In This Section
TV Guide Spotlight
Also on TVGuide.com
|
« Today's News: Our Take
FCC: NYPD Was Too Blue; ABC to Fight $1.4 Mil Fine
NYPD Blue's Charlotte Ross by Bob D'Amico/ABC
The Federal Communications Commission on Friday levied a $1.4 million fine against 52 ABC stations, stemming from a 2003 broadcast of NYPD Blue. The episode in question showed Charlotte Ross' Det. Connie McDowell startled by a young boy as she was about to take a shower, and in doing so showed "multiple, close-up views" of Ross' "nude buttocks," the FCC says. (A clip of the scene (warning: nudity) can be found here; megaprops to reader obriensg1 for finding it.) The ABC affiliates targeted by the fine broadcast in the Central and Mountain time zones, and thus aired the episode before the 10 o'clock hour.
ABC — which unsuccessfully argued against the FCC's contention that buttocks are a "sexual organ" — has responded to the ruling by noting that NYPD Blue came with parental warnings, was V-chip-enabled, and because it had been on the air for a decade at the time, "the realistic nature of its storylines was well-known to the viewing public."
"ABC feels strongly that the FCC's finding is inconsistent with prior precedent," says the network in a statement, "and we intend to oppose the proposed fine."
What's your take? Too much ado about a derriere? Vote here. On a side note, the kid's ears are too big. — Matt Mitovich
New poll: Is a backside a "sexual organ"? Vote here.
|
TVGuide Links:
|
|
|
|
Jan 26, 2008 9:34 AM
|
I don't like throwing the "outrage" around, but this is beyond ridiculous. What exactly did they show on "NYPD Blue" that kids don't see in museums every day?
Reminds me of Atty Gen Ashcroft putting a screen around the nekkid breastesses of the sculpture of Justice where he gave press conferences. What's next? Are they going to require digitization and black bars whenever they show the sculpture of David on TV?
I take it back, I will use the word. Outrageous.
When are they going to start levying fines for gratuituous violence?
|
|
Jan 26, 2008 9:45 AM
|
Stuff like this literally AMAZES ME. The fact that the FCC has so much free time on their hands is cause enough for the goverment to re-evaluate the entire agency. They're fining ABC for a show that aired over four years ago because they showed an a**? At 10 o'clock at night? How is it that shows like CSI and Criminal Minds can present the most gratutious violence on TV, but we show a 1/2 second clip of a bare behind (aka: something we all have) and the FCC flips out? And NYPD Blue was doing stuff like this from the start, so why was this ONE incedent so bad?
Sorry for the rant but this stuff drives me crazy... I'm all for *moderate* censorship, as in I don't think full on nudity or HBO-style cursing would be appropriate for network TV, but this is a little beyond reasonable. It's like the MASSIVE fall-out from Janet/Justin Superbown Debacle. I get how people can view it as inappropriate, but I never understood the *magnitude* of the fall-out. The FCC was acting like timberlake slit her throat and ate her insides. I just don't think a 1/2 second shot of a boob is THAAAAAAAAT detrimental to society. I think that the nation, as a whole, would have been able to get over it.
|
|
Jan 26, 2008 10:03 AM
|
There should be a statute of limitations on this kind of censorship - like 24 hours....
I personally would like to see that episode again before I pass judgement!
|
|
Jan 26, 2008 10:30 AM
|
|
Purely in the name of thorough reporting, does anyone happen to recall whose backside was bared? Was it a female guest star or merely some "extra"? The only photo I had handy was this stock shot of Charlotte Ross and Dennis Franz, so it's purely for illustrative purpsoes.
|
|
Jan 26, 2008 10:38 AM
|
Nudity per se shouldn't be the problem. I think in America we have sexualized certain body parts to the point where we, in general, don't bother to separate a view of a buttock entering a shower from a buttock humping up and down in sexual frenzy. The first is OK to air on TV, the second is not.
I personally have less of a problem with full-on male nudity (a guy gets out of a shower or the pool or whatever) than I do with such scenes as multiple shots of a naked face-down Holly Hunter tied and handcuffed to a bed after her lover walked out when he found out she was a cop.
There's nothing wrong with a human body. But certain activities are for adults only and are private, and should be kept that way. And we do far more damage to our children and teens when we fail to censor gratuitous violence, sex, and a lack of personal responsibility for actions than by letting them simply see a buttock or a nipple.
|
|
Jan 26, 2008 10:41 AM
|
|
I'm so confused. A shower scene of a bare bottom (from 5 years ago) is a problem but the ads and promos showing almost bare bottoms (does the butt-floss thong count?) frolicking in the Florida surf are ok? I agree. The FCC clearly has too much time on their hands.
|
|
Jan 26, 2008 10:53 AM
|
I could understand the FCC saying something if it were a sex scene, or the woman's breasts or front lower end but her backside?! I bet if we were to see a man's backside on NYPD Blue, no one would bat an eye.
ABC did say they warned viewers in advance, so it's not like it came as a surprise to anyone or the character mooned people.
She was stepping into the shower, right? Something people do on a daily basis.
|
|
Jan 26, 2008 11:04 AM
|
|
So they are finally leveling a fine against ABC now? This was over four years ago! Even if you didn't watch NYPD Blue it was well known that the show had adult material/situations. And really this is all the FCC does with its time?
|
|
Jan 26, 2008 11:04 AM
|
"ABC feels strongly that the FCC's finding is inconsistent with prior precedent," says the network, "and we intend to oppose the proposed fine."
Um, ABC, precedent is always prior.
|
|
Jan 26, 2008 11:05 AM
|
Purely in the name of thorough reporting, does anyone happen to recall whose backside was bared? Was it a female guest star or merely some "extra"? The only photo I had handy was this stock shot of Charlotte Ross and Dennis Franz, so it's purely for illustrative purpsoes.
Matt - I believe it's Charlotte Ross. You know, it's been 4 years, so I'm a little hazy here, but I believe there was an epi with her getting out of the shower and young Theo walked in. It was quite amusing to see her try to cover herself, and as I recall it was quite a steamy shot of her. But it was a very realistic event that would happen in any house. It really was a quintessential awkward moment of your new girlfriend/wife moving in when you already have a little one.
That said, what kind of precident is this setting? How far can they go back? Will they find something in Growing Pains that was offensive? Or Cheers?
I agree with above posters about fining for this and not the violence. In our house we would rather see Janet Jackson's boob than some of the disgusting stuff on shows in the 7pm (central time) slot like Bones and NCIS (love both shows BTW). I have never understood this double standard.
And P.S. How come no one was upset about the fact that Justin Timberlake was violently ripping off a womans top? Isn't that violent act something we should be more worried about than the wardrobe malfunction that caused a glimpse of a nipple? Wait, this is TV. Violence against women and just violence in general is a good thing. ::deep sarcasm::
|
|
Jan 26, 2008 11:25 AM
|
This is the kind of thing that makes my blood boil. Screw the FCC.
First of all, the FCC and its Victorian-era rules should be scrapped entirely, or at least drastically overhauled.
I've made this argument many times before--that such an idiotic fine not only makes that FCC look like a bunch of fainthearted, out-of-touch prudes, but also insults the general TV viewing public.
As someone who has always enjoyed British dramas and comedies (and, in fact, has published a book about them), I think I can safely conclude that the partial nudity and even use of four letter words fairly common on British TV has yet to cause that society to crumble into chaos or moral bankruptcy. And yet American networks are apparently in danger of corrupting our very souls with occasional flashes of the human body. I don't remember any riots in the streets after that particular shot of Charlotte Ross' butt in "NYPD Blue" aired, do you? This is insanity.
An episode of the recently departed "Studio 60", in which the fictional network chose to fight the FCC for fining them over a soldier's curse aired on a news report, was a much-needed reminder of how ridiculous this issue has become. The network president, played by Ed Asner, refused to recognize the FCC's legal authority to levy such fines, saying he won't pay any fines unless their imposed by a circuit court judge.
I don't know what options ABC has in real life, but I would like to see what would happen if the broadcasting industry as a whole took a stronger stand against this kind of absurdity--whether the disputed content in question is visual or verbal in nature.
|
|
Jan 26, 2008 11:33 AM
|
Thankfully, we have the FCC to save us from ourselves.
As an afterthought, if the FCC believes that buttocks are sexual organs...guyz, yur doin' it wrong!
|
|
Jan 26, 2008 11:43 AM
|
How does a bunch of crotchety old farts weild so much power? It's a butt for crying out loud!!! We all have one. Even the bible thumping wackos that control the FCC have to admit their good Lord gave each and every one of us one.
I sure hope our next President makes a point of disbanding this group of witch hunters. Make parents be parents.
|
|
Jan 26, 2008 11:45 AM
|
So the scene was acceptable in 2003, but it somehow got more offensive in the five years that followed? Wow, I knew television technology was advancing, but film that edits itself? That is awesome.
Kidding aside, I remember when NYPD Blue first came on the air. ABC stations across the country were threatening to ban the program and people were up in arms. I said then, as I say now, there is this AMAZING device on EVERY television. It is called the Power button. If someone doesn't like what they see, they can use it! And more realistically, the v-chip can prevent children from seeing things they shouldn't (if their parents aren't actively monitoring what they watch).
The FCC needs to find something more productive to do with its time!
|
|
Jan 26, 2008 11:46 AM
|
|
|
