The PC and Perpetually Offended Brigade

[Black Shepherd Carnage]

As I said, I don't agree with censorship, but choose your battles; I don't see any difference between this "what's okay to show pre-watershed?" censorship and exactly the same type of it we've always had. Throwing up arms like as if this represents some kind of qualitative shift in censorship norms for broadcasting (as opposed to private viewing) is just not justified by the facts at all.

[Black Shepherd Carnage]

Had a feeling so looked it up; Fawlty Towers was originally broadcast at 9pm, i.e. at the watershed line, meaning that even back in 1975 it wasn't considered appropriate viewing for an earlier more general audience.

It's political correctness gone mad!

[Juggz]

Late 90’s MTV?

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=nNms9sTxeuc

[Airneanach]

As I said, I don't agree with censorship, but choose your battles; I don't see any difference between this "what's okay to show pre-watershed?" censorship and exactly the same type of it we've always had. Throwing up arms like as if this represents some kind of qualitative shift in censorship norms for broadcasting (as opposed to private viewing) is just not justified by the facts at all.

Moving the discussion away from the show at hand and bringing it into the broader arena of broadcasting ethics and evolving tastes, there's the potentiality for there being a huge difference, though. Post watershed viewing simply puts a program behind an adult curtain as a forewarning of content.  Removing a show entirely from your on demand service directly stymies  the public's access to a previously widely available work and in doing so it suggests a certain level of cultural revisionism at the behest of any number of people who may theoretically be offended.

It's not a massive deal, of course, if you can still go out and buy the boxset. And there's another discussion within that when decisions like these take place and remind people that they don't actually fucking own anything anymore, such is the nature of streamed content. And, ultimately and somewhat cynically, at the end of the day it's commercial decisions made by corporations and not Nineteen Eighty-Four, mann, but regardless it does seem to be a more emergent strain of this kind of censorship that - let's face it - is only going to get stronger.

The Mighty Boosh and League of Gentlemen have been removed entirely from Netflix in recent days because of perceived objectionable content. Even taking all the provisos above into account that is still different from the show originally airing after dark on BBC Three because Noel Fielding said tits and bollocks and fanny fuck.

I appreciate too that tastes can work the other way, of course. A reefer on TV would have been sacrilege a few decades ago. Now there's a frankly unbearable number of sitcoms about how whacky and cool stoner culture is! 

[John Kimble]

Throwing up arms like as if this represents some kind of qualitative shift in censorship norms for broadcasting (as opposed to private viewing) is just not justified by the facts at all.

Except it is justified though. Seriously lad, it's an entirely reasonable opinion to voice, especially in the context of a thread titled "The PC and Perpetually Offended Brigade". The trend that has developed over the last few days would tend to suggest that a number of streaming platforms are now pulling content that may contain outdated racial depictions or attitudes, regardless of the context. Guaranteed by this time tomorrow, another few shows will have suffered the same fate. And where's the consistency here? If we're going to pull the German episode, what about the shifty, workshy Paddy depicted by David Kelly in another episode? Just pull the entire show so.

[Kurt Cocaine]

Pulling the Cork on the flags boy..... 

https://www.rte.ie/sport/gaa/2020/0612/1147040-cork-gaa-to-confiscate-confederate-flags-from-fans/

[Airneanach]

Pulling the Cork on the flags boy..... 

https://www.rte.ie/sport/gaa/2020/0612/1147040-cork-gaa-to-confiscate-confederate-flags-from-fans/

State of us in the photo in that article. I always hated that wild west shit that was a hangover from 80s poverty Ireland where we'd just grab anything with red on it and wave it around at the hurling. The yanks, the Danes, the Swiss. They're all represented in that shot  .

[Emphyrio]

Black pudding is still safe, ya?

[Black Shepherd Carnage]

Throwing up arms like as if this represents some kind of qualitative shift in censorship norms for broadcasting (as opposed to private viewing) is just not justified by the facts at all.

Except it is justified though. Seriously lad, it's an entirely reasonable opinion to voice, especially in the context of a thread titled "The PC and Perpetually Offended Brigade". The trend that has developed over the last few days would tend to suggest that a number of streaming platforms are now pulling content that may contain outdated racial depictions or attitudes, regardless of the context. Guaranteed by this time tomorrow, another few shows will have suffered the same fate. And where's the consistency here? If we're going to pull the German episode, what about the shifty, workshy Paddy depicted by David Kelly in another episode? Just pull the entire show so.

It hasn't been pulled, and Gone With The Wind hasn't been "erased" as I actually saw some conservative commentators claiming yesterday. For broadcast at 7:30pm, one episode is to have some offensive language edited. Gone With The Wind is to be rebroadcast, intact with some contextualization.

Here's a truth to bear in mind: if what is actually happening is bad enough to merit disapproval, then any source which is wilfully exaggerating and distorting what is actually happening is doing so to manipulate you. I can live in a world where "nigger" is a faux-pas word on television; I'd prefer not to live in this world where blatant lying is a common and transparent practice, but people don't even bother to check anymore. Stick to what is really happening, as far as you have heard it, follow it up if that is easy to do; no one is expecting perfect knowledge on a given topic, but a bit of effort in this day and age when we know full well how invested left and right leaning tabloid media are in manipulating us.

[Pedrito]

Pulling the Cork on the flags boy..... 

https://www.rte.ie/sport/gaa/2020/0612/1147040-cork-gaa-to-confiscate-confederate-flags-from-fans/

Still be plenty of Japanese Rising Sun Flags at the games to even things out. Up the Rebels boy!

[astfgyl]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_censorship_in_the_United_Kingdom

Some funny ones in this list, regarding film censorship and the reasons for it.

[John Kimble]

It hasn't been pulled, and Gone With The Wind hasn't been "erased" as I actually saw some conservative commentators claiming yesterday. For broadcast at 7:30pm, one episode is to have some offensive language edited. Gone With The Wind is to be rebroadcast, intact with some contextualization.

Here's a truth to bear in mind: if what is actually happening is bad enough to merit disapproval, then any source which is wilfully exaggerating and distorting what is actually happening is doing so to manipulate you. I can live in a world where "nigger" is a faux-pas word on television; I'd prefer not to live in this world where blatant lying is a common and transparent practice, but people don't even bother to check anymore. Stick to what is really happening, as far as you have heard it, follow it up if that is easy to do; no one is expecting perfect knowledge on a given topic, but a bit of effort in this day and age when we know full well how invested left and right leaning tabloid media are in manipulating us.

Oh for fuck sake, where do I start? (To be fair, maybe I didn't articulate my point well enough). First of all, when I meant pulled, I wasn't specifically referring to just one episode of Fawlty Towers, it was kind of an all-encompassing statement covering stuff that definitely has been pulled (see Little Britain), stuff that's been edited or under review, and other material that is likely to fall under one of these categories. I don't have any inclination to watch Gone with the Wind anytime soon, but should I wish to do so, I'd rather not have to do so with the benefit of whatever form of contextualisation the broadcaster deems necessary. I'm also fully aware that should I wish to do so, there are other ways available to access this material...but why should I have to when I'm paying a streaming subscription. I'm 40 years of age, so I do remember a time when there was real, actual oppressive censorship in this country...see Life of Brian, the Exorcist, Playboy, etc...so you really don't need to patronise to me what exactly constitutes censorship in it's truest form. Nor do I need the condescending little explainer/pep talk re: fact checking and research. What I'm getting at is what  Airneanach more eloquently stated as "Moving the discussion away from the show at hand and bringing it into the broader arena of broadcasting ethics and evolving tastes, there's the potentiality for there being a huge difference, though. Post watershed viewing simply puts a program behind an adult curtain as a forewarning of content.  Removing a show entirely from your on demand service directly stymies  the public's access to a previously widely available work and in doing so it suggests a certain level of cultural revisionism at the behest of any number of people who may theoretically be offended."

And if we're going to be pedantic about things, then UKTV themselves stated" UKTV has temporarily removed an episode of Fawlty Towers, The Germans, from Gold's Box Set". Regardless of whether it's temporary or not, removed or pulled...it's the same thing really, but it's clearly not the same thing as editing material so it can be shown before the watershed.

[Black Shepherd Carnage]

As I said elsewhere, if you don't like what your streaming subscription company are doing (and many even liberal critics have had a go at Netflix over this tokenism, which is what it is, as I said earlier; corporate tokenism), then cancel your subscription and let them know why. The broadcasting companies who have been doing the censoring have always been paid, incidentally, so it's not like that is new. What's new is that we're more demanding. In the past, the BBC could have just stopped doing reruns of something and no one ever would have been the wiser. So, if you want a "wider" conversation, then the nature of content providing has followed a jetspeed evolution compared to "censorship", and all this hoo-ha is much more a product of evolving media consumption than evolving social norms, which as far as I can see are trundling along at much the same pace they have been over the last 100 years.

So now a media service that we want to shovel shit into our brains on demand makes a token corporate gesture, and we lose our shit, even though the technological advances which allow for that media service to exist mean we can pretty much watch whatever we want from a multitude of sources. I dunno, you really think you've got your finger on the pulse going mad over what a corporation decides you can't access at the touch of button A rather than button B on your infinite horizon to mass media consumption??

[Airneanach]

Again it's not ruining anyone's life, but it is a potentially dicey signifier of where on demand content distribution and cultural gatekeeping could be headed more and more. It's a perfectly valid discussion to be having.

You've made a lot of decent points but the browbeating over freaking out over this, do your research etc is getting to be somewhat pedantic.

[John Kimble]

Jesus. OK, so to bring it closer to home, seeing as this is a metal forum...presumably if you had paid money to go see a band at a certain venue, and due to some tenuous connection that had been established between that band, or a member, or a former member, and say some right wing ideologies, the venue had decided to pull the gig entirely. You'd be entirely OK with that because, of course, you could just go see them on another tour at another venue. Or you could just watch them online. Or listen to one of their albums. I think it was mentioned on another thread, specifically aimed at yourself, about over-complicating a fairly straight forward issue. Like, fucking hell, you'd know you're working in academia because reading one of your posts would bring on a massive migraine. I'm just referring to a platform, broadcaster, whatever, bowing to some real (or even imagined) external pressure to bring its content in line with what is perceived to be culturally acceptible. And doing so without any consistency of approach. Don't be such a fucking twat lad, some people just want to discuss, you know, stuff.