Regular readers will know I harp on about this issue a fair bit, but I'm back on the subject of pron on TV. The crux of it is that I think the issue of restricting access to pron is fucking silly when compared to the availability of voilent material. I'm amazed that sexual material appears to be considered more dangerous than sexual material, and I'm amazed at the double standards that are applied to the availability of sexual material. I can download pretty much any kind of pron over the internet, but I can only watch topless females on the telly after 10pm and I'm utterly forbidden to see muff. I can buy no holds barred hardcore porn legally mail order or from a licensed sex shop, but I'm restricted to floppy cocks, closed muffs and absolutely no penetration on encrypted opt in adult satellite channels. That I could point a dish to a satellite that's broadcasting to other european countries and watch what the fuck I like is also bloody silly.
I often wonder who it is that's opposing these things, and what their justification is. Well, I've had a glimse into the mind of these freako's because ofcom have started publishing responses to their proposed changes to the viewing regs here . Now the majority of these are normal, reasonably thinking people who support offcoms suggestion that encrypted channels that require opt in and production of a credit card to access should be able to show R18 material (jeez, even r18 is watered down, but hey, it's progress). It's the ones that are against it that are hilarious. One even responds to say not only is R18 programming on an encrypted digital channel that she won't ever subcribe to is deeply offensive, she also goes on to say the baring of breasts after 10pm on channel 5 is also deeply offensive. I mean, what the fuck? If you get sick at the sight of tits, fucking don't watch channel 5 after 10pm! You don't accidentally press the button, and even if you do, it's just a fucking pair of tits! No mention of seeing a family drown in a car in full glory in corrie at 19:30, when most kids are still up. Or the East Enders current run of gorifying organised crime and depiction that every londoner is a petty theif, also at 19:30. I consider these issues far more damaging to my kids than having them see a pair of tits, but I'm still not offended that they exist, because I have the strength in my fingers to turn the fuckers over if I don't like them.
Oh Check out the 7 Adventists reply, where they object to content depicting real people with supernatural powers being shown to kids, because they can't bear to have Jesus marked down as a fictional character, ho ho ho!
Tuesday 28 September 2004
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
What's the problem here? As you say, it's available on the Internet, why do you specifically want it available on telly as well? At least on the net, you control what you want to be entertained by, rather than being hopeful that a tv program suits your interest at that moment in time.
ReplyDeleteTelevision is inevitably doomed, imho, anyhow. It's not 'on demand' enough for the developing generation(s). There's a whole slewth of American programs I want to watch, but can't, because the business practices of our broadcasters, meaning the only way to watch them is illegally from the net. How long before the model changes and we can buy these programs directly? Sorry, drifting...
Actually the issue of whether television is doomed versus the onslaught of the Internet is an interesting one. I don't think being on-demand is a huge selling point for the technophobic generation of today but with Sky+ and to a greater extent, HomeChoice demonstrating how nice on-demand is - the mass market will surely wise up slowly but surely.
ReplyDeleteCertainly they will for content which you're willing to pay for such as the pr0n stuff Slim is going on about. However the interesting point is what happens with regards to broadcast stuff which we don't have to pay for because it's being funded by advertisers.
At the moment we're warezing all the stuff off the Net. Clearly before too long you'll just be able to buy programs and download some professionally encoded version to watch and that will be their revenue stream. But how many yank TV shows would you buy? Are you expecting to just be able to warez stuff broadcast in the US forever?
What would be nice to see is that you sub up to a service and you watch anything you like of a wide range of shows and you can watch any re-runs you like but perhaps the latest stuff or a set staple diet of programming is broadcast with adverts and that stuff is cheaper or free. That'd be sensible.
On the other hand, that'd shift the balance of income dramatically towards direct payment rather than advertising. That means a lot more people can afford to advertise and you wont have the same level of production values on the adverts that are around. It'd be like all of them were adverts on a local station. No bad thing either, I think.
I mean if we're doing on-demand programming, why not - when I'm tuned into the free/cheap broadcast stream - show me adverts which are tailored to the shit that I watch or perhaps my stated interests. What's the fucking point in showing me another beuty product with pro-vitamins or worst yet, a fucking tampon advert?