The Following May Contain Important Information. Viewer Discretion Is Advised
Copyright © Stephanie Dickison 2006.
In a world where Khia can sing unabashedly about “My neck/My back/My pussy and my crack” there are a lot of questions being raised about parental guidance warnings and “viewer discretion is advised” before film and television programming.
Early in 2004, Canada had its own showdown of what happens when the advisory is left out. A pre-recorded segment of the 2003 Juno Awards was aired with Eminem accepting the award for International Album of the Year. His acceptance speech went a little something like this:
“Thank you so much. I am sorry I couldn’t be there right now, but, as you can see, I’m hard at work in the studio picking my fucking ass. I hope to see you soon. Thank you very much.”
According to the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council, (CBSC) a viewer immediately complained to the CRTC saying, “My children simply wanted to watch Avril (Lavigne) and ended up listening to that. If anyone is ‘picking their fucking ass’, it is the people at CTV.”
During the two-hour broadcast, CTV aired but one viewer advisory eight minutes into the start of the 8 p.m. show. Eminem’s segment was aired over an hour after that.
Is that enough?
MUSIC VIDEOS
The disgruntled viewed didn’t think so, but then again, music videos aren’t subject to this kind of treatment and you know not only the kind of message but language that is used in them. Music videos are sometimes not run because of controversial material – for example, Madonna’s video for American Life originally had an anti-Bush message and was heavily packed with images of war – but somehow they found a way of being released, either on later-night programming like Uncut on BET, or aired after the initial disturbance has quieted down.
The world of video watchers is a much smaller one than those that watch film and television. And this is where it gets difficult. Only certain programming will receive these warnings. While some might believe that sex with mothers and twentysomethings on the O.C. is de rigueur, some might think of it as lewd behaviour. While this is a subjective matter, it is important to keep in mind the kind of world children are growing up in now.
Today’s youth are much more aware of the “other side” of things. Look at what they are exposed to. They have seen Michael Jackson turn from black to white, to a man who loves boys (though recently acquitted of any molestation charges). They have seen Paris Hilton having sex with her then much older boyfriend on the Internet. They have seen the trials and tribulations of the down-and-out lives of Courtney Love, Mary-Kate Olsen and place celebrity-of-the-moment here, crumble right before them. They are watching post-war footage on the evening news, with discarded bodies piled up, rotting in the sun. They are seeing U.S. soldiers being returned home – in body bags. They are privy to images of chaos in the streets of Baghdad. These are no longer our innocent children. These are highly aware individuals who have not been shielded. So should they continue to try to be?
On the already salacious programming over at BET, they have gone one better – BET Uncut, where not only naked parts jiggle and wiggle but simulated sex occurs and while this all happens at the crack of dawn, it just goes to show that the audience of today wants more – more skin, more sex, more of everything. Uncut is on well after kids go to bed and disclaimers are run before any racy videos (wouldn’t that mean they’d have to run them before each one?)
Sex has always been in music, but ever since visuals began to accompany them, there is a whole new, younger audience waiting, wide-eyed.
TELEVISION
The Eminem situation aside, the viewer discretion warning is causing a lot of debate and a lot of headaches for industry execs. While the advisories shown during television have quelled a lot of parental concerns, they have acted as an ineffective camouflage due to the amount of times they are shown during a program and when. And then there’s Nipplegate – the incredibly overblown, over-publicized event that happened at last year’s Super Bowl. Janet Jackson flashed a very big, incredibly adorned nipple while performing with Justin Timberlake. There was a huge amount of speculation as to whether it was planned or not. It doesn’t matter now, because the FCC fined all of the CBS affiliates for a total of over half a million dollars, after receiving over 500, 000 calls last year. That forever changed live television and after this year’s Super Bowl, according to mediaweek.com, four people called the FCC about, of all people, performer Paul McCartney (lyrics from 1969′s “Get Back” contain “grass” which the viewers took to mean marijuana). In 2001, Showcase Television broadcast a Spanish film, Caniche from 12:15 to -2:00 a.m. A warning was posted at the beginning of the broadcast, both a voice over and on-screen. Advisories didn’t come on again until the fourth and fifth commercial breaks and were auditory only. It said, “Caniche returns on the Showcase Late Revue. Viewer discretion is advised.”
Why all the fuss about some film called Caniche? Because it is about the complicated relationship between a brother and a sister, Bernardo and Eloisa. And as stated in the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council National Specialty Services Panel brief: “It contains scenes of bestiality and incest and also implies that they kill other dogs to grind up food for Danny.” It went on to list many other examples where sex and dogs and death intermingle.
So, it’s not your usual Friday night TV “Guys Night In” type of flick. But upon watching it for a few minutes, that would be obvious, wouldn’t it?
Well, one viewer was appalled and felt that the things that occurred between humans and animals were “disturbing and of bad taste.” And then he felt that while he disapproved, so should Showcase.
Showcase defended itself for putting the movie on in the first place:
“The decision to air Caniche is consistent with Showcase’s mandate to provide an alternative to other broadcasters’ offerings…”
Poor Showcase. They are merely trying to give audiences a chance to see art movies that they might otherwise never know about. Should they not be allowed because of the subject matter? And how often should we demand that these advisories be shown? After every commercial break? Sure, it sounds good on paper, but imagine sitting and listening to that each time. It is like those 3 minutes in the shower waiting for the conditioner to sink in. It seems like forever, and it’s enough to drive a person mad.
In addition, these warnings sometimes do the exact opposite. Upon seeing the following warning, some might feel compelled to watch because of this warning:
The following program contains scenes of nudity and sexuality. Viewer discretion is advised.
FILM
The world of film is slightly different. A ratings system has been in place since November 1, 1968. What you may not know is that it is a “voluntary system” sponsored by the Motion Picture Association of America and the National Association of Theatre Owners. It “carries no force of law.” It is in place “to provide parents with advance information on films, enabling parents to make judgments on movies they want or do not want their children to see.”
They are part of a specially designed committee called the film rating board of the Classification and Rating Administration. Theme, language, violence, nudity, sex and drug use are among those content areas considered in the decision-making process.
The ratings are as follows: PG General Audience. All ages admitted. PG-13 has a “higher level of intensity” than films rated PG. R contains adult material.
NC-17 (formerly X-rated films): No one 17 and under admitted.
These are as subjective as what you deem “healthy” to eat. What do they mean when they say higher level of intensity? What is “adult” material? Are these the same standards as when the ratings were in place in 1968? PG-13 is new but NC-17 is the same as it ever was, it just has a different name now.
Television has these too. TV-14 means “Parents Strongly Cautioned.” Doesn’t that mean that Bobby maybe shouldn’t be watching it in the first place? And how do you protect your child from all of this? Should you be looking to the ratings to decide what your children should be watching? And if the rating systems are this misaligned about violence, sex and course language, just imagine the messages your children will take from them. What now? Channel blocking?
It is a cacophony of confusing messages that seem to have no real effect on those who are particularly susceptible – children. It is the adults writing in with their fists raised over the programming. And while they may be thinking of the children, it will be years, maybe even decades before we see whether the effects of watching today’s television, movies and music videos had any effect.
Hopefully it’s not too late. Hopefully it’s going to get better, not worse. And hopefully we’ve seen enough half-time nipple for a lifetime.