Banned Television

Sitting at home this weekend I decided to watch some Netflix. Like many people my age I enjoy the humor of Family Guy. I saw something that caught my eye and ended up watching the 200^th episode that was a documentary about the entire series. Something in that episode caught my interest.

We all know that Family Guy, amongst other adult cartoons, brush against many controversial topics using humor. However we may not have known there are several missing episodes that were not allowed to air. Including one on abortion, they were told they were not allowed to debut this episode due to the fact that it was too controversial. Family Guy has long been a source for comedy in politics and common dilemmas people face in daily life. Why censor some of their episodes? Does this idea that items seen as too controversial need to be banned fit the needs of their audience?

Below is a link to the Wikipage that explains some information on the episode. Do you think it is too controversial to air? Do you believe that the Fox Network banned it to maintain a certain political persona?

According to the FCC all obscene media is prohibited at all times of air. They have a list of three topics that all criteria must meet before being aired. You can look at their items in more detail at their website below.

•    An average person, applying contemporary community standards, must find that the material, as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest;

•    The material must depict or describe, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by applicable law; and

•    The material, taken as a whole, must lack serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partial_Terms_of_Endearment

http://www.fcc.gov/guides/obscenity-indecency-and-profanity

Promotional or Attacking?

Watching your TV is a common activity to escape daily responsibilities. You can choose to watch any show you like, but whether you are watching local news, reality television or a show on weddings there are some things you cannot escape, commercials. Specifically political commercials.
We have all seen them, showing the opponent with a dark background, dramatic music and who would forget the all important graphics detailing their multiple lies and failures. Watching these interrupt my broadcast makes me wonder why would any candidate trying to portray a friendly and caring reputation want to approve anything to be broadcasted like this? Wouldn't that defeat the purpose of all the staging they have done to show the public how wonderful of a person they are?

This inspired me to dig a little deeper. Referencing our book by Graber I found that if you are a candidate in any political campaign you absolutely must use the television to promote yourself or risk being an unknown name on the poll. Political campaigns have always attempted to slash their opponent whether it was a debate amongst the people or in any other form of advertising. When you begin to think about a political candidate, if you have seen their political advertisements on TV, you'll remember them in a background usually with the American flag waving, them slamming their fist down on a desk fighting for what you want them to or surrounded by children teaching them about what it's like to be them. You will never remember they produced any other advertisements showing another candidate with a gloomy lighting explaining how much wrong they have done, which once elected they promise won't happen again, but it always does.
Although this article is dated, it really can explain how simple this problem can be, and how easily it is forgotten.
http://www.nytimes.com/1999/11/20/us/this-time-forbes-chooses-subtle-over-slashing-in-ads.html

BroadCASTING

As I’ve continued my education in college, I’ve learned about the different styles of communication. Learning how people lean more on the media and mass communication as an alternative to the aspects daily life and relationships, I began to wonder what kind of effect does this have on the community and do any major corporations know about this, have they capitalized on this opportunity to persuade the masses to their preferences?

The media today is not only an outlet for local news and information; it is a worldwide resource. Access to this resource can encourage the staging of certain broadcasts to increase the favor for one side or the other. As our knowledge of the world and all of its activities expands so does the constant pressure to interact with each other locally. Now the actions of any given politician can be projected into the community like a flashlight in the dark. According to Graber in 2012 nearly 50% of news consumption was through local news stations while the major worldwide news stations received on average about 15% (Graber, 4).

The fact that people tend to turn to their local stations for information can have an increased pressure for that station to report on major, countrywide news such as political races. This can increase the likelihood of scripted or “casted” broadcasts and interviews that can lean one way or another for the political candidate involved. In today’s world of multi-broadcast systems we are faced with dozens of television shows trying to persuade us on their views. It may be common knowledge that certain shows are written with certain preferences in mind, encouraging its audience to share the same political and economic views. My question to you is, does this cause the community to rely on a broadcast to learn their own opinions, or does the idea of a self-made mentality still exist in such circumstances?