American and what they’re going to get bent out of shape about more than anyone else at the network.” I think this statement says a lot about how sensitive censors are when it comes to heavy and risky topics. All in all, censorship in television has come a long way in terms of what is accepted by the audience however; the base issues still remain which is limiting the growth and creativity of media writers.
ReplyDeleteCensorship in the world of media is a very complicated thing. In my opinion, I think censorship is needed in some cases, but other times I think it can be ridiculous and can hinder artistic creativity for writers. After watching these three videos I have learned that censorship is always changing and there is no real definition for it. Everyone can have a different take on censorship; something that one person thinks is inappropriate, another person could think is funny. The topic of censorship is a very slippery slope. If we didn’t have the major networks follow the rules of censorship and allowed them to have their full First Amendment rights, there could be a lot of bad things that would go on television. But in the same instance I do think that artists should have free creative ability to write about what they want or what they think is funny. I don’t think there will ever be an agreement on whether or not networks should have their full First Amendment rights. Censorship is always changing and it always will be. Pre-censorship plays a huge part in the media today. Without it there could be a lot of inappropriate things on television that the networks would eventually have to cover up. I think pre-censorship is what hinders the artistic creativity of writers. This restricts them from writing about certain topics that they may have wanted to use on their television show. I think pre-censorship plays a huge role in today’s media because it prevents certain things from getting on to television. It keeps certain inappropriate things from being on television but it also restricts the creativity of writers. I think censorship is a necessary evil. It needs to be in place or else there could be a lot of bad things on television but it in some ways can prevent good television.
ReplyDeleteWhen I think of censorship on TV I think of the obvious things like no nudity or swearing, but after watching the videos I’ve realized that there is a lot more to TV censorship. However before I get into that I’d like to explain how I would censor TV. I think that censorship for TV can both be a good and bad thing. I think that from the hours 5 a.m. to 8 p.m. all shows should be censored the way that they have been so far. I chose this time specifically because if children were to turn on the TV without an adult present there should be a peace of mind that whatever they are watching is censored and won’t teach them anything inappropriate. After 8 p.m. I believe that all censorship should be nullified. I think that freedom of speech is extremely important, and TV being one of the largest forms of media shouldn’t be censored in any way. They only kind of rule that I would give shows after 8 is that they are required to have an age rating so that parents can block certain programs that are not appropriate for their children. That’s how I would censor, or wouldn’t censor television. When it comes to TV networks having to follow rules about what they can and can’t put on the air, I think that if they really wanted to they would broadcast whatever they want. However, I believe that Audiences and Advertising is what censors Television the most. Rod Sterling talked about how certain lines of dialogue were cut from the original programming due to advertisers not liking what was implied. Same goes for Audiences, Rod Sterling mentioned how Lassie’s Birth was seen very negatively by southern audiences. From a TV networks perspective I think that they care about their audience and their advertisers, so they are going to censor certain material if it means pleasing them. I think that precensorship does not play as big of a role as it did back in the 60s. Back then there were many social issues that we have overcome today, though we still have many social issues I do not think there are as many with the same magnitude as segregation. In some cases I think that writers want to create controversial segments and won’t shy away from diving head first into topics like abortion and gender equality. Though there haven’t been many segments on marijuana policy, so I do think that precensorship exists, just not as much as back in the 60s.
ReplyDeleteAfter watching these videos, I have come to the conclusion that censorship is not really something that can be defined. Obviously there are things that are not appropriate for certain age groups or situations, such as children's programs or times when children could be watching, but other than that, it is a giant grey area. What is considered acceptable changes drastically throughout different parts of the country, and that is something that censors have to keep in mind. My personal belief is that censorship should be drastically reduced, but I have lived in a very liberal part of the country my entire life. I'm sure somebody living in the deep south would disagree with me. Since those who produce television, and any other form of media really, can not change their work to appease both of us, they have to find middle ground to stand on. Therefore there have to be some rules in place in order to achieve this compromise. Though I personally disagree with it, I understand why these censorship rules are in place. That being said, there are certainly programs that know how to succeed even with censorship rules in their way. Family Guy is an excellent example. MacFarlane and his team do very well of presenting the edgy material that the show is known for. Although, as MacFarlane discussed in the interview, they can't actually show the monkey lighting the joint, they get the point across just as well by cutting away just before it happens. I'm not saying that the rules should stay as they are, I think that the monkey should be able to light the joint, but at the moment there is still that compromise, and many programs are still doing just fine.
ReplyDeleteI think Rod would sort of agree with the outlook that the relatively few conservative people who speak up and complain ruin it for everyone. There are probably very few people that may be offended by something, but those are the people who are going to complain. People with extreme views, people who think a dog giving birth to puppies, that’s right, PUPPIES, is too graphic, are the kinds of people who like to voice their opinions. You can’t say anything without offending someone. (I remember hearing someone say that in their short acceptance speech at one of the reward shows (I forget which one specifically) and I thought they were smart for saying that truth) But at the same time, censorship, when taken to extremes, can really limit the effectiveness of a piece. I think the internet and its relatively uncensored format has helped American society become more lenient with controversial topics. We’re only talking about American media here, too. I know there are many international cultures that are overall more conservative when it comes to topics in their media. Culture values vary widely, so there is no effective set of rules to go by, even though the FCC tries to have that set of rules. Also on the topic of censorship, I have been DPing for a pretty raunchy online comedy short-format show called Downward Mobility. Plenty of expletives and pot smoking. Obviously, this would never fly on ICTV, but it’s obviously a lot of fun to shoot, and I think it has the potential to be more popular among college students than most ICTV shows, because that is what college students find relevant and funny.
ReplyDeleteCensorship on television will forever be present in the industry; however, these strict guidelines are ever evolving and adapting as time progresses. As we can see, there is a huge difference between what is considered “vulgar” in Rod Serling’s interview as opposed to the more recent interview with Seth McFarlane. My view on censorship is that it is only necessary on television networks or times of day that children may be viewing. Children can be easily impressionable; there is always the possibility that a child will turn to a station that they should not be watching. The tactic that is currently in place, after 10pm shows have far more leeway with what they may or may not air on television. I honestly believe that, after a set time such as 10pm, shows should have complete leniency on what content they have. Technologically we are in a time period in which we have access to almost any information we want because everything is available online. I think that this fact makes it almost pointless to have extreme censorship laws on television shows; however, it does make logical sense from a business standpoint. Television networks want to stay as far away from content that could possibly offend their audiences and then lose viewers. Television networks are gatekeepers and I do believe they should have full right to accept or deny content; yet, I do not believe that this should be monitored at a government level.
ReplyDeleteI believe pre-censorship plays an enormous role in the creation of today’s television shows. Pre-censorship is a process in which show creators and writers do not even consider adding specific content due to the fact they know that it would most likely be banned by the FCC anyhow. I think that this is a terrible thing. Pre-censorship is almost a scare tactic that is in place preventing, not only what could possibly be amazing content, but also a discussion on taboo topics that could greatly use the attention.
I think that television censorship is a necessary evil for the broadcast TV networks and television in general. If there were no censorship of television at all, TV would be even more profane and sexually explicit than it already is. TV networks and shows need some sort of guidelines to write to, otherwise TV would be a complete free for all.
ReplyDeleteThe TV networks specifically should have to follow these guidelines. A majority of the United States owns a TV, but most only have basic cable which only provides the standard broadcast networks. This means that almost all Americans of any age are watching network TV. So, the networks need to be hyper sensitive to what they are putting on the air. During primetime one might think only adults are watching TV so, there can be more edgy content; but a child could be the one turning on the TV and they should not be exposed to content that is overly explicit at a young age. Broadcast TV networks should follow specific guidelines to be examples to other networks that their content can be just as good without inappropriate content.
I think pre-censorship plays an important role in television writing today. Writers write while avoiding certain topics so that they don’t get the networks upset. What is the point in writing something if you’re going to have to go back and rewrite it? I do think that writers may try to push the envelope and try to see how far they can go; but for the most part I think writers try to write with the FCC regulations in mind.
Censorship in television has transformed a lot over the years but it is something that will be permanently ingrained within this medium despite changes. The main reason censorship exists in the media is to protect the impressionable young minds of children that might be watching TV without supervision. However, sometimes censorship can be taken too far based on what type of show is being censored and when it airs on television. During the day, I believe most shows should gear toward family friendly, “clean” shows because this is when the majority of children will be watching television, but shows should be allowed to be much more raw and unfiltered during the night when all the kids are asleep. Although the FCC does loosen its constraints on shows past prime time, they still restrict a lot of what certain shows can do. Censorship of certain shows that are already seen as raunchy or inappropriate is mostly useless, as these shows still find ways to sidestep the attempts at editing their material. Shows such as Family Guy and South Park really have no reason to be censored, as they are meant to be inappropriate and still find ways to implant the very ideas being censored into their audience’s heads. An example of this is in Seth Macfarlane’s interview when he talks about how he can show the evil monkey rolling a joint but has to cut the scene before he lights or smokes it. This kind of censorship is pointless as all it does is lessen the directness of the “offensive” material, but still allows it to be seen for what it is. Censorship has a place in daytime television, but it has no right to restrict the creative minds of writers who want to produce more controversial and explicit material to be aired away from the view of children.
ReplyDeleteIt is clear from these videos that censorship on broadcast TV has changed and evolved over the years, which leads us to question what the future of it is. I would bet that Rod Serling's censors would have a stroke if they saw Seth MacFarlane's "FCC" song bit, that's how provocative it would have been. Censorship on TV is a strange thing to discuss, because as confusing and downright weird as it can be, it's a little uncomfortable to imagine what would be on television screens if the limits did not exist, Stations like HBO can get away with graphic imagery, so if a viewer really wants to see female nudity on their TV, there are still outlets for that. There is even pay-per-view porn available on many cable systems. So with that in mind, maybe it is important to have one sector of the broadcast industry that retains a certain level of appropriate-ness for younger or more conservative crowds.
ReplyDeleteBroadcast censorship just seems to be a necessary evil. It is not that it is the most reliable or reasonable practice, or even that it makes sense all the time, but the problem remains that people like Seth MacFarlane (who I really, really don't like for greater reasons than his issues with censorship) would run wild and make it impossible for "family friendly" television to exist. It is easy to make fun of this and find this conservative or cliche, but I can't imagine being a child or having a child and being terrified to turn on the TV and risk a seven-year-old view something as graphic as Game of Thrones. Being as there are outlets for that type of television, censorship is fairly reasonable in that regard.
I would agree with Rod Serling on his thoughts on pre-censorship, as that definitely still exists. Writers do not want to be censored, but they also don't want to be writing edit after edit. They are well aware of censorship regulations for the most part and will actively write to avoid any problems with groups like the FCC.
I have fairly simple views on the way that broadcast TV networks should have to follow rules regarding TV censorship. If cursing, nudity, violence, etc. helps enhance the show, or makes it more interesting to the average viewer then I don't see a problem with allowing it. The viewer knows what they are watching and if the content offends them, then don’t watch the show. Personally, I enjoy the raw and uncut interview with Seth MacFarlane because it allows him to full illustrate his point. Cursing, nudity and violence are all apart of the society we live in so I really don’t see a problem with showing things for how they are. With that being said, I’m not encouraging children or people not of age or maturity level to be allowed in content like that. I think there should be a zero tolerance policy for children’s shows and programs leading up to the primetime TV hours. Obviously children’s programming doesn’t need cursing, nudity or violence so theres clearly no need for it. I think a television content rating and giving the audience a heads up of what kind of content is about to be displayed is a fair enough warning for primetime TV. I believe it is up to the individual (or an individual’s parents) to determine what they want to see and hear. Also, I think pre-censorship limits what the writers can say and how they can fully express whatever it is that they wanted to get across. It limits creativity and limits the industry as well.
ReplyDeleteAh, television censorship, a facet of our society that literally any two people will disagree on. To me, when it comes down to it, anyone can see anything as offensive. It can seem overly ridiculous at times but it's a problem we have to face. You cannot and should not ever tell someone that they shouldn't find something offensive. You are not that person. You don't understand their experiences, and that is okay. I think the same goes the opposite direction though. That's why I entirely disagree with censorship. When I am an adult, I will trust myself to raise my kids and make the decisions of what they do or do not watch on television myself. I will not need some other parent telling me why something should offend me. That is the problem. I am a firm believer in television survival of the fittest. If enough people find a certain show offensive, they won't watch the show, the show will lose ratings, and it will go off the air. I just do not agree with censorship to put it plainly. Pre-Censorship does play into writing any work that is intended to be showcased publicly. I don't think this can be helped. I think we need to be socially conscious when we are in the public eye. That being said, we also need to not be afraid to push the social envelope, and that makes it okay to write something that people sitting in their chairs will think, "Wow, I can't believe they got away with that. As a society, we cannot move anywhere without first realizing that the personal IS political. The media is THE one place that we can speak about issues that are important to us. If you have something you believe in, and you are writing a TV show for your beliefs, others will agree and disagree with you. So to answer the question, yes, I do believe pre-censorship plays into television today. However, no, I don't believe pre-censorship ultimately stops a writer from conveying a message to an audience. Pre-censorship is, instead, an obstacle that writers have to work around. That's what makes writers like Tina Fey so great. They find ways around their own notion of pre-censorship, but still convey their message effectively.
ReplyDeleteThe insider perspectives of Rod Serling and Seth MacFarlane were incredible at showing just how ridiculously difficult it can be for a writer to express ideas artistically on TV. Like we spoke about in class, different communities have different standards and values. Serling gives the example of the complaints sent about Lassie and how some people found puppy birth offensive. Our society has become more moderate in recent years but in some ways we are still very resistant to allow “controversial” topics. The only reason that advertisers have let up on certain pulling advertisements is because the viewing preferences of their target demographics have changed. This leave the progress for free speech in the hands of viewers. On another note I don’t think that we should necessarily relax all of our censorship. It still has a legitimate purpose of protecting the innocence of young children and keeping things somewhat civil. Due to issues like these free speech on television often falls into a grey area and we tend to play it safe rather than risk upsetting most viewers. As a rule not everyone will be happy with censorship because there is either not enough of it or too much. The best way to a happy medium is to see what the censors and the public will tolerate and what they won’t accept. Writers need to keep chipping away at the rules by implying things that are restricted. Family Guy does an excellent job at this and other shows like it are a step in the right direction.
ReplyDeleteI agree with most other’s comments regarding censoring television during the day, and in children’s shows, but not in prime time. I believe that television, and movies as well, should continue receiving an overall rating to indicate the targeted audience; however, censoring things that happen in real life in adult television is somewhat ridiculous. Rod Serling talked about how shows are censored to be “clean,” but real life is not clean. If violence, swearing, or sexual content forwards the story within a television show, I think it should be included in order to accurately portray that story. The media is biased and filtered enough; some honesty would probably be appreciated. I’d like to think that pre censorship doesn’t scare away writers from truly illustrating what message they are trying to convey, but it probably hurts shows in more ways than it helps them, as writers learn to limit themselves. The audience of adult television shows is usually mature enough to deal with the controversial content that occurs in everyday life, so television networks should not create this fantasy where sex and drugs don’t exist. As far as religion, I think what Rod Serling said about the networks trying to sell a product sums up the idea of how they don’t want to offend people, yet comedic shows like Family Guy have found a way to work around this. As for the Lassie example Rod Serling gives with Lassie giving birth to puppies, while this might depend on parent discretion, the “letter writers” complaining about this show perpetuate censorship. Thus, as far as children’s television, I think these shows should be censored to an extent to safely develop young minds, yet parents should also continue to use their discretion.
ReplyDeleteMy first reaction to the video of Rod Serling’s thoughts on pre-censorship came 23 seconds into the video: what was that black stringy thing at the top of the screen? Aside from that, I think it was really cool watching an interview with Rod Serling that relates to what we are talking about in class. It was especially interesting to me because I was given the Rod Serling Scholarship by Park, and yet I know so little about him. I’ve watched a few episodes of The Twilight Zone, but hearing his opinions on television at the time was actually really cool and interesting to me. I find it slightly aggravating that he/other writers of the time couldn’t write about certain topics that they would like to because they know they’ll get in trouble for it. Nowadays, the “safe harbor” rule that bans mature content from 6am-10pm is like a way for writers to avoid censorship – since their “safe harbor” is actually 10pm-6am. During this time they can write and show almost anything they want, something that writers of Rod Serlings time would have loved to have as an option. Although I did find it a little weird when he talked about how he want his kids to learn about sex through television or by taking them to a burlesque show, the point he made was valid in that there can be value in content that is considered inappropriate. I think the safe harbor rule is a fair compromise for modern television that allows mature content to be expressed while avoiding young kids from being exposed to this type of content. Parents understand that there may be inappropriate content on TV late at night, and it’s up to them to decide whether or not their kids are ready for all that crazy late night stuff. So I would say that I think the safe harbor rule is an effective means of keeping TV safe for all audiences, and I am intrigued to know what Rod Serling may have written about if the safe harbor rule existed in his time.
ReplyDeleteI agree with most other’s comments regarding censoring television during the day, and in children’s shows, but not in prime time. I believe that television, and movies as well, should continue receiving an overall rating to indicate the targeted audience; however, censoring things that happen in real life in adult television is somewhat ridiculous. Rod Serling talked about how shows are censored to be “clean,” but real life is not clean. If violence, swearing, or sexual content forwards the story within a television show, I think it should be included in order to accurately portray that story. The media is biased and filtered enough; some honesty would probably be appreciated. I’d like to think that pre censorship doesn’t scare away writers from truly illustrating what message they are trying to convey, but it probably hurts shows in more ways than it helps them, as writers learn to limit themselves. The audience of adult television shows is usually mature enough to deal with the controversial content that occurs in everyday life, so television networks should not create this fantasy where sex and drugs don’t exist. As far as religion, I think what Rod Serling said about the networks trying to sell a product sums up the idea of how they don’t want to offend people, yet comedic shows like Family Guy have found a way to work around this. As for the Lassie example Rod Serling gives with Lassie giving birth to puppies, while this might depend on parent discretion, the “letter writers” complaining about this show perpetuate censorship. Thus, as far as children’s television, I think these shows should be censored to an extent to safely develop young minds, yet parents should also continue to use their discretion.
ReplyDeleteI think that television censorship is a subject that everyone will always disagree on. You have the people that think television shouldn't have anything offensive or sexually explicit shown at all, while others think that it can be shown all times of the day. But for me, after watching these all of these videos and taking into consideration my experience with television my entire life, I've come to the conclusion that I believe television should be monitored during the day, but then should have no restrictions past prime time hours. After watching a variety of shows as I got older (specifically shows not on broadcast channels, but rather ones on networks like HBO, Comedy Central, etc) I see how funny and entertaining shows can be when they are portrayed perfectly. By this, I mean swearing, sex, and drugs are all a part of our lives that we know exist, so why do we go through so many obstacles to censor these ideas? Yes, I do understand that networks like NBC, ABC and FOX are common household channels, and are regularly watched by the younger generation, but there should at least be a time or a place for people to say whatever they want (protected by the First Amendment) on television. It is good that we have restrictions during the day time as well as the common family time hours of primetime, but after this I think that shows should be allowed to exercise full first amendment rights. The FCC skit on family guy was so funny, because it was good humor, despite the fact that it could be perceived as "scandalous" for network television. The fact that they continue to make content like this is good for television, and keeps things not only interesting but free, which is what we need.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteAfter watching the three videos, it is clear that the idea of censorship is fairly vague. The FCC often struggles with deciding what exactly to consider inappropriate or offense, as they must look at it from the audiences’ perspective. Seth MacFarlene even states that “censors at Fox have their finger on the pulse of the average American and what they’re going to get bent out of shape about more than anyone else at the network.” Because people are always offended by something, it is difficult for the FCC to please everyone - the audience and those involved with the content. But Seth also says how most of the censors are actually the best advocates for the shows in general. Now shows like Family Guy can still get around the censorship by making hairline changes that the viewer wouldn’t even notice. Censorship is a hard thing to do, because not everything could be deemed offensive but somehow offends someone out there. The first amendment should protect broadcast channels as it does the written word and other forms of media. Rod Serling talks about how the show Lassie showed what he thought to be a beautiful puppy birth, however, it was later considered inappropriate and taken off the air. Family Guy’s episode just showed how ridiculous the FCC can be, because certain things need to be changed that don’t seem that offensive. FCC must interpret what is considered inappropriate mostly based on what the public will deem inappropriate, but there is always a struggle. While it is necessary at times, I believe the idea of censorship overall hinders the potential for creativity on television. Pre-censorship definitely exists, many people are afraid to take risks when creating their content as they fear they will either lose viewers or be censored.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteMedia Morality
ReplyDeletemo•ral•i•ty
məˈralədē/
noun
1. principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.
synonyms: ethics, rights and wrongs, ethicality More
• a particular system of values and principles of conduct, especially one held by a specified person or society.
plural noun: moralities
"a bourgeois morality"
• the extent to which an action is right or wrong.
"behind all the arguments lies the issue of the morality of the possession of nuclear weapons" ( Google Search)
Censorship, I think it should be added to the list of deadly social faux pas not to be discussed in mixed company? In the study of mass media we have learned about the roles of gatekeepers, publishers, editors, and now censors. If we look to an old longstanding mass communicator, Religion we can surely see the paths of comparison to the newly founded modalities of so called social acceptable content and its influence. How come when it comes to television the acceptance of such practices are condoned as business, but if we look back through the ages, we call out the social control mechanisms of Religion with a dark reproach?
Are the censors Judges? Do they represent the Judo – Christian paradigm that this country was built upon? Or maybe they surf the edge of that construct exploiting the fundamental physiological bent of our society at large? Enough of my rant!
I guess it for me it is really a “chicken or the egg” question. Do the censors represent what is socially acceptable or do they set the standard for it?
The concept of censorship is obvisouly very complicated and has a large impact on television industry. I think censorship will forever be an ongoing issue between the networks and the writers/ directors/ producers of the television shows. In my opinion, I believe there are certain circumstances when censorship is necessary, but then their are other times where I feel as if it is not necessary and it is only restricting the writers/ directors/ producers. One example of this is censorship in the day verses censorship at night. During the the day children are watching TV, and I believe the FCC has a right to censor the programming. If television was not censored during the day time, children can be negatively affected. I believe at night, for example primetime, there is no need for FCC censorship. Most children are not watching television during these hours, so I feel like having censorship would just be restraining the writers creativity. The difference between the censored day time shows and the primetime non censored shows would not be drastic, but the primetime shows would push the limits of some topics discussed.
ReplyDeleteI believe that broadcast television networks should have full First Amendment protection. I think writers, much like Rod Serling, do have to keep in mind this concept of “pre-censorship” as well. It is very obvious that most shows on the major networks today are held back due to writers censorship concerns. Writers try to stay away from topics that can lead to controversial reactions. Shows like Family Guy push the FCC censorship rules to the limit, but do not cross the line. The FCC has rules that networks must follow in order to limit the amount of offensive and inappropriate material can be shown. In the end, you cannot please everyone and I believe this issue of censorship will continue to be a problem in the television industry.
Based on what I’ve watched and learned about the censorships broadcasting for TV, I think it is important to have the censorships available. Beside that we have the freedom of speech, it is not right to allow everything that a write like to put in his script. Because what it could be nice, interesting and not offensive in his point of view, it can be completely the opposite for others. In addition, we should protect the children form any inappropriate contain which they could be exposed to on TV because as we all know their brain in not mature enough to distinguish between the right and wrong. For that reason, they have the right to watch an appropriate TV shows that won’t damage their childhood innocence and if we don’t put rules on what the networks should air we will be discriminating the rights of the children.
ReplyDeleteAbout Family Guy show, I found out once my 7 years old sister watching it and I was completely surprised by the content of this show and questioning myself how they can run on air such an inappropriate TV show that will harm the kids. And after I learned more about the censorship, I think that they are not fully extended to certain TV shows.
Regarding the Pre-censorship, I agree with Roy Serling, writers should be aware of what they can write and what will be considered offensive to avoid their work being rejected by the FCC. I think that they should have the right to write whatever they want, but in appropriate way and manner.
Television Censorship will never meet the needs/wants of everyone. While I believe it is a good preventer of crude and unnecessary content, others believe it is in violation of the First Amendment, which grants freedom of speech with no exceptions to crude or inappropriate content on television. The unfortunate thing is that when the Bill of Rights was drafted, there was zero premeditated awareness of television or any other worldwide network. With the boom in technology at the turn of the 20th century, much of the first amendment has become extremely vague when it is applied to modern television, radio, etc. However, I believe the FCC is a perfectly legal government adaptation to the first amendment, and it brings relevance to the modern definition of freedom of speech. That being said, Network channels should abide by the censorship rules and regulations. There are still other ways for movies and shows with little censorship to be seen, so there should be no complaints by the networks. If they want to remain a big network, then they need to appeal to the largest audience, and that is families with morals that typically support censorship.
ReplyDeletePre-censorship is the process that networks and production houses go through before even meeting with their censors and getting things approved for viewing. This is when the writers and producers get together before production even begins, and they nix items within the script that they can already see getting cut by the censor. This practice has become more prevalent in recent years, with the amount of debatable content being placed onto the air. People are aware when they write something that might raise eyebrows or offend someone's morals. With this recognition, they should also take responsibility to adjust their own work.
Since the broadcast networks air the shows, they should be able to regulate their content. Each network could have potentially different standards as to what is offensive and what should be censored, and even though the shows themselves are certainly not a reflection of the array of beliefs held by any network, since they are produced through the networks they should uphold the aspects of decency as dictated by the network. It seems that the grip of the censors on networks has loosened since Rod Serling’s days, due most likely to desensitization of many topics on a huge scale, which is definitely refreshing to viewers. The concepts of sex and violence are so ubiquitous within today’s society that they play a large role even in shows geared toward children, though a lot of the more mature topics are shown subliminally or through means only older people would understand. Since the networks are responsible for generating their own revenue, they should be able to decide the content of their programs, not some outside party. The networks are the ones at risk by allowing lewd topics. If they want to show indecent content, they alone stand the risk of losing viewers.
ReplyDeleteThat being said, since these networks are available to all with TVs, there should be some limitations as to what gets put on when the younger and more sensitive viewers watch TV. The shows that are on when only more mature audiences are watching shouldn’t have to conform to the same types of censorship as those that could be watched by younger viewers.
TV should be a watch-at-your-own-risk endeavor. Insulting or offensive content shouldn’t be censored to such a high degree, just ignored by those who would potentially be offended.
Pre-censorship can be both good and bad. It most likely plays a large part in the majority of scripted television, since it seems easier to avoid censorship altogether than try to pull things off that would potentially get censored. However, it is shows like Family Guy that are always pushing the envelope that aid us in becoming more desensitized to potentially offensive topics, therefore causing the restrictions placed by censors to become more lax.
TV censorship has consistently been a hotly debated topic throughout the world for years. I disagree with censorship. Writers, producers and networks have the right to release whatever show that they feel will be the best for them in terms of ratings, popularity and revenue. If that show contains inappropriate content, then so be it. Nowadays, everyone gets offended by something. I would argue that there isn't one singular argument, philosophy, or TV show that doesn't offend someone out there. Since nobody can find a common ground, and nobody seems to agree on what is or isn't offensive, I believe that networks should have full rights to do what they please. If you are offended by a specific show, then simply don't watch it. Just because a certain show offends a certain individual, that does not mean it is an offensive one because a different individual could find it funny and entertaining. There is so much parody and so much disagreement on what is offensive and what isn't offensive and that is why I believe there should be no censorship at all.
ReplyDeletePre-censorship is the process that networks and production companies go through before they even meet with their censors in order to get their shows approved. I think that pre-censorship greatly affects television today in a negative way. Writers have a general idea of what crosses the line and will be cut in the pre-censorship process. Therefore, why would they spend their time trying to dig deep and create a scene that even had a remote possibility of being cut. Because they can have their scenes cut before the production process begins, they are limiting themselves to truly writing the best television that they possibly can. I want to see the best TV that I possibly can, and I believe that censorship and pre-censorship prevents me from doing that. Networks should have full reign on what they release to the public because that is the only way that the best possibly TV can be created.
Television censorship is a very complex idea, as shown in the Seth Macfarlane interview. I believe that there are times that censorship is necessary, like during the day when children might be watching television. Censorship has clearly changed throughout the years, the FCC has had to change the rules on what is banned from television based on what writers are willing to show. There are clear rules now on what should be banned, and if you take a show such as Family Guy, you can see that the writers are more willing to push the boundaries on what they can show on television. When watching the Rod Serling interview, it is clear that the FCC didn't have to worry about some of the things they have to worry about now. The idea of pre-censorship is just as important now as it was when Rod Serling was talking about it. Going back to the idea of censoring what is on television, I believe that some things need to be censored, if they are really terrible. On the other hand, some shows on broadcast television, for example, The Simpsons, have creatively gone down because of the censors. Back in the 1990s, when this show was introduced, it could get away with more then it could now, and because of this, the quality has gone down immensely. As for the specificity of what you are allowed to do, when Seth Macfarlane described what Family Guy was allowed to do and not do was the best examples I have heard about censorship in awhile. The FCC has very specific rules about what is allowed on television, and sometimes they can be right, but often, they are just diminishing the quality of the show.
ReplyDeleteThe lines can be really blurred with TV censorship. I believe that it is important to a certain extent to have censorship, especially with comedies, because writers will do anything for a laugh. With comedy shows like Family Guy and SNL, they are known for saying whatever it takes to get a laugh, even if it is an uncomfortable “I can’t believe they just said that” laugh. Often the allure of these shows is the raciness of the humor and it is what draws the viewers to continue tuning in. Viewers tend to like these shows because they use the show as an excuse to make crude jokes and laugh at jokes. The raciness of these shows gives them a rush, and to a certain extent, it can be okay. I think that networks should follow the rules for the most part with comedy. Aside from comedy, I think that the networks should have full First Amendment protection to get their story out. As Rod Sterling said in his 60 minutes interview, “It’s better to say something than nothing.” He describes pre-censorship as avoiding writing anything they know will lose sponsors/advertisers. It’s all about the advertisements these days, so I think that pre-censorship plays a huge role in networks decisions about risky content. With comedies like Family Guy, no one expected the show to do well because of the crude humor but now that it has proven that people want to watch it, advertisements for the show are very popular and expensive. With all of the other genres though, the possible loss of money from advertisers is too big to risk allowing crude content.
ReplyDeleteI think that censorship is here to stay, but I also think that the word “censorship” can be stretched like a balloon. As the years go on, that balloon will continue to inflate and even what is allowed to be put into some form of media today is a very large bubble. For instance, back in the early years of film, it didn’t contain vulgar imagery such as sex, violence, drug use, or anything seen as harmful or corruptive for the public to view. However, with the use of different distribution techniques and processes, the line was pushed rather than crossed. For movies, the rating system determined what ages could see which movies, and television developed similar ratings to warn their viewers as well. Even though these ratings still exist today, what can be placed within them has changed.
ReplyDeleteI do think that ratings are a good idea, because in the end we don’t want children to see things that they are not mature enough for or could have a negative effect on them psychologically. However, I do think ratings have a negative effect on films being created, because it limits which audience can view the film and how it should be made, which is basically pre-censorship. Writers decide beforehand what the rating will be, and this limits their creativity when creating the story. However, things like HBO and writers who are willing to take a risk often stretch the boundaries for what can be displayed, and I think that is why HBO has so much success with it’s content.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI think in moderation (however that is to be determined), regulation should take place, in the sense that the general public doesn’t want to be exposed to things such as porn or extreme violence. For example, violence and sex in a kids show definitely isn’t the way to go -- most everyone can agree on that. More than rules that networks must follow, I think good judgment is what’s needed for TV. Depending on the content, there should be moderation of that content. If the target age of the show is 3-4 years, then there are obviously things that that age shouldn't be exposed to, just as ages 18 and up should be allowed to see such content. The implementation of safe harbor hours helps in this way, by making some content available during hours that certain age groups are going to be watching television as opposed to others.
ReplyDeleteAs far as pre-censorship goes, I think this does still happen in TV today, though perhaps for a different motivation. Pre-censorship occurs because writers and producers and directors and networks want to create a show that is going to become popular and well-liked, so they go for certain types of content. Rather than being aware of what the general public is going to be offended about, I feel like pre-censorship occurs more for the popularity concept. Shows now do try to be shocking, or a little offensive, or bloody, because they know that there is popularity in that types of content in the modern world. In the past, not so much.
TV censorship is such a tricky topic because it’s so opinionated. I think that TV censorship is an essential part of our culture in terms of how we monitor what can and cannot be heard and seen on television. To claim that it is an inconvenience, in my opinion, would be a foolish thing to say. Although sometimes advertisers do overstep their boundaries and interfere with well done projects as Sterling explains by using the example of the show “Judgment of Nuremberg” “which he claims was one of the most artistically done”. The show had a line deleted that mentioned gas chambers. Although they took the line out because they did not want their product to be associated with the Genocide of Nazi Germany where gas chambers were used to kill Jews. And they made that ridiculous connected because of two words even though the gas chambers that were mentioned contained no connection with those of the concentration camps. It’s just like Seth MacFarlane said, The censors know “what people are gonna get out of shape about on the network.” They know how to get us riled up. But at the same time, Seth also throws out there that their “sensors are their greatest defenders” which is surprising.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I also believe that not being able to express ourselves freely when it isn't physically harming anyone or violating their freedoms is unfair. That being said, those main TV networks like NBC that millions of Americans watch everyday, have a responsibility to protect their viewers by not airing anything egregious. We must restrict what these studios can put out to some extent or there would be chaos.
Pre-censorship creates a different types of writers blocks and doesn't allow writer to express themselves fully. I don’t think that censorship is nearly as prevalent as it was back then because we now live in a much more liberal society. Have there been instances in the past decade where writers and producers have gotten into trouble for the content that was aired, of course. But times are changing, and they are changing rapidly. And there are parts of the country that are more open minded than others and I’m sure creators take that into account as well. As you can see, I'm torn but i don see the pro's and Cons of all those involved in this aspect of media, including the FCC, advertisers and creators of a syndicated motion picture.
Television censorship will clearly always be a controversial issue in the world of entertainment media because content creators will always attempt to challenge the rules placed on them by groups such as the FCC. I believe that censorship can be good in the case of protecting children but at the same time I think that it is a parent’s job to monitor what their children watch. Parents that think a censorship group should be responsible for regulating what their children are watching are simply bad parents. If they want to protect their kids they should make use of the parental controls on their television instead of writing letters to the shows they believe are too crude and vulgar for their children.
ReplyDeleteIn some cases it does seem necessary that networks follow regulations regarding the content they put on the air, but in most cases I believe that networks should be allowed to place whatever content they wish on the air. The rules placed on networks by the FCC are clearly extremely vague and it is unclear as to how the rules are developed. As Rod Sterling stated in the video pre censorship is an issue because content creators have to live in fear of the work they create being rejected by the FCC. He also stated that shows fear that advertisers won’t sponsor them if their show’s content is considered offensive. This is an issue because content creators should never have fear when creating new works. They should be allowed to create work that challenges social norms and that tests the boundaries of the public in order for evolution of the industry to take place.
TV censorship is a sensitive topic. Our country does not like to deal with sensitive topics, meaning that our society seems to be manufacturing people who like to avoid confrontation. However, TV censorship pertains to nearly every American and thus it must be dealt with in one way or another. Right now, censorship is built upon fine lines in an attempt to just barely say something is inoffensive. For instance, Family Guy comes right up to the line of what is acceptable and what is out right offensive. As Seth MacFarlane discusses with Bill Maher, the show cannot say Jesus’ name in vein. So, when a character says “Jesus Christ” they must have Jesus literally appear, although, we all know the true connotation of the language. With such a fine line separating some of these shows from acceptable and offensive, the censorship is a complete joke. Why not loosen the rules and allow television to be art and entertainment that provides a truer representation of the world we live in. People have always paid plenty of money to escape the mundane cable-friendly and family-friendly shows offered to them in order to get grittier entertainment. Why not give these people what they want. Of course, I would suggest setting a time limit on these loosened censorship rules.
ReplyDeleteI believe that pre-censorship, as Rod Serling talked about, is very important and should be the primary form of censorship for television. The writers have their jobs because they know what the people want and how to create the best piece of art for that audience.
Wow, television has really changed since 1959. First you are allowed to smoke and say terms such as ‘negro’ on television, “60 Minutes” in fact. The next, you aren’t allowed to swear or mention sex without getting in a boat load of trouble. Censorship has really come a long way in the last 56 years, but has it been a good thing? In my personal opinion, it depends on what the demographic and the show is. Obviously children’s programming should not have any offensive material in it. Children’s programming is meant for learning and for entertaining children. However with adult programming and entertainment meant for those of an appropriate age, the line between what is right and what wrong could be as thin as a strand of hair. I believe that people now a day’s get offended way too easily when something happens in the media. I do believe that censorship should be used to a certain extent. If you are showing a nice sitcom, you shouldn’t be swearing in every sentence. However if you say the f-word in a scene once or twice, the whole scene shouldn’t be cut out.
ReplyDeletePre-censorship follows the same lines, people should really just let stuff go and learn to take a joke every once and a while. Life is too short to go around criticizing everyone to try and achieve some sort of personal gain. That being said, let’s not make the world a more cruel and rude place than it already is.
In my opinion, television broadcast companies, advertisers and possibly even the viewers should have a say on what they think is or should be censored. Of course, as society and laws changes, we see better television, or at least that is what we think, now than back in the sixties when television was coming largely popular. In accordance with what the FCC currently has for censorship laws, the law is pretty vague in its wording that anyone can have a different definition of censorship that will then reflect upon how the television broadcast companies practice the law. Of course not all television channels have to follow FCC rules such as HBO, Showtime or even in radio like SiriusXM because these are satellite medium that are exempt from most of the rules because their content is not broadcasted via frequency towers to hit local residences. The way the system is currently set up benefits no one but third parties and the FCC sometimes, allowing them to question their contents for violation and then provides them a nice gift as a letter followed by a bill that must be returned to them with a hefty check. Not all television stations have to have censorship policies in their station if they do not want to. Of course, as mentioned in the videos, some stations shouldn’t be even allowed to follow the rules if their demographic has no children in it, where most of the FCC protection rules come to protect the most. Allowing the lack of the definition of censorship in a media company leaves uncertainty between the television broadcast companies, the advertisers, the viewer and the FCC.
ReplyDeleteI never knew Rod Sterling was an Ithaca College Park alum, and it excites me to see how far he got with his success. The Twilight Zone was a very successful program that is considered a classic by many. The fact that Rod Sterling was once like us made me invested in the video right from the start. I learned a lot about censorship from the video and learned that Rod had issues with censorship. He seemed like he intended to have an episode written about a specific social lesson. However, this social lesson was deemed controversial by some and was not allowed to air. I respect how Rod fought for his case and ended up talking about it in the interview. I bet this interview stirred up a few speculation about how the television industry works and how far censorship has gone. A television program like the twilight zone isn't going to jeopardize the reputation it has already built by making an episode too offensive. However, at the time, television had not made its laws like it does not that involve making specific time of the day available for possible offensive content. There are networks out there that are also more tolerant. Rod Sterling dealt with this issue and it is even carrying to programs today like with Seth MacFarlane, the creator of Family guy. Censorship has its good intentions, however goes to far in some cases by limiting the messages that television shows have to offer. However, we are becoming more tolerant by the decade.
ReplyDeleteI truly believe that censorship is something that is not going away any time soon. A long time ago the things that were put on television had a much different sense of what kind of content was appropriate as opposed to today. The important thing to remember though is that many years ago things in society were looked at differently as opposed to today. I do believe that television and movies should still receive a rating based on the content of the show. I believe this because individuals, and parents of children need and want to know the content of the films and television shows so they can use their own discretion when deciding what to watch as well as what they should let their children watch. When these shows are written they have an intention to reach a certain audience. On the other hand, videos and information that happen in real life are out of society’s control and should not have any censoring on them whatsoever. When watching the interview with Rod Serling, an Ithaca College alumni, he spoke about how many different television shows are becoming censored. He then goes on to explain that by censoring them they are creating the shows so that they are clean. But, he goes on to say that society isn’t that way at all. The world has many good and bad things in it and to censor them is to prohibit the public from gaining the necessary knowledge they need to thrive. If we shield the people from real life, they will never learn. In disregard to that, I do believe that the safe harbor rule for children is an important one because children do not need to learn about the indecencies in the world until they are old enough to understand them. I do think that by censoring television shows that these shows are becoming limited in the content, message, and audience that they can reach but to censor real life is not something that I feel is important. Except for censoring shows for children as to keep them away from information and images they do not need to see at such a young age. Censorship is an important topic in today’s society and a very important one that needs to continue to be discussed as the media grows every day.
ReplyDelete