Government literally censors Scooby Doo, Bewitched, others

You know, if they haven't close captioned Bewitched and I Dream of Jeanie by now... Well, it's not exactly like they are making new episodes.

This reporter is obviously stretching the story, or it would have been carried in more mainstream media sources.

 

You could b**** about anything, couldn't you? We're getting a tank and you're worried about chicks. What chicks are we gonna pick up? And secondly, how are you gonna pick up chicks in a car that looks like that?

 

I had no idea the government paid for close captioning. Shouldn't that be an expense the television companies pick up?

Btw, the whole censorship line of thinking is just bs. There are enough real injustices committed by our government; you don't have to make them up where they don't exist.

 

The reason is that it's not BS, is because the govt. is agreeing to pay for closed captioning, but they are deciding only certain programs will have that done, and they are the ones choosing the programs.

 

That was my point. Whether the government pays for closed captioning or not is a different topic, and I wouldn't get bent out of shape if it didn't offer to caption cable channel shows like "Sex in the City" or the Sopranos". But if they are paying with our tax dollars to caption, then why is "Andy Hardy" OK while shows like "Scooby Doo" and "Bewitched", silly network programs, are not? There is no explanation offered that I've heard. And I'd like to hear one. (no pun intended)

 

A possible explanation is that the budget doesn't give enough money to closed captioning to caption all shows. So, the people who do it have to make a decision about who will be captioned and who won't be. So, they set some criteria -- educational, news or informational -- to decide which ones were the most important to caption. They could have used a different set of criteria -- highest TV ratings, for example -- but did not (they do require a certain amount of responsible shows from broadcasters (the educations, news or informational stuff), so I can see how they might feel beholden to caption that stuff first). They'd be criticized either way -- either for 'censoring' popular shows or 'censoring' important ones. May as well at least meet their mandate if they're to be criticized. So, don't say again that no one has offered an explanation on why some shows are captioned and others not.

Now, on why this isn't censorship: speech belongs to the person who does the work. In this case, it is the Feds who are paying; therefore it is their speech. The federal government has long been cognizant of the need for them to provide public forums for free speech. They let radio and TV stations broadcast freely for little in return. That is the speech of those companies. If they want the deaf to watch, they should caption their own shows. What's more, the feds should require that they caption their shows. Given the requirements that they already have on broadcasters, it would be reasonable to make that a requirement as well.

It should be pretty obvious to any casual reader familiar with TV programming that the decisions are not made on some sort of "puritanical" basis. You can make a good line for Law & Order, but what is the supposed rationale for 'censoring' Bugs Bunny or Power Rangers?

 

JV makes a good point.

Surely, if the feds were really making devious choices here they would caption the Power Rangers. It's a militaristic show with clearly defined good uns and bad uns. In fact, that show may well inform our current foreign policy more than any other.

 

Why it is censorship is because as you have said, speech belongs to the person who does the work. Other people created those shows, and the govt shouldn't decide which ones do or do not get captioning. Just give the money and let the networks decide. That way the govt. can't be accused of anything. But instead when the govt. starts micro-managing things in an area where they don't have experience and aren't qualified, problems arise.

 

Why it is censorship is because as you have said, speech belongs to the person who does the work. Other people created those shows, and the govt shouldn't decide which ones do or do not get captioning. Just give the money and let the networks decide. That way the govt. can't be accused of anything. But instead when the govt. starts micro-managing things in an area where they don't have experience and aren't qualified, problems arise.

 

I would hope you're right. And if they truly are just captioning "news, educational and informational" programming, then I don't have a problem with it. What throws me, from what was posted, is "Andy Hardy". Is it considered "historical"?

 

Sorry about the double post. Internet glitch.

 

Just the opposite: the TV companies may have made the show, but the closed captioning is the government's work and I don't see why they shouldn't get to decide where they will and will not employ it. If you really want to take the government's hand out of the realm of speech (and I do) then they need to pull their money out; otherwise, their influence is unavoidable.

Giving the money to the networks will have the desired effect censorship-wise -- though I don't have any desire to subsidize a large-margin industry like that one with government funds. However, because of the requirements that the government already has for broadcasters to provide a certain amount of public-service broadcasting, the priority for closed-captioning would probably still be the same.

Deckard, I have to say that I have no idea what some of the programs listed are. Andy Hardy?

 

JuanValdez, that was my reaction... Andy Hardy??

It's in the article. When I read that, I was like, "Huh?". Kinda confusing. It doesn't fit the "educational, etc." criteria.

 

Maybe that's why I'm not up in arms.

Andy Hardy: Never heard of it.
Cory the Clown: Never heard of it.
Charlie Rose: Never heard of it.
Rod Serling: Never heard of it.

I can't tell you if any of these shows would fit in the educational, informative criteria to explain why they'd pass muster.

 

Andy Hardy is an old series of movies staring Mickey Rooney, and Judy Garland.

Cory the Clown - Never heard of it.

Charlie Rose - An interviewer who has worked on 60 minutes II and has his own interview show.

Rod Serling - Created the Twilight Zone series. Serling also wrote the play 12 Angry Men, among others.

Both Rod Serling and Charlie Rose could easily pass the educational and imformative muster.