So I'm watching NBC's live coverage of the Maria Sharapova/Elena Dementieva match, and halfway through the second set, a guy runs on the court naked! Right on Sharapova's side!
I guess it was a stunt that someone paid the guy to do for publicity, and the police quickly covered the guy up and got him off the court. But I watched the replay of the match just now on ESPN2 - on tape, mind you - and ESPN2 showed the entire thing again, without blocking anything out! And, well, let's just say that the shot really left nothing to the imagination, even if it wasn't a closeup.
I'm just wondering why - especially in this day and age of stupid FCC fines and controversy - would ESPN2 just show this again on tape when they know it happened live on NBC?
Gone Too Soon: Invasion
Scrubs season nine -- An early look
The TV Squad Podcast: Vik Sahay of Chuck, Oprah talk, brutal timeslots, and more!
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
7-04-2006 @ 5:09PM
Seth Brundle said...
These two cases have absolutely nothing in common.
NBC produced a performance with sexually oriented adult nude content during the largest family broadcast of the year, with no appropriate rating or warning. That was absolutely in blatant violation - but more importantly, they rightfully pissed off a massive amount of parents.
A streaker in and of itself is not sexual context, nor is nudity in general, it was not an ESPN production, and there is also an argument that it became a news story - and I dont think I've ever heard of the FCC enforcing any kind of regulation on nudity outside of sexual context.
Reply
7-04-2006 @ 5:28PM
JJ said...
Another thing to consider is that ESPN2 is a cable channel. I am not clear what, if any, authority the FCC has over cable channels. I don't think they have any content authority (swear words, etc) over any service to which an individual chooses to subscribe and is not available freely to the general public.
Reply
7-04-2006 @ 7:20PM
AlienTiger said...
The second one is correct, the fcc right now only regulates over the air channels, not cable, so espn is in the clear to do pretty much whatever they feel like, in a way
Reply
7-04-2006 @ 9:08PM
Kevin M. said...
SCREWED UP MORAL SYSTEM!
This country's morals are out of whack. We desensitize our children to war and violence, and even have a holiday devoted to scaring them (and their oldercounter parts) with chainsaws among other imagery, and convince them that if they use certain words they'll go to a fiery place to be molsested by the devil, but GOD FORBID if they see a body part HALF OF THEM HAVE! And if every parent's dream of a heterosexual child comes true, they'll end up seeing (and worshipping) those parts anyway!
By the way I'm not against Halloween, but my brother was temporarily traumatized by a chainsaw guy in a haunted house our parents took him to. However, those same parents deemed Step by Step, a show that now repeats on ABC Family, "inappropiate". Messed up? Yeah.
Let your kid say fuck. Let them see a tit or a cock. Or better yet, don't have them.
Reply
7-04-2006 @ 9:38PM
doc said...
Kevin M.....very clever. :D That is my favorite screen name of the day!
Jj is right. The FCC doesn't have control over what the cable channels do...yet. They desperately want it, and the nutter groups that back all the various protests desperately want them to have it, but so far cable retains the ability to operate under a different set of rules.
Personally, I'm more in favor of reducing the FCC's power back to regulating public airwaves used for communications purposes. Nothing more. The blurry line of decent and indecent should not even enter into the equation. Viewership should take care of that. Enough people don't like your content, and don't watch, you have to change what you do. And as far as 'protecting the children', that's what parents are for, not politicians with questionable motivations.
Reply
7-05-2006 @ 12:36AM
Brad said...
The chill of the airwaves by the FCC is despicable. It should've never occurred, but the Republicans had to find some way to keep the Neocon radicals under their wing.
Reply
7-05-2006 @ 5:13AM
Jim said...
Was he wearing something that would have been publicity?
We tend to get streakers on cricket all the time here, just because they can! There's pictures of him in all the papers this morning too.
Reply
7-05-2006 @ 5:36AM
Dennis V said...
The streaker was dutch tv presentator. Filming for a new show "try before you die" or something. and some one proposed that he'd streak on wimbledon. It's a tradition :)
http://www.ad.nl/sport/article449488.ece?start=2
http://www.bnn.nl/index.jsp
both in dutch, babelfish doesnt like it
Reply
7-05-2006 @ 10:14AM
Bob Sassone said...
Seth: I'm not sure what event you're talking about when you say "NBC produced a performance sexually oriented adult nude content." Wimbledon??
And this isn't really about whether or not the FCC has power over what cable shows. I'm just talking about common sense in this day and age. Why would ESPN show a naked guy on tape when they knew it was coming? Why bring potential trouble to your network?
Reply
7-05-2006 @ 10:36AM
John... said...
i say... i dont friggin care. excuse my language, but i dont. and people who get all outraged are exactly why we're in the situation we're in now. stop whining. i mean, sure be mad or upset, but only a few seconds, minutes tops... I mean only bad can come from making this a big deal, now if it were something worth going crazy and getting a posse together, then I would be right there with you. but seriously, ive had enough of this crap.
Reply
7-05-2006 @ 5:13PM
Jamie said...
Couple of problems here: In addition to the fact taht the FCC does not enforce its indecency regulations against the cable channels, NBC's coverage was no more "live" than ESPN's.
Reply