Home Store In Memoriam Deborah Newsletter Forum Topics Blogfeed Blogroll Facebook MySpace Contact Us About

More FOX News Porn!

Reported by Ellen - February 3, 2009 -

Guest blogged by Ana

If Megyn Kelly's outrage over the pornographic video that Comcast let slip during the Superbowl coverage in its Tuscon market is real (and I suspect it is), one must ask why show the video during your segment? With video.

Today in Kelly's court, Megyn Kelly hosted Attorneys Mercedes Colwin and Lee Armstrong to talk about the incident. She was obviously outraged about the incident and then proceeded to show the questionable video, albeit with a blurred effect over any indecent appendages. Now, i concede a need to present evidence that furthers a story, but i fail to see how that applies in this case. The discussion could have been as, or more effective had they not shown the video. In fact, the blurring might actually have made the effect worse. The "actors" in the video were not obscured enough to hide what they were engaged in, and in my view, actually gave the impression that the woman was giving the male oral sex. I did not realize until doing research for this report, that wasn't what happened in the video at all (it was just a handjob).

Icky, sure, but as offensive as the impression left after the FOX-affected video? not likely.

So why show the video? Questions remain as to whether beeping or bleeping of offensive or profane language actually works, due to the fact the context in which the word is used remains. For example, in the Rod Blagojevich tapes, even with the bleeping of words, the context, and intent of the censored item remains. It doesn't take a North Korean inter-ballistic rocket scientist to figure out instantly what words he was saying, or how he meant them.

The same applies here. Had the video not been shown, it would have been left up to viewers to figure out for themselves what the content of the pornographic material contained, if they are so inclined. However, we don't need evidentiary video to provide context or illustrate what happened.

We knew it was objectionable or controversial because FOX told us it was, and so has just about every other media outlet. A quick review of CNN shows they also used the video. The obvious disdain Kelly held however, was absent there, as was the "meatiest" segment of the video.

Not to spark a debate over whose censorship vehicle is more effective, Fox News, or TMZ, where i saw the original video, but it seems to me TMZ's model is more effective simply because the context isn't blurred, which leaves no room for mistaking the actions occurring in what is arguably a more offensive manner.

If perception is reality, then my reality became more offensive after watching Kelly's court, and I don't believe that was their intent. In the report Kelly states, "People don't need perversions forced on them while watching the Superbowl," and I agree. I just wished she believed the same about her segment.

If there is an upside to the unfortunate event, and its repercussions, it is in reaction to exactly what worries Megyn Kelly - having to explain to your child about the act that is taking place, might actually force parents to open a dialogue with their children over a frank and healthy discussion of sex and sexuality, and that cannot be a bad thing. That aside, I feel sorry for the parents of small children, who obviously were unprepared for such a presentation.

On a side note: I have to salute Megyn Kelly today - in a discussion with Garin Casaleggio - Deputy Communications Director, Office of the State Controller of California, Kelly took him to task over California's decision not to pay out or delay payment of tax returns and rebates to the states residents. Kelly was fantastic as she
firmly and passionately confronted Casaleggio by saying, "It's not your money, not your money" and ending the conversation by asking "is California going to pay interest on the delayed tax rebates?" Its no surprise his answer was no. Good job, Megyn.