Yeah, well, who's suprised?

[heidi]

The Sinclair Broadcasting Group, which owns eight ABC affiliates, did not show the film but said "we do not personally believe that this movie is indecent in any manner".

It added in a statement: "We believe the FCC guidelines and ABC's refusal to delay the broadcast require us to pre-empt the movie."

Anyone who's pushing for Sinclair to lose their licenses should add this to their complaint letters to the FCC. More on the ABC affliate preemptions of Saving Private Ryan from the BBC here.

Now, let's briefly look to the words of Sen John McCain, a former Vietnam prisoner of war who introduced the film on ABC. He said the film "comes nowhere near indecent. Saving Private Ryan is a powerful and important depiction of the sacrifices made for our country. While it contains violence and profanity, these are not shown in a gratuitous manner."

L Brent Bozell, who chairs a conservative anti-indecency group, said "context is everything" and the film should be classed alongside Steven Spielberg's Holocaust drama Schindler's List. Of course, newly reelected Oklahoma senator Tom Coburn said a few years back, that in airing Schindler's List, NBC had taken television "to an all-time low, with full-frontal nudity, violence and profanity". He also said the broadcast should outrage parents and decent-minded individuals everywhere.

Now, let's all recall that Saving Private Ryan has been shown on tv twice with no complaint by the FCC, and let's try and guess why it's suddenly a problem now.

Comments

[annearchy.livejournal.com]

Blerrrrrgh

[boniblithe.livejournal.com]

He also said the broadcast should outrage parents and decent-minded individuals everywhere.

The SUBJECT MATTER should outrage decent people everywhere. Asshole.

[1anonymous1.livejournal.com]

They didnt show it here or in Ohio.:(

[lizardlaugh.livejournal.com]

I am not sure why you are jumping all over Sinclair, except that he attempted to excersize free speach right before the election with an opinion you disagree with. I don't like Sinclair, but he's got the same rights as me or Micheal Moore.

Personally, I think the problem is with the FCC. There never should have been a question. It wasn't that the slack jawed, red state yokels didn't like the movie. No, the problem is that the FCC is handing out giant fines for nipple flashes. I'd be a bit paranoid myself about showing a violent film in the wake of that nonsense.

[heidi8.livejournal.com]

I don't like Sinclair, but he's got the same rights as me or Micheal Moore.

No, they don't. They hold (not own, hold) licenses to broadcast television stations, and because of this, they both have to comply with FCC regulations, and they have to serve the public interest with their programming. They are required to do so by statute and by FCC regulation. The obligation to serve the public interest is integral to the "trusteeship" model of broadcasting--the philosophical foundation upon which broadcasters are expected to operate. The trusteeship paradigm is used to justify government regulation of broadcasting. It maintains that the electromagnetic spectrum is a limited resource belonging to the public, and only those most capable of serving the public interest are entrusted with a broadcast license.

The thing is, there's a one year statute of limitations on indecency complaints, and Saving Private Ryan ran twice already, on veteran's days past, including on Sinclair stations. And there was no action taken by the FCC against Sinclair or any other station pursuant to said showings, which strongly indicates that the FCC does not deem airings of SPR indecent. Accordingly, Sinclair was not acting within the public interest by refusing to broadcast something that was not indecent, and, in fact, is arguably just as newsworthy as a program exploring POWs' takes on the Viet Nam war. But we're talking about a company with a history of refusing to speak of those who've given their lives for our country (Sen McCain called that action "deeply offensive" and "unpatriotic.").

[lizardlaugh.livejournal.com]

I disagree with the whole notion behind the FCC. I understand the "public interest" stuff (who decides what is public interest, anyway?) and the laws, I just think it is a violation of free speech. The FCC *is* an excuse for the government to regulate speech.

I also understand that the movie had been shown before. However, the reasoning behind NOT showing it has to do with some recent hefty fines. I would be questioning what I was showing if I were a broadcaster myself. I just can't imagine why not showing a movie should have anything to do with the FCC at all. Forced speech! I understand that it is just a movie. However, the issue should be between the broadcasters and ABC. Someone should get their FCC license revoked for refusing to show what others deem culturally significant? How can you justify that and still hold freedom of speech as a value? Do you not see the inherent danger in the government deciding what can and can not be shown on television when it comes to political speech? Especially deciding what is of 'cultural significance'? Today, it's a good movie. Tomorrow, who knows? Keep in mind the current regime.

There was talk before the election of showing Fahrenheit 9/11 on broadcast television to influence voters. How is this any different than what Sinclair was going to show? Personally, I think they *both* should have been free to have their say. This is a free country, is it not?

I guess my point is that regulation of speech is not in the public interest. And here I thought it was the Right I had to worry about....

[jlh.livejournal.com]

If you are for that, then you should be for these broadcasters buying the airwaves outright, and the government charging them a pretty penny to do so. They don't own them; we do. And unlike web sites, or magazines, (or cable stations for that matter, which is a gray area) or newspapers, there can only be so many stations broadcasting over the airwaves. Because the space is limited, it has been held in the public interest and you have to broadcast accordingly. And also because the space is limited, those who do have it have greater power, a bully pulpit if you will.

Besides, there are plenty of other restrictions on free speech: libel and slander, harassment, shouting fire in a crowded theater, etc.