Wow, they've gone done and shot the moral standards.

[I.R Joey]

Networks Plan on Blaspheming God – Most Shocking TV Season Ever
John Edwards for NewsMax.com
Tuesday, Sept. 4, 2001
The major TV networks are planning a full-scale attack on traditional values and sensibilities with this fall’s upcoming TV season, NewsMax.com has learned.
ABC, CBS and NBC are considering dropping many of the few remaining standards on network prime-time TV programs – and will likely allow expletives and four-letter words never spoken before on broadcast TV.

The New York Times reported over the Labor Day weekend that NBC's "The West Wing" program is planning on breaking "a longstanding network taboo" this fall.

Aaron Sorkin, the executive producer of "The West Wing," told the Times he is planning for "a character to curse in a way that uses the Lord's name in vain."

Sorkin and his cronies at NBC are not the only ones trying to undermine civility. Other plans being touted by the networks include:

ABC’s "Philly" is planning on using the word "Sh--" – which has never aired before on an ABC program.

CBS executives have told the Times they are considering "scripts for programs that include every crude word imaginable" – including the "F" word that has never been uttered on broadcast TV. (The Times described the "F" word as the same word one would use to describe the making of stem cells, i.e., fertilized embryos.)

CBS will air "Wolf Lake" – a new TV show about a fictional town where people can become wolves. The program will begin with a nudity warning, and CBS executives told the Times "the first episode contains a particularly revealing sex scene."
The free-for-all attitude on the use of expletives and shocking scenes doesn't come in a vacuum.

Little by little, broadcast networks have been tackling industry standards and challenging public decency – with no complaint from the Federal Communications Commission.

The FCC is charged with maintaining decency and standards on the airwaves. The airwaves are owned by the public, and networks broadcast by license and at the discretion of the public.

Still, the Times reports that "the F.C.C. said the number of indecency complaints involving television remained negligible and no actions had been taken against stations for network programs this year."

"What's really happening now is a transformation to the daily normalization of this," Robert Thompson, professor of media at Syracuse University, told the Times. "It's commonplace to hear erection jokes on 'Friends' at 8 o'clock; even gentle little programs like 'Everybody Loves Raymond' have the kind of stuff that, when it played on 'Three's Company' 20 years ago, made the PTA go completely ballistic."

Network executives say that several reasons are forcing them to program down-market.

The success of cable shows like HBO's "The Sopranos" – which uses graphic scenes and expletives – is drawing viewers away from broadcast TV.

The major networks claim they fear the loss of key advertisers, who are seeking the youth market, the market that is seeking and finding more risqué material on cable networks.

Still, the Times contends, apathy by the public is the major reason the networks are moving to lower standards.

[I.R Joey]

Well here's my take on it...

What I find funny is how people like to present these over sexualized images of things and portray them as "reality." I mean in many of these shows people participate in intercoarse like its some kind of game, and yet still rarely do people get STD's or pregnant (the latter seems to be happening more, with all these teen dramas.) I don't think many of these portrayals of sexuality are realistic at all.

Violence: As a novelist and a screenplay writer (and yes I am a Christian) I can see that violence often has its place. Sensless violence (people getting decapitated just fro the heck of it) is stupid, and like a nife used against brick in excess becomes dull (the same thing can be said with sex and language.) However, if the violence is used as an emotinal cadalist for a charecter's motivation, and not just as a cheep popularity jack (ex. The last part of Romeo and Juliet) then I say it can be one of the most effective plot devices in existance. BTW if any Christian comes lecturing to any of you about violence not having a place anywhere tell them that God's used it before, and that they should go read Judges, and Song's of Solomon some of the stuff in their is like : .

Language: I myself never use foul language, it's just who I am and what I believe, and if people think that's stupid then that's their problem. I have had someone say "hell" before, and even had someone call someone else a "bastard." But, often I believe that excesive offensive stuff is the sign of bad writing not good writing. I mean everyone is so trying to rebel in this day and age that they don't realize how much their conforming. I mean how many raunchy cartoons do we need (not to say that cartoons are just for kids or anything, I'm currently watching EVA for the 1st time.) But still.


Oh well. Ending rant now.

[Crazy8s]

I recently read this, too. Needless to say, I'm not thrilled, nor am I surprised. The height of comedy nowdays appears to be crude references to sex, strings of foul language and toilet humor. And the fouler the dialogue, the more respect a drama seems to command. I've been griping about this stuff for ages. I already avoid most network comedies because I find them juvenile and less than amusing in their obsession with sexuality and raunch.

But what do you expect the networks to do? They see the success of stuff like Sex In The City and Supranos and they want in on the action. Personally, I have no interest in either of these cable shows, but many do (as I've noted on this site). I watch few of these type of programs now blanketing the tube, and I'm not planning on beginning to watch them now. I'll keep searching out gems like Witchblade and the late, lamented Lone Gunmen. For me, none of the other crap exists.

On violence: As a writer, I feel that a story is nothing without conflict, and internal conflicts can carry a story only so far. I am not disturbed by violence within a show if it is necessary to the plot and not drawn out as violence for violence's sake. I don't feel graphic violence is needed, but the action genre must have bad guys who do more than make faces and send flaming emails.

On sexual situations: I've got nothing against sex, but I much prefer romance, which is sadly lacking nowdays. Sex without romance leaves me cold--and disgusted. Phoney romances that seem created simply to get characters in bed also annoy me (Drew Carey's show completely alienated me after zillions of brief 'romances' that always ended up in the bedroom). As far as the depiction of sexual situations--well, the imagination can do so much more than anything shown. I prefer not to see people humping and groaning like hooked up dogs. Sexual situations should be tasteful and titilating and leave the final act for us to imagine, not to view.

[joker]

this is just more of the crap that is being on tv because of the crap that was being forced onto it earlier i guess.

violence: im a big fan of horror movies, so violence is a good thing(not in the real world, in the real world its terrible). not to say that a horror movie is bad if its not a chop em up fest, there are some real good ones with minimal violence.....but any way.... as long as its cool looking and not totally pointless.

cussing: im a christian and i think cussing is wrong and makes a movie/show look stupid some times. i think it makes the character look dumb or having a low i.q. i dont support it all.

sex: bleh. sex has no place in movies(unless its a porno, but i dont know if that can even be considered a type of movie, more like garbage on film) on on tv. sex is an intimate thing that i think that should be kept private and not made some casual activity just for kicks, as movie/tv shows often display it.

i think that the stuff on tv is just going to get worse and worse. i think its sad that some of the stuff played on tv can be considered entertainment.

[happyheathen]

Then, I take it, SOME censorship is MANDATORY?

If you don't like it, don't watch it (same as I avoid newsmax and other right-wing/conservative pulpits)

[batboy2001]

Wow, some good points said by IR and Joker. I believe the same thing.

[BourgeoisBuffoon]

Happyheathen said it best-you do not need to watch it if you don't like it...

...I think all these things SHOULD be allowed, but only in moderation. Cussing ...well...if the person on TV screws up majorly, I think he/she should be allowed to cuss.
And violence, well, I also say every story will likely have a conflict with this stuff. After all, most of those villains with guns got them to shoot in the first place...

....sex should DEFINANTLY be shown in moderation. Nothing too "rude", but perhaps seeing the two converse in bed and all is all right, I suppose. But actually, seeing the two...uh....do the thing to me may not be the most exciting part to watch, actually, so we can pan away at that point.

I also agree a lot with I.R. Joey's points in using them for emotion and drama...they can be very effective.

Okay, I better shut up now...

[Leaping Larry Jojo]

Hey, guys, quit slamming porno movies! It serves its purpose...Lord knows it did for me and my girlfriend way back...

But graphic sex in mainstream film or TV is, admittedly, pointless. I don't condemn it, but artistically, it rarely serves much purpose to the story. It depends on the dialogue of the specific scene and what the show wants to do with it.

Violence I have no problem with. People have been entertained by violence since before the Roman empire. Except now people are actually more civilized, which goes to show that what we are entertained by doesn't necessarily reflect our actual natures.

Foul language? Eh, I use it in moderation. When I screw up, or hit my head on something, I curse--like most people do. I don't use it that often in normal conversation, if at all, but I know people who do. If the show is trying to create a kind of person and wants to be true to his or her background, foul language can add realism to the dialogue.

These are very minor things that I am concerned about in TV land. What DOES concern me is the lack of originality these days. We've gone maybe 4 seasons without a real "buzz" show on network TV, and fewer and fewer shows speak to our generation--or maybe because it is the lack of something to say about our generation, which is, admittedly, less eventful than say, the 60s or 70s. But I look at the schedule and see all these pedestrian concepts for the new shows and I wonder if we haven't run out of ideas by now.

In the end, though Buffoon has it right on the nail. We don't have to watch what's on TV. If we want, we could go out and get our favourite shows from yesteryear on DVD. Watching TV is an option, not a necessity. What regulates TV is what the "greater" majority wants (or so the concept goes).

[Jowy Blight]

Hey, guys, quit slamming porno movies! It serves its purpose...Lord knows it did for me and my girlfriend way back...

I'm not even going to ask.........

[Leaping Larry Jojo]

Hey, some days it's "on" and some days it isn't. Sometimes people need a little jump start on those "off" days.

But that was a few years ago, anyway. (And yes, we were over 18 at the time).

Now I am a true geek. But those were some days...

[Maxie Zeus]

Originally posted by happyheathen
Then, I take it, SOME censorship is MANDATORY?

If you don't like it, don't watch it (same as I avoid newsmax and other right-wing/conservative pulpits)

Well, IRJoey and the others have been very careful NOT to call for "censorship" or anything else, but only to complain about the aesthetics of it-- the resulting lazy writing, hackneyed situations, and scenes and situations that they find uninteresting and/or repugnant. Surely there is nothing wrong with complaining about how *unsuccessful* as entertainment a lot of these shows are because they substitute abuse and innuendo for wit, and violence for conflict?

Anyway, the complaint about the "moral squalor" the networks are unleashing seems entirely parallel to the complaints one heard about lazy racist stereotyping in the past. One need not draw the corollary that such product should be stamped out, let alone that past examples should be destroyed or proscribed. (I for one am still incensed at CN banning those Bugs cartoons from "June Bugs.") It is only to recognize that there are reasons for discouraging these, and that those who object can, within reason, work to discourage them. Otherwise, those who object to "Amos and Andy" portrayals of African-Americans could be advised simply not to watch them.

BTW, I for one am not impressed by the "if you don't like it you don't have to watch it" line. It has the effect of forcing people out of what could be (and in large measure should be, I think) a public sphere. It is akin to telling those who pushed for progressive, left-socialist policies during the 50s and 60s to "move to Russia." Certainly that was an option for them, but to tell that was their only option, or the one they MUST pursue is highly unwelcoming. If you don't like the way your corner of the world is, I think you have a right to mention that fact, and to push for a change. HOW that change is effected is a different matter.

[Leaping Larry Jojo]

Originally posted by Maxie Zeus




BTW, I for one am not impressed by the "if you don't like it you don't have to watch it" line. It has the effect of forcing people out of what could be (and in large measure should be, I think) a public sphere. It is akin to telling those who pushed for progressive, left-socialist policies during the 50s and 60s to "move to Russia." If you don't like the way your corner of the world is, I think you have a right to mention that fact, and to push for a change. HOW that change is effected is a different matter.

Yes, well, I COULD be wrong, but don't you think standard of living SHOULD take precedence over something people do for leisure? I mean, I'm not SAYING that they SHOULDN'T fight for what they want, but I do believe that one must prioritize their goals.

But then, it's not like I am totally unsatisfied with ALL the entertainment I'm given, so maybe that's why. I still like to watch a lot of movies and TV, and as unoriginal as they may be, I don't have much to complain about. Those times where I do want to something about the industry are more along the lines of, "Hmm, maybe I should write some scripts for THAT show!" rather than "I'm going to write to my congressman about that terrible show!"

[Nightwing]

Originally posted by happyheathen
If you don't like it, don't watch it

Well I'M a message board moderator, and therefore to receive a nickel for everytime I've heard this "I'd make Lex Luthor look like a pauper."

I wish I could agree with Happyheathen, but I can't, because I know things are unfortunately not that cut and dry.

Yeah I don't want myself or my culture to be afraid of words, however at the same time I don't want our culture's standards as a whole to go down, and that's what this news of the networks is inching towards, in my little opinion.

That's the only reason why I advocate SOME types of censorship, because not everyone else feels the way I do about VOLUNTARILY wanting not to use those types of words and use vulgarity to push a story.

I want people to chose not to use that type of stuff, but that won't happen overnight. I've got a long waiting time of cultural evolution to go through first.


EDIT: I just read what Larry quoted from Maxie above, that I neglected to see, and I agree with it completely. Yeah we have to prioritize, since we're talking about the entertainment industry, but I still understand and agree with his point.

[Leaping Larry Jojo]

Originally posted by Nightwing


Well I'M a message board moderator, and therefore to receive a nickel for everytime I've heard this "I'd make Lex Luthor look like a pauper."

I wish I could agree with Happyheathen, but I can't, because I know things are unfortunately not that cut and dry.

Yeah I don't want myself or my culture to be afraid of words, however at the same time I don't want our culture's standards as a whole to go down, and that's what this news of the networks is inching towards, in my little opinion.

I'm of the opinion that less censorship will help pick out the good from the bad. Truly good writers will show some self-restraint and *gasp* subtlety. Bad ones will abuse the freedom and put everything but the kitchen sink into their scripts. It seems to me that censorship helps shield bad writing (The ol' "Blame it on the censorship!" line).

Now, as for standard of living and society, I am definitely more conservative about matters concerning that (i.e. We need laws!).

[optimal321]

A lot of the good points have already been made, so i'll be brief. It's not the violence, sex, or cussing i really mind. It's the fact that people are now using these as plot devices to create the show, not the other way around. The types of shows that would over use these are the types of shows that seem to think dropping the "F" bomb while having sex during a gang war is the only way they can get ratings. So, i'm not really upset w/ the lack of censorship, i'm upset w/ the lack of taste and originality.

[Maxie Zeus]

Originally posted by Leaping Larry Jojo
Yes, well, I COULD be wrong, but don't you think standard of living SHOULD take precedence over something people do for leisure?

First, being reasonably conservative I am inclined to think that we UNDERestimate the power and importance of "entertainment" and its effects upon our cultural and social relations, and OVERestimate the importance of the material. "Leisure time"--those moments when we are not simply working--is precisely the time when we mold ourselves--our consciences, morals, values and virtues because it is the time we are most apt to reflect upon them. One reason we allow children to play at all instead of putting them directly into factories or schools is that in play they become socialized; they learn who they and their mates are and how to treat them as other than sources of money. Playtime in any of its forms--including the play of watching others at play--is very important. The fact that many of us value playtime at the expense of our material well-being I think reflects our own latent recognition of this point.

But leave that aside. My deeper point is that the "go watch something else" response only works where there is something else to watch, and one of the complaints being made (and seconded by others in this thread) is that increasingly there IS nothing else to watch; those who want quality fictional television that does not rely upon the crass and vulgar often cannot find it. At which point, the only option for those who do not acquiesce in the current culture is to marginalize themselves by entirely dropping out.

To see how unfair this is, imagine the reverse situation. Imagine economic and demographic pressures (NOT censorship) led to the rapid and rampant explosion of "preacher TV": Every network began airing almost nothing but religious programs dedicated to the spreading of the Gospels. And imagine you complained (as I certainly would) -- "I don't like this stuff, I find it distasteful and offensive, and can't we have something else, too?" -- only to be told, "If you don't like Jimmy Swaggert, go read a book." You would, I think, object to being shoved aside, and treated simply as a malcontent whose opinions SHOULD NOT be given consideration.

My point has nothing to do with the particular merits of the NewsMax complaint, or the relative importance of culture, but with the basic respect that ought to be accorded to one who voices dissatisfaction. At the end of the day, the dissenter may lose; the dissenter may even be forced into exile if his dissents become dangerous. But to dismiss any dissent *merely* because it *is* dissent is illiberal, I think, in a way that only the most blinkered dogmatist could accept.

[Maxie Zeus]

Originally posted by optimal321
A lot of the good points have already been made, so i'll be brief. It's not the violence, sex, or cussing i really mind. It's the fact that people are now using these as plot devices to create the show, not the other way around. The types of shows that would over use these are the types of shows that seem to think dropping the "F" bomb while having sex during a gang war is the only way they can get ratings. So, i'm not really upset w/ the lack of censorship, i'm upset w/ the lack of taste and originality.

I agree entirely, and think this is a beautiful statement.

The problem with censorship is that it stifles creativity and diversity of expression, both in form and content. The problem with mass conformity is the same. The freedom to be creative or diverse is an empty promise when it is not taken advantage of. One way of reading the NewsMax complaint is that there is too much conformity in broadcast entertainment--a conformity that, ironically, is almost the mirror image of the conformity of the 40s and 50s entertainments.

Most of us, I think (except the diehard morality cops) can agree that we are all in favor of quality entertainment, and agree that quality entertainment can run the gamut from G to NC-17 (or even XXX), and that quality entertainment in all its degrees should be tolerated and encouraged. Competitive pressures that push the range entirely within the PG-13 or R are just as inhibiting as censorship pressures that drive it entirely into the realm of G and PG.

[Leaping Larry Jojo]

Originally posted by Maxie Zeus


First, being reasonably conservative I am inclined to think that we UNDERestimate the power and importance of "entertainment" and its effects upon our cultural and social relations, and OVERestimate the importance of the material. "Leisure time"--those moments when we are not simply working--is precisely the time when we mold ourselves--our consciences, morals, values and virtues because it is the time we are most apt to reflect upon them. One reason we allow children to play at all instead of putting them directly into factories or schools is that in play they become socialized; they learn who they and their mates are and how to treat them as other than sources of money. Playtime in any of its forms--including the play of watching others at play--is very important. The fact that many of us value playtime at the expense of our material well-being I think reflects our own latent recognition of this point.

But leave that aside. My deeper point is that the "go watch something else" response only works where there is something else to watch, and one of the complaints being made (and seconded by others in this thread) is that increasingly there IS nothing else to watch; those who want quality fictional television that does not rely upon the crass and vulgar often cannot find it. At which point, the only option for those who do not acquiesce in the current culture is to marginalize themselves by entirely dropping out.

To see how unfair this is, imagine the reverse situation. Imagine economic and demographic pressures (NOT censorship) led to the rapid and rampant explosion of "preacher TV": Every network began airing almost nothing but religious programs dedicated to the spreading of the Gospels. And imagine you complained (as I certainly would) -- "I don't like this stuff, I find it distasteful and offensive, and can't we have something else, too?" -- only to be told, "If you don't like Jimmy Swaggert, go read a book." You would, I think, object to being shoved aside, and treated simply as a malcontent whose opinions SHOULD NOT be given consideration.

My point has nothing to do with the particular merits of the NewsMax complaint, or the relative importance of culture, but with the basic respect that ought to be accorded to one who voices dissatisfaction. At the end of the day, the dissenter may lose; the dissenter may even be forced into exile if his dissents become dangerous. But to dismiss any dissent *merely* because it *is* dissent is illiberal, I think, in a way that only the most blinkered dogmatist could accept.

What can I say, but quote Keanu Reeves and go, "Whoa."

While I'm not quite the neo-conspiracy theorist as what you present here, boiled down, you have a point. But I still think we are inflating conclusions a tad, especially since the "Big Brother" scenario brought up here hasn't happened yet, and is, at this point in time, a little far fetched.

What I see also isn't necessarily "There isn't anything to watch." True, we are at a low point, but it is hardly as desperate as what I see described. A lot of it has to do with our own personalities, tastes, and mindsets. Some of us get bothered by the littlest things--"I don't like watching movies with cigarettes," or "Men with beards bother me. So I think it's crap." While these examples point to no one in particular here, my point is that sometimes we close our minds and *think* everything is going to hell, but if we get rid of some of our mindsets, we just may find something good. Cynicism seems to be a popular trend in the 90s and the new century. So we are more closed about things than we used to be, and that limits us as creators and spectators.

As for being shoved aside, well, we ARE shoved aside on a daily basis. TRUE democracy is a lie. What we as humans learn how to do is adapt, more often than not. Sure, you can hope for a revolution, but if you and 10 other guys from Toonzone want to argue the tastes of millions of people, I must say, the outcome seems a little one-sided, right? Yes, I have been frustrated by certain things, but if TV were to suddenly go to hell like you described, I wouldn't fight unless a sizeable number of the population held the same opinion as I do, and only if my life depended on it.

[The Mad Hatter]

Man, the points I wanted to make have already been made. I'm a big believer in freedom of expression, but it seems like these networks are using the extreme stuff as the reason unto itself to draw an audience, as opposed to furthering the story (like how sometimes violence can be very effective, or the occasionall, well-placed curse word can have a greater impact than a string of *bleeps*). Furthermore, it sounds like they're using the extreme stuff to promote the show, rather than originality.

And, even though I tend to be of the liberal persuasion, Maxie does have a point... it does seem like there isn't enough less extreme shows on TV anymore. Man, whatever happened to counter-programming? If one station shows a drama, show a comedy so you'll attract those who want to laugh. Nowadays, both networks will show the same type of thing, and as a result fight over an increasingly smaller audience.

Sad thing is, South Park has already skewered this type of thinking. Instead of coming up with a decent show, network execs tried to attract an audience by saying *bleep* over and over and over.

[happyheathen]

Originally posted by Leaping Larry Jojo

... Cynicism seems to be a popular trend in the 90s and the new century...

I wish to point out that I was cynical BEFORE it came fashionable