There's No Saving Private Ryan

[Virtual_Burlesque]

ABC Fought the Pre-emption of 'Private Ryan'
By REUTERS

November 12, 2004



ABC television, backed by Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, and others, spent much of yesterday trying to keep nervous affiliate stations from deserting a Veterans Day broadcast of the acclaimed World War II film "Saving Private Ryan."

Several ABC affiliates, including eight stations owned by the Sinclair Broadcast Group and four owned by the Belo Corporation, scheduled other programming, citing concerns about profanity and graphic violence in the film.

In Dallas, ABC's Belo-owned affiliate, WFAA, broadcast Oprah Winfrey's talk show and the movie "Hoosiers" instead of "Saving Private Ryan."

Sinclair said the recent crackdown on indecent material by the Federal Communications Commission was a major factor in its decision to shun the R-rated film, which ABC is obligated to broadcast without editing or bleeps under an agreement with DreamWorks, the studio that produced it.

While the F.C.C. declined to comment in advance of last night's telecast - "that would be censorship," a spokeswoman told The Hollywood Reporter - the agency defended the 2002 broadcast of the film in a letter to the American Family Association, ruling the film was neither profane nor indecent.

Executives at ABC, which is owned by the Walt Disney Company, said most of ABC's 225 affiliates carried the film.

Mr. McCain, a former Vietnam prisoner of war who introduced the broadcast on ABC, issued a statement saying the film "comes nowhere near indecent."

Sinclair, Belo and other stations balking at the film said they had asked ABC to permit them to show it later in the evening, when fewer children were watching, but ABC rejected their request.

Private Ryan Died of an overzealous application of ‘Zero Tolerance’ . . .


. . . and look who’s laughing.

Rush Limbaugh Transcript

Now, folks, when you saw this, they've all aired this once before. This is not the first time that Saving Private Ryan will appear on commercial TV. When you heard this -- and these twenty affiliates are all over the country, it's not one particular area -- when you heard this, did you sort of scratch your head and say, "Wait a second here, what is this? We're going to compare the blood and guts of Saving Private Ryan to Janet Jackson's exposed boob from the Super Bowl?" I think many people believe that what's happening here is that this is just a way of lashing out and making a statement that the Bush administration is anti-free speech, and these people are living in fear of the government. Don't you love it? Don't you absolutely -- the 180s, the total reversals of position taking place since the election simply amaze me. Now we have the left out there acting afraid of big government. We have -- and maybe not the left -- these twenty TV station managers, exhibiting a fear of big government. Isn't that what they've always derided conservatives for? And, of course, this is somewhat groundless to think that Michael Powell is going to issue fines to TV stations that air Saving Private Ryan?

Doesn't it feel GREAT abusing the your control of a national resource to score points off the opposition, while showing your complete indifference for a tribute to soldiers who haven't really done anything for you . . . LATELY!

Fearing FCC action on indecency, stations pull 'Private Ryan'

by Mark Jurkowitz, Boston Globe
November 12, 2004

What began as an attempt to honor Veterans Day with a powerful war movie turned into a battle between ABC and balky affiliates when some stations opted not to broadcast "Saving Private Ryan" last night, saying they feared an aggressive Federal Communications Commission crackdown on indecency.

Among the stations that chose not to run Stephen Spielberg's acclaimed film -- which includes graphic violence and profanity -- were four ABC affiliates owned by Belo Corp., six owned by the E.W. Scripps Co., and 13 owned by Hearst-Argyle, including New Hampshire station WMUR-TV (Channel 9) and Boston affiliate WCVB-TV (Channel 5).

WCVB's general manager, Paul La Camera, said the decision not to air the film was "a cry for clarity from the FCC. . . . They have told us that the language [in the movie] is unlawful in this day and age . . . The rules have changed and there are greater sensitivities."

La Camera said he asked the FCC for assurances there would be no action taken against stations showing "Saving Private Ryan" and asked ABC to allow Channel 5 to start the film at 10 p.m. instead of 8 p.m in order to abide by commission rules that create a "safe harbor" for such programming. Both requests were rejected. "You wish on the one hand that the commission had given us some guidelines and that ABC had been a bit more flexible," he said.

ABC spokeswoman Susan Sewell acknowledged that the network refused to allow affiliates to push the start time past 8 p.m., saying ABC wanted the movie "to run in pattern across the country." She said ABC was offering to pay any fines levied by the FCC and noted that the film had been broadcast in 2001 and 2002 and had also survived an indecency complaint before the FCC.

"Needless to say, the vast majority of our stations are running it," Sewell said, adding that the network was under a "contractual obligation" to run the film unedited. "Clearly, we feel it's fine to run or else we wouldn't be offering it."

Aside from the Belo, E.W. Scripps, and Hearst-Argyle stations that are opting out, the Associated Press reported that some outlets owned by Cox Television, Tribune Broadcasting Corp., and the Sinclair Broadcast Group were choosing not to run the movie.

Judy Shoemaker, a spokesman for WLNE-TV (Channel 6) in Providence, said yesterday that the station was broadcasting "Saving Private Ryan" because "we believe this is a very important, powerful film and it's a tribute to our veterans. There is violence. There is bad language. But it's not gratuitous. . . . It's different than Janet Jackson exposing herself at the Super Bowl."

That infamous "wardrobe malfunction" has been a catalyst for tougher FCC enforcement of indecency rules. It recently levied a $550,000 fine against CBS-owned stations for the Jackson fiasco and fined Fox television stations more than $1 million for airing a racy episode of the reality show "Married by America." In a decision that could have implications for "Saving Private Ryan," the FCC also overruled an earlier decision and decided that rock star Bono's use of an obscenity during a 2003 Golden Globes Awards broadcast was indecent and profane.

Still, there is precedent suggesting that last night's airing of "Saving Private Ryan" may not run afoul of the FCC. The commission has ruled that a broadcast of the movie "Schindler's List" -- which includes nudity -- did not violate the indecency statute and dismissed a similar complaint against an earlier broadcast of "Saving Private Ryan" filed by the American Family Association. The FCC was closed yesterday for Veterans Day and no one was available for comment.

The Parents Television Council, an advocacy group for family-friendly programming, released a statement yesterday from its president, L. Brent Bozell, saying "We agreed with the FCC on its ruling that the airing of 'Schindler's List' on television was not indecent and we feel that 'Saving Private Ryan' is in the same category. We will not be filing an indecency complaint with the FCC over the airing of this film, particularly because it has aired on television in the past."

Council spokeswoman Lara Mahaney wonders why stations were reluctant to air "Saving Private Ryan." "It's ironic that [stations] choose to take a stance on this particular program," she said. "I think there are a lot of things that put them at jeopardy for indecency that they don't preempt."

A statement by E.W. Scripps Co. explaining the decision to preempt made it clear that a newly aggressive FCC was a major factor. "While it has been broadcast twice before, recent federal regulatory decisions on profanity appear to make it clear that the Federal Communications Commission prohibits the broadcast of the type of profanity used in the movie," said a senior vice president for the TV Station Group, William R. Peterson.

La Camera said WCVB was worried about bigger issues than just an FCC fine. "The fines are not an issue," he said. "The fact is this could precipitate a challenge to our license. . . . You never know what a reconstructed FCC is going to look like in a second Bush administration."

© Copyright 2004 Globe Newspaper Company.

Do you think someone should have mentioned that this was a War Movie, and that we are at 'War' ?

 

[steve w]

I think there are a few points here -

1 You can expect more of this self-censorship by the media. They'll pull things and edit things in anticipation of action from the authorities. It really makes it easier to control things if spineless cretins roll over and die, instead of having the courage of their convictions and fight any subsequent action. It saves the powers-that-be having to create legislation and take decisions that can be overtly criticised at the next election.

2 The authorities have deliberately left the definitions vague, to encourage the above. They do the same in this country with the term "obscene" which, like Alice in Wonderland, means "whatever I want it to mean."

3 I don't think the self-censorship had anything to do with the violence and/or language. I think it had to do with the power of the opening scene, which truly showed the carnage, chaos, cruelty and futility of what we ask troops to do. Wouldn't be too much of a stretch to imagine the sands of Normandy are the sands of Iraq, would it? That's what the authorities didn't want to happen, and a couple of vaguely-worded and implied threats were enough to cower a number of gutless broadcasters.

Doesn't bode well for the future, does it?

Finally it has to be said that, after the magnificent first twenty minutes, the rest of the film is overly-schmaltzy Speilberg crap.

 

[dreampilot79]

I happen to be one who gets the privledge of dealing with the Federal Communications Commission on a much too frequent basis.

To me the freightening part is that the FCC has fined CBS for the Janet Jackson thingie.

The FCC's mandate is to control the radio/television station OWNERS. They do have the ability to fine the OWNERS for airing "lewd or lischievious" material (note no mention of violence.. and no damn spell checker either).

The owners have the option to air or not the material provided by the networks and the FCC has the right to fine them for it. There are no fine schedules at all but they are set by the commission trial panel before the commission who's ruling can be appealed to federal court.

That fine schedule can indeed be used as a threat or a defacto method of government censorship. The only recourse is to change the law.

 

[cantdog]

Which we would do with an election of some kind? I think not.

Freedom, as the bumper stickers keep telling us, isn't free. Changing the law with little or no input into the system as it stands would be very difficult.

Theoretically, though, these people represent you. Write!

Each issue such as this is another occasion for letters and speech.

 

[dreampilot79]

The FCC rules are NOT laws. They are written, enacted and enforced by the commissioners (and their staff) who are appointed by the President.

The rules are not passed on by any legislative body although they can be mitigated by legislation or by rulings from Federal court of appeals.

The legislature can force the FCC to enact rules by legislative action and they can invalidate rules again by legislation but the rules do not come directly from the legislature.

An example is the cross ownership laws. Until a very short time ago no one who owned a newspaper could also own a broadcast outlet and no one could own more than one broadcast outlet in a single city(oops you could own one AM, one FM and one TV). That rule was enacted in the 1930's so some newspapers were allowed to own broadcast outlets (Chicago tribune and WGN) but that was the exception.

Even more freightening to me is that the congress (undoubtedly influenced by major campaign contributions) has allowed multiple ownership of both newspapers and multiple broadcast outlets in a single market and taken the ownership caps off.

Now we face not only censorship by fine, but also homogonization of all media. Clear Channel communications now owns almost 1000 of the 8,000 radio stations in the country and clear channel isn't the only one. Four companies now control almost 75% of the broadcast outlets.

Great news if you want to control the broadast press.. you only have to convince 4 or 5 people.

 

[rgraham666]

Snarling at those gutless wonders that pulled the movie.

But I agree with steve w. The Omaha Beach landing sequence is a fine piece of work, the rest was Spielberg.

 

[OhMissScarlett]

Here's a perfect example of the brilliance of the FCC that we're dealing with.


E-rate article

 

[OldScotlandYard]

pervs, you are all nicked!

 

[Virtual_Burlesque]

IBM was denied $250 million in E-rate funding after the FCC found it and eight school districts short-circuited competitive bidding. IBM won contracts without making specific price proposals. And by apparently helping the districts write the bid requests, it "may have unduly influenced the selection process in IBM's favor," according to the FCC.

But why, Mama? We don’t withhold monies from Haliburton just because they have been caught, many times, with their claw in the tambourine, do we?

 

[OhMissScarlett]

But why, Mama? We don’t withhold monies from Haliburton just because they have been caught, many times, with their claw in the tambourine, do we?

Right, this is exactly what I was reminded of.

 

[LadyJeanne]

Ever since ABC has been owned by Disney, it's programming decisions have been awful. They'd rather run 5000 seasons of The Bachelor than an Oscar winning movie, which might explain why they've been consistently ranked third behind NBC and CBS in the last few years. Even with CSI, Lost, and Desperate Housewives this season, they're still third.

 

[sweetnpetite]

Ever since ABC has been owned by Disney, it's programming decisions have been awful. They'd rather run 5000 seasons of The Bachelor than an Oscar winning movie, which might explain why they've been consistently ranked third behind NBC and CBS in the last few years. Even with CSI, Lost, and Desperate Housewives this season, they're still third.

I read there stock holders report for my business class way back when. they said they bought ABC in order to insure that they would have a market for there shows. (gag!) Either they don't want to make good shows anymore or they are paranoid of some sort of sensorship.

It seems they've acutally limited the availablity of disney shows and movies because they want to be exclusive about it and not let other stations show there programs when they can hog them all up for themselves.

Is this broadcast nepotism or incest?

 

[Virtual_Burlesque]

U.S. v. Paramount, the famous 1948 decision abolishing block booking, and the forcing the studios divestiture of their theater chains, was the first decision in the Hollywood Antitrust Case. Eventually, all the major studios were force to separate their production facilities from their theatrical releasing companies.

A logical person could suggest that Disney’s purchase of ABC was in some ways recreating a modern equivalent to the situation that the Supreme Court broke up at the end of the 1940's.

One result of this break up was the encouragement of competition from other studios than the original Hollywood eight, and eventually the rise of Indie film production.

I don’t expect to see any similar case. For one thing, the Bush Administration is not the Roosevelt Administration. By controlling one of the largest markets, televison network ownership can place pressure back along the usual film production-release line to financially coerce film production into approved areas.

In this way, the recent Saving Private Ryan debacle can be seen as a highly visible instance of this pressure being applied. It would be no less effective had it been done at some other time with some other topic, but it would have been slightly less despicable.

Using a high visibility film [Saving Private Ryan] at a most auspicious time [Veteran’s Day] and using an exceedingly generalized threat coupled with an inadequate explanation of the FCC’s newly-announced regulations, made this a most effective demonstration. I feel certain that many film producers are now paying attention.

Finally, we cannot be too hard on the television station. They were threatened with the loss of their license, by the only body capable of removing it. With a broadcasting license, their station is a multimillion dollar company employing probably a hundred specialized employees. Without that license, they have several hundred-thousand dollars worth of electronic equipment, some property, and a large payroll, many of who hold contracts to be paid regardless of whether the station is turned on, or left dark.

There are a hundred paychecks, and the people they support, the owners with an investment to lose, and a market to lose one of its most visible communications facilities. That’s a lot to gamble, playing chicken with a regulatory body working close to a demonstrateably hostile administration.



Anyone interested in the Hollywood Antitrust Case can read up on line at this link.