What does it say when eating cockroaches is apparently not as bad as showing some back?

ABC apologizes for steamy MNF intro

And if you haven't heard the controversey surrounding a recent Veteran's Day planned showing of Saving Private Ryan...

Sixty-six ABC affiliates chose not to run "Saving Private Ryan''


Now we all know what the buzz is surrounding the FCC and incidents like the Super Bowl Halftime Show from last year and how networks are scrambling to not fall on the FCC's bad side.

Are the networks being scared into being too cautious of what they show on TV?

Is the pressure the FCC exuding going too far in trying to protect viewers?

Is there a double standard when the content and pretext of shows like "Temptation Island" and "Joe Millionaire" go virtually unnoticed by the FCC?

I think all this is utterly insane. First off, the MNF spot had nothing more daring than what you would see on any other prime time show, from the way CNNsi.com described it. I mean, any actress with a dress walking the red carpet at the Golden Globes shows more skin.

Second, I mean, what's to be sorry for? They were just appealing to their main demographic. Males from the ages of 18- 50. They like that stuff and they're the kind of folk who watch it the most. They should not be ashamed because a few houswives were afraid their eight year old son might see what the back of a woman looks like.

Lastly, I think it is hypocritical to force networks to cancel a critically acclaimed movie about one of the greatest periods of American history, on a day that it would be appropriate for no less, (God forbid that sons and grandfathers actually connect during this film) while letting "Joe Millionaire" recieve oral sex or watching perfectly happy couples have their relationships ruined for the amusement of the same people that turn around and complain over the MNF spot.

Are the networks being scared into being too cautious of what they show on TV?Is the pressure the FCC exuding going too far in trying to protect viewers?
I'd have to say yes to both of these, but with my different sensibility I don't see why there needs to be quite so much censorship on TV in the US as there already is. I shared the bemusement of much of the non-American world at the fuss caused by a partially obscured nipple during the Superbowl. What WAS the fuss about, I thought.
However, while I don't agree with this sensibility, I can respect it. When in Rome, do as the Romans, after all.

Is there a double standard when the content and pretext of shows like "Temptation Island" and "Joe Millionaire" go virtually unnoticed by the FCC?
Now this area I do find interesting.

I'd say the double standard was even more obvious than that. The subtext of TI & JM is sexual, while the subtext (and much of the text) of Saving Private Ryan is violence. So they are two subtly different subjects that one could easily have different opinions on. One could be at ease with frank depictions of one, but not with the other (though, as I say, my sensibility finds it very odd and a little unnerving that someone could be at ease with frank depictions of violence, but not with those of sex).

However, there is plenty of television with violent text/subtext already showing

So what is so very dreadful about showing one movie that might conceivably upset the friends and relative of the 130,000 or so potential and 1,300 or so actual wartime deaths in Iraq?

And if that's so dreadful, what is conversely acceptable about showing CSI, CSI Miami, Law & Order, Law & Order SVU, The Shield, NYPD Blue, The Sopranos, Crossing Jordan, Boomtown, Murder She Wrote, Line of Fire, Deadwood (just a quick list of the US TV shows that feature or centre on violence or violent crime which are successful over here at the moment - I appreciate that some of them are cable shows and so aren't held to the same standard the the FCC as network programming) and so on, when there are upwards of 100,000 actual murder and gun death victims annually in the USA? Are their relatives somehow immune to the almost constant TV reminders of violent death on America's streets?

Don't the feelings of real victims' families matter as much as those of potential victims' families? Do the families of military victims get 100 times as much consideration because their relatives are, in essence, fulfilling their function of dying on our behalf, where "ordinary" violent death victims are essentially random occurrences that are too scary to contemplate (Do they think viewers' logic is "I'm not going to die in Iraq because I'm not there and I'm not wearing clothes that mark me as a special target, but I might get killed walking down the street any day, so best make murder a work of entertainment lest I lock myself in the house all day")? Or are violent deaths only acceptable to the FCC if the person dying isn't wearing US military uniform and doing their dying thousands of miles away?