Ma for Mature Audience: Too Risqué?

Alexandra Blooding
Leif Swanson
Composition 1010-13
04 December 2011
MA for Mature Audience: Too Risqué?
“Oh, how the times have changed”. This simplistic cliché describes modern situations concerning television perfectly. On might hear, “When I was your age, there were only thirteen channels on television; heck, only half of them worked. The other half showed a gray fuzzy layer over ghostly figures of people”. Boy, have the times changed. After about thirty-five short years there are over a thousand channels available to any given satellite or cable subscriber. They can be offered in high definition, or even in the third dimension. Not only has the quality of TV changed, but also the content viewed by the average individual in American society. There is an unmistakable shift in the tolerance of obscenity-- whether the lenience is in the language usage or it is in physical contact between people. The level of indecency on television has escalated over the years and should be censored in moderation. After exploring a brief history of TV, the primary causes and the effects of indecency on television, a focused solution will be offered.
First of all, what is accepted as indecency or obscenity should be discussed. It can be anything from bad language or sexual content to violence. Subject matter can also be classified as obscene if it alludes to rape, murder, different sexualities, etc. Obscene content was an apprehension even when color TV was 16 years of age. In 1969 George Bernard Shaw [playwright and critic] was asked what he thought of television, “he retorted with typical Shavian wit and precision—‘I don’t know; I’m afraid to look” (Self-regulation…). If it was of concern then, imagine how far it has gone now.
The growth of the television industry throughout its history has boomed (through the end of the 20th and into the 21st century). As unbelievable as it sounds, television at one point was rather lifeless. Shades of gray complimented the white spaces of a lit up, glass, convex screen inside of a large, wooden box. If the antennas were not positioned just right then the picture and sound would turn into “snow”. Now there is a color spectrum as far as you can imagine; TV can be found as a plasma flat screen mounted up onto a wall. The way a person views a show is not the only thing that has changed. Since then, the content found in programs has transformed. When television started out, characters could not be filmed lying in bed together. Take the 1950s sitcom I Love Lucy for example: In the beginning years of the show, Lucy Ricardo and Ricky Ricardo’s beds were on opposite sides of the room. It was not until after they had a baby they pushed the beds together. Even then, the sides of each bed were tucked in creating an image there would be no physical contact. It seems like the little things had a domino effect and now television has spiraled into virtually limitless entertainment.
In modern television there are things that would not have been remotely considered appropriate sixty years ago. There is a television show called Reba staring Reba McEntire. Reba Hart is single mother of three children who divorced her husband for cheating on her. Her eldest daughter (Cheyenne Hart) was on the varsity cheer squad and dated a quarterback (Van Montgomery) on the football team. Before her senior year, Cheyenne found out she was pregnant. Van and Cheyenne got married and nine months later the couple popped out a baby girl. Reba allowed the teenagers to stay in her home while they finished high school. Unlike Ricky and Lucy, they shared a bed. Now, it is thought-provoking to know Reba is a very mild show compared to today’s standards.
The League. In 2006 it was said, “As writers of cable and satellite programs have ‘pushed the envelope’ to see how far they can go with obscenity, critics have termed programs everything from ‘tacky’ and ‘in bad taste’ to ‘raunchy’ and ‘suffocating sewage’ (Indecent Exposure). Let us explore how this has come about.
One cause of indecency on television is people expressing their first amendment right-- freedom of speech. People seem to feel because the government is covering up their rights with bleeps and solid black bars, their freedom to say what they want is being suppressed. There was a PBS documentary interviewing blues musicians done by Martin Scorsese. Some of the musicians used swear words. It was said, “deleting swear words ‘would have altered the nature of the artistic work and diminished the power, realism, and immediacy of the film experience’” (Indecent… Should Not…).
A second cause of indecency on television is the reduction of hypersensitivity towards what used to be considered obscene. Jack Johnson (not the famous heavy weight boxer, but the talented singer-songwriter) put it into context very well. In his song Good People the lyrics say, “turn on the boob tube [TV]. I’m in the mood to obey…. Station to station desensitizing the nation” (Jack Johnson Lyrics). In other words, the more people get used to certain ideas the more widely accepted, or tolerated, they become.
One effect of having indecency on TV is the formation of groups such as the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), Parents Television Council (PTC) and many activists for cleaning up the airways. At the head is the FCC. It has been established since 1934 by the Communications Act and is government based. They regulate interstate and international communications by radio, television, wire, satellite and cable (About the FCC). Succeeding is the PTC. It is basically a formal, informative, blog/forum site allowing parents from everywhere to discuss what is important to them. They talk about what television shows and movies are safe for children to see and what shows and movies have negative influences. They also aid in submitting complaints to the FCC and advocate for the children. The PTC is about keeping television in the public interest. Children are also the public with just as many rights to the television as anybody else. Lastly, there are activists. Activists are the base of the two above groups. Without their motivation to keep TV respectable, the FCC and PTC would not have been formed.
Another effect of indecency on TV is complacency. In 1939 the classic film Gone With the Wind had shown in theaters. When Rhett Butler says to Scarlet O’Hara, “Frankly, my dear, I don’t give a damn” people actually got up and left the theater. They didn’t even stick around to see the remaining minutes of the movie. Alfred Hitchcock’s horror flick Psycho came out in 1960. It opened a big door for movie producers in the United States. Psycho was a movie about a murder, alluding to the violence without actually seeing it. In an NPR (National Public Radio) interview with film historian David Thomson, the form of cinema was discussed. Thomson said, “You could not show a toilet. Everybody, most days of the week, uses a toilet, even in America, and yet it was something you could not show on a film because it was thought to be offensive” (Film Historian). It is a little known fact this movie was the first to show a toilet flushing. Even this got complaints about indecency. As the years went on, and movie critics continued to step out on a ledge, more people became contented with how the generations developed.
There are a few solutions to the censorship struggle. The struggle of censorship is in two polar opposite sides. Government involvement is playing tug-o-war with the people having full control. The rope should be dropped so everyone can start walking toward the middle of the playing field. The government should have a hand in guiding what is viewed on television, but the people should also have an equal (if not more of a) role in what is allowed to be viewed in their own home. It should be at a “happy-medium” or a compromise. The government should provide the means of blocking channels or certain ratings on TV. They shouldn’t, however, block shows themselves. It is up to the individual to decide what they allow themselves or their family to view. Another solution to the problem is to level the playing field. In other words, there should be just as many “family friendly” (that does not include cartoons) programs out - their safe for little eyes - as there are shows with bad language or certain innuendos.
Speaking in terms of the parenting role, as long as the means are provided for the parents to censor what their children see, then everyone has their freedom. Some can block as they please and the others can watch until their heart is content. This brings up the idea of a “violence chip” (V-Chip -- technology letting someone block television programming they don’t want their children or whomever to watch. It electronically reads program ratings and allows parents to block shows they feel are unsuitable for their children. It reads the encoded information in programs and blocks shows accordingly (FCC)) or Passcode locked stations (shows can be blocked until a password gets typed in with the remote to unlock it). Both are great ideas and allow for the people to choose what path they want to take. People should not take them out of context. Individuals are against the government implementing these actions against indecency because they feel like they are having their freedom of speech taken away. This is not actually the case. They are not required for people to use. They are simply tools to give the user options. Even the “cable television firms have promised to spend $250m on ads to remind people they have the tools to filter content themselves” (An Indecent Proposal). Some do not want any administration involvement. In Allen Hujsak’s response to Time magazine’s question, “Has TV gone too far – or have the critics?” he says for the government to interfere with his entertainment because other parents can’t handle their responsibilities is unacceptable. He also says parents should do their jobs and not let their kids sit in front of the TV, staying up until 11 p.m. Allen makes the point to say “Put books in their rooms instead of TVs and video games. Legislation is not the answer” (Letters). People do say it should be the parents and only the parent’s responsibility to handle what their children watch. Or even what they themselves see on TV. This is definitely one way it can be done, but sometimes if there are tools already out there then it will make the parent’s job greatly easier. Especially when they are not around to censor what is being watched. There is also another perspective on dealing with objectionable television. In a forum post for a class at the University of Alaska-Fairbanks, Jon Sawyer, a parent of a 3 year old wrote he wrote there is too much sex and violence to TV, but he does not agree with corporate censorship. Sawyer says,
T.V. is full of vial, disgusting, and highly objectionable content. My answer is: don’t watch T.V…. I’ll parallel this answer to an old question: What is the best way to have safe sex? The answer is: there isn’t a way. Not having sex is the best way to ensure you’re “safe.” It’s a lot like trying to figure out a way to play with fire without eventually getting burned. Sawyer goes on to say once people realize there are true good and bad consequences to watching TV the question of censorship becomes unarguable because ultimately it isn’t up to others but up to one’s self (…).
Others say the government should have a hand in what gets openly aired on cable TV. Activist Brent Bozell argues people prefer censorship and the fact “people can’t believe … these incredibly perverted things. They like the idea that the FCC actually upholds the broadcast-obscenity laws that have long been on the books” (Indecent… Should Be…). As this is a nice idealistic thought, not everything can be censored. The level of indecency on television has intensified and should be censored with balance. If the government and the parents can work together in a compromise then everybody can be relatively happy.
Another school of thought is most TV is actually more entertaining because it is censored. Take Saturday Night Live (SNL) for example. SNL’s Seth Meyers has said the censored version of the skit, “D--k in a Box”, aired on network television was actually much funnier than the uncensored version released on the internet in 2006 (Alston). Writers are more creative with distasteful material when they have to work within certain boundaries.
In general, the level of indecency on television has escalated over the years and should be censored in moderation. Content found on a TV show started out very modest, showing only its “face” and “hands”. Slowly it has become more and more pretentious as the skirts get shorter and the shirts cut lower. The once undisclosed navel is now an ornament of topless ladies and gents. One thing everyone can agree on is the fact times are definitely changing.

Works Cited
About the FCC.2011.Federal Communications Commission.30 Nov.
2011<transition.fcc.gov/aboutus.html>
Alston, Joshua. "The Case for Censorship." Newsweek 154.25 (2009): 72. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Web. 24 Oct. 2011.
"An Indecent Proposal." Economist 376.8436 (2005): 14-15. Academic Search Premier. Web. 17 Nov. 2011.
Aziz Mekouar, et al. "LETTERS." Time 165.16 (2005): 13-17. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Web. 26 Oct. 2011.
Film Historian: ‘Psycho’ Altered Ideas on Censorship.2010.National Public Radio. 29 Nov. 2011<www.npr.org/templates/story.php?storyid=127937275>
Fischer, Raymond L. "INDECENT EXPOSURE." USA Today Magazine 134.2732 (2006): 66-69. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Web. 26 Oct. 2011.
"Indecent Broadcasts Should Be Censored" by L. Brent Bozell III. Censorship. Julia
Bauder, Ed. Current Controversies Series. Greenhaven Press, 2007. L. Brent
Bozell III, "Censorship—Or Democracy?" Creators Syndicate, March 12,
2004. By permission L. Brent Bozell III and Creators Syndicate, Inc.
"Indecent Broadcasts Should Not Be Censored" by Marjorie Heins. Censorship. Julia Bauder, Ed. Current Controversies Series. Greenhaven Press, 2007. Marjorie Heins, "America 's Culture Czars," The Free Expression Policy Project, March 21, 2006. Reproduced by permission.
Jack Johnson Lyrics. 2000-2011. AZLyrics. 29 Nov. 2011 <www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/jackjohnson/goodpeople.html>
Obscenity, Indecency & Profanity – TV Ratings & Channel Blocking. Federal Communications Comission. 27 Nov. 2011<www.fcc.gov/print/node/331929>
"Self-Regulation Or Censorship: THE T.V. INDUSTRY." Vital Speeches of the Day
35.23 (1969): 730. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Web. 26 Oct. 2011.

Cited: Search Premier. EBSCO. Web. 24 Oct. 2011. "An Indecent Proposal." Economist 376.8436 (2005): 14-15. Academic Search Premier. Web Aziz Mekouar, et al. "LETTERS." Time 165.16 (2005): 13-17. Academic Search Premier Fischer, Raymond L. "INDECENT EXPOSURE." USA Today Magazine 134.2732 (2006): 66-69 Bozell III, "Censorship—Or Democracy?" Creators Syndicate, March 12, 2004 Heins, "America 's Culture Czars," The Free Expression Policy Project, March 21, 2006 Jack Johnson Lyrics. 2000-2011. AZLyrics. 29 Nov. 2011 &lt;www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/jackjohnson/goodpeople.html&gt; "Self-Regulation Or Censorship: THE T.V. INDUSTRY." Vital Speeches of the Day 35.23 (1969): 730