Bush’s shit
Let’s just note that broadcast networks had to censor the President himself because if they’d let his slipped “shit” onto the air, each station and network could have been fined $325,000 under the new “indecency” legislation Bush himself just signed. He’s lucky the version that came to his desk no longer included similar fines for the speaker, not just the broadcaster.
Tags: Howard_Stern
July 18th, 2006 at 9:41 am
Just too bad somebody hasn’t had the guts to “publish and be d*mned” by running the thing uncut, and then take any fine to court. The trial would have been a hoot.
July 18th, 2006 at 10:39 am
Was that microphone broadcasting live?
How many “ifs” can one throw out and still have a point?
July 18th, 2006 at 11:27 am
By the way foreign news organizations broadcast this with great pleasure
July 18th, 2006 at 1:00 pm
Comedy Central aired the clip uncensored on The Daily Show but then bleeped Jon Stewart when he said it. What a mixed up world….
July 18th, 2006 at 2:27 pm
I wish they would bleep “Yo Blair” and the Presidents chewing sounds. Both way more offensive.
July 18th, 2006 at 2:37 pm
Why is this such a big deal? So he said “Shit”. So what? He did not use this language when addressing the nation nor was he giving a speech to people in a different country. He was speaking “privately” with another person. Just drop it.
July 18th, 2006 at 4:33 pm
[...] Jeff Jarvis points out that if media outlets broadcasted Bush’s “Yo, Blair .. shit” unconsensored they would have gotten massive fines. Bush’s Government were the ones that brought these new fines in. Technorati Tags: blogs ireland irish irishblogs jarvis jeff [...]
July 18th, 2006 at 7:31 pm
This whole thing is absurd. It’s simply a matter of the US media trying to make a story where there isn’t one. I for one think it humanizes an otherwise terrible President.
July 18th, 2006 at 9:11 pm
So here’s a great way for the White House to eliminate leaks… just declare all government secrets to be obscenities! You can’t publish or distribute “obscene” material, right? And who makes that determination? THE GOVERNMENT DOES!
July 19th, 2006 at 1:36 am
“He’s lucky the version that came to his desk no longer included similar fines for the speaker, not just the broadcaster. ”
Oh, the drama. Oh, the humanity. Oh, nonsense.
Bush wasn’t swearing “on tv”. He was swearing in private conversation that broadcasters filmed and then decided–without his consent–to put on the air.
So if the original version of the law would have resulted in Bush being signed, then the networks would have had a nice new revenue stream. All they’d have to do is capture people swearing on film and blackmail them for funds just under the fine amount. Well, blackmail the wealthy. For movie stars and public offiicials, the payment could be a made for TV movie or a lengthy exclusive interview. Just think of the opportunity for a new form of papparazi. It would clean up more than the airwaves–it would clean up all public and most private discourse! Who could risk swearing, given the fear that a camcorder might be nearby?
Or–and this is just a thought–perhaps the original version of the law fined the speaker based on awareness and consent. If not, then there was a lot more to get worked up about than Bush saying “shit” on the air.
July 19th, 2006 at 11:54 am
Whatever happened to freedom of speech including the right to say an expletive?
July 19th, 2006 at 3:56 pm
How do you Americans take yourselves seriously?
July 23rd, 2006 at 9:33 pm
[...] Thanks to President Bush, I have a legitimate excuse to curse during this blawg review. Quizlaw asks “if Brian Williams plays the above clip tonight on NBC’s national newscast, I wonder: Would the FCC fine NBC for airing a clip featuring the President of the United States using the word ’shit.’” Ann Althouse is more upset that the President was chewing with his mouth open: “He eats like that at an official affair? That’s only marginally acceptable at a backyard barbecue with your drunken friends.” Finally, Jeff Jarvis at BuzzMachine notes that the broadcast networks, if they had broadcast President Bush saying “shit,” would have been fined $325,000 “under the new ‘indecency’ legislation Bush himself just signed. He’s lucky the version that came to his desk no longer included similar fines for the speaker, not just the broadcaster.” [...]
July 24th, 2006 at 3:00 pm
I wonder what the drafters of S193 - the ominous “Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act” - think in light of what transpired on the world’s airwaves last week…?
TV Watch has common sense answers for the indecency debate’s questions. Check it out today - at http://www.televisionwatch.org.