In his review of television for the year 2007, Washington Post TV critic Tom Shales bitterly recounted Fox's allegedly political censorship of actress Sally Field at the Emmy Awards, when she said if mothers ran the world, there would be no "goddamned wars." Shales complained that the lack of profanity "befouled" the airwaves:
The Emmy Awards were marred by a dark and perhaps portentous moment that also involved an unexpected -- and in this case, totally unwarranted -- silence. Sally Field was accepting a prize and talking about mothers and war when suddenly the Fox censor chose to delete some of her words before they could go out to America on the time-delayed telecast. Fox used the absurd FCC crackdown on "obscenity" as its excuse, but the action smacked of political censorship and seriously befouled the American airwaves.
By contrast, Shales loved PBS gurus Ken Burns and Bill Moyers. Shales adored the Moyers special "Buying the War," which didn't include a conservative voice in it anywhere as Moyers argued the media were all tools for conservatives:
Proving again that he plays a distinctive, valuable role in television, Moyers reported on reporting -- how the media rolled over and played along obediently with the administration's prosecution of the Iraq war.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
The MSM
December 31, 2007 - 01:05 ET by SpockIt is the MSM who are conducting the "[censored] wars"
logic spock?
December 31, 2007 - 01:14 ET by botg: )
"Man created god(s) Anything believed was created by man"-Syrius
Double-Double Standard
December 31, 2007 - 02:06 ET by Intellectual HonestySally Field was accepting a prize and talking about mothers and war when suddenly the Fox censor chose to delete some of her words before they could go out to America on the time-delayed telecast.
The left is always basing their definition of discrimination by disparity of outcome and yet is always comfortable in touting the "superiority" of women if it tickles their fancy and we are just supposed to nod in unison. Enter Sally Field and her comment. Then Shales marries one liberal double-standard with another by conveniently avoiding Field's full comment by flippintly commenting that she was "talking about mother's and war" when in truth Field's essentially was saying all men are war mongers and women are the only peacemakers. At the same time he was quite comfortable in claiming political censorship while ignoring how the award she had just won and the series she acted in gave her no real gateway to go into an anti-war rant.
Sally Field is a good actress that has had a fairly successful career long enough that she has lost any bearing on how she is perceived, a typical hollywood condition that generally follows the level of pampering these hollywood elites live in 24-7 resulting in a delusional idea of self-importance. It tends to eventually always guarantee a level of hypocrisy.
Just one quote from Sally Field I found that illustrates how such a star is able to perfect the art of the sentence where the start completely negates the finish:
I've never held a gun. I've never shot a gun. I don't ever want to do it again.
Peaceful women
January 1, 2008 - 06:35 ET by GrannyGrump42Yeah, women are so peaceful and gentle.
But as somebody pointed out, that wasn't exactly a Candygram that Janet Reno sent to David Koresh.
}}---> No, Grump
January 1, 2008 - 06:37 ET by Cool ArrowI believe she referred to them as Post-Partum Abortions.
It's all the raqge when Liberals decide to kill children.
I ♣ My Seal
Shales
December 31, 2007 - 04:27 ET by KC MulvilleThere's an easy way to prove Shales wrong: wait until he's on a show or news segment, and let someone call him a "goddamned" liberal. Hollywood liberals seem to think they can defecate their politics however, wherever, and whenever they feel like it. They're like puppies who need to be trained.
Who is Shales kidding? It was the Emmy awards, for crying out loud. This is a show where celebrities came together to applaud themselves. This little ceremony has absolutely no meaning or importance. At best, it's a fun excuse to dress up. I mean, dear Lord, pause and consider the shallowness of having actors pretend (for a night) that they're "competing" (like athletes), breathlessly sitting in the crowd enduring the "suspense" of opening an envelope. And then, horrors of horrors, Shales ponders the dark and portentious marring of such a solemn ceremony with -gasp- something smacking of political censorship!
By trying to magnify his little world into cosmic importance, Shales simply displays how insignificant his little world really is.
Give this guy a shaleacking
December 31, 2007 - 07:19 ET by Jack BauerHey... I managed to get the first comment on the Shales alleged "article," this will sit atop the pile and drive all the liberals nuts, all day.
For your viewing pleasure (I'm espresso at the WashPo, by the way!) So please visit and RECOMMEND my comments at:
http://www.washingto...
Jack, I was already there
December 31, 2007 - 09:39 ET by DaBirdJack, I was already there and recommended your post before I even knew it was a fellow Newsbuster. Strange thing though, when I first went there your post was on top of the page, with a later one after yours. But now I go back and it is reversed, newest post on top, not first post on top. I don't know how Wapo.com works, but it sure seems strange that first post was on top and now first post is on the bottom. Could it be that Wapo is in effect "censoring" your viewpoint by burying your comment? Maybe I'm just feeling a little conspiratorial this morning.
Dabird -- I haven't posed
December 31, 2007 - 10:55 ET by Jack BauerDabird -- I haven't posed on WasPo for a while, but they always used to keeps it in descending order, with first post first... which made it really irritating to find your post if they has 11 pages of them.
I guess they've changed it since then -- but I don't think on my behalf!
Just like a liberal to miss
December 31, 2007 - 07:12 ET by motherbeltJust like a liberal to miss the whole point and go directly to the "political censorship" card. Shales has been around Hollywood and TV long enough to know very well that one can say "damn" but can't say "G--damn" on TV. But of course, kvetching about that wouldn't score him any political points with his liberal friends. So, true or not, he has to make it about politics, so they can all whine about mean old George W. Bush not wanting to hear any dissension.
Shales failed to notice the incongruity of his censorship claim with the fact that it's now almost "de regieur" to denounce the war and/or the President at every televised event in Hollwood, leaving us all to wonder why the censors have been asleep at the switch for the past three or four years and just happened to wake up in time for Sally Field.
As for Bill Moyers...hes' on publicly funded PBS, which means he isn't required to attract an audience to stay on the air. 'Nuff said. (Although that still doesn' explain Keith Olbermann)
mb -
December 31, 2007 - 12:46 ET by drillanwrSo, true or not, he has to make it about politics, so they can all whine about mean old George W. Bush not wanting to hear any dissension.
Don't forget ... That g.d. "Bush" has the censorship button right beside the New Orleans levee button and the nuke button on his desk ... Used to have the "blow-up-the-WTC" button there, but it's now defunct and been replaced by the "Hollywood-writers'-strike" button and the "nobody's-going-to-our-overpriced-political-antiwar-Hollywood-movies" button.
drill, have you ever seen
December 31, 2007 - 15:10 ET by motherbeltdrill, have you ever seen the cartoon with Bush saying to someone unseen, as he cracks his knuckles, grinning evilly, "this is the part of the day I really like!" then he turns to a complicated machine and starts to fiddle with a bunch of dials, and three levers: one says "Regular" the second "Premium" and the third "Diesel." I'm sure there are a lot of people who don't think that's fiction.
No, but LOVED the "South
December 31, 2007 - 17:54 ET by drillanwrNo, but LOVED the "South Park" episode where the boys went to see Pres. Bush at the WH regarding the 9-11 Troofers, and he and the rest in the Oval Office try to convince the boys that, YES, they DID carry out 9-11 (VP Cheney shooting at, and missing them ...) ... and one of the boys keeps saying, "REALLY?!?!?" in total disbelief.
Proving again that he plays
December 31, 2007 - 09:22 ET by sublight68Proving again that he plays a distinctive, valuable role in television, Moyers reported on reporting -- how the media rolled over and played along obediently with the administration's prosecution of the Iraq war.
This seems to have become another of the Left's favorites talking points, accusing the MsM of being President Bush's lap dogs leading up to and during the early stages of the war, of not being critical enough.
Somehow, that's sure not the way I remember it. They were yelling "quagmire" when the first troop slowed down for a minute to tie his boots.
Shales hints that the
December 31, 2007 - 09:24 ET by KillgraveShales hints that the editing of Fields ran afoul of a sacred consitutional protection. WRONG! Fox owns the broadcast, so IT IS THEIR RIGHT to regulate the content as they see fit.
God, I'm already on a rant, but this really pisses me off. Our public schools are more and more moving away from teaching kids about civil law, so OF COURSE people are stupid when it comes to constitutional protections. I truly wonder if liberals are deliberately doing this so they can push their "interpretation" of our constitution on an ignorant public.
Why don't they just go ahead and stop teaching kids how to read? Then they can exert even more control (and please don't read this as a bash towards teachers on a micro scale. My wife is a public school teacher and she, and most others, are doing the best they can).
The government has
December 31, 2007 - 10:04 ET by sublight68The government has instituted so many mandates and restrictions on private businesses and entities that I'm not surprised so many people are ignorant of what protections the Constitution actually provides.
How often do you hear some celebrity someone screaming "censorship" if a radio station won't give them air time, a TV station won't grant them an interview, or if fans decide not to buy their album or see their movie?
They have no idea what the First Amendment truly means or what censorship actually is.
How often do you hear some
December 31, 2007 - 15:15 ET by motherbeltHow often do you hear some celebrity someone screaming "censorship" if
a radio station won't give them air time, a TV station won't grant them
an interview, or if fans decide not to buy their album or see their
movie?
That's right...they think their right to free speech entails an obligation on radio or TV stations to provide them a soapbox and a microphone; not to mention the proscription on any consequences of their speech.
Tom Shills
December 31, 2007 - 14:42 ET by fitzfongI'm always fascinated how fat loads like Tom Shales, Roger Ebert and Richard Roeper (OK, he's not fat, but he's a load), who effectively watch TV for a living, wedge themselves into political debate and act as if they're experts. These are the people who, when faced with a litany of falsehoods in a Michael Moore "documentary", will obfuscate by diminishing the effect of the inaccuracies over the weight of the entire film (the "it may be a concoction of false premises and outright lies, but it makes a legitimate and important statement about the state of X and is therefore a must-see" argument). Anyway, Shales has always been in the bag for that deranged, pathetic tax drain, Bill Moyers...so that comes as no surprise. The hilarious part about the Sally Field incident is that the "entertainment" community is so bloated by its own sense of self-importance that it treats trivial matters like that one as watershed moments in history. Very few people watch the Emmy Awards...and the few that watch tune in to see the outfits, not to hear botoxed old hags exhibit their political ignorance in public.
The
December 31, 2007 - 15:26 ET by Chris NormanThe PeopleMagazineEntertainmentTonightization of the news, where the idiocies that Clooney, Field, and Ted Danson utter are treated with glowing adoration - "They're engaged! Involved! They care!" - with absolutely no skepticism allowed.
Right, Chris...that's what
December 31, 2007 - 17:11 ET by motherbeltRight, Chris...that's what matters....they "care"....at least they "try!"
Ted Danson went around in the 70S saying the oceans were going to be dead zones in 10 years...do you hear anyone saying "What a gullible idiot!"? How many first-graders went home crying, all upset, because of him telling them that Flipper and Shamu and all the other precious sea creatures were going to die??? Do you hear him apologizing for his Chicken Little act?
No, because "He tried! He cared!
That's all that counts.
"Fox used the absurd FCC
December 31, 2007 - 14:46 ET by ckc1227"Fox used the absurd FCC crackdown on "obscenity" as its excuse, but the
action smacked of political censorship and seriously befouled the
American airwaves."
Then why did the only "political censorship" during this show occur when someone used questionable profanity? Why didn't they censor all the other political statements made that evening?
Shales was cherry picking
December 31, 2007 - 15:12 ET by Chris NormanShales was cherry picking the facts to make his smear of anything Fox. No logical contrarian questions are allowed.
Right on, ckc.....as I said
December 31, 2007 - 16:55 ET by motherbeltRight on, ckc.....as I said in my earlier post, every celeb who gets to a mic badmouths Bush and/or the war....why did the censors let all that go by, dump on Sally Field one nihgt, and then go back to ignoring things? Shales is no greenhorn...he knows darn well you can't say "G-damn on broadcast TV. Even when they show movies they bleep out the Gd part and just leave the "damn". When they're operating in real time with a 7 second delay, they don't have the luxury of cherry-picking out one syllable.
Shales Is A Bloated Moron
December 31, 2007 - 15:03 ET by greenfairieNever could stand that greasy blob and his leftist bilge. In his perv world, there would be child porn on prime time t.v. and f-bombs in Saturday morning cartoons.
FOX edits some potentially
December 31, 2007 - 17:50 ET by mattmFOX edits some potentially offensive content and it's censorship, yet 99% of all other MSM TV excludes conservative content, except to bash it, and it's what? Free expression?
Shales is an ignorant, myopic, overpaid, overemployed hack.