FCC and Saving Private Ryan...

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

AvsGirl41

New Yorker
Joined
Aug 28, 2002
Messages
2,948
Location
Denver, Colorado
Unfortunately, I don't have a link to the article because I pulled it off Comcast.

This movie isn't one of my favorites, but that first 20 minutes is one of the most harrowing ever put on film.

How interesting we don't want it aired any longer! :hmm: War is glory and all that, I suppose. None of the grit and dirt.



[Q]TV Stations Cancel 'Saving Private Ryan'

54 minutes ago

By LEON DROUIN KEITH, Associated Press Writer

NEW YORK - Several ABC affiliates have announced that they won't take part in the network's Veterans Day airing of "Saving Private Ryan," saying the acclaimed film's violence and language could draw sanctions from the Federal Communications Commission.

Stations replacing the movie with other programming Thursday include Cox Television-owned stations in Atlanta and Charlotte, N.C., three Midwest stations owned by Citadel Communications.

"Under strict interpretation of the rules, we can't run that programming before 10 p.m.," said Ray Cole, president of Citadel, which owns WOI-TV in Des Moines, KCAU-TV in Sioux City and KLKN-TV in Lincoln, Neb.

The Oscar-winning film includes a violent depiction of the D-Day invasion and profanity.

"We have attempted to get an advanced waiver from the FCC and, remarkably to me, they are not willing to do so," Cole told The Des Moines Register.

In a statement on the Web site of Atlanta's WSB-TV, the station's vice president and general manager, Greg Stone cited a March ruling in which the FCC said an expletive uttered by rock star Bono during NBC's live airing of the 2003 Golden Globe Awards was both indecent and profane.

The agency made it clear then that virtually any use of the F-word _ which is used in "Saving Private Ryan" _ was inappropriate for over-the-air radio and television.

The Bono case "reversed years of prior policy that the context of language matters," Stone said. He added that broadcaster could not get any clarification from the FCC on whether the movie violates the standard.

Other stations that decided not to air the movie include WGNO-TV of New Orleans, owned by Tribune Broadcasting Corp., and WMUR-TV of Manchester, N.H., owned by Hearst-Argyle Television Inc.

ABC, which broadcast the film uncut in 2001 and 2002, issued a statement saying it is proud to broadcast it again. The network's contract with director Steven Spielberg stipulates that the film cannot be edited.

"As in the past, this broadcast will contain appropriate and clear advisories and parental guidelines," the statement said.

Several stations said ABC had rejected their requests to air the movie after 10 p.m.

An FCC spokeswoman said Wednesday that the agency does not monitor television broadcasts, but responds to complaints. The agency did receive a complaint after the 2001 broadcast of "Saving Private Ryan," but it was denied, she said.

WSOC-TV of Charlotte said it had received complaints about language in the movie when it was aired in 2001 and 2002.

"Now, after much concern and discussion about family viewing over past months, and with Americans at war across the world, it is the vivid depiction of violence combined with graphic language proposed to begin airing at 8 p.m. that has forced our decision," said Lee Armstrong, the station's vice president and general manager.

ABC has told its affiliates it would cover any fines, but Cole, of Citadel, said the network could not protect its affiliates against other FCC sanctions.

The FCC has stepped up enforcement of its decency standards for certain content following this year's Super Bowl halftime show, in which one of Janet Jackson's breasts was exposed.

Profane speech, which is barred from broadcast radio and television between 6 a.m. and 10 p.m., is defined by the FCC as language that is "so grossly offensive to members of the public who actually hear it as to amount to a nuisance," or epithets that tend "to provoke violent resentment."

The guidelines say the context in which such material appears is of critical importance.

Cole cited recent FCC actions and last week's re-election of President Bush as reasons for replacing "Saving Private Ryan" on Thursday with a music program and the TV movie "Return to Mayberry."

"We're just coming off an election where moral issues were cited as a reason by people voting one way or another and, in my opinion, the commissioners are fearful of the new Congress," Cole said.[/Q]
 
What the fuck! It is a very good movie that does not sugar coat or glorify war. Bloody moral police make my blood boil.
 
Totally ridiculous. That movie is in my top 25 favorites, and one of my favorite war films. The first 20 minutes are hard to take, it's meant to be grueling, but it sets the tone of the war. Not only is it cinematically powerful, it's purpose is to portray the horrific events of D-Day as described by people who were actually there (read D-Day or any other book by hostorian Stephen Ambrose, who was consulted while making the film) That scene brings a very painful human aspect to the film, and imo is a necessary part of the movie.
 
nbcrusader said:


This is political nonsense - a preemtive reaction to something that has not occurred and with no indication that it will occur.

:down:

Actually "no indication that it will occur" isn't exactly true. The FCC is cracking down on "offensive" language, so it very well could impose sanctions. A pity.
 
:down:

Honestly I was afraid to see that in the theater, when I rented it it I tried to force myself to watch all the gruesome parts. It was emotionally overwhelming.

War is Hell, and let's not censor that
 
This is ridiculous. There's always the "off" switch, also if parents don't want their kids to watch something that graphic, they can just say "no". Is the whole concept of choice going down the tube?
 
if this were a true story, instead of merely being based on real events, i'm sure they'd play it uncut, much like they played schindler's list. :shrug: who knows...

if they don't show it on your local ABC and you reeeeally want to see it, or to show it to your kids, it's readily available at your local blockbuster.
 
this is not without precedent. take a look at what senator-elect Coburn said back in 1997 when another Oscar-winning, unflinching Spielberg movie was to be broadcast on-air: "irresponsible sexual behavior ... [taking] network TV to an all-time low with full frontal nudity, violence and profanity being shown in our homes."

these are your politicans, America. they really dont' want to be part of the reality-based community.
 
indra said:
Actually "no indication that it will occur" isn't exactly true. The FCC is cracking down on "offensive" language, so it very well could impose sanctions. A pity.

Have their been any fines for offensive language in dramatic war movies? I really see this as more of a political statement to the FCC than a real programming decision.
 
LarryMullen's_POPAngel said:
What bullshit is this, when we can have half naked women on tv and endless reality tv shows with people eating worms but we can't show something that depicts real life, albeit an ugly facet of it. :down:

Big brother needs to go screw himself.


and it's just going to get worse.


:(
 
If I were a parent I would much rather have my adolescent child watch an uncut version of Saving Private Ryan (with me in the room with him/her, of course) than all those trashy reality TV shows and teen soaps. :down:
 
I believe there are 48 “fucks” in SPR


This is reason alone not to air it on primetime
commercial tv when school children could view it


I would rather 2nd and 3rd graders see a blurred split second Janet Jackson breast than three hours of this gore and profanity.


Let it play on cable TV.

Where there is no threat of FCC fines.
 
Last edited:
If you can expose the reality of people's sex lives on national TV, you should be allowed to expose the harsh reality of war. I've been more disgusted with the show Fear Factor than 98% of the uncensored things I've seen. Saving Private Ryan is not one of them.
 
Censorship is wrong, period. And the FCC is ridiculous. This kind of censorship is shielding kids from the real world. In the real world, people curse. In the real world, there's nudity. In the real world, people die. In the real world, there's bloodshed. I would much rather watch these things(whether it be a movie like SPR, the stupid Janet Jackson thing, Bono saying 'this is really fucking brilliant' or anything else like that) with my children(if/when I have any) and discuss it with them and hopefully foster in them the maturity needed to handle these things in the real world. Because sooner or later they're gonna be in the real live world, and you're not gonna be there, and no bleepers are gonna be there, and no blurration devices are gonna be there, nothing like that. Just your kid and the world. And if kids are censored and shielded from the real world all the time, they're not gonna be knowledgable about the real world, and they're not gonna be ready for it. Censorship is crap.
 
ABC already showed Saving Private Ryan uncut a few years ago, with no problems whatsoever.

In fact, ABC also showed an Anne Frank TV movie back in 2001, and there was a lengthy scene featuring underage nudity in it. And I repeat, that was even specifically made for television. It was also a really powerful movie that needed to air. But it never would in today's climate.

So this troubles me.
 
namkcuR said:
Censorship is wrong, period. And the FCC is ridiculous. This kind of censorship is shielding kids from the real world. In the real world, people curse. In the real world, there's nudity. In the real world, people die. In the real world, there's bloodshed. I would much rather watch these things(whether it be a movie like SPR, the stupid Janet Jackson thing, Bono saying 'this is really fucking brilliant' or anything else like that) with my children(if/when I have any) and discuss it with them and hopefully foster in them the maturity needed to handle these things in the real world. Because sooner or later they're gonna be in the real live world, and you're not gonna be there, and no bleepers are gonna be there, and no blurration devices are gonna be there, nothing like that. Just your kid and the world. And if kids are censored and shielded from the real world all the time, they're not gonna be knowledgable about the real world, and they're not gonna be ready for it. Censorship is crap.

Censorship is wrong. But there is no censorship in this situation. Just a few ABC affiliates making a political statement.

In fact, the FCC refused to specifically comment on the airing of the movie as such comment would be considered a prior restraint, which is the core prohibition of censorship.
 
i dont mean to self promote, but this is the type of result i was referring to in this thread

-

an interesting situation, especially given that this same movie, and, arguably, content more offensive than it, has previously been shown on first tier broadcast television.
 
Back
Top Bottom