Quantum leap series 2 episode 8

[TimmyBGood]

---

@JonD1492 wrote:

Moreso because some conservative states censor stuff based on State rules not National rules.

---

States don't 'censor' broadcast content: the FCC operates at Federal level.  A network affiliate with a strong presence in a particular region might choose to alter what it carries based on what it perceives its audience (or more likely its advertisers) will tolerate, or due to pressure from 'concerned citizens', but that's different.

[JonD1492]

@calum02I seem to recall the early broadcast versions of Q.L. on the BBC also had problems with episodes having their incorrect beginnings (Leaps into) and endings (Leaps out of) as well, so the problem may be to do with the original broadcast masters that were supplied by the rightsholders for these specific prints. (Early VHS and DVD releases of Seasons 1 and 2 also had the same problem.)  Some people claimed it was because the BBC were swapping episodes around - they weren't - and the problem lay with NBC Universal who wanted more action/fun episodes to start the show off with, to entice viewers into watching it, before getting the more serious ones.  As the episodes had been specifically edited into one very specific order of sequence, when NBC ordered the changes, not all of the episodes were "fixed", and it lead to major continuity problems with the beginning and ends of the episodes, to the point, that some episodes were cut, so that Sam simply leaped into or out of something, and the screen faded out before viewers see whose body/character he has left/arrived into.

I believe the new complete DVD and Blu-Ray boxed sets have fixed the problems, so all the episodes now have the correct beginnings and endings, so that each episode correctly follows on.

[JonD1492]

@TimmyBGoodStates have censored - and by censor, I do mean opted to refuse to carry certain shows or have dropped episodes because of content issues.  So, I'm afraid to claim that they don't "censor" is technically accurate, but not literally accurate.  I'm using the term "censor" in the widest definition possible, in the terms of picking and choosing what they want their viewers to be allowed to see.

Censorship very much still occurs in the USA in its media, but it's so hidden, that many don't realise it actually occurs.  I'd recommend watching the Kirby D-i-c-k (I really wish Sky wouldn't censor this genuine person's name!) documentary THIS FILM IS NOT YET RATED which is all about the clandestine way the Motion Picture Association (or MPA), formerly known as the Motion Picture Association of America or MPAA,  operates on films in America.  They censor stuff, but refuse to admit that they do, because they don't want to be held responsible.  American mainstream TV networks and stations are often the same.  They don't want to be held accountable if a decision backfires on them.  So they come-up with some lame excuse as to why an episode gets dropped, e.g. sports coverage overran.

[TimmyBGood]

---

@JonD1492 wrote:

@TimmyBGoodStates have censored - and by censor, I do mean opted to refuse to carry certain shows or have dropped episodes because of content issues.  So, I'm afraid to claim that they don't "censor" is technically accurate, but not literally accurate.  I'm using the term "censor" in the widest definition possible, in the terms of picking and choosing what they want their viewers to be allowed to see.

---

How, when a State is not either a broadcaster or a broadcasting regulator, and doesn't have 'viewers'?

Individual politicians, or even majority groups in State legislatures, may seek to influence what broadcasters carry (or at least pretend to do  so for the resulting publicity), but again, that's not the same thing as censorship, any more than idiotic newspapers here complaining about the BBC is.

[LGUser]

I lived in Massachusetts and we didn't have censorship on TV that I can recall. Mass is a very blue state.

[TimmyBGood]

@LGUser 

As far as I'm aware, individual states just don't have a broadcasting regulation function in that sense: it would presumably risk being hugely divisive, and also a massive potential barrier to interstate commerce over the airwaves.  States do oversee the franchising of cable distribution under the remit of the FCC, though, and there are weird arrangements such as the 'blacking-out' of sports events within 35 miles of the stadium unless a 'local' station is carrying the signal.

https://www.fcc.gov/media/engineering/cable-television 

[JonD1492]

@TimmyBGoodI feel like I'm going around in circles here with you, and you're being an agitator.

States DO censor stuff.  They may not have a legal mandate, but that doesn't stop it happening regardless.

Without wanting to be accused of mansplaining things, what I mean is literally a broadcaster in a specific State decides X programme goes against their State's beliefs/guidelines/rules/opinion/political stance, or whatever, and they - then - as a State broadcaster - decide to pull a show, because they (the State broadcaster) decides it doesn't like it for whatever reasons, they then remove it or fail to broadcast it, is a form of State (as opposed to National) censorship.

You may not like that, or agree with it, but that is what it is.

Australia has State (as well as National) censorship.  A film can be legal to own in one State (e.g. New South Wales), but illegal or cut in another State (e.g. Victoria).  The same occurs with some TV shows.  Episodes of the Australian crimes series UNDERBELLY were famously banned in some States in Australia, because there were legal trials that could have had their juries prejudiced by the TV show.  So the State banned the episodes and refused to let them air, but the episodes were not banned Nationally.

In the UK, we do have some occasional, but very rare, instances of regional censorship.  In Liverpool, you are unlikely to find any newsagent or shop selling The Sun "newspaper".  They've collectively decided that particular publication is not for them.  Is it banned?  No.  Is it a form of censorship?  One could argue that, especially if you were a Sun reader who lived there, and could no longer buy it.  Is it a form of regional censorship, akin to State censorship?  Pretty much, yes, if you take the term "State censorship" to mean an area of a nation that refuses to distribute something that is available for distribution elsewhere in the country I live in".

We have to be careful when we say "State censorship" and "State Censorship".  The former, which is what I am talking about, might be more commonly called regional/localised censorship.  The other, is what we refer to government censorship, and that isn't what I'm discussing here.

I hope this clarifies things.

[TimmyBGood]

---

@JonD1492 wrote:

Without wanting to be accused of mansplaining things, what I mean is literally a broadcaster in a specific State decides X programme goes against their State's beliefs/guidelines/rules/opinion/political stance, or whatever, and they - then - as a State broadcaster - decide to pull a show, because they (the State broadcaster) decides it doesn't like it for whatever reasons, they then remove it or fail to broadcast it, is a form of State (as opposed to National) censorship.

---

No, I really don't think it is: that's a choice made by the broadcaster, not an edict from the state based on any local, regional or national law.  You can choose to interpret the result as censorship if you wish, but it's not 'State (as opposed to National)' censorship by any commonly accepted definition of the word, and claiming it is tends to undermine wider and more useful discussions about rights and freedoms.

You keep saying 'state broadcaster' when I'm not aware there are any such creatures.  There may well be a broadcaster or network affiliate which operates only within a particular state, but again, that's not the same thing, and they are regulated by the FCC, not at State level.

[JonD1492]

Once again, you've misunderstood me.

I've (hopefully) tried to explain that it's a form of censorship within a State, not a country, and that the censorship isn't mandated by the State itself (e.g. Texas, New York, Arkansas et al), but from the broadcaster within that State.  So it's a form of broadcast censorship, but one that only applies within that State itself, and not outside of the State.

I'm not sure I can make it any clearer for you.

For what it's worth, I'm doing a PhD on American TV broadcasting.  So I'd like to think I do know what I'm talking about here, bearing in mind I've been studying this topic for the best part of 4 years now, as well as having done a Masters Degree and an Undergraduate Degree in similar fields, prior to the PhD.

[xenon81]

---

@JonD1492 wrote:

Once again, you've misunderstood me.

I've (hopefully) tried to explain that it's a form of censorship within a State, not a country, and that the censorship isn't mandated by the State itself (e.g. Texas, New York, Arkansas et al), but from the broadcaster within that State.  

---

That's very different to what you said originally:

" some conservative states censor stuff based on State rules "

Now you're saying the broadcasters censor things, not the state itself. That is correct as broadcasting is regulated at a national level by the FCC. The "state rules" you originally mentioned don't exist. 

[JonD1492]

@xenon81 

Apologies, because I always meant "State's broadcaster".  It was a mere missing of a word, from a very long post, all hastily typed-up on an iPhone.  But irrespective, I had thought that would have been obvious too, considering we were all discussing a topic about what broadcasters can and cannot do, on American Television.  Clearly, that was my oversight.  I shall endeavour to be more explanative in future, to avoid any misunderstandings.

[Jane+Doe]

There is no right or wrong in this scenario, whether you use the word woke or woke terms, it is all subjective opinion no matter what you know (unless it's maths or actual science, which doesn't apply here).

I am right, and wrong, to someone, as are you, as is the next person.

I personally don't pay for a TV package, or station, or channel, just to go out and buy edited/missing episodes of a program it supposedly airs. Especially when I would argue that there is much more questionable content available on the same platform........

Appreciate we can split hairs over platform, channel, broadcaster etc but you will get the point I am making, I'm sure.

Quite frankly, I am more perturbed  with Sky's usage of the word Oracle. I think they can come across somewhat biased but, and here's the thing, that's my - yes, you got it, subjective opinion 😃

[seandrews]

The oracles remind me of when the BBC responds to a letter/email/call on Points of View.

so so funny. 😆