This conversation is closed.

Which is worse in media, nudity or gore?

By the time the average U.S. child starts elementary school he or she will have seen 8,000 murders and 100,000 acts of violence on TV. -New Scientist, 2007

And since 2011 the FCC (Federal Communications Commission) has allowed full frontal nudity on TV(!)

What's your take on the FCC and the role it has to play when it comes to nudity and gore?

  • thumb
    Jun 19 2013: What's wrong with nudity?

    All violence shown without any intelligent context should be banned from public networks.
  • Jun 19 2013: Lets talk about gore -- The FCC seems to like it shown in movies.
    I think that once you have lost your son's and son's-in-laws to WAR
    your head starts asking your mouth to speak against gore in WAR.
    Of course the parents who gave away their sons and daughters
    seldom get recognition for their losses.

    We've as a nation been involved in 56 or so armed conflicts since WW2.
    Our nation as a result of the costs of doing battle has become bankrupt.
    This Bankruptcy is not just about money. Living sons and daughters,
    with bright futures, are no more. They have become the "gore of WAR".

    The spoils of War. The other side of the coin, which is never truly exposed
    by Hollywood nor the Media. The spoils of War in truth is not a part of the
    gore of War. The spoils of War are quietly accepted by those unknown
    non-soldiers that stay in the shadows. No one ever asks why !!!

    All while the Movie makers make FCC popular wondrous films, without any
    thought about what horrors occurred that give them what they depict. Their
    Movies are made with the newest of technology, and Drones come in all sizes
    and shapes, to be used to kill from afar. In movies the Leaders of nations,
    push the buttons, and shake hands with strike force leaders who -
    "were just 'doing their job".

    Then everyone goes to lunch... "Cut"
  • Comment deleted

    • Jun 18 2013: LaMar,
      Freedom is not really Freedom under these types of circumstances.
      Why would you regulate only the extremes? And who's to decide?

      I agree with some of what you say, but it falls short.
      I cannot chide you because the problem is never fully addressed.
      No one has every taken the high road. Priests and Politicians duck.
      • Comment deleted

        • Jun 19 2013: Scheesh -- LaMar
          Is that your best shot across the bow?
          The ole' Love it or Leave it...?
          Haruuumph !!

          Restrictions for the safety of society? Who the heck is restricting the
          WashingtonDC jerks. Not the voters. They are lemmings looking for
          a cliff.

          Our Government is the problem. It's growing and won't go away.
          Two parties control the Media and everything heard, seen and in print.
          Independents get a Soap-Box in the Park.

          I live in a society that allows me to change the rules Government
          wants to push down society's throat. You do too. Unless you've
          been brainwashed, and I doubt that.

          LaMar, changing requires a stong resolve against this type of trash --
          "By the time the average U.S. child starts elementary school he or she
          will have seen 8,000 murders and 100,000 acts of violence on TV.
          -New Scientist, 2007"

          Sooo, moving to Canada, although a great idea, has to wait.
      • Comment deleted

        • Jun 19 2013: LaMar, thank you for your well researched opines.

          When your government has turned sour --
          1. Society's fail even to try to solve the situation it has perceived,
          but cannot foresee it becoming a problem.
          2.. If a situation is slowly getting worse, it's very hard to recognize that
          this year is worse than last year, and each successive year is only slightly
          worse than the year before.
          3. It may take a few decades of such slight year-to-year changes before
          a society suddenly realizes that conditions were better several decades
          ago, and that what was accepted as normal, is not normal today.
          4. History of yore, mirrors the sour US government today, in which the
          Roman's society failed to solve perceived problems because maintenance
          of those same problems was good for some people,

          We may be strongly attached to a bad status quo because it is favored
          by some deeply held value that we admire. Perhaps Democracy.
      • Comment deleted

        • Jun 20 2013: LaMar, off the cuff, 100% of what you say is correct.

          That doesn't solve the problem of sour government.
          And I wouldn't ask you to solve the problem.
          I don't believe you see the threat. Not many do.

          Until misfortune strikes, the boat isn't going to sink.
          This nation will continue another ten years or so, without
          a ripple. As long as our sour government can make wars
          upon other nation's shores. Auditors will not be assigned,
          and the Military will grow and grow.

          That could change if wars were suddenly brought to our
          shores. A distinct possibility---
          A change in topic and times.
          Some History--
          To spot the chink in our government's armor, one has only
          to look at the Congressional Hearings when GM, Chrysler,
          and Ford set at one end of the table and begged for bailout.
          At the other end sat a lonely Auditor. He expressed the problem
          on the screen in living color, and what would be it's ultimate end.
          That end happened exactly as predicted. He was ignored.
          The auto manufacturers got their money, the government painted
          it in glowing colors. Check TV listings for the programs to watch
          Jesse James history as it happened.

          Our Treasury was robbed back then by a very sour government.
          Who can you blame when the hand is quicker than the eye?
          There isn't a Republican nor Democrat who will admit to this.
          And the well paid Media stands strongly in favor.
      • Comment deleted

        • Jun 20 2013: LaMar,
          Until I reached your last sentence, I felt I had written to
          an empty well of echo's. I see all is not lost, so be it.

          I just am concerned with those killed and maimed that
          will be lying about in the ashes.
      • Comment deleted

        • Jun 20 2013: LaMar
          And that is why I continue to 'Harp" !!!

          Now that our US government has explained that Drones are
          necessary for our health and safety, we might see the Insurance
          companies writing new policies excluding injury and death via
          Drones. Go back to sleep, it's only 1984 all over again.
  • thumb
    Jun 29 2013: The media- Movies, TV cable or broadcast, at least here in the states is loaded with violence. Five-year-olds see more people killed in a week on cable TV, than combat veterans did in a week, from WWII, either side. Even the sex is loaded with abuse and violence. I like the European models of entertainment were violence is at a minimum and sex is humorous and entertaining. It’s no wonder that our marriages in the USA are falling apart faster that they are getting married. Kids today are fearful of “Marriage” for they have seen or survived the trauma of a divorce. I blame it on the crap [Excuse the expression] that is pumped out weekly from Los Angeles, the writers have found that all you need is computerized special effects and a sexy girl in harms way and you have a riveted audience. You don’t need a plot or story – just blow up a car or a plane with a sexy woman inside and it sells. If I were a Governor or Mayor, I’d push for a ‘Violence Tax’, where a film or TV shows would be taxed on the number of violent event within a presentation. Those funds could be funneled into mental health facilities or the jails if necessary. As far as the FCC goes it’s an agency that is in bed with the big media corporations. The only thing you can expect from this government is legislation to make more money for the Corporations – not to insure public assess or censorship of transmitted programs. But then I don’t have problems with nudity – only with violence.
  • thumb
    Jun 19 2013: I think it depends on the story. What is the director trying to achieve? Unfortunately this would depend on the director. But murders and nudity are facts of life.
  • Jun 19 2013: Personally I would rather see raw not gore.
  • Jun 19 2013: Barry, I apologize,
    Yes we must be correct and stay on topic.

    The full horrors of war, like the concentration camps of WW2
    should be shown.

    But to portray war as a game, or as Hollywood entertainment for children
    is wrong.

    War is one nation's enrichment by conquest of a weaker nation.
    War is Killing. War is Maiming. War is not Sport. War is Evil.

    War is your government and mine, convincing the people to send
    their sons and daughters into harms way, with the drums beating and
    the music playing.

    War is using Hollywood and the Media to beat those drums and
    play that music.

    Such actions are WRONG. To glorify them, is TERRIBLY WRONG.
    To ignore such, a GRIEVOUS WRONG.

    There, all better now?
  • Jun 18 2013: Why do I have to choose? Both create concerns. I'm probablly less concerned about nudity on TV than abuse and killing. Although studies have shown kids are pretty good at knowing the difference between real and fantasy (e.g. TV, movies, games). Kids will most likely at some point in their lives experience nudity of the opposite sex personally. But not so many of us will experience killing or other gorey incidents in our lives. If, and we all know this is a big if, real life potrayals of nudity and sexual content are realistic on TV etc, these can be teaching moments for our kids.

    Parental control is required by parents. Hope this starts the conversation.
  • thumb
    Jun 20 2013: To be honest I didn't know that the FCC has allowed full frontal nudity on TV. The only recent documents I could find on the topic was this:, where it is discussed that these policies should be reviewed. Back to your original question: this will depend on the context, how the message is conveyed to the viewer. I don't see anything wrong with either of the two, as long as appropriate notice is given.
  • thumb
    Jun 19 2013: actually, one usually sees murders without gore, in other words one will see a simulated murder victim and they will have a little spot of blood
  • Jun 19 2013: It depends ---is it gratuitous or part of dialog and necessary element to tell the story? If it is gratuitous, then it needs to be "censored" for taste. If not, show it and truly tell the story.

    If the FCC wants to regulate obscene and tasteless tv----censor reality tv!
  • thumb
    Jun 19 2013: you should add political spin (aka lies or incomplete information). not as in-your-face as nudity and gore but definitely far more insidious.
    • thumb
      Jun 19 2013: I don't get it? Something wrong?
      • thumb
        Jun 19 2013: not at all. i think that nudity and gore are fine as long as the program/film is appropriately labelled so that people know what they are in for. after all, you don't HAVE to watch it.

        my concern is political spin/manipulation of opinion/advertising in "news" media.

        i think it's far worse than nudity and violence.
        • Jun 19 2013: Gee Whiz Scott,
          You've won the HITS THE NAIL ON THE HEAD award.
          I still cannot believe it. Pinch me.
  • thumb
    Jun 19 2013: Both nudity and gore are completely harmless as long as there is a context to their appearence. Bodies like the FCC should concern themselves with the validity of the context rather than specific content.
    • Jun 19 2013: Yeah, sure peter.
      After watching nudity and gore all day, my 5 year old
      still sucks his thumb, and eyes my 9mm pistol.
      Hopefully the FCC has concerned themselves appropriately.
      • thumb
        Jun 19 2013: Just to clarify I mean that a movie for example that has either gore or nudity that is contextually relevant is probably going to be inappropriate viewing for a minor anyway, due to the nature of the subject. Even if you edit out the gore or nudity.
        • Jun 20 2013: peter, thank you.
          Right On !!!
          Pardon my poor attempt at comedy.
          I get carried away, when at late night I try to write.
      • thumb
        Jun 20 2013: Just wanted to make sure. Doing everything in text can be confusing at times. Maybe TED needs it's own emoticons. How 'bout it admin?
  • Jun 18 2013: Jimmy,
    Now you've found a topic. Great idea.
    I wonder where the New Scientist 2007 got their information.
    I doubt it was from telemarketing the children.

    The FCC is at the top of my list of Crazy Government Agencies.
    There is talk of allowing explicit sexual acts.
    The only thing stopping that is the FDA and the Porno Lobby.

    The media would be all over this, except their largest advertisers
    are the RNC and the DNC, aka: your Dictators who share the media.
  • Jun 18 2013: I think the FCC should not be concerned with content at all.

    What children watch in their homes is strictly the parents' responsibility.

    Nudity and gore can both be positive when appropriate. Showing war scenes without gore is wrong. When war is presented in media it should show all the gore and horror, so people can learn the reality of war and what our veterans were forced to experience.
    • thumb
      Jun 18 2013: how about FCC monitoring whether a war movie has the necessary amount of gore, and if not, filmmakers must add some more
      • Jun 18 2013: No, I would prefer keeping the FCC completely powerless and mute with respect to content. I am not expressing the opinions of the FCC, just my personal opinions, and have no power to enforce them on anyone, and have no desire for any such power.

        The question implies that both gore and nudity are negative. IMO, not always.

        It seems backwards that some war movies warn the viewers about the upcoming gore (graphic content), but I have never seen a warning that the movie purposely does not represent the full horror of war. It seems that our culture would prefer our young people, including potential soldiers, to think of war as less horrible than the reality. IMO, the ethics of this situation is reversed..
      • Jun 19 2013: Krisztián,

        The FCC already makes them add blood in the vampire movies.
        So your suggestion has most likely been utilized.

        The FCC allows frontal nudity, but not of senile old men who may
        want to play a bit. The movie makers haven't expressed an opinion.

        The FCC is really just a group of young guys who party a lot.
        Heck they don't even have to pay for their theatre tickets.
    • Jun 18 2013: Barry,
      You really should have stopped with the phrase
      "Showing war scenes without gore is wrong."

      You would have been more right using...
      "Showing war scenes is wrong."

      The BIG problem is that the government and peoples
      of these United States have, since WW2, made a national
      policy of Waging Wars (preemptive Wars) upon other nation's

      A policy of the President and Congress and YOU.
      To daily Kill and Main, innocent men, women, and wee children.

      Such a Policy is WRONG. To glorify it, is a TERRIBLE WRONG.
      To ignore it, a GRIEVOUS WRONG.
      • Jun 19 2013: I agree that war is wrong. Nothing in what I stated previously can possibly be construed to mean that I condone glorifying war. In my opinion, war movies can and should show the full horror of war to teach everyone that war is evil. This is just a personal opinion, I have no power to directly affect the production of war movies.

        You have no reason to assign responsibility for a policy of the USA to me personally. I am not the dictator of the USA. What power I have is used for peace.

        By the way, your comments about war policies are off topic.
        • Jun 19 2013: Barry, you can deny being the dictator of the USA all you want.
          Even Superman denied it. That power you have really needs to
          be used for peace. Thank the Lord you are doing that. I sleep
          easier knowing you do so.

          I am sorry that I got your assignment wrong. I herein rescind any
          and all reference to your having the responsibility for a policy of
          the USA. I meant to assign you your responsibility for the Cayman
          Islands, but Al Gore gave the job to some Duke Energy guy. and
          he was bored senseless in less than 6 months.

          By the way, are you sure my comments are off topic?
  • thumb
    Jun 18 2013: blame canada!
  • thumb
    Jun 18 2013: Al Gore is much worse, it literally makes me nauseous.
    • Jun 18 2013: Gee Pat, I agree.

      You've won the coveted HITS THE NAIL ON THE HEAD award.
      That Gore is a target that is hard to miss. Except in Tennessee.
  • thumb
    Jun 18 2013: Why there is age limit for alcohol consumption, informed consent, driving license etc? There must be very solid and valid reasons?

    Why not age limit may be applied to exposure to nudity and gore on valid grounds?
    • Jun 18 2013: adesh,
      Using age as the criteria might not be the way to go.
      It doesn't work well for cigarettes, nor for alcohol.

      Nudity and gore are used by idiot film makers for the shock value.
      They think it will bring in more dollars at the box-office.
      Perhaps if these same peoples were locked away, things might
      improve. We can only hope.

      As an adult, I have never found nudity and gore to be a reason
      to watch TV. But, Radio, TV, and Web-sites, give the curious an
      unending supply of ugly to sate their desires.
  • thumb
    Jun 18 2013: I think Al Gore is the worst by far.
    • thumb
      Jun 18 2013: Badum-tss!
    • Jun 18 2013: Robert,
      Your another winner of the coveted
      Tennessee voters and one masseuse can't all be wrong.
  • Jun 18 2013: Who knows God must not be too concerned about nudity because we are born that way.
    • thumb
      Jun 18 2013: If you read the bible it doesn't seem like God has any problems with gore either... But could we please keep God out of this, I don't want it to turn into another God debate..
      • Jun 18 2013: Jimmy,
        I will try to tailor my remarks to your parameters.
        I will only write about ungodly things.
        The Devil's in the details.
      • Jun 19 2013: Okay I was just having fun When I read gore, I wondered how much gore?
    • Jun 18 2013: george,
      Speak for yourself. I remember wearing a diaper.