http://www.deadline.com/2013/06/broadcasters-tell-fcc-that-audiene-decline-makes-indecency-rules-archaic/

The four major networks said in a filing, "Americans today, including children, spend more time engaged with non-broadcast channels delivered by cable and satellite television, the Internet, video games and other media than they do with broadcast media."
Read more at http://www.hitfix.com/tv-tattle#vZ6ExEfRibYP6sdZ.99

I doubt anything major happens until broadcast's numbers actually equal cable's, which is probably going to happen pretty soon but isn't happening yet.

Does this mean we have to bring TV-MA rated programs into the broadcast networks? I'm not for this move.

I personally think the networks get away with too much as it is ....and they're wanting to do more?!!? People's minds are way too far in the gutter to appreciate classy, good clean humor.

Lets all get drunk, snort a few lines, and have an orgy and film it....RAITINGS GOLD!!!

They're not content with airing CRAP
Now they want to air uncensored CRAP.

I personally think the networks get away with too much as it is ....and they're wanting to do more?!!? People's minds are way too far in the gutter to appreciate classy, good clean humor.

Lets all get drunk, snort a few lines, and have an orgy and film it....RAITINGS GOLD!!!
Broadcast networks are very limited to what they can do. I'd love for them to have the free-range that cable networks have right now.

Does this mean we have to bring TV-MA rated programs into the broadcast networks? I'm not for this move.

No, the broadcasters would be free to broadcast more material rated "TV-MA" if they choose to do so.

They're not content with airing CRAP
Now they want to air uncensored CRAP.

Amen to that.

DroopyVids

Won't the broadcast networks lose advertisers if they broadcast any TV-MA rated shows?

The idea is that there's not a big distinction between the amount of people who watch broadcast TV and the amount of people who watch cable TV anymore - therefore, if cable can freely air "TV-MA" shows, broadcast should be able to as well. (Although I'd say it goes beyond arbitrary ratings distinctions).

I can accept TV-PG and TV-14 rated shows in broadcast television, but not TV-MA. We don't need to have any TV-MA rated shows on the broadcast networks. Period.

During the 1970s, there were a few TV-14 or PG-13 programs. Something happened and they were cancelled even though they were quite popular. It seems that an occasional butt crack shot or film clip of an WWII Figher Gun Camera shot of another fighter being hit or a bomber going up in flames was just too much for the "Public's" gentle ears and eyes. But it became okay to have an occasional curse word which would have gotten a show cancelled in the 70s and before in a heart beat. The Violence was normally suggested. Today, it's quite graphic. There are some programs I can't watch due to the graphic nature. I've seen real burned and wounded bodies and the day that it stops offending me is never going to happen. I won't anesthetize myself over this ever.

I enjoy a little but not like it is. I don't enjoy foul language. I don't enjoy blood and guts spread all over my screen. What I do enjoy is good writing, acting and interesting programming. Something that is quite lacking today.

DroopyVids

I THINK PARENT SHOULD MAKE SURE CEHCK BEFORE KIDS WATCH THE SHOW I WENT TO WORLD WAR Z COUPLE WEEKS AGO I SEEN 4 TO 10 YEARS IN THE MOVIE PLUSE IF THEIR TRYING TO GET RIDE OF STUFF GET RID OF ALIUT SWIM IN CARTOON NETOWRK THAT MOST DRITY CARTOONS I FEEL SORRY FOR KIDS IF I HAD KID I WOULDN'T LET THEM WATCH SPOUB BOB I THINK ITS KIND GROSS CARTOON

The problem is, there are parents and then there are big people that kids live with. Those big people rely on all the rest of us to raise their children. Since the end of the 60s, more and more parents have had to have both parents work and even have multiple jobs each. Mom isn't there in the daytime and Dad isn't there in the evenings. Both are dog tired and find it difficult to attend to this. Instead, we need to go after the advertisers who seem to think these types of shows are not approved with out pocketbooks.

DroopyVids

During the 1970s, there were a few TV-14 or PG-13 programs. Something happened and they were cancelled even though they were quite popular. It seems that an occasional butt crack shot or film clip of an WWII Figher Gun Camera shot of another fighter being hit or a bomber going up in flames was just too much for the "Public's" gentle ears and eyes. But it became okay to have an occasional curse word which would have gotten a show cancelled in the 70s and before in a heart beat. The Violence was normally suggested. Today, it's quite graphic. There are some programs I can't watch due to the graphic nature. I've seen real burned and wounded bodies and the day that it stops offending me is never going to happen. I won't anesthetize myself over this ever.

I enjoy a little but not like it is. I don't enjoy foul language. I don't enjoy blood and guts spread all over my screen. What I do enjoy is good writing, acting and interesting programming. Something that is quite lacking today.

DroopyVids
There weren't any TV content ratings before 1996.

Network TV is really pretty tame, although it seems more violence is allowed to slip through the cracks than sex/language.

I don't really know what the big deal is. With channels like Disney, Cartoon Network, Nickelodeon, and many other children's networks, what kids are watching Broadcast TV? I'm 27 and the only thing I ever watched on Broadcast TV as a kid was TGIF. Broadcast TV hasn't been "family friendly" for years, so I don't know why airing TV-MA programs would make much of a difference.

Sounds like lack of creativity on behalf of studios and writers rather than not being able to further push the envelope.

Sounds like lack of creativity on behalf of studios and writers rather than not being able to further push the envelope.
I don't get how edgier content = lack of creativity. It's a common perception around here, and it just doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Some TV shows work great without "edgy" comment, but some TV shows have a setting or story or even just a vibe that requires them to be a little bit more gritty, or raunchier. I don't see how the former is automatically more creative than the latter.

They're not content with airing CRAP
Now they want to air uncensored CRAP.
Agreed.That about says it all.

I personally think the networks get away with too much as it is ....and they're wanting to do more?!!?
Yeah,they get away with a lot more than just 15 years ago for example,and that does not seem to be helping them. As touched on already,it's just another sign of the almost total lack of talent and creativity left in the business.

Just uncensor everything and disband the FCC.. whats the big deal?

I don't get how edgier content = lack of creativity. It's a common perception around here, and it just doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Some TV shows work great without "edgy" comment, but some TV shows have a setting or story or even just a vibe that requires them to be a little bit more gritty, or raunchier. I don't see how the former is automatically more creative than the latter.


:yeahthat :thanx:


I personally think censorship inhibits creativity more than anything else. It's not the networks' job to babysit your kids.

:yeahthat :thanx:


I personally think censorship inhibits creativity more than anything else. It's not the networks' job to babysit your kids.

You would be incorrect. The worst thing to stifle creativity is the Draconian Copyright Laws for TV that is in place. From the 50s and 60s, the Actors either get peanuts on residuals or nothing at all when it syndicates. Case in point; the highest rerun of a series in history is for Gilligan's Island. Not one single dime was given to the Cast for all the reruns in the USA. The entire revenue goes to CBS. Not the Writers, Not the Cast but CBS Corporation. And it will continue until 2087.

I would put the 50s, 60s and 70s as the golden era of TV. This is the time period before the mergers of TV and Motion Picture Studios.

Judge Richard Posner of U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the ruling that embedding was illegal. One of the reasons he gave was the out of touch copyright laws that stifle creativity. What's hilarious is that it was between two porn sites.

Mexico signed the Berne Convention like the US and many other countries. They decided to redo their own laws that put TV on a 25 year from first broadcast where it automatically goes Public Domain for Mexican owned Broadcasts.
From the Berne Convention: Basic stipulations

The Berne Convention states that all works shall be protected for at least 50 years after the author's death with the following exceptions

For photography the minimum term is 25 years from the year the photograph was created
For cinematography the minimum term is 50 years after first showing, or, if the work has never been shown, 50 years from the creation date. In Britain, all TV shows are owned by the Networks and that 50 years forces programs and cinema from 1963 and back as Public Domain.

The US went one step further (actually a whole lot of steps): enter the Copyright Term Extension Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Term_Extension_Act). This is nicknamed by the two parties that were pushing hard and spending millions to get it. Mickey Mouse Act and the Sonny Bono Act. You may wish to read the jist of the act. Instead of protecting just the trademarks, they went for the whole lot. Corporate Copyrights are given 120 years from the time of first release. This affects TV Episodes as well as long as the copyrights have been kept up. When was the last time you watched an early Mickey Mouse Cartoon on TV or in the Movies?

There it is. Why be creative when you can make a residual on everything for the next 120 years.

DroopyVids

I'd be for that. I tend to watch the more edgier shows but love the clean cut shows as well. The reason the broadcast ratings have declined is because of so much cable channels available that weren't available back in the 80's or 90's. I just think eventually the broadcast networks will switch and become cable. There will be no free tv one day.

I'd be for that. I tend to watch the more edgier shows but love the clean cut shows as well. The reason the broadcast ratings have declined is because of so much cable channels available that weren't available back in the 80's or 90's. I just think eventually the broadcast networks will switch and become cable. There will be no free tv one day.

I somewhat agree to your response. Yes, Cable TV has taken a toll. But it's called competition. Think of all the car companies that went under due to competition. Studebaker comes to mind. In a normal business world, either compete, go out of business or sell it to another company like AMC did to Chrysler. If we put the Car Companies on the same road as the TV Networks, the sale of every Willys Jeep, Studebaker, Rambler, 67 Camaro, etc. a cut of every time it's sold or resold.

If Network TV wants to survive, it needs to become more competitive or go out of business. But let's not keep reinventing the rules to cater to a bunch of non competitive CEOs that only think in terms of money and not entertainment.

They think crappy shows getting even crappier will bring in more viewers? You can push the envelope just so far. No wonder retro channels like ME-TV & Cozi are doing so well.

You are right. The difference is the change in Corporate Business. The MBAs of yesterday were more about building their corporation. They did it by being the best through creativity, producing what the public wants to see, not forcing programming on us, keeping costs down, utilizing some really gifted actors and writers, etc..

Today's MBA are more worried about how high they can get their Bonus's can be regardless of the real worth of the company or it's future output.

I'd be for that. I tend to watch the more edgier shows but love the clean cut shows as well. The reason the broadcast ratings have declined is because of so much cable channels available that weren't available back in the 80's or 90's. I just think eventually the broadcast networks will switch and become cable. There will be no free tv one day.
And that will be the day I stop watching them. I don't know how they'd get along without their affiliates though.

What is the point of introducing TV-MA rated programs to the broadcast networks (or probably making existing ones TV-MA)? I'm just gonna get livid over the content rating again.

Network programing has sucked since early 90s and having more liberty won't change that.

I recently found this article from the AP: "Study: Erratic TV Violence ratings Fail Parents", and within that article, I found this one sentence:

"Networks find it financially vital to avoid applying TV-MA ratings, which scare off advertisers."

So the thing is, if a program on one of the terrestrial broadcast networks gets a TV-MA rating applied to it, the program (and possibly the network itself) will lose advertisers.