Breaking: FCC reviewing NBC's Golden Globes telecast
After receiving multiple complaints about NBC's Sunday telecast of the Golden Globes, the FCC said Wednesday that it is reviewing the program for possible violations of indecency rules.
Toward the end of the program, director Darren Aronofsky was caught on camera jokingly making an obscene gesture -- "flipping the bird," as it's commonly called -- at actor Mickey Rourke, who was onstage accepting an acting award for Aronofsky's film "The Wrestler." Rourke and other attendees also salted their speeches with occasional off-color language, some of which was bleeped by NBC censors.
Now the FCC, which regulates decency issues on the broadcast networks, has stepped into the fray. "We received 18 complaints about the Golden Globes telecast," FCC spokeswoman Edie Herman wrote in an e-mail to The Times, "and the commission is reviewing the matter."
An NBC spokeswoman confirmed that it aired the Aronofsky gesture on the live telecast. "On the West Coast, it went to black for two seconds," the spokeswoman e-mailed. "Beyond that, we have no further comment."
Aronofsky's publicist, Karen Samfilippo, said earlier this week that she had not heard anything from NBC about the matter.
The FCC has a mixed record with decency enforcement. The agency fined CBS $500,000 for airing Janet Jackson's notorious "wardrobe malfunction" during the 2004 Super Bowl. But a court overturned the fine last year.
-- Scott Collins
Has anyone read the covers of the rags at the supermarket checkout, Redbook, Cosmo, Life Style, etc, why don't we have censorship there why only on radio or TV. Wake up this is 2009 the Victorian skirts are long packed away. Find something better to do than watch that stuff, try 2 and a Half Men, you'll be on the phone complaining for the full half hour. You can do it in syndication too.
Posted by: tower power | January 15, 2009 at 01:07 PM
From a few comments directed my way it is clear that the "religious" here believe that without superstition a person cannot have a functional moral guidance system. That is just plain wrong.
The basis of my personal morality is my belief in human dignity and human worth, and that does not depend on believing in little being that can't be seen or heard or touched or measured in any objective way. It does NOT depend on some philosophy that says if you don't believe as I do you will "go to hell" for that. It is NOT based on exclusionary ideas of US vs THEM as most religious philosophies espouse. It is NOT based on the idea that I or anyone else has any ultimate wisdom about how to live.
It IS based on the idea that individual liberty and economic freedom are the greatest good for the greatest number of people. It IS based on the idea that I can best determine my own future, not some preacher, mullah or priest. It IS based on the idea that you can believe what ever you want but you cannot force others to live by your beliefs and in return we will not force you to live by ours.
When you try to force the idea that you can make me or anyone else live by your standards, then you create the setting for civil war or simple ethnic cleansing. I guess that worked well for the Serbs and Croats, right. For the Hutu and Tutsi. I guess the 'religious' in this country like those kinds of results. Then they can claim a few new martyrs for the next go-round.
If you want to believe in your superstitions, no problem. But don't try to make me live by your rules and I won't force you to live by mine. Live and let live is the alternative to civil war. I will live by my personal moral code and you can live by yours. I think mine works fine: I don't rob, cheat or intentionally harm any person or their property. If that is not sufficiently moral, then that is more than I have seen from the likes of Rev. Jim Jones, a 'religious' leader extraordinaire, no doubt!. Or from Jim Baker or any number of other 'fine moral leaders' of the church who patronize and bilk the gullible and the frightened to build their Crystal Palaces.
Keep drinking your KoolAid and genuflect one more time to Baal or Shiva or God or Allah or whatever. Meanwhile I will continue to practice medicine, based on science, and I will do some REAL good for real people.
rAT
Posted by: rAT | January 15, 2009 at 06:20 PM
I was offended by the hand gesture and some of the language, but more offended by the fact that the presenters couldn't speak and had to tell the crowd to hush on more than one occasion. I don't remember that happening in the past. It's a sign of the times as the audience becomes younger and younger, they just don't undertand how to behave in society.
Posted by: Paula | January 15, 2009 at 08:35 PM
Oh my - adult content in an adult broadcast. What will happen next?? Anyone offended by this should steer clear of live broadcasts - if you've reached adulthood you should know by now what to expect. I don't want everything on TV censored down to the lowest common viewing denominator. I'm a big girl, I can take it or I know where the the remote is.
Posted by: LL | January 16, 2009 at 06:32 AM
As a family we gave up TV about 14 years ago....gotta say we don't miss it.....so flip me off-I don't really care-much ado about nothing.....
Posted by: Mrs P. | January 16, 2009 at 06:53 PM
Live TV is just that - Live TV. Anything and everything goes.
To the 18 who complained - don't you have anything better to do? If this is your thrill then might I suggest that you also pony up and pay for the full cost of the investigation so you can get the 'full effect'?
As for language and obscene gestures . .let's ALL be glad that the FCC only deals only with RF and NOT 'AF' - or Audio Frequencies - as there would have been dozens of arrests within an hour of my walking and overhearing conversations around Times Square in New York City just this past weekend. Was I offended? Nope. Would I go back . .yup.
Maybe those 18 need to also go to Times Square for a little dose of reality .. called Life!
M.
Posted by: Mike in Maine | January 21, 2009 at 08:18 AM