• Get involved.
    We want your input!
    Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.

    After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
    If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.

    After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
    https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/

    Thanks in advance and have fun!
    RadioDiscussions Administrators

My thoughts on The FCC Ruling re: Janet's Wardrobe Malfunction

W

wxctintern

Guest
I think the FCC needs to stop worrying about something as unimporant as Janet's Jackson's breast and declare infomercials and televagilists illegal. Networks such as QVC, HSN, ShopNBC, Shop@Home, WSS, etc would still be allowed because these are not infomercials and they're more intelligent than infomericals.
 
> I think the FCC needs to stop worrying about something as
> unimporant as Janet's Jackson's breast and declare
> infomercials and televagilists illegal. Networks such as
> QVC, HSN, ShopNBC, Shop@Home, WSS, etc would still be
> allowed because these are not infomercials and they're more
> intelligent than infomericals.
>
As much as I can see your side I have a couple of comments.

Infomercials exist for one reason. They make money. Like SPAM, it works. In 2004 it was reported around 15% of people who received some SPAM bought some product from them.

Televangalists on the other hand, I view slightly different. As hurtful and a mean as their comments can sometimes be, when all is said and done, let's face it they are just speaking their minds.

Unlike Infomercials which exist to make a profit. In fact IGIA one of the largest infomercial providers makes their money from shipping and handling. You will notice a simply "Eyebrow trimmer" carries nearly $8.00 s&h. They also give you a "Free" robe, towel, make up case, and mirror. Of course ALL those items YOU PAY s&H for.

And while IGIA has a liberal return policy they DO NOT refund S&H.

So a lot of informercials are very "gray." Think Don Lapre and Kevin Trudeau. Both have been subject to many legal fines. They pay them and come back.

I think there is a definate lack of quality programming. But let's face it who is demanding it?

Unfortunately the reasoning behind deregulation has gotten lost and we have wound up not with more product, but the SAME product repeated. <P ID="signature">______________
Once I figured out the meaning of life....Then I forgot to write it down.</P>
 
> I think the FCC needs to stop worrying about something as
> unimporant as Janet's Jackson's breast and declare
> infomercials and televagilists illegal. Networks such as
> QVC, HSN, ShopNBC, Shop@Home, WSS, etc would still be
> allowed because these are not infomercials and they're more
> intelligent than infomericals.
>

Should the FCC be taken seriously, they would actually investigate them and also look into all the Girls Gone Wild promos that air in the early morning hours on some of the cable networks.
 
> > I think the FCC needs to stop worrying about something as
> > unimporant as Janet's Jackson's breast and declare
> > infomercials and televagilists illegal. Networks such as
> > QVC, HSN, ShopNBC, Shop@Home, WSS, etc would still be
> > allowed because these are not infomercials and they're
> more
> > intelligent than infomericals.
> >
> As much as I can see your side I have a couple of comments.
>
>
> Infomercials exist for one reason. They make money. Like
> SPAM, it works. In 2004 it was reported around 15% of people
> who received some SPAM bought some product from them.
>
> Televangalists on the other hand, I view slightly different.
> As hurtful and a mean as their comments can sometimes be,
> when all is said and done, let's face it they are just
> speaking their minds.
>
> Unlike Infomercials which exist to make a profit. In fact
> IGIA one of the largest infomercial providers makes their
> money from shipping and handling. You will notice a simply
> "Eyebrow trimmer" carries nearly $8.00 s&h. They also give
> you a "Free" robe, towel, make up case, and mirror. Of
> course ALL those items YOU PAY s&H for.
>
> And while IGIA has a liberal return policy they DO NOT
> refund S&H.
>
> So a lot of informercials are very "gray." Think Don Lapre
> and Kevin Trudeau. Both have been subject to many legal
> fines. They pay them and come back.
>
> I think there is a definate lack of quality programming. But
> let's face it who is demanding it?
>
> Unfortunately the reasoning behind deregulation has gotten
> lost and we have wound up not with more product, but the
> SAME product repeated.
>
Any more fines like this (if indeed they stick) and don't be suprised if a few stations in the Central and Moutain zones decide to drop network afilliation and make their money with infomercials, home shopping or both.
 
> > I think the FCC needs to stop worrying about something as
> > unimporant as Janet's Jackson's breast and declare
> > infomercials and televagilists illegal. Networks such as
> > QVC, HSN, ShopNBC, Shop@Home, WSS, etc would still be
> > allowed because these are not infomercials and they're
> more
> > intelligent than infomericals.
> >
>
> Should the FCC be taken seriously, they would actually
> investigate them and also look into all the Girls Gone Wild
> promos that air in the early morning hours on some of the
> cable networks.
>

you are that offended on something that is aired late at night? or upset that some child that SHOULD be sleeping MIGHT view this infomercial? if it was on during primetime or during the day then i can see your arguement but this one i dont sorry
 
> Should the FCC be taken seriously, they would actually
> investigate them and also look into all the Girls Gone Wild
> promos that air in the early morning hours on some of the
> cable networks.

What are you doing online? You should be out beating a Bible while listening to Limbaugh
 
Never was offended..

I was NEVER said I was offended, and I am not. It was just a joke and a poke at the FCC to answering all these complaints. You people need not to be so uptight.


>
> you are that offended on something that is aired late at
> night? or upset that some child that SHOULD be sleeping
> MIGHT view this infomercial? if it was on during primetime
> or during the day then i can see your arguement but this one
> i dont sorry
>
 
> > I think the FCC needs to stop worrying about something as
> > unimporant as Janet's Jackson's breast and declare
> > infomercials and televagilists illegal. Networks such as
> > QVC, HSN, ShopNBC, Shop@Home, WSS, etc would still be
> > allowed because these are not infomercials and they're
> more
> > intelligent than infomericals.
> >
>
> Should the FCC be taken seriously, they would actually
> investigate them and also look into all the Girls Gone Wild
> promos that air in the early morning hours on some of the
> cable networks.
>
What I find rather interesting is that while theres all this fuss (and fines) going on over the seven deadly words and sexuality on TV, nothing is mentioned about the violence.

How often have we seen these "Viewer Discretion is Advised" warnings at the start of some TV shows because of a depiction of graphic violence.

So it appears that while the FCC and these supposedly "moral" watchdog groups have a big problem with showing a couple of actors simulating the act of love making, they have little problem with showing two actors getting their heads blown off.

db
 
> > > I think the FCC needs to stop worrying about something
> as
> > > unimporant as Janet's Jackson's breast and declare
> > > infomercials and televagilists illegal. Networks such as
>
> > > QVC, HSN, ShopNBC, Shop@Home, WSS, etc would still be
> > > allowed because these are not infomercials and they're
> > more
> > > intelligent than infomericals.
> > >
> >
> > Should the FCC be taken seriously, they would actually
> > investigate them and also look into all the Girls Gone
> Wild
> > promos that air in the early morning hours on some of the
> > cable networks.
> >
> What I find rather interesting is that while theres all
> this fuss (and fines) going on over the seven deadly words
> and sexuality on TV, nothing is mentioned about the
> violence.
>
> How often have we seen these "Viewer Discretion is Advised"
> warnings at the start of some TV shows because of a
> depiction of graphic violence.
>
> So it appears that while the FCC and these supposedly
> "moral" watchdog groups have a big problem with showing a
> couple of actors simulating the act of love making, they
> have little problem with showing two actors getting their
> heads blown off.

A common argument, not without merit. But the FCC is statutorily limited only to regulating obscene and indecent content--and only sexual or excretory functions are obscene or indecent under the law. See Miller v. California (1973) and Pacifica v. FCC (1978).
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.
Back
Top Bottom