CBS, football, kids, and ads

[gstelmack]

As I've said many times on here since the Janet Jackson incident, one TV trend that is starting to bother me are ads that should have a stricter TV parental rating than the shows they are in. Similar thing for the movies: showing ads for the horror movie Van Helsing (and other horror movies) as a preview before the action-comedy Rush Hour, for example.

Yesterday it really hit home. I have the Alabama / LSU game on the TV, with my 4-1/2 month old in my lap (he LOVES football already, including watching me play Madden) and my almost-3-year-old running around the living room. On comes the commercials, and hits "Without a Trace" and "CSI". Woman bludgeoned over the back of the head, shotgun fired through the door peephole, blood splattered all over a floor. Before I can grab the remote, my daughter says "No!" and I finally get it switched away. No lasting harm, and she may have been overdoing it a bit as she didn't want the "baseball game" on anyway (hey, at least her Tom Brady jersey is still one of her favorite shirts, and she wants us to take her to a hockey game), but those are still not images I want my 3-year-old to have to deal with.

Good job CBS, now I can't watch football on your station unless the kids are napping or I've TIVO-ed it and am watching it time-shifted so I can blow through the commercials. Guess I'll be watching more football on the other stations (I ended up over on ESPN for I think it was the Wisconsin game).

Anybody know if Sunday Ticket shows ads at all, or do they fill in the commercial breaks? My wife is actually considering letting me get Sunday Ticket now as she is just as frustrated with the ads on network TV lately.

[Easy Mac]

So your kids can watch the most violent sport in America, where people are really getting hit, bones are being broken, guys are being praised for making real violent hits, but they can't watch simulated violence. I'm not judging, but violence is violence.

[Flasch186]

pwahahahahahahahahaha. sorry carry on.

[Raiders Army]

I especially like the DirecTV commercial where the little kid runs up to his dad watching football and asks him to read a story.

Kid: "Oh, you're watching football."
Dad: "Watch this son."

Dad pauses and rewinds live TV by snapping his fingers (as he hits his remote). Son is very impressed and forgets about his dad spending time with him reading a book and instead is captivated by TiVo and DirecTV. Roll credits.

[gstelmack]

Figgers there'd be people out there that can't understand the difference between a contact sport and people getting their heads blown off.

[gstelmack]

I especially like the DirecTV commercial where the little kid runs up to his dad watching football and asks him to read a story.

Kid: "Oh, you're watching football."
Dad: "Watch this son."

Dad pauses and rewinds live TV by snapping his fingers (as he hits his remote). Son is very impressed and forgets about his dad spending time with him reading a book and instead is captivated by TiVo and DirecTV. Roll credits.
Yup, I'm ignoring my kids. Son on my lap to watch the game (he's 4-freakin-months-old, and he was tired of his ultra-saucer and his floor toy), daughter playing with her toys in the living room. She just woke up from her nap after we spent the entire morning doing family time, and I took her outside later on to play with her toys, explore the backyard, and head to the playground when she got tired of her toys.

I agree that the DirecTV commercial is definitely off, but don't even TRY to apply it here. If my kids need my attention, they get it. They don't ALWAYS need attention, sometimes they want to play by themselves.

[Cuckoo]

Figgers there'd be people out there that can't understand the difference between a contact sport and people getting their heads blown off.

For what it's worth, I'm with you. I find it harder and harder to even watch sporting events without commercials coming on that I'd prefer my daughter not see. Granted, I'm not saying the kid is getting mentally damaged or anything. I would just prefer her not to see them.

The only thing I have going for me is that she gets bored of commercials pretty quickly since I always mute them.

[Raiders Army]

Yup, I'm ignoring my kids. Son on my lap to watch the game (he's 4-freakin-months-old, and he was tired of his ultra-saucer and his floor toy), daughter playing with her toys in the living room. She just woke up from her nap after we spent the entire morning doing family time, and I took her outside later on to play with her toys, explore the backyard, and head to the playground when she got tired of her toys.

I agree that the DirecTV commercial is definitely off, but don't even TRY to apply it here. If my kids need my attention, they get it. They don't ALWAYS need attention, sometimes they want to play by themselves.
Uh, I didn't mean to post it in that way. I just thought the whole commercial was funny and definitely "off" in values, much like the commercials you stated in your original post. I didn't mean to say that you ignore your kids.

FWIW, that commercial makes me laugh every time I see it since it's obviously so wrong.

[gstelmack]

Uh, I didn't mean to post it in that way. I just thought the whole commercial was funny and definitely "off" in values, much like the commercials you stated in your original post. I didn't mean to say that you ignore your kids.

FWIW, that commercial makes me laugh every time I see it since it's obviously so wrong.
THAT I agree with. I turn off football all the time for my kids. If they need attention, that should be your number one priority.

[Cringer]

Well, I will chime in in a different way I guess.

I have little problem with the commercials. And I have no problem with sexual stuff on T.V. or the radio.

My problem comes from the double standard that is violence is A-OK, but we can censor other 'obscene' stuff like mad. My main concern is also with how radio seems to be getting knocked down even more then T.V. is.

[pbot]

Anybody know if Sunday Ticket shows ads at all, or do they fill in the commercial breaks? My wife is actually considering letting me get Sunday Ticket now as she is just as frustrated with the ads on network TV lately.

Sunday Ticket shows the normal tv feed, commercials and CBS promos included.

[Easy Mac]

Figgers there'd be people out there that can't understand the difference between a contact sport and people getting their heads blown off.
You're right, me so retarded... I go back try find how add 1+2... go fuck yourself you holier than thou prick.

[jeff061]

You're right, me so retarded... I go back try find how add 1+2... go fuck yourself you holier than thou prick.

That's all well and good. He's right though.

[illinifan999]

Figgers there'd be people out there that can't understand the difference between a contact sport and people getting their heads blown off.
Joe Theisman's leg dieing on TV is real. People getting their heads blown off on CSI is not. Teaching your kids the difference is the first step.

[Easy Mac]

well lets look at this objectively. CBS has a captive audience in football that watches in part for the violent collisions that occur on a football field. They'll show a terrorizing hit where a guy get his head snapped back and doesn't get up 5 times in a row. Then they cut to a commercial where you rarely see violence, but it's alluded to in the imagery, all of the violence not being real. Meanwhile, they come back to the game and the player is being carried off on a stretcher... but that's ok, this real life violence is for some reason noble and not for entertainment purposes. Of course, it's probably going to be easier to explain to your child that this man has been seriously injured for daddy's entertainment while that woman in the commerical is really ok and that they were just playing make believe.

Also, do you really expect CBS not to show those commercials? Let's see, they have an audience who is predomonently male. The audience for CSI is predominantly male. The age demographics match near perfectly. So in order to promote a show, it makes sense to show a commercial to the largest, most captive, most similar audience possible. Therefore, it doesn't make sense for someone to not understand that they're in the business of enterainment and making money, and when those two things converge, they're going to do everything in their power to make sure people pay attention.

Although, I'm sure if they said "this week on CSI, Grissom hugs a teddy bear while Catherine gives her daughter a lolli-pop," everyone would watch. The point is, yes, it's actually your job to police what your children can watch, not the network.

[BrianD]

The point is, yes, it's actually your job to police what your children can watch, not the network.

It is a lot easier to police what they watch when you know what it coming. You can prepare for listed programming, you can't prepare for commercials. Also, the content of shows like CSI is such that networks won't show them until later in primetime. If commercials have the same content, they should follow the same rules.

[Easy Mac]

Then don't show football during the day. You know they show these commercials during the game, change the channel when there is a break, it's not like you can't see the breaks coming. To think that, "what, they show CSI commercials to males during a football game?" is like sticking your head in the sand so you won't see the plane crashing on you.

[BrianD]

Then don't show football during the day.

That makes a lot of sence when games are played during the day.

You know they show these commercials during the game, change the channel when there is a break, it's not like you can't see the breaks coming.

Naturally any time the TV is on, people are hovering over their remotes so they can avoid the commercials. Why bother making sure daytime content shown on your network is daytime appropriate?

To think that, "what, they show CSI commercials to males during a football game?" is like sticking your head in the sand so you won't see the plane crashing on you.

This would be a valid point if anyone was arguing that they didn't know CSI commercials were on during football. The argument being made is that they shouldn't show those commercials during the daytime football games.

[Easy Mac]

That makes a lot of sence when games are played during the day. Obviously it's impossible to move all the games to night. Of course, then there would be less time to show games.... less chances to make money... hmmm



Naturally any time the TV is on, people are hovering over their remotes so they can avoid the commercials. Why bother making sure daytime content shown on your network is daytime appropriate?
If there's reason to believe, as you later assert, that objectionable content would be shown during game breaks, then I think it would also be reasonable to have the remote at a manageable distance, maybe in a central or normal location, so that you can change the channel... and given that you only have about a 15 second notice as to when a break is coming, getting to the remote is a difficult proposition.


This would be a valid point if anyone was arguing that they didn't know CSI commercials were on during football. The argument being made is that they shouldn't show those commercials during the daytime football games. The tone of the original post was one of panic that the remote could not be found, suggesting that there was no knowledge that an objectionable commercial could come on the television at such an early hour.

[JonInMiddleGA]

commercials? Let's see, they have an audience who is predomonently male. The audience for CSI is predominantly male.

Actually, that's not quite right. CSI dominates Adults not specifically Men. And although I haven't looked at the national breakdown by demo,
I know from looking at CSI in nearly a dozen markets that it isn't a "guy show", it's a "people show", albeit one that puts up better numbers with Men than most things in primetime.

Oddly enough though, that difference is what makes you right about the effectiveness of promoting it in college football -- the CBS college football audience in primetime is only about 1/3rd M25-54. The majority of viewers for NCAAF are combined women+Men 55+. (That's true for pretty much all college football on any network btw. The more obscure the game, the more male the audience becomes, but even then the growth is in older men, not younger men).

[JonInMiddleGA]

I'll just leave most of this in the capable hands of those already engaged, but something did strike me interesting on the periphery.

CBS is pretty widely regarded as the most stodgy of the four major broadcast networks, although they've come quite a way from the days of Murder, She Wrote, they still tend to skew to the older audiences. Yet somehow, this is at least the second time this year that they've managed to offend an FOFC'er with a primetime
college football game promo. (If you go back to the thread, I believe I mentioned how questionable I thought their use of The Longest Yard was in the opening of the UT-Florida game).

[Cringer]

We should burn TV's. Afterall, that is what people do when they open up a book and read it and then do not like what it is about.

Also, I hope the day comes along in which we are no longer forced to watch TV anymore. All this evil stuff has me wanting to do something really bad, like sit on my ass some more.

[Glengoyne]

The problem I have with commercials during other kid-friendly shows, are the horror movie commercials. Some of them creep me out, and I know a few have upset my five year old enough to make her run for her bedroom. I'm somewhat in agreement that other commercial genres can get a bit out of hand, and generally have the same opinion. The advertisements need to essentially be G/PG-rated when shown during "family" viewing hours.

I do police what my daughter can watch. I don't focus a lot of attention to it, meaning I'm not a TV Nazi. In general I think kids are pretty durable, but I'd appreciate it if the networks took more care about noting what other demographics are watching a given time-slot. Rather than just focusing on their advertisers target audience.

[ISiddiqui]

Also, do you really expect CBS not to show those commercials? Let's see, they have an audience who is predomonently male. The audience for CSI is predominantly male. The age demographics match near perfectly. So in order to promote a show, it makes sense to show a commercial to the largest, most captive, most similar audience possible. Therefore, it doesn't make sense for someone to not understand that they're in the business of enterainment and making money, and when those two things converge, they're going to do everything in their power to make sure people pay attention.Not only that, but do people REALLY expect that CBS won't be showing commercials for its two biggest shows when they have college football (or the NFL) on? I mean TV rights to football are MASSIVE! Part of recuping that cost is advertising revenue and using ads to pump up other shows that the viewing audience may watch.

[Maple Leafs]

Wow.

I know that it's pretty much mandatory that any complaint by a parent, about anything, be met with the knee-jerk "you need to do a better job raising your kids" routine (from people without kids, of course)... but still, wow. I guess sometimes you really need to stretch for it.

[Raiders Army]

I thought those commercials for the classic movies like Spring Break Shark Attack, Vampire Bats, and Category 7 were devoid of any violence.

[Pumpy Tudors]

Is it really necessary for them to show a promo which shows things like blood splattered all over a floor? They can advertise their programs all they want to, but they can at least try to keep the content of the promos somewhat clean. I've never watched CSI, but I'm no more likely to be interested in an episode because I saw blood all over a floor during the commercial.

I don't have kids and am generally not bothered by commercials on television, so I won't shit on people's parenting or shit on people who are shitting on other people's parenting, but it seems like people are way too quick to pick fights with people around here these days.

[sterlingice]

We should burn TV's. Afterall, that is what people do when they open up a book and read it and then do not like what it is about. I would like to volunteer my burning services for who has a 27" or larger flat screen tv. No, I will not burn it in front of you as that is, um, unsafe, yeah, that's the ticket. But rest assured, it will no longer bother you ;)

SI

[Easy Mac]

Wow.

I know that it's pretty much mandatory that any complaint by a parent, about anything, be met with the knee-jerk "you need to do a better job raising your kids" routine (from people without kids, of course)... but still, wow. I guess sometimes you really need to stretch for it.
I'm not entirely sure what you're reacting to, perhaps you could elaborate, but I even went so far as to say I'm not judging the person's parenting. And if actually having kids makes someone qualified to give any advice on the subject, then I've got plenty of kids I've known who have been beaten and battered, and I'm sure there's plenty others you could talk to.

[Cuckoo]

Not only that, but do people REALLY expect that CBS won't be showing commercials for its two biggest shows when they have college football (or the NFL) on? I mean TV rights to football are MASSIVE! Part of recuping that cost is advertising revenue and using ads to pump up other shows that the viewing audience may watch.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that it's illogical for CBS to do it. At least as far as I'm concerned, I realize it's necessary for them in the interests of good business. I was just lamenting the fact that it had to be that way or that perhaps they could do a little better job with the amount of adult material they place in their promos. It is possible to provocatively advertise their shows without some of the specific things that might be questionable for kids.

As for the horrific things that may occur in a football game, I feel the same way. Knowing a replay of a rather gruesome event in the game is coming and my daughter is watching, I'll flip the channel. As for her seeing it the first time, the action is usually too fast for her to really see anything.

Like I said before, I'm not one of those (as someone else termed it) "TV Nazis." I realize that my daughter will inevitably see things that perhaps I wish she wouldn't have seen. I just wish that it was more of a consideration for the networks than it currently is. I would think that any way to reduce those things she sees as much as possible can't really be a bad thing.

[Ben E Lou]

You're right, me so retarded... I go back try find how add 1+2... go fuck yourself you holier than thou prick.I agree with the two people who reported this. That's a bit over the top. Two days.

[gstelmack]

Then they cut to a commercial where you rarely see violence, but it's alluded to in the imagery, all of the violence not being real.
The violence was not "alluded to" in this case. They clearly showed a woman getting clipped in the back of the head, a shotgun fired through a peephole at the person answering the door, and a scene with blood everywhere. It was pretty direct.

It's MUCH easier to explain to a child what is going on in a football game where everyone is a voluntary participant and hits are part of the game than it is to explain why mommy just got her head bashed in.

It's pretty obvious to me that if you're going to show ads for a nighttime show during the day, you follow daytime rules. You can show an ad for a murder mystery show without actually showing graphic violence. They chose to go the easy shock route instead. That's fine if they want to do that, it just means I won't be watching it anymore. And I think it's a shame.

[JonInMiddleGA]

It's pretty obvious to me that if you're going to show ads for a nighttime show during the day, you follow daytime rules.

Uhh, gstel, there really aren't many "daytime rules" left.

from http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/C/htmlC/censorship/censorship.htm

In the 1970s an early attempt at a similar sort of regulation came when the FCC encouraged the television industry to introduce a "family viewing concept," according to which television networks would agree to delay the showing of adult programs until children were, presumably, no longer among the audience. The National Association of Broadcasters willingly complied with this pressure but in 1979 a court ruled that the NAB's action was a violation of the First Amendment.

[Cuckoo]

It's pretty obvious to me that if you're going to show ads for a nighttime show during the day, you follow daytime rules.

I think this is the main issue. I don't work nor have I ever worked in television, but I would think it is cheaper and easier to put together one promo for a particular episode. They are probably putting it together in a rather short period of time, and they don't want to have to spend the time and effort to produce promos designated for certain time periods.

I understand it. I just wish it was different.

[Draft Dodger]

It's pretty obvious to me that if you're going to show ads for a nighttime show during the day, you follow daytime rules. You can show an ad for a murder mystery show without actually showing graphic violence.

as a father who is pretty careful what is on TV when his kids are in the room, I agree with you 100%. There's really no excuse for violent commercials during the day.

[JonInMiddleGA]

... they don't want to have to spend the time and effort to produce promos designated for certain time periods.

I dunno if it's so much the time & effort as it is a matter of effectiveness.

By & large, the general audience for college football on CBS is fairly close to the general audience for most primetime programs (except that it's a bit more male & maybe a little bit older). They want to draw the largest number of viewers possible with the strongest promo possible ... and that's pretty much what they ran. As somebody pointed out, people don't watch CSI to see fluffy bunny hugs, and to be honest without the silliness, they aren't watching it because it's especially subtle either.

FTR, I'm not bitching at anybody for being put off by the promo (remember, I was irked by one earlier in the year myself), but given the few remaining restraints on programming/lack of enforcement of those restraints, the only way to avoid this sort of thing is not to turn the TV on period.
(wonders how some of the promos for L&O:SVU would fair with those who switch off CBS only to find NBC doing the same thing)

[Cringer]

It's pretty obvious to me that if you're going to show ads for a nighttime show during the day, you follow daytime rules.

Daytime vs. nighttime is another part of this whole arguement that I dislike. For instance, morning radio (Stern and others) have been getting crap for the things they do and say. Yet a show like Loveline has always been able to get away with that or worse, yet a much larger percentage of the listeners of that show are going to be under 18.

And then there is the case of Opera having a teen girl describe certian sex acts on her show and no one saying a thing, but if someone else did it then they would most likely get busted for it.

Lets face it, there are no real standards set by the FCC and their definition of 'obscene' is non-existent.

[JonInMiddleGA]

as a father who is pretty careful what is on TV when his kids are in the room, I agree with you 100%. There's really no excuse for violent commercials during the day.

Now remember, I'm one of those who generally argues for (much) greater limits on broadcast content, but ... "no excuse"? Sorry DD, the success of CSI indicates otherwise. And given that, it'd be irresponsible of the network to throw away a promotional opportunity valued at roughly $50k (per :10/:15 promo) by limiting their use of effective promotion.

Their responsibility is to the law & to their shareholders ... there's no law stopping them & I seriously doubt that the shareholders would be excited about any action that minimizes profitability.

"No excuse"? Hardly, IMO, they've got millions of reasons ($) to do just what they did.

[Cuckoo]

FTR, I'm not bitching at anybody for being put off by the promo (remember, I was irked by one earlier in the year myself), but given the few remaining restraints on programming/lack of enforcement of those restraints, the only way to avoid this sort of thing is not to turn the TV on period.

The funny thing for me is that if you had told me a little more than three years ago I would have agreed on an issue like this, I'd have laughed at you. Now, I'm not saying that people without kids can't understand where some people are coming from. But I do think having kids gives you a different perspective.

A few years ago, I would've rolled my eyes at someone making the same points as I am. I probably would've thought to myself, "then they need to not let their kids watch TV."

Oh what have I become...? :D

[Draft Dodger]

"No excuse"? Hardly, IMO, they've got millions of reasons ($) to do just what they did.

I'm at a bit of a loss here, because I've never seen CSI and I almost never watch commercials (either change channel or fast forward).

I know CSI is a tremendously popular show...but is it a popular show just because of violent promos? Could it still be popular if they promoted it with a spot without the graphic violence, so that they don't alienate daytime viewers?

I don't know, I'm asking.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Lets face it, there are no real standards set by the FCC and their definition of 'obscene' is non-existent.

For as many years as I spent griping about "Uncle Charlie", they're in a no-win situation at this point. Even when they get voluntary cooperation (see the NAB blip I referenced earlier) the courts strike down "guidelines" much less laws.

We've had years of Congressional inaction as the standards eroded, we've got a society that really tends to render "community standards" close to "anything goes", and an agency that is underfunded, understaffed, and is assailed at pretty much every turn ("you're censoring", "wait,now you're not doing enough", "no, that's too much", "ack, not enough").

They're are most truly damned if they do, damned if they don't.

[gstelmack]

Maybe I can re-phrase my sentiment a bit differently:

I'm fine if CBS wants to do whatever they want to do. They can show ads, programs, whatever. As long as I know what's coming, I'm okay with that.

As far as I'm concerned, many outlets have "violated" this contract with me. I don't know what's coming anymore, even with the ratings. Commercials, half-time shows, etc don't seem to "count" to them for the ratings.

So I have my choice as a consumer: stop watching shows that violate this contract. And that's what I now have to do with football on CBS. They've lost a viewer. Now, whether or not they care about me as a demographic is up to them. But, they've lost me as a viewer for a show I watch all the time.

Or better yet, I'll watch the show but skip all the ads. And I know they HATE that. But that's the only way I can safely watch it.

[Draft Dodger]

They're are most truly damned if they do, damned if they don't.

it really is a fine line, and I appreciate that. Certain people are going to bitch about just about anything. I just think there needs to be a time and a place for certain stuff.

If it's 9pm and my kids are up watching TV, then I need to be the one that's proactive about what they are watching. But if it's a Saturday afternoon and I'm watching college football, I don't think I should expect to see a violent promo like that (note: I haven't SEEN the promo, just going by the description).

I LIKE adult television, just like I like R-Rated movies. I don't want them censored or toned down. I personally think a lot of stuff on TV crosses the line, but I'd rather let the viewers decided what content is appropriate and what isn't. But I think there's a time and a place for adult content, and a weekend afternoon isn't it. Put that promo on at night, and come up with something less graphic for daytime.

[Cringer]

For as many years as I spent griping about "Uncle Charlie", they're in a no-win situation at this point. Even when they get voluntary cooperation (see the NAB blip I referenced earlier) the courts strike down "guidelines" much less laws.

We've had years of Congressional inaction as the standards eroded, we've got a society that really tends to render "community standards" close to "anything goes", and an agency that is underfunded, understaffed, and is assailed at pretty much every turn ("you're censoring", "wait,now you're not doing enough", "no, that's too much", "ack, not enough").

They're are most truly damned if they do, damned if they don't.

I understand the point you are making here and I guess I agree. Basically it comes down to some people are complete tight asses and others are complete heathens, then you got the rest inbetween across the whole spectrum. You can't please both sides because both sides have a legit arguement from their point of view and the other doesn't. It's a mess and it's something people will have to balance as well as they can and live with forever basically because there is no good answer.

Since I fall more towards one side then the other I will admit my view is slanted towards the 'free speech' and 'you have no right to say what I watch/listen' arguement. I guess not much else is needed to be said after that, it says plenty.

I will riot though if they try to enforce his crap on satellite radio, my new favorite audio/video entertainment......

[Glengoyne]

...
I LIKE adult television, just like I like R-Rated movies. I don't want them censored or toned down. I personally think a lot of stuff on TV crosses the line, but I'd rather let the viewers decided what content is appropriate and what isn't. But I think there's a time and a place for adult content, and a weekend afternoon isn't it. Put that promo on at night, and come up with something less graphic for daytime.
What he said.

[panerd]

I will riot though if they try to enforce his crap on satellite radio, my new favorite audio/video entertainment......

I hear that. Sirius and HBO for me. Censor and commerialize terrestrial radio and network TV all you want just stay away from content that I pay for. I am not a big fan of Howard Stern and don't plan on listening to much of his show, but good for him for getting out of the busness where what is offensive/not offense is very unclear. And if you don't like Al Swearington telling someone to go fuck themself you can change the channel instead of reporting him to Skydog.

[Glengoyne]

I agree with the two people who reported this. That's a bit over the top. Two days.
You put him in the penalty box for that?



Com'on SD, We're big boys here. This aint some prissy dry flower arranging site, you gotta let the boys be boys.


Even more ridiculous, two people reported him!?!

Grow a thicker skin, Girls.

[Draft Dodger]

You put him in the penalty box for that?

Com'on SD, We're big boys here. This aint some prissy dry flower arranging site, you gotta let the boys be boys.

Even more ridiculous, two people reported him!?!

Grow a thicker skin, Girls.

and right back atcha - I agree with every sentence.

[panerd]

You put him in the penalty box for that?



Com'on SD, We're big boys here. This aint some prissy dry flower arranging site, you gotta let the boys be boys.


Even more ridiculous, two people reported him!?!

Grow a thicker skin, Girls.

Agree with both you and Pumpy Tudors. Some people are really quick to make any argument personal, but on the other hand does it really need to be reported to Skydog? I don't know that I have ever witnessed these magical "glory years" that everyone posts about, but the turn of events in this thread is just plain silly.

[Ben E Lou]

Just so y'all know...

CMase 1 (5:48:53 PM): yo, my bad man, but it's cool yo. i'll be around in a couple of days.
CMase 1 (5:49:02 PM): oh, this is easy mac
Ben E Lou (5:49:06 PM): ah...thqanks
Ben E Lou (5:49:14 PM): was confused there for a bit
Ben E Lou (5:49:20 PM): no biggie
CMase 1 (5:49:22 PM): no prob, i understand
Ben E Lou (5:49:34 PM): just that the response didn't fit the original comment
CMase 1 (5:50:13 PM): no prob, i felt like i was being trolled, but if I went over the top its my fault.
Ben E Lou (5:50:20 PM): gotcha
Ben E Lou (5:50:24 PM): well...two days isn't long
CMase 1 (5:50:39 PM): nah, i'm cool, i may actually get work done at work :-)
Ben E Lou (5:50:47 PM): everything ok? seems you've been a little "edgy" lately
CMase 1 (5:51:10 PM): i'm alright, just that time of the month i think, you know how it is, MLS Cup and all
Ben E Lou (5:51:57 PM): lol
CMase 1 (5:53:01 PM): oh, and sorry bout the video link to. if i had really looked around the site, i would have noticed it wasn't SFW, but then i just thought people were joking about it because for the title of the link I put plugging video out into video in, so i just thought they were joking about the title of the thing, like it was something salacious.
Ben E Lou (5:53:14 PM): H
Ben E Lou (5:53:17 PM): ah
Ben E Lou (5:53:23 PM): no prob really on that
Ben E Lou (5:53:46 PM): my surprise comments were more related to the regulars who didn't seem to think the other stuff on that site was a problem
Ben E Lou (5:54:11 PM): interestingly enough, one of the UGA Football message boards just put in a similar policy regarding linking
Ben E Lou (5:54:16 PM): as in just put it in today
Ben E Lou (5:54:25 PM): i'm ahead of my time. :-P
CMase 1 (5:55:31 PM): yeah, i looked around for a while after i finally looked into why it NSFW, i thought it was too, that's why i hxxp'd it later. Well, it is a UGA board, you guys are a bit slow :-) Actually my dad is a huge UGA fan, my stuffed animal dog growing up was named hershel (sp>)
Ben E Lou (5:56:01 PM): gotcha
CMase 1 (7:02:57 PM): hey SD, people are complaining in the thread I got boxed in (it's ok if i still read it, right). just tell them i'm ok by it. not sure if that will matter, but before anyone else says something stupid that might get them in the box (you can tell them i said that too)
Ben E Lou (7:04:12 PM): you mind if i copy and paste this?
Ben E Lou (7:04:47 PM): (the whole im conversation, that is)
CMase 1 (7:05:02 PM): nah, its cool. you got to stand by what you say, no matter how big of an idiot you are... and i am quite the idiot. no, i think the who thing should be fine.
CMase 1 (7:05:34 PM): i really need to enable logging so i remember my words, i didn't say anything about peanut butter and a cat did i?
Ben E Lou (7:05:51 PM): hehehe...no
CMase 1 (7:06:03 PM): ok, we're safe then.

[JonInMiddleGA]

I will riot though if they try to enforce his crap on satellite radio, my new favorite audio/video entertainment......

Then I suggest you start mixing your "cocktails", because that's coming sure as I'm sitting here typing.

[DaddyTorgo]

peanut butter and a cat?? peanut butter...and...a...cat?? Oooh this is almost too easy.

[Cringer]

Then I suggest you start mixing your "cocktails", because that's coming sure as I'm sitting here typing.

Hopefully you are using voice recognition software then.

[Draft Dodger]

Just so y'all know...

it's great that he's cool with it.
I would not be.

[JonInMiddleGA]

... but I'd rather let the viewers decided what content is appropriate and what isn't.

Which works okay ... right up to the point that the viewers cease to exercise adequate/any judgement about what's "appropriate". It'll be no surprise to many that I believe that line was crossed quite a few years ago.

But I think there's a time and a place for adult content, and a weekend afternoon isn't it. Put that promo on at night, and come up with something less graphic for daytime.

I don't disagree with you generally, except that I believe there's a good argument to be made for a couple of reasons this approach fails miserably:

1) This "bored on Sunday evening" thread notwithstanding, promos like the one in question work, that's why they run them. If it works AND there's nothing to restrict their use, why on earth would the networks do anything differently?

2) And, just because it adds to the complexity of the subject -- as described, the promo that started this wouldn't have caused me to bat an eyelash nor would it really have bothered me for Will to have seen it (as described). Yet there's a ton of stuff that gets aired that upsets me to no end. Point being, it's tough to define one thing vs another as "offensive", short of sketching extremely broad guidelines. The devil, as usual, lies in the details :(

[JonInMiddleGA]

Hopefully you are using voice recognition software then.

'Fraid not. But, on a total sidetrack ... is there any of that stuff that
a)works well for basic p.c. use (i.e. "Open mail" "Get mail", "Close Window XYZ")
AND
b) is reasonably priced?

(Basically, I don't want it neccessarily to, say, just create a Word Doc from dication; I want it to connect verbal commands to what are (probably) either Macro and/or HotKey functions.)

[st.cronin]

TV: Too much violence, not enough sex.

[Draft Dodger]

1) This "bored on Sunday evening" thread notwithstanding, promos like the one in question work, that's why they run them. If it works AND there's nothing to restrict their use, why on earth would the networks do anything differently?


well, no argument from me really. I know why the promo is on, and why stuff like it will continue to be on. I'm just saying I wish that were not the case.

[Cringer]

Thought I would post this here as it kind of fits with the topic.

Watching American Dad I was just surprised to hear the mom singing a song that rattled off several body parts I didn't even think they could say on TV. Can't say I hear clit, labia, and others every day on network TV.

[Galaxy]

Daytime vs. nighttime is another part of this whole arguement that I dislike. For instance, morning radio (Stern and others) have been getting crap for the things they do and say. Yet a show like Loveline has always been able to get away with that or worse, yet a much larger percentage of the listeners of that show are going to be under 18.

And then there is the case of Opera having a teen girl describe certian sex acts on her show and no one saying a thing, but if someone else did it then they would most likely get busted for it.

Lets face it, there are no real standards set by the FCC and their definition of 'obscene' is non-existent.


Loveline was on at midnight on MTV. Plus, the name alone should tell you what it is. As for Oprah, you watch it? :eek: Seriously, is Oprah really a show that kids should be watching?

I always foubd

[Galaxy]

Thought I would post this here as it kind of fits with the topic.

Watching American Dad I was just surprised to hear the mom singing a song that rattled off several body parts I didn't even think they could say on TV. Can't say I hear clit, labia, and others every day on network TV.

These shows are NOT for kids. It's not like that they are unexpected of adult material.

[kserra]

You're right, me so retarded... I go back try find how add 1+2... go fuck yourself you holier than thou prick.

Wow man...I was just going through this thread and I had to stop and respond to this comment, before even finishing the rest...

From this and your previous thread, I think it's clear that you don't have children...

The point the original poster is making is something that many/most parents face...

I have a young son who loves sports...it's a cool experience to sit there with him and watch a game, hear how he reacts, and play a little while the game is on...

ASSUMING that the game has been rated as OK for all ages...why in the world should the networks start airing ads for shows that are clearly not rated in the same way...at the very least, these ads should be "approved for all audiences"...

The violence on the football field/basketball court/etc... is a whole different story versus some of these ridiculous shows whose whole premise is the most gruesome violence they can imagine...those shows are fine when on at 9 or 10 pm...but DON'T show ads depicting this at 2 pm in the afternoon...

I am hardly a "conservative" parent...but when your kid gets freaked out by something they see in a 30 second commercial during the afternoon, something's not right...

Kevin

[Cringer]

Loveline was on at midnight on MTV. Plus, the name alone should tell you what it is. As for Oprah, you watch it? :eek: Seriously, is Oprah really a show that kids should be watching?

I always foubd

Loveline on the radio is on at 10 PM and gets into much more then the TV show ever did. And the name giving away what some of it may be about doesn't change the fact that mostly teens listen to it, even young and pre-teens.

No I do not watch Opera, I am not even home weekdays. But I heard about the show where that happened. And is Opera a show a kids should be watching? I don't know but it is on right after school gets out and they have a young girl talking about sex position she knows about. I think it's funny how that got by as being OK with the FCC because they explained it as being 'informational' and not lewd or something along those lines.

These shows are NOT for kids. It's not like that they are unexpected of adult material.

I never said they were for kids. I was just pointing out what was said because really it was something I can't remember hearing on network TV in such a way.

By the way, I am not sure what your points are with these posts?

[ISiddiqui]

No I do not watch Opera, I am not even home weekdays. But I heard about the show where that happened. And is Opera a show a kids should be watching? I don't know but it is on right after school gets out and they have a young girl talking about sex position she knows about. I think it's funny how that got by as being OK with the FCC because they explained it as being 'informational' and not lewd or something along those lines.I dunno... I hear Opera opens peoples eyes to culture. Oprah, on the other hand... ;).

[Cringer]

I dunno... I hear Opera opens peoples eyes to culture. Oprah, on the other hand... ;).


oops. They both stink IMO though. ;)

[cuervo72]

For what it's worth, I'm with you. I find it harder and harder to even watch sporting events without commercials coming on that I'd prefer my daughter not see. Granted, I'm not saying the kid is getting mentally damaged or anything. I would just prefer her not to see them.

I'm in this camp too. Heck, I switched to CBS for something and caught the last couple minutes of Cold Case, and caught a girl pushing another little girl off a ledge in a flashback. No blood, but yeah, the girl died. My son started crying immediately...now, that's something I probably could have avoided. Much harder to avoid these commercials that have gore and implied death in them. You'll not only get this for TV shows, but also for some movies too though - some commercials for horror flicks can bepretty intense (for a 5 yo)...and they're on right in the middle of the afternoon.

[gstelmack]

I am sorry that EasyMac thought I was trolling. My mistake may have been posting too quickly after reading the initial responses. When I posted my comment that led to his box-inducing response, I was (and frankly still am) incredulous that anyone would equate the violence on a football field with the violence I saw in the ads. I can see how my remark could be taken harsher than it was meant to be, so next time I'll try and step back for a second and see if I can phrase the response a bit less reactionary.

So here is a question: did anyone else out there see the ads in question? Am I exaggerating their contents at all? I think that may be one issue here: if you haven't seen the ads, you may think they're tamer than I thought they were, and therefore think I'm blowing this out of proportion.

I'm glad there are others that agree that ads are becoming more and more mis-matched with their placement, so at least I'm not going insane on that point.

[Samdari]

I know Easy Mac is not here to defend his comments, but he voiced an argument that has always bothered me - comparing football with actual violence, calling football a "violent" sport. That characterization has always bothered me. I know that the collisions in football fit the dictionary definition of violent, "Marked by, acting with, or resulting from great force," but comparing people playing a game in which they run into each other with the intent of moving a ball or preventing someone else from doing so with the intentional harming of another human being is utterly ridiculous.

Blocking and tackling, I have no problems showing to my young child. Shooting, stabbing, pushing off of buildings, he won't see. They are very, very different, despite both taking place with great force.

[flere-imsaho]

So here is a question: did anyone else out there see the ads in question? Am I exaggerating their contents at all? I think that may be one issue here: if you haven't seen the ads, you may think they're tamer than I thought they were, and therefore think I'm blowing this out of proportion.

I saw the ad and I agree with you assessment. For proof, I'll share that I initially saw the ad as I was blowing through yet another commercial break (in the game) on TiVO ( Yay Tivo! ). So I initially saw maybe a frame or two at high speed of this commercial. However, even those frames inspired a "WTF?" moment, so I rewound and watched the commercial.

To be honest my reaction was along the lines of "CSI: I'll bet they get their ratings almost wholly because they deliver some graphic-yet-stylized-violence every week."

Now, I'm coming at this from a different angle than Greg because while my only viewing companion was a 3-year-old, he's also a dog but here's the issues I have:

1. Violence, but not sex? CSI & its ilk can show this kind of stuff until the cows come home, but heaven forbid we see something a little risque in primetime? This is a serious community psychological problem we have here.

2. If you're going to show violence, why don't you show actual violence? Hardly anyone in the movies or on TV dies like they do in real life. Violence is brutal. Death is brutal. Yet everything we see via the media is less bloody, less emotional and more stylized than it actually happens in real life. Yet whenever someone decides to depict violence as it happens in real life (see the first 30 minutes of Saving Private Ryan, for instance) there's a hue and cry about it being "too violent"!


Now, having said that, the commercial that I really didn't like on Sunday was the one for Fox's "Prison Break". Part of the commercial showed a man and woman tied to separate chairs with their mouths duct-taped shut. The "heavy" tells the woman "say goodbye to X" and closes a door between them. If I wanted to get upset about a child seeing something, I think that particular scene would take the cake.

The dog, on the other hand, was unimpressed with both commercials but was deeply interested in the leftover chicken I had for dinner. :)

[flere-imsaho]

dola,

As long as I'm ranting.... Has anyone else noticed CBS routinely missing plays? At first I thought it was just me and over-zealous TiVO usage, but at least a couple of times during every game I see them broadcast, they come back from a commercial break and we're on 2nd or 3rd down, when we went to commercial break after a change of possession.

Is it just me?

[kcchief19]

Maybe I can re-phrase my sentiment a bit differently:

I'm fine if CBS wants to do whatever they want to do. They can show ads, programs, whatever. As long as I know what's coming, I'm okay with that.

As far as I'm concerned, many outlets have "violated" this contract with me. I don't know what's coming anymore, even with the ratings. Commercials, half-time shows, etc don't seem to "count" to them for the ratings.

So I have my choice as a consumer: stop watching shows that violate this contract. And that's what I now have to do with football on CBS. They've lost a viewer. Now, whether or not they care about me as a demographic is up to them. But, they've lost me as a viewer for a show I watch all the time.

Or better yet, I'll watch the show but skip all the ads. And I know they HATE that. But that's the only way I can safely watch it. Honestly, I think you put the wrong word in quotation marks. It's the word "contract" that shoulve be quoted, since there is certainly no contract, implied or otherwise, between a network and a viewer over what commercials should and can be aired. I don't disagree that a responsible broadcaster would better match its advertising with its programming, but that is really a market event. The market really dictates what ads go into a program.

Unfortunately, what you're decrying is the reason why we have the sports we have at the level we have. Football broadcasts are a loss-leader for the networks. They do not buy the rights because they make a lot of money on the broadcast -- they buy the rights because they attract a lot of viewers that enable them to promote other programming. There is a reason why you see more network promos in a football game than in other program on network TV. Criticizing the promos is a bit like railing against the golden goose.

Does anyone know the content rating for a football game? I'm not at home with my cable box right now, but a quick look at TV listings online show ratings for other programs, but not sports. Are sports programs "unrated?" If they are, then I believe the network is fulfilling its obligation, to a certain degree. An unrated program should give the viewer notice that this is content that should be monitored for young children.

The larger question I can't really answer well is who does the responsibility fall upon for protecting children from images their parents don't want them to see? Is it the broadcaster of the parent? I lean toward letting the market make that decision. If the broadaster creates content that a parent thinks is inappropriate, then the parent certainly has the choice not to watch. If the broadcaster thinks their content is costing them viewers or money, they have the right to change. I think overall the market is doing a reasonable job restricting itself.

There are certain sacrifices you must make as a parent. If this is something you feel strongly about, then it's a sacrifice you can make, but it's your personal decision. I'm not sure why someone else should make that decision for you, i.e. the broadcaster.

[st.cronin]

The larger question I can't really answer well is who does the responsibility fall upon for protecting children from images their parents don't want them to see? Is it the broadcaster of the parent?

Why does it have to be one or the other? Parents should have the right to raise their childen without throwing out their tv sets. And broadcasters (or any other enterprise), as participants in society, have a responsibility (and an interest) in making sure children are not harmed by their products. Both parties have rights and interests that should not be in conflict.

[Kodos]

Maybe they could have commercial ratings like they have for programs. Then, if you set the filter to remove the adult themed commercials, there would be no unpleasant surprises for people watching shows with their kids. Instead of seeing a commercial for CSI, maybe they could just show the CSI logo with a brief summary of the upcoming show and display the timeslot it airs on.

Of course, advertisers wouldn't like this.

[panerd]

Can I ask why the hell any of you guys watch commericials anyways? I am obviously spoiled with Tivo and have not watched a commercial in ages, but even before Tivo came around I did my best to avoid both the questionable and completely wholesome commericials.

[Klinglerware]

I know Easy Mac is not here to defend his comments, but he voiced an argument that has always bothered me - comparing football with actual violence, calling football a "violent" sport. That characterization has always bothered me. I know that the collisions in football fit the dictionary definition of violent, "Marked by, acting with, or resulting from great force," but comparing people playing a game in which they run into each other with the intent of moving a ball or preventing someone else from doing so with the intentional harming of another human being is utterly ridiculous.


Unless Buddy Ryan is the defensive coordinator, of course...

[panerd]

Why does it have to be one or the other? Parents should have the right to raise their childen without throwing out their tv sets. And broadcasters (or any other enterprise), as participants in society, have a responsibility (and an interest) in making sure children are not harmed by their products. Both parties have rights and interests that should not be in conflict.

Because a lot of people without kids (like me) don't give a shit about making this whole world kid friendly. Like Kcchief posted a lot more eliquently that I did, don't watch and if CBS loses enough viewers they WILL change things. Why do parents have rights in this matter?

[Pumpy Tudors]

Without getting into the debate about what parents or broadcasters should do, I'll admit that the CSI commercial I saw yesterday was pretty gross. On top of that, Gary Sinise made some shitty poker joke, and then I was really disgusted.

[st.cronin]

Because a lot of people without kids (like me) don't give a shit about making this whole world kid friendly. Like Kcchief posted a lot more eliquently that I did, don't watch and if CBS loses enough viewers they WILL change things. Why do parents have rights in this matter?

Even people without children have an interest as well as a responsibility to make sure children are protected, educated, and raised to be good citizens. To suggest or behave otherwise is disgustingly anti-social.

[Klinglerware]

2. If you're going to show violence, why don't you show actual violence? Hardly anyone in the movies or on TV dies like they do in real life. Violence is brutal. Death is brutal. Yet everything we see via the media is less bloody, less emotional and more stylized than it actually happens in real life. Yet whenever someone decides to depict violence as it happens in real life (see the first 30 minutes of Saving Private Ryan, for instance) there's a hue and cry about it being "too violent"!


This is probably a little parenthetical to this debate, but it is a very good point. Americans are pretty desensitized to violence primarily because of the rather sanitized depictions they see on TV. On another note, this is where Al Jazeera and other foreign media outlets get it right--sure some of the unfiltered coverage seems gratuitous, but it certainly makes the gravity of war much more salient. American news coverage is practically antiseptic by comparison, and consequently, for many Americans, the war is a nebulous idea where nothing really happens, nobody really gets hurt, and no money is really spent...

[sterlingice]

Maybe they could have commercial ratings like they have for programs. Then, if you set the filter to remove the adult themed commercials, there would be no unpleasant surprises for people watching shows with their kids. Instead of seeing a commercial for CSI, maybe they could just show the CSI logo with a brief summary of the upcoming show and display the timeslot it airs on.

Of course, advertisers wouldn't like this.
Actually, I think it's a logistics issue, too. For in-house advertising (ie CBS making ads for CSI, Fox's ads for House, etc), they make a new one every week and start showing it as soon as last week's is over. Now, for the major networks, no big deal, but FX makes them for The Shield, USA for Monk, Sci-Fi for Stargate, etc. Once you factor all that in, that's a lot of new commercials each and every week that need to have really quick turnaround on approval (ie if it takes the FCC 4 days to rate a new ad, then what good is it). And that'd take a lot of new people to do this and possibly a new system of creating and delivering ads.

SI

[cuervo72]

Why do parents have rights in this matter?

Damn, sorry our keeping the race going is such an inconvenience to you.

[Aylmar]

Even people without children have an interest as well as a responsibility to make sure children are protected, educated, and raised to be good citizens. To suggest or behave otherwise is disgustingly anti-social.

I agree with what you say here, but I'm still not clear which parent "rights" you think are being trampled by showing a CSI ad in the middle of the afternoon.

[Ksyrup]

TV: Too much violence, not enough sex.

Never fear...




Study says TV sex on rise
<!--subtitle--><!--top author info--><TABLE width="100%" align=center border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=articleByline><!-- overline-->By Marisa Donelan </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
<TABLE class=articleBody width="100%" align=center border=0><TBODY><TR><TD align=middle colSpan=3></TD></TR><TR><TD class=articleBody align=left colSpan=3>

LEOMINSTER -- Gail Wall of Hudson said she rarely watches shows on network TV because the programs have become too racy, and is most concerned by the content available to adolescents.

"I think it's disgusting, the messages teens are getting from these shows," Wall said Thursday at the Mall at Whitney Field. "The sex and violence on television is outrageous."

Statistics back up Wall's assertion.

The Kaiser Family Foundation released a study titled "Sex on TV 4" on Wednesday that concluded the number of TV scenes containing sexual content nearly doubled since 1998.

The survey covered more than 1,000 hours of TV programming from the major networks, basic cable and HBO. The shows generally aired between the hours of 6 a.m. and 10 p.m., and the research left out news broadcasts, sporting events or children's programming.

Kaiser researchers analyzed scenes in which sexual content was significantly emphasized. The survey concluded that the number of these scenes increased 98 percent -- from 1,930 to 3,780 -- in seven years.

The survey also analyzed the 20 most popular shows among teenage viewers, concluding that 70 percent featured sexual content. Ten percent of the shows addressed the responsibilities and risks of sexual behavior.

Jacquilyne Baker, a seventh-grader from Hardwick, said she thought the stories on teen-oriented shows were an accurate depiction of teenage life, although sometimes some scenes in her favorite Fox and MTV shows go overboard.

"Most of the time I think those scenes ruin the show," she said Friday, while shopping at the mall.

Baker said some shows would be given an R rating if they were movies, and "anything past a PG-13 level shouldn't be on TV."

The study showed that the number of scenes featuring the risks of sexual activity were down to 23 percent from 2001's high of 36 percent.

One reason for this is the increased popularity of reality TV shows, which had the smallest amount of sexual content in all the shows researched, the study noted. Seven of the 20 most popular shows for teens were reality TV programs, reducing the overall frequency of sexual content.

Beth Lathan of Leominster said although she is able to control what her young children see on TV now, she worries that depictions of sexual behavior will increase by the time they are teenagers.

"I think when they are teens, I'll be much more concerned about what they're watching," Lathan said while she and her family relaxed at the mall's playground area.

Lathan's husband Rod said video games and today's network shows are already "pushing the envelope," as far as sexual impropriety. He said he was shocked by shows such as CBS' "Two and a Half Men," in which two adult brothers regularly discuss sexual behavior in front of an adolescent boy.

Beth Lathan said that when she was a high school teacher, she noticed that teenagers seemed desensitized to sexual images in the media.

"It's impossible to monitor everything kids that age are watching," she said. "I think it's the responsibility of TV executives to control what they put on the air and to show some morality about it."

Kaiser researchers wrote in the conclusion of the study: "Sex is plentiful on television. Consequently, television's treatment of sex is ripe with opportunity to convey critical messages about sexual health that might literally save lives."

Sue Baker of New Salem said she and her husband were proactive about discussing sexuality with their children, now 27 and 29. The family watched TV together and was open to addressing questions when they arose, she said.

"I definitely think there are more sexually explicit shows on television now," she said. "But it's up to parents to be aware of what's on."

Baker said teenagers will find a way to watch the most popular shows, whether at home or friends' houses. Athol resident Kim Carrasquillo, a mother of four young children, also said she noticed an increase of shows with sexual topics, but that responsibility falls on parents to monitor TV content. "Am I worried about (my children) see? Yes and no," Carrasquillo said, "because I make sure they know what's real. I'm more worried about they see on the news, because it's a lot easier to explain that an actor is being paid to pretend."

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

[Kodos]

Actually, I think it's a logistics issue, too. For in-house advertising (ie CBS making ads for CSI, Fox's ads for House, etc), they make a new one every week and start showing it as soon as last week's is over. Now, for the major networks, no big deal, but FX makes them for The Shield, USA for Monk, Sci-Fi for Stargate, etc. Once you factor all that in, that's a lot of new commercials each and every week that need to have really quick turnaround on approval (ie if it takes the FCC 4 days to rate a new ad, then what good is it). And that'd take a lot of new people to do this and possibly a new system of creating and delivering ads.

SI

I was thinking more of a generic "The show is mature, so the ad is automatically rated mature as well. "

[sterlingice]

I was thinking more of a generic "The show is mature, so the ad is automatically rated mature as well. "
Oh, ok. I was thinking along the lines of movie commercials where a rated R movie could have a "This movie rated for all audiences" ad still.

SI

[Galaxy]

Aren't other countries, such as those in Europe, the exact opposite of our violence/sex viewing?

[st.cronin]

KSyrup, that article actually states that sex on TV has gone DOWN since 2001. So, the headline is contradicted by the facts.

[Klinglerware]

Even people without children have an interest as well as a responsibility to make sure children are protected, educated, and raised to be good citizens. To suggest or behave otherwise is disgustingly anti-social.

I would agree with your first point, I would also argue that single and childless people already do their part by subsidizing the tax-breaks that people with children receive.

It seems to me that because of this, and to add to your communal good argument, childless taxpayers should demand and exert more of an influence on how children are raised, since children are just as much assets of society as they are members of individual family units.

[st.cronin]

I would agree with your first point, I would also argue that single and childless people already do their part by subsidizing the tax-breaks that people with children receive.

It seems to me that because of this, and to add to your communal good argument, childless taxpayers should demand and exert more of an influence on how children are raised, since children are just as much assets of society as they are members of individual family units.

I absolutely agree with that.

Aylmar: I haven't got a particular stand on the CSI ad. My point is that it's a false dichotomy, pitting advertisers/broadcasters vs. parents.

[BrianD]

Does anyone know the content rating for a football game? I'm not at home with my cable box right now, but a quick look at TV listings online show ratings for other programs, but not sports. Are sports programs "unrated?" If they are, then I believe the network is fulfilling its obligation, to a certain degree. An unrated program should give the viewer notice that this is content that should be monitored for young children.


I would assume there is no content rating for a football game. Being live, unscripted, and without a time-delay, it would be hard to stick to any particular rating...not that ratings are anything other than voluntary anyway. The bigger issue, though, is that ratings are only meant for the program itself. The ratings don't cover the commercials. You could be watching the Peanuts Christmas special and have a CSI-type commercial. The only way to be prepared for something like this is to always expect graphic commercials.

This is one issue I wouldn't expect the market to take care of. People aren't going to stop watching football because of a bad halftime show or a bad commercial. People probably aren't going to pick the shows they watch based on their commercial experiences. I don't know if this really is a problem, but if it is, I wouldn't expect the market to fix it.

[Klinglerware]

Again, St. Cronin raises an excellent point about society's interest in having children raised in a manner that allows these children to grow up into adults that can function at least adequately in society.

While some of the childless people on this board have said some rather ill-informed and over-the-top statements about child-rearing, I find the arrogant finger-wagging on the part of parents just as offensive. The truth is, society has a stake in the succesful raising of children--and is willing to subsidize elements of the process to insure that this happens. This is well recognized, as manifested by the development of a public school system, for example.

The issue for me is that I'm not sure that parents duly recognize how much society subsidizes the child-rearing process. Again, childless taxpayers bear much of the expense of the subsidy and as members of the greater society, their opinions should also count for something. In my opinion, if you accept the subsidies (the tax break, public schooling, the library, etc.), you rightfully open yourself to outside opinion from other members of society.

[JonInMiddleGA]

And that'd take a lot of new people to do this and possibly a new system of creating and delivering ads.

Just FWIW, at least where CBS is concerned, there's already a delay of anywhere from 3 days to 2 weeks on commercials, as they have to be cleared one-by-one through their in-house Standards & Practices department.
(I haven't bought directly from ABC or NBC at the network level, so I can't say what they do/don't do)

[panerd]

Damn, sorry our keeping the race going is such an inconvenience to you.


:confused: :confused:

Sorry, but I am a teacher. Kids watching television ads have nothing to do with "keeping the race going".

[JonInMiddleGA]

If you're going to show violence, why don't you show actual violence?

I imagine that has a great deal to do with the cost differential in producing the two scenes. Think about it, lots easier to splatter some phony blood & brain matter on the floor than it is to have a makeup artist apply it to someone, have a stuntperson take the gunshot, etc.

[panerd]

Even people without children have an interest as well as a responsibility to make sure children are protected, educated, and raised to be good citizens. To suggest or behave otherwise is disgustingly anti-social.

Not suggesting otherwise. Not at all. Suggesting that ads during a football game hardly fall under raising good citizens. And it isn't a "right" to demand that from network television.

[gstelmack]

The key problem is that as a concerned parent, I do attempt to use whatever knowledge I have available to me to decide what to put on or not put on when the kids are around. I have the TV ratings, and I have history. My frustration with the ads is that they circumvent both of those tools. I have no clue what sort of content will be in the ads I see with any particular show. So, now I have to figure out how to watch shows without the ads. Fortunately, I do have a TIVO, and my wife and I do use it for most shows.

I think about the only non-kids show I have on during the days when the kids are around is football. I like to watch football live, but I guess those days are now (mostly) gone. I've sacrificed most other TV I watch during the day, and now the last vestige is disappearing.

Frankly, it wouldn't surprise me much if in 6 months to a year my DirecTV was gone and all we watch are DVDs and Xbox360 games. It would save $70/month, too. Hmm.... That would be a shame because there are lots of GOOD programs on (Good Eats, for example, plus Dora, Sesame Street, etc that my daughter loves), but hey they're all available on DVD now anyway.

[Raiders Army]

Maybe a good analogy to this is going to watch a PG movie with your kids. Every movie theater shows previews, and I would think there would be a significant amount of backlash if they showed R-rated previews right before a PG movie. While the previews may be "For All Audiences" I don't think anyone would appreciate having to cover their kids eyes and ears during the previews.

There is a big difference to this analogy, though. There aren't November sweeps in movie theaters (although the Holiday season is a pretty big season). Additionally, the target demographic is different.

[st.cronin]

Not suggesting otherwise.


Because a lot of people without kids (like me) don't give a shit about making this whole world kid friendly.

Your words perhaps could be chosen better.

And just to say this one more time - I have no opinion on the CSI ad. I think in general TV and the movies are too violent for my tastes, and I would be tempted to toss out my tv if I ever have kids. My only bone of contention with some of the arguments made here is that parents and those without kids have common interests, and that this is more properly a discussion of values, as opposed to a conflict.

[panerd]

Your words perhaps could be chosen better.

And just to say this one more time - I have no opinion on the CSI ad. I think in general TV and the movies are too violent for my tastes, and I would be tempted to toss out my tv if I ever have kids. My only bone of contention with some of the arguments made here is that parents and those without kids have common interests, and that this is more properly a discussion of values, as opposed to a conflict.

OK. But the key part is the whole world part. I would be right with you if it was about something at school or elsewhere in society. But I personally don't feel that it is the network's responsibility to make everything kid friendly. Maybe they will lose customers as a result, but that is their business decsion to make then.

I don't question parent's values, I just question when they need to be applied everywhere they want to go. Like in the case of the original poster that they have to watch the football game.

[Raiders Army]

My advice to anyone who thinks this is wrong, make a complaint to the FCC:

http://www.fcc.gov/contacts.html

[rkmsuf]

Blood and gore in commercials - not so much.


Tight shots of the cheerleaders - booyah!

[gstelmack]

OK. But the key part is the whole world part. I would be right with you if it was about something at school or elsewhere in society. But I personally don't feel that it is the network's responsibility to make everything kid friendly. Maybe they will lose customers as a result, but that is their business decsion to make then.

I don't question parent's values, I just question when they need to be applied everywhere they want to go. Like in the case of the original poster that they have to watch the football game.
I agree with you. They don't need to make everything kid friendly. I don't object to CSI or Without a Trace in the least. They can show whatever they want.

My point is don't mix in non-kid-friendly ads in a show that is otherwise kid-friendly. That's all. I'd like to be able to watch a football game with my kids and not have to turn it off during commercials (or halftime shows). If CBS wants to turn Saturday / Sunday football watching into adult-only entertainment, I agree it is their right, I just would have appreciated some warning. And now that I know about it, my habits are changing. I just think it's a shame that otherwise-family-entertainment no longer isn't, not because the content of the program is changing, but because the ads shown during the program are changing.

FWIW, I did send feedback to CBS about it. I even checked the "Comment" instead of the "Complaint" box (which is why I'm not reporting to the FCC). I said basically "It's your right to do this, but be aware that your actions have cost you a viewer". They may not care, but hey, that's the one action I can take.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Every movie theater shows previews, and I would think there would be a significant amount of backlash if they showed R-rated previews right before a PG movie. While the previews may be "For All Audiences" I don't think anyone would appreciate having to cover their kids eyes and ears during the previews.

Not sure what is done specifically these days, but I recall seeing plenty of R-rated movies previewed way back when I was in the G/PG age group. Off-hand, I don't recall seeing them lately, but I attribute that far more to the demographics of the movies I'm seeing in theatres than to any sense of "appropriateness".

Additionally, the target demographic is different.

Bingo.

[Pumpy Tudors]

What I wonder is why these bloody and violent commercials make somebody want to watch a television program. I mean, I get the idea of advertising, even to people who already watch the program, so I'm not heading in that direction. Still, if you already watch CSI or whatever, you know that there's going to be some bloody, violent content. If you have never watched it (like me), why would that stuff in a commercial make you want to watch? I'm certainly no more likely to watch it after the commercial I saw yesterday, perhaps even less so.

I'm not questioning whether this advertising works. I'm simply wondering why it works. Even the bloodiest feature films - whether they're "realistic" or just splatter films - don't show commercials on television like the stuff I saw in that CSI ad yesterday, yet people still go and see those movies. Seriously, if this is what it takes to get people to watch CSI, count me out. I've never watched the show, and the ad just makes me think that each episode is an hour of watching people get killed and then having to look at their torn-up bodies. Sure, millions of people watch the show, so CBS doesn't need me to watch, but is this the only way to advertise the program? For a show that's supposed to be "smart", the commercials make it look like it's just a body count with some medical-speak in it. I guess it's working at keeping current CSI viewers interested in the show, but I guess I'm not in the market of new viewers that they're trying to reach.

[JonInMiddleGA]

I just think it's a shame that otherwise-family-entertainment no longer isn't, not because the content of the program is changing, but because the ads shown during the program are changing.

Somewhere in there, I think you've drawn an overly narrow distinction.

The ads shown during football haven't changed nearly so much as the programs being shown in other timeslots. The promos do what they've always done -- attempt to tease with the most compelling moment of the upcoming show.
The change in the content of those shows dictated the change in the content of the promos.

[Ksyrup]

KSyrup, that article actually states that sex on TV has gone DOWN since 2001. So, the headline is contradicted by the facts.
No, it doesn't:

"The study showed that the number of scenes featuring the risks of sexual activity were down to 23 percent from 2001's high of 36 percent."

What it says is that the number of sex scenes has almost doubled since 1998, but the number of scenes in which the risks of sex are featured, has declined. Basically, a double whammy.

[Raiders Army]

I'd also like to see more beer commercials like the Heineken one with superpowers and the Bud Light Venus De Milo one.

[gstelmack]

Somewhere in there, I think you've drawn an overly narrow distinction.

The ads shown during football haven't changed nearly so much as the programs being shown in other timeslots. The promos do what they've always done -- attempt to tease with the most compelling moment of the upcoming show.
The change in the content of those shows dictated the change in the content of the promos.
Six of one, half-dozen of the other. The point is that the content of the ads have changed. They may still be "show promos", but they are choosing to take some of the most violent parts of those shows to use in the promos, meaning that there is now violence in those ads that didn't used to be there.

[JonInMiddleGA]

I'm simply wondering why it works.

The same reason disaster films, horror movies, etc. work.

And, thinking about it a little further, I believe I understand better why CSI is such a success than I did before this whole thread.

I've seen a few episodes, I think the show is "okay", occasionally reaching "pretty good" at its best moments. I'm not a fan, I'm not a hater either. But obviously I'm also not in the mainstream of primetime tv viewers with that rather lukewarm opinion. And then it hits me -- they're putting up numbers in part due to the very presentation

They're feeding the "I-can't-look-but-I-can't-turn-away" desires of people who can't really stand 90 minutes of the stuff (modern cop movies, horror movies, etc) but not only tolerate but enjoy 9 seconds worth of it, especially when its toned down several notches.

Based on the descriptions here, this is pretty mild stuff compared to the whole spectrum of violence-on-film. It's the violence equivalent to a little television T&A versus full-frontal nudity.

[Ksyrup]

The promos do what they've always done -- attempt to tease with the most compelling moment of the upcoming show.
The change in the content of those shows dictated the change in the content of the promos.

Isn't the "most compelling" part of CSI and like shows not the murder/death that occurs in the first 3 minutes, but the manner in which the CSI team goes about determining who, what, where, when, and why? IMO, CSI would be just as good a show if they didn't have the "reenactment" scenes sprinkled throughout. But that's about all you get on the promos. Some of those scenes are just "what if?"-type reenactments that did not, in fact, happen.

[st.cronin]

No, it doesn't:

"The study showed that the number of scenes featuring the risks of sexual activity were down to 23 percent from 2001's high of 36 percent."

What it says is that the number of sex scenes has almost doubled since 1998, but the number of scenes in which the risks of sex are featured, has declined. Basically, a double whammy.

ack

Too confusing. I need a chart. Or perhaps a presentation by the Oklahoma State dance squad.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Isn't the "most compelling" part of CSI and like shows not the murder/death that occurs in the first 3 minutes, but the manner in which the CSI team goes about determining who, what, where, when, and why? IMO, CSI would be just as good a show if they didn't have the "reenactment" scenes sprinkled throughout. But that's about all you get on the promos. Some of those scenes are just "what if?"-type reenactments that did not, in fact, happen.

For part of my take on this, see the post above (which I was posting while you were posting).

For the other part, there's a couple of things that come to mind:
1) A lot of football fans don't watch for the one big play, they watch for the chess match that a game can become ... but what shows up on the highlight reels? Same principle, the most exciting moment is what they'll show.
2) Minus the re-enactment scenes it isn't the same show though. And the current formula is working, I'd be loathe to tamper with it much if I were producing. (good point about the reenactment aspect of this, even if it does nothing to change the content, it's an interesting point nonetheless IMO).
3) You've got ten to fifteen seconds to work with, kinda hard to show " the process" in that time ... but a memorable scene like the one described here? Tailor made for promos, a visual sound-bite if you will.