Next Monday night’s“Law & Order: LA” episode involves “a crazed gunman” who “goes on a rampage at a political rally, killing a state senator.” Sound’s upsetting. Hmmmm...where have I heard of something like that happening?
Oh, right.
Tuscon, Arizona, where the NBC affiliate, KVOA has decided that residents are not only too traumatized to view such an episode “ripped from the headlines,” but apparently to be in the same city where anyone else can view it. Station president and general manager Bill Shaw explains that “the Tucson community is still going through the healing process” and NBC’s show has too many similarities to “that horrible day.” KVOA will broadcast the episode on May 17 starting at 1:05 a.m, because…gee, I can’t figure out what the logic is. To make the show as difficult and inconvenient as possible to see for those in the Tucson area who want to see it? To punish NBC for broadcasting it at all? This is paternalism of the most offensive and insulting kind.
The censorship of the TV episode is an abuse of the station’s responsibility to the community, and if I was in a position to do so, I’d pull KVOA’s license. Who are the station execs to decide what network fare is or isn’t too traumatic for its viewers? Why would a Tuscon resident who would be traumatized by a fictional drama based on January’s tragic events in the city watch the show? Why shouldn’t a viewer who feels up to the task be allowed to see what everyone else in the country is watching? If the episode is a masterpiece, or sets off a national debate, what right does Bill Shaw have to take Tucson citizens—of all people— out of the debate?
The station’s decision is unfair, disrespectful, presumptuous, an abuse of power and, as is often the result of such ingredients, utterly, utterly stupid.
Ethics Alarms 
Irrelevant: I find the “ripped from the headlines” to be about the lowest form of writing on TV, lower than fanfiction. I cannot STAND Law and Order.
And yet, I’d watch it gladly before watching Operation Repo, or Southern Fried Stings, or Flavor of Love or any of that reality TV nonsense.
Frankly, I can’t blame them at all, Jack. Just the opposite.
First off, I think it takes a lot for anyone with a spark of decency to hold their nose and air anything from the “Law & Order” series… “L&O: SVU” in particular. These shows feature sex, violence and depravity nonstop as an excuse for entertainment. Or, as the producers would likely put it, to “raise awareness of the issue”. Their abuse of child actors rivals anything on television, too; cable or broadcast.
Second; it’s pretty obvious what headline this murderous story was “ripped” from. Local TV executives are not (or shouldn’t be!) consciousless businessmen out to make a foul buck in any way they can- as they are so often (ironically) depicted on TV itself. They should also be pillars of their community and (yes) guardians for it, holding as they do a position of nearly unique trust. With that trust comes responsibility to their neighbors.
Thirdly; were a TV station or network to withhold, delay or misinform on news vital to the public interest… THAT would be censorship. It’s also something that all too many TV executives engage in. This, however, was a rare case of local execs putting their foot down by refusing to air “entertainment” that was meant to exploit a local tragedy and- likely enough- degrade that community in the process. Arizona is not a popular state with the Hollywood elite these days. Even Texas may rate higher!
The men who run this station took a risk by defying their network for the sake of their community. Whether you agree or disagree, it was a decision that needed to be made and they made it. And they made it on the basis of decency and respect. I could only hope and pray to see more of that from other of their peers around the country. If there were, the decline of television to its present state of moral squalor might be reversed.
1) This was Law and Order LA, not SVU.
2) How, exactly, does not broadcasting a drama protect anyone? The episode is announced. Anyone who doesn’t want to see it has no reason to tune in. NBC broadcasts more crap—The Celebrity Apprentice?—“Minute to Win it”?—than the other three networks combined—in its schedule, any of the Law and Orders are crown jewels. I don’t need the fools who run local network dictate what I or my family can “handle.” Are you kidding? How can you or anyone defend such paternalism? At least when elected officials try to dictate out conduct, they have the legitimacy of an election.
Mr. Pilling, I feel I should point out that my dictionary identifies censorship as “the process of examining books, movies, etc. and removing unacceptable parts.” It’s incorrect to limit the application of the term to information that is “vital to the public interest.” And more than that, it is dangerous to say, “It’s okay if other people decide what we can and cannot watch, as long as the value of the content is subjective.”
I appreciate your opinion about these sorts of shows. They’re not shows that I would be much inclined to watch, though I don’t agree with your assessment of them as nothing but exploitative dreck. Still, I see where you’re coming from, but I’m willing to see that opinion only as far as your refusal to watch the programs, and your efforts to criticize them on weblog, and perhaps campaign against them. But the point of all this is that no one should be exploiting the power to apply their personal sensibilities universally, and to decide that the audience can’t handle it, or say “It’s not good, so we don’t need to let you arrive at your own conclusion.”
Dear Edward:
I appreciate your comments. However, my application of the term “censorship” derives from my understanding of the original intent of the Constitution… the First Amendment in particular. The purpose- as the Framers pointed out in their writings- was not to protect slander, libel or the degradation of the innocent for profit; the latter of which can be defined as exploitation or outright pornography. The intent was to allow the free dissemination of information and exchange of viewpoints which is necessary to the continuation of a free republic.
Entertainment is not a factor in this. And entertainment displays which communities or businesses find vulgar or otherwise unfit for their support do not require that support under a logical application of the Constitution. This was not even a case of political satire. It was the exploitation of a recent tragedy in which the city of Tucson was prominent.
Remember, too, the KVOA is a private business. It is also a media that requires good taste and judgement in regard to the community it serves. Therefore, when faced with this bitter episode, they had to make a hard decision for the sake of their business and their patrons. If find that the bigger issue here is that their parent network attempts to force such displays on the public in the first place (as they virtually all do) and continually pushes for more and worse. I submit that the juristic re (mis) interpretation of the Constitution is what has allowed all this.
Don’t you think that choice of entertainment can constitute an exchange of viewpoints, if only the view that one likes or doesn’t like a particular piece of media? Information and opinion can be couched in various types of presentation. If entertainment doesn’t factor into this, does that mean that anything that’s identified as entertainment is automatically free from protections against censorship? Satire, for instance, is decidedly a form of entertainment, but one that attempts to convey a clear message. Is it okay to restrict that on the basis that a station executive doesn’t like the message?
Having not seen this Law and Order episode, I don’t know what its content was, beyond what has been described in this thread. But it seems very likely to me that the writers may have tried to make some sort of point about, say, the mental state of the gunman, or the nature of political violence. You may not believe that, and you may think they just wrote the show to try to punch viewers in the gut, but that’s your view, and nobody else should be prevented from developing their own view based on the actual plot of the show.
As to what you identified as the bigger issue: No one is forcing anything whatsoever on the viewing public. Nobody is being strapped to a chair a la Clockwork Orange, and being made to watch something they find offensive. Every single viewer has the complete freedom to watch or not watch whatever they wish. But that is uniquely not the case here, where a small group of people decided for an entire city that something they conceptually didn’t like couldn’t be aired at an accessible time.
1. I understand that, Jack. I was just pointing out that “SVU” was the worst of a rotten lot, particularly as it’s the most abusive of child actors.
2. I’m certainly not disagreeing with the general vacuousness of the programming of all the major networks. Nor do I care for the murderous, sex-ridden melodramas that arer likewise presented. However, if well-intentioned station managers rejected all these unworthy programs, what would they be left with? That’s the sorry dilemma that the networks have enforced upon both them and the viewers.
3. Those station people own their operation and are thus responsible to their customers. Occasionally, when something is truly revolting or has disparaging local implications (both, in this case) they have to exercise their judgement. Someone has to make those decisions. If that decision is unpopular among their viewership, they’ll hear about it. But it’s a decision that can’t be made by plebiscite.
Just one more way that other people are trying to “parent” the american people. What happened to free will and everything else this country beleived in?
If people don’t want to watch it there is a button labeled off they are free to use. The problem is that its going to take a lot more then what’s going on to bring things back to the people. It will also take americans to not do what we are told because a misterious “they” told us to do it and like it. (They being government,the executives the evil troll that lives under the bridge)
We need people to throw off the sheep skin and start taking america back.
(Typed on phone so not sure how great it will come out)
I’ll agree with the disgust of “ripped from the headlines” TV. But I”ll choose to change the channel on my own.
I like the “ripped from the headlines” scripts, most of the time. They are alternate universe versions of stories that are familiar, with provocative twists raising interesting legal and ethical issues. In other words, exactly like my ethics hypotheticals.
I think the government pulling the station’s license would be a problem. Forced speech and all that.
Now, if NBC wants to drop KVOA as an affiliate, that would be cool with me.
I think a case could be made that its use of the privilege of being able to broadcast is irresponsible and against the public interest, but yes. its’ a stretch. The problem is that nobody in their right mind wants to be an NBC affiliate.
I think that if you can make that case, I can make the case that not broadcasting the whitehouse ever hour is irresponsible and against the public interest.
Don’t let the government mess around with content.
Exactly. It’s partially because of government that things have gotten as putrid as they have. No standards. No morality. No respect for women and children beyond their marketability. The FCC, which is supposed to be the watchdog over public communications on behalf of the citizens, has become the rubber stamp of the producers and broadcasters. Ultimately, the citizens themselves are going to have to act to clean up the assorted cultural messes in Hollywood, New York and Washington.