Today's discussion about censorship of the media during war time reminded me of an episode of Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip, an NBC show from 2006-2007, about a late-night sketch comedy show. There was an issue where the network was being fined by the FCC for carrying coverage of a soldier swearing on air, after an RPG exploded nearby. The network executives felt that this fine was unfair because it was not something they could control and it was unexpected, and most importantly, thats what happens in war.
It brings up an important point which now exists with embedded reporters, which is, how much of the real war do we really wanna see? It seemed that in this case, although fictional, the FCC didn't want the people to see the "real war" and everything it entails, only the clean version. It also reminds me of, I believe, the only footage of the first plane hitting the WTC, where the firefighter who was on a training exercise swore when he saw what happened. In that case, networks aired the video with a disclaimer about the expletive, while in the case in Studio 60, it was live and therefore there was no chance for a disclaimer, but should the FCC have fined them? It comes down to the issue of how much of war, is the government and media really willing to show us?
Well I don't think its a black or white issue. Just because we have the ability to show war or terrorism in all its gruesomeness, does not mean that we should. Media has to find a balance between showing how terrible war is and viewers' sensibilities. So while I would agree that the fcc should not have fined them, because swearing is a natural reaction, maybe it was not so right to have the guy swearing.
ReplyDelete