Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Indecent TV?

An e-mailer writes to ask if the FCC should be looking at the drug awareness program produced by Maryland first lady Kendel Ehrlich.

Sixteen episodes of the first lady's talk show, "Live Right: Straight Talk on Substance Abuse" are available at any time of day on Comcast On Demand. She was paid $55,000-a-year to produce and star in the show, and has since tried to have the show distributed in Maryland public schools.

Most episodes involve interviews Ehrlich conducts with various experts on the subjects of drug and alcohol abuse by teens. But episode 10, reviewed in Sunday's Post by Style reporter Libby Copeland, includes sexually explicit content and brief nudity.

As Copeland describes it, the show takes viewers into a nightclub called Seacrets "with a bunch of people who are well over 21. What they have to do with the problem of teen substance abuse is not explained; instead, the show is given over to unwarranted shots of drunk people. Women dance lasciviously and a bride-to-be at a bachelorette party displays an extremely large rubber object better left unidentified. Then comes the fellow who feels it necessary to pull something out of his zipper, in front of a small crowd of onlookers."

By  |  March 20, 2006; 10:22 AM ET
 
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Resign. But first, can you spare some cash...
Next: Steele on Sudan

Comments

Even after living in the US for 13 years I still can't get used to how uptight and restrictive American attitudes are toward nudity on TV. In Europe, not only is nudity freely shown on all public channels, but it wouldn't even occur to anyone to post a "warning" about anything.

Posted by: Someone | March 20, 2006 1:16 PM | Report abuse

"What they have to do with the problem of teen substance abuse is not explained; instead, the show is given over to unwarranted shots of drunk people. Women dance lasciviously and a bride-to-be at a bachelorette party displays an extremely large rubber object better left unidentified."

I think students should be shown the video specifically for that quote above. Hey teens, this is how a majority of America acts when they go out on the town or are celebrating a happy occasion! So teens, you don't have to get piss drunk now at this young age because you have the rest of your lives to do so! All joking aside, I don't think a dose of reality for teens would be such a bad thing. The reasons so many programs fail to curb teen drinking/drug abuse is beacuse they have no credit and come with a cheesy unrealistic "just say no to everything" approach.

Posted by: Mr. K | March 20, 2006 2:27 PM | Report abuse

I agree with "Someone". I wish Americans would get over their hangups on nudity. Its ok to show hard core violence on TV but show a bare behind or horror, full frontal nudity, and you'd think from the public reaction the world was about to end.

Posted by: A Reader | March 20, 2006 3:51 PM | Report abuse

Americans do have the right to be uptight or quite freewheeling, about sexually explicit material in school. My childs school needs to let me know if they are showing him/her something that he/she may not be mature enough to handle, regardless of the good intentions...more to the point, especially if the intention is to teach him/her about sex, sexual relations, and grown-up situations. Grown-up/adult situations are for adults and grown-ups...simple as that. I would assume sexually mature adults know that learning about sexual relations is quite complicated and cannot be exhaustively understood in the classroom. Something as great and life enhancing as sex can be only enjoyed through an open minded and responsible approach graced with clear and honest communications between educators, parents and kids. I do hope the video was rejected because it was not contextually comprehensive enough in explaining all that was going on in the video and not only because there was the existence of nudity. If so, shame on the producers for not realizing that there audience still needs parental supervision to see 'R' rated movies, despite their intentions.

Posted by: leee | March 20, 2006 4:32 PM | Report abuse

What, do you think teenagers have never seen any nudity or drunken scenes? What planet are you living on? I have not seen these videos, but if the purpose is to try to restrain kids from improper behavior, having a few scenes _with the proper voice over_ to describe why it is not exactly the best behavior is not so bad an idea. It's all in the context, and you can't condemn it just because of a few visuals.

Posted by: Doc | March 20, 2006 5:25 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company