“It is important for those in the industry to show some thought about who they are marketing some of these programs to....
I'm concerned about sex, but I'm also concerned [about] some of the violent slasher-horror films that come out.... I don't
want my 6-year-old or 9-year-old seeing that trailer while she's watching 'American Idol'.''
So said Sen. Barack Obama in a speech in Hollywood. [see commentary here.
Regardless of your politics, it’s difficult to argue with his point.
You don’t offer lap dances at Applebee’s and you don’t show coming attractions for the next “Saw” movie at Chuck E. Cheese’s.
So why should sex-joke-heavy promos for snarky sitcoms air during “Deal or No Deal”? And I’m sure I’m not the only one uncomfortable when explicit erectile dysfunction ads, er, pop up while you’re watching a Sunday afternoon football game with your kids (okay, people who know me know that I rarely watch a Sunday afternoon football game, but you get the, er, point).
As a parent, I can avoid turning the TV to “Sex in the City” or “The Sopranos.” But I have no way of knowing when such ads will appear. And I’m not sure a V-chip would either.
Whenever Hollywood producers bemoans the evils of censorship, I have trouble siding with them completely because I know that while they talk a high-minded anti-censorship, free-speech game, they steadfastly refuse to handle the selling of their material in a responsible way.
In short, for me it’s not irresponsible programming. It’s irresponsible marketing.
Your thoughts?
So said Sen. Barack Obama in a speech in Hollywood. [see commentary here.
Regardless of your politics, it’s difficult to argue with his point.
You don’t offer lap dances at Applebee’s and you don’t show coming attractions for the next “Saw” movie at Chuck E. Cheese’s.
So why should sex-joke-heavy promos for snarky sitcoms air during “Deal or No Deal”? And I’m sure I’m not the only one uncomfortable when explicit erectile dysfunction ads, er, pop up while you’re watching a Sunday afternoon football game with your kids (okay, people who know me know that I rarely watch a Sunday afternoon football game, but you get the, er, point).
As a parent, I can avoid turning the TV to “Sex in the City” or “The Sopranos.” But I have no way of knowing when such ads will appear. And I’m not sure a V-chip would either.
Whenever Hollywood producers bemoans the evils of censorship, I have trouble siding with them completely because I know that while they talk a high-minded anti-censorship, free-speech game, they steadfastly refuse to handle the selling of their material in a responsible way.
In short, for me it’s not irresponsible programming. It’s irresponsible marketing.
Your thoughts?
Back to Top
IBJ Conversations
7 Comments
Add Comment
As for Senator Obama's comments . . . When I hear such things I usually fall back on my default position of opposing more government regulation of entertainment. I don't have the kind of blind trust in markets that capital-L Libertarians exhibit, but neither do I think that making the federal government an arbiter of decency is a really wise idea. I don't see any truly compelling evidence that a crackdown is in order - especially in the age of Tivo, TV series on DVD, and other ways to avoid commercials (which I think are bad for kids no matter what they're for).
Here is a new Problem. Who gets to decide what is Family Friendly and what is inappropiate for tv? It is both the responsability of the V-Chip broadcasters and the Parents to be well informed. If the Parent says, I don't care on one hand, and lets the child watch, play, or see the content, how would the parent have the right to respond negativity to the content?
Many people don't have children, and this is a moot point. Others will say that it is the parents responsiblity to supervise and tell their children about social issues. Things like commericals for erectile disfunction, commericals on gambling in Las Vegas, etc.. Last I checked we were not in Russa or Cuba, so lets stop talking about how to censor this thing or that thing!
So I think that while commercials bring up touchy products, we must also understand that little kids most of the time, won't even know what is being advertised anyway. If they are old enough to ask, then that parent should be brave enough to explain.
I understand your concern about who decides. Ideally, what should happen is that the networks think through when they are placing certain ads, without having to worry about boycotts or government involvement. TV shows get labeled. Parents can decide on what works or doesn't work for their family. Commercials don't get such ratings. Any viewer is at their mercy. A G-rated program can become PG-13 very quickly when you factor in the ads.
Herwiso:
In your first sentence you say that censorship in any form is Anti-American.
In the next you say that these are not porno ads.
If you believe a., then b. shouldn't matter.
Besides, I wasn't talking about censoring. I was talking about networks taking responsibility. And how difficult it is to respect them when they don't.
Of course it's the parents responsibility to talk to their children. But parents should be able to decide, within reason, when to bring up those issues. Responsible parents are aware of what their children watch. Irresponsible broadcasters make that difficult.
As to little kids understanding, just about any child knows what's going on when a CSI promo shows a bloody murder victim.
Thanks to all for the interesting input,
Lou
I'm not going to go so far as to say that any kind of censorship anywhere is un-American (that doesn't really hold up to historical scrutiny anyway), but I am nonetheless leery of the heavy hand of the FCC, which is where discussions like the one I just put forth seem to point.
probably good ol' PBS.
Does anyone remember commercials from the 70's? There are tons of them on YouTube. They were full of sexual innuendo. Try looking up some 70's ads. I think we're regressing in our attitudes about what is acceptable and what isn't.