I was raised in a very strict household, television-wise. My parents monitored everything I watched closely up until I became a teenager and watched TV after school, at which point the worst thing on was Jerry Springer (which was in its trashy hey-day before they calmed things down a bit). Movies also. If it was rated PG-13 or R I couldn't see it unless it had been screened by my parents. Even sometimes nowadays I find myself watching something on television and thinking how my mom wouldn't want me watching that.
I agree that it's important that parents monitor what their children watch. Ultimately it is not the government reponsibility or right to censor what is and is not appropriate. The Saving Private Ryan thing was especially annoying to me, mostly because the FCC said that they couldn't guarantee that the stations who played the movie wouldn't be fined. If you're going to have standards, have them. Don't just sit and wait for people to complain so that you can the decide to fine them.
I think that IG has a point that they shouldn't add a drastically different type of content into an established show (or sporting event) because it takes the choice out of the parent's hands if that's something they want to allow their children to see. My uncle has small children and they have controls on their cable box where if their kids try to watch any channel except for Nickelodean, Cartoon Network, and the Disney Channel, they have to have a password. That way they can make sure if their kids are watching something on another channel, they know exactly what it is. I think that's about as responsible as you can get. But what if suddenly something was on one of those approved channels that was inappropriate? I'd say it would be cause for concern, just as IG's family watching Monday Night Football.
Just to clarify. . . -- Islandgirl, 08:41:57 11/22/04 Mon