Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Indecent News
On CNN's coverage of the inaugural parade, you could just hear, quite clearly and distinctly, and rather louder than the voice of the reporter speaking, cries of "Fuck Bush!" repeated about a half dozen times. Now, CNN's on cable, obviously, but I wonder: If this were network news airing the same feed and someone complained, could they be held liable by the FCC just for running live footage from a public event?
|1.20.05 @ 3:51PM|#
Only if you could see Bush's nipple.
If you're referring to Jenna Bush, it's still early in the day.
Give her a few hours...
|1.20.05 @ 4:26PM|#
I'm not entirely sure, but I think that the FCC has a different set of standards for live news than for live entertainment. So a vulgar protestor that inadvertently gets on the air is presumably less a network's fault than a boob in an entertainment sequence.
|1.20.05 @ 4:34PM|#
I noticed the cameras cut away from all the touchdown dances in last weekend's playoff games. I assumed it was because the networks were wary of liability in the aftermath of Randy Moss' display the week before.
|1.20.05 @ 4:38PM|#
Ken, where I read the news/entertainment hairsplitting was in reference to Pitt's quarterback (Palko I think) telling an on-field NBC reporter that he was "so proud of this fucking team" live after they came from behind to beat Notre Dame, and it specifically included sports on the news side, for whatever that's worth.
raymond|1.20.05 @ 4:40PM|#
I was referring to GW.
After his little performance on the flight deck in that revealing
flightsuit, he became a gay icon, like SpongeBob. His nickname:
SpongePants George.
Though I suspect it was rolled up socks.
|1.20.05 @ 6:58PM|#
Of course the Fucking Crap Commission has a different set of
standards for newscasts. Media and the government/politics are
totally in bed with each other. (I don't really have any offhand
reference to back statement that up (little help?), but I just
know. So there.)
Remember the hypocracy of the Janet Bowl nipple being shown over
and over in slow motion on local access newscasts (during daytime
hours, so EVERY tender senior citizen and child could gaze upon
it)? When in fact, the actual "breast malfunction" only lasted
about 1 1/2 seconds, around 10:30-11:30pm? But how would everyone
have gotten to get a good look otherwise?....
|1.20.05 @ 7:35PM|#
I thought even "live" broadcasts were aired on a six-second delay, giving network censors a window to block transmission of any naughty happenings.
|1.21.05 @ 1:15AM|#
On the topic of censorship, something very weird just happened
to me over in the "Hip Evangelists" thread in H&R: I tried to
post a comment, which did not include *anything* hateful or
slanderous, but was somehow screened and edited for the phrase:
___________________.
Well, I didn't bother typing it in, since this post will probably
be censored if I try to submit a post with that phrase in it again.
It wasn't even used in a remotely bad context, but my submission
was actually edited for content. I must say I'm shocked, all
facetiousness aside. Isn't this supposed to be a Libertarian
website? Oh wait, Libertarians -- those dudes aren't for freedom of
speech...my mistake...
I am completely confused...I am not too surprised, knowing my luck:
I would be the only person to somehow be edited on a forum for
"free speech"...hee he heh....
|1.21.05 @ 1:57AM|#
I almost hate to admit that I watched, but I noticed on the Golden Globes the other night that the camera zoomed in just above the cleavage of the Desperate Housewives - they were all standing together giving an award for something or other. And I'm pretty sure it was on purpose; other presenters were shown from about the waist up. Thats pretty bad when theyre so nervous that they feel they have to cut cleavage shots...makes the show a whole lot less entertaining too.
raymond|1.21.05 @ 2:00AM|#
smacky. Well, your post was posted twice on that other thread. So maybe the free-minds gods are making it up to you.
|1.21.05 @ 10:20AM|#
raymond, find National Review's "The Corner" archives for Flight Suit Day - the church ladies are positively pawing themselves about Captain Codpiece.
raymond|1.21.05 @ 10:50AM|#
I'm trying to avoid everything nasty and unpleasant, joe. I even
did not turn on a single news channel yesterday or today.
Couldn't avoid seeing some of it, though, in the local
paper.
(Even if you don't read French, the irony will seep through.)
|1.21.05 @ 11:33AM|#
Actually, the reason my post was posted twice was caused by me,
not gods. I tried to post it a second time, thinking that the last
line of my post was somehow lost on the first transmission. That's
when I got a special page notifying me that I was stepping on
someone's toes by referencing gerbils in the context of gayness.
And yea, the gods doth deleted my bad joke. And it was good.
Whatever. That makes me really mad.
raymond|1.21.05 @ 11:45AM|#
a little experiment...
If a gerbil also lie with gerbilkind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
Now let's see what happens.
|1.21.05 @ 5:17PM|#
hee hee....
Raymond,
I think you made it past the Storm Troopers this time...maybe they
were in fact editing my writing style. It is really rough around
the edges, after all...sort of like pulling a gerbil out of your -
[bleeeeep] [i'm sorry, we are currently experiencing technical
difficulties on this website. please try your post again
later.]
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245