Post I.T. - Washington Post Technology Blog Frank Ahrens Sara Goo Sam Diaz Mike Musgrove Alan Sipress Yuki Noguchi Post I.T.
Tech Podcast
The Bloggers
Subscribe to this Blog

Fox Airs Profanity During Eagles-Saints Game

Frank Ahrens

It's Saturday night and I'm watching the NFC playoff game between the New Orleans Saints and the Philadelphia Eagles.

At the 8:37 mark in the first quarter, New Orleans defenders broke up a pass intended for a Philly wide receiver.

After the replay, the Fox cameras cut to the stands, showing New Orleans fans celebrating.

One young woman (note I do not call her a "lady") was wearing a t-shirt reading "F**K DA EAGLES." Except her shirt had letters where the asterisks are.

Fox is in court right now challenging the FCC's right to police the airwaves for indecency. Networks have argued that too many FCC fines for indecency have been for fleeting instances of profanity or indecency and on live TV, where the networks have no control over the actions of those they televise.

But this instance was neither fleeting nor live: The profane word was not said, it was WRITTEN on the TV screen on her t-shirt for five seconds. The TiVo evidence is indisputable.

Moreover, it was not live: The Fox cameras recorded her celebrating when the play happened and aired it during the replay. In other words, Fox directors CHOSE to air the profane word.

Whether the government should have the ability to police the airwaves is an issue for the courts. But Fox -- and by extension, all the networks -- do themselves no favors by choosing to air material that is in slam-dunk violation of FCC rules. It's equivalent to flipping a vulgar hand sign at the government. And to many viewers, as well, who doubtless are watching this game with their children.

By Frank Ahrens  |  January 13, 2007; 8:36 PM ET  | Category:  Frank Ahrens
Previous: Star Trek XI: The Search for Box Office | Next: Fox Responds To Broadcast of Profanity


Add Post I.T. to Your Site
Stay on top of the latest Post I.T. news! This easy-to-use widget is simple to add to your own Web site and will update every time there's a new installment of Post I.T.
Get This Widget >>


Comments

Please email us to report offensive comments.



It said "Pluck da eagles."

Posted by: Anonymous | January 13, 2007 10:00 PM

I saw it, too. You sound positively Meese-esque about it, though. Or possibly Swaggart-like. Claiming that Fox deliberately aired the profanity is completely over the top. They were showing a replay right after the play, not playing it during the 11 o'clock news (where it will doubtless never air.) If they replay happened a significant period of time after the live feed, it would be different. In this case, it was immediately after the play happened. I seriously doubt there was any intention of flouting the (ridiculously overbearing) rules. If you can show a deliberate choice to knowingly air the profanity, then your point is valid. I doubt you'll reach that standard. This smacks of the celebrated Janet Jackson bare boob issue. It was on tv for a few seconds, just long enough for the guy (or gal) in charge to say "hey! Pan away!" There's no reason to believe it was a deliberate action.

Posted by: Mark | January 13, 2007 10:04 PM

Her shirt read "Pluck Da Eagles" with the camera angle and crease in her shirt masking the right side of the P and obscuring the L, hence the appearance of a profanity. Do you really think she'd wear such a shirt to a family event?

Posted by: Jim | January 13, 2007 10:10 PM

What's an NFL playoff game without a little All-American profanity?

Let me point out that it is close to 10:30 EST as I write this. Anyone who is watching television at this time is old enough to have heard and uttered the F-bomb more than once.

Posted by: Mister Methane | January 13, 2007 10:22 PM

Who rolled your tampon up in a giant wad? Who cares if it said "F*ck the Eagles"? We are spending billions of dollars a week waging a pointless war in Iraq, 45 million Americans are without health insurance, and you are upset that someone in the stands of a football game broadcast on TV had a T shirt that said "F*ck the Eagles"?? You are a douchebag.

Posted by: woody247 | January 13, 2007 10:25 PM

Rewrite your column, since the other guy is right and the shirt said pluck. They'd turn her away at the gate with the other.

Posted by: Doug100 | January 13, 2007 10:27 PM

It was definitely not "Pluck". When the shot first comes on, she is squarely facing the camera with her arms down, and the first letter is definitely an "F", followed by a "u".

Thanks to Tivo for allowing a definitive answer to the question, "Did I see what I thought I saw?"

Posted by: Mike | January 13, 2007 10:30 PM

oh my God, I saw the 'F' word on TV! Quick, change the channel! Ahh, NBC, there's some decent all-American television, an episode of SVU about child-rape. Thanks god I'm not exposed to filth anymore!

Posted by: DCAustinite | January 13, 2007 10:39 PM

It was definitely an F and it was definitely inappropriate for broadcast television, no matter what time of day.

Posted by: Bridgid | January 13, 2007 10:40 PM

This is a colossal waste of time. The internet makes profanity on tv irrelevant. I had seen one playboy by the time I was 13; your average 10 year old today has seen German scat porn. But you go ahead and swat that ant Frank.

Posted by: Will | January 13, 2007 10:41 PM

I am sure the director saw the shirt saying Pluck Da Eagles, thought it was cute, then cut to the girl milliseconds before her shirt developed that unfortunate fold.

You can almost imagine the director screaming to cameraman - stay with her until the shirt unfolds! Stay with her!!!

I wonder if the Fox executive who eventually ran in to overrule the director, set the taser to stun or death by electrocution.

Posted by: EMG | January 13, 2007 10:43 PM

Ahrens

I reiterate a previous writer's response. DOUCHEBAG rewrite the article.

Posted by: Doug Turner | January 13, 2007 10:45 PM

Who really watches this crap anymore?

Posted by: Henry | January 13, 2007 11:00 PM

We had better call the morality police and have that woman stoned to death. Oh wait, this is not taliban-era afghanistan...

Posted by: Anonymous | January 13, 2007 11:20 PM

Yeah - she would have been turned away at the door.... because there's no way she might have worn something over that shirt knowing she would have been turned away.
And they were showing the hot woman... it was quite a deliberate decision to air it.

Posted by: Anonymous | January 13, 2007 11:26 PM

After you tell me it "was neither fleeting nor live" there is no need to tell me "Moreover, it was not live" in the very next paragraph. And I think the word you wanted was CHOSE not CHOOSE. I'd rather read the shirt.

Posted by: Shane | January 13, 2007 11:27 PM

Frank, is this really the best you can do?

Posted by: Dezlboy | January 13, 2007 11:40 PM

Columnist -- you really need to get a life if that upset you.

Posted by: Eric | January 13, 2007 11:45 PM

Seriously, Frank... this was clearly an error of obliviousness rather than judgment on Fox's part. They zeroed in on a buxom and excited young woman (following your decision not to call her "lady"--and let me respond, judge not lest ye be judged), and failed to notice that her well-worn shirt displayed an expletive. They were trying to show an excited and excitatory fan, not profanity; if they f***ed up, everyone makes mistakes sometimes (see above on "judge not.."). Lighten up, FCC--and you too, Frank, if this is an issue to you too.

Posted by: Sunshine | January 13, 2007 11:48 PM

Get some rest, Frank.

Posted by: Jim | January 13, 2007 11:48 PM

FOX and their leader, Rupert Murdoch, are fascists who have helped PNAC and Bush-Cheney drive the illegal war with the FAUXNews division while steadily increasing the amount of sex and violence targeted at teens and children. Murdoch needs his citizenship revoked and FOX's American assets need to be seized and sold off to pay for the Iraq War his agenda is so keen on. I have ZERO sympathy for FOX. Murdoch is a sociopath.

Posted by: Todd | January 14, 2007 12:00 AM

Uh-oh, here come the morality police again.

Posted by: G | January 14, 2007 12:26 AM

Who really cares? This is professional "sport" and is of no consequence.

Posted by: Ipanema | January 14, 2007 12:34 AM

"It's equivalent to flipping a vulgar hand sign at the government."---Which is completely legal under the first amendment.

Posted by: Todd | January 14, 2007 12:41 AM

There is absolutely no question but that the shirt said "f**k," and it is impossible that this somehow slipped through -- the "woman" was in the front row, the camera operator and the directors had to know what her shirt said before putting her on (I mean, they found her and focused on her), and they consciously chose to do it.

Now, is this the worst thing that has ever happened? No. But it is an example of astonishing arrogance -- I was watching the game with my two seven-year old sons, both of whom can read quite well -- and they both asked me what her shirt said. These people don't have the right to inject that into my living room and rub it in my kids' faces. They're just flexing their amorality.

As for those who call Ahrens names, merely for writing about this -- you certainly impress. Very classy.

Posted by: Bondra | January 14, 2007 12:44 AM

Who the F*ck cares! is my question. Are we really that davastaed by seeing a curse word or...gasp...a breast on television?The FCC needs to ban and fine for high gas prices, poor air quality, 65 degrees in January and a war gone awry. Go find Osama Bin Laden, then we'll have time worry about f*ing curse words. What a fragile bunch of wimps we've become.

Posted by: Greg | January 14, 2007 12:49 AM

Frank...Did you catch Reggie Bush mouthing M##her F##KER too? Did that offend you? No matter, no one plucking cares but you.

Posted by: JOHN G | January 14, 2007 12:52 AM

This "indecency" stuff is over the top. I was 12-13 in 1962. Maybe my folks did not "ride herd" the way some of you imagine they ought to have, but I read the adult "sci-fi" of the day with their blessing and knew this work and others then. I was not scarred for life.

About the same time I went to Boy Scout Camp and my scoutmaster had us singing -- for parent's visits - "Waiting on the Corner until the Pickup Comes" -- and awarded a "Wind Breaker" merit badge to his assistant. THAT I thought was indecent. This was the same scoutmaster who made a point of confiscating copys of "Playboy" when we had paper drives.

This "indecency" campaign has reached the levels of total absurdity. In the third "Die Hard" movie, "Die Hard with a Vengence", Bruce Willis goes to Harlem and wears a sign that says "I hate N*****'s". It is central to the plot, as they say. I saw a recent version on broadcast TV where the sign was digitally altered to read, "I'm crazy". It's absurd!

"Indecency" is part of life, literature and art. Try a Shakespere play for example. I'm sick of being ruled by overly sensitive folk.

Posted by: Richard Gauthier | January 14, 2007 12:53 AM

Pluck Ahrens

Posted by: webbedouin | January 14, 2007 1:03 AM

The MF from Reggie Bush was unmistakable.

Posted by: farmasea | January 14, 2007 1:05 AM

Perhaps the viewers who are watching this game with their children could take this opportunty to explain to said children that seeing or hearing a random 4 letter synonym for "intercourse" is hardly the end of the world.

Posted by: burke | January 14, 2007 1:09 AM

Sieg heil, you indecency nazis.

Really, we have gotten to the point where you cannot say anything without someone getting offended over it. Just the other day I called the coffee chain Charmucks as I usually do and someone around threw a fit because I altered the name of their favorite burnt coffee store. Soon we will not be able to say hello without getting into trouble.

Posted by: pluck the facists | January 14, 2007 1:14 AM

Have you visited a grade school playground lately? Or an office? Language is life. And hearing or seeing F**k is as common as Hell (excuse me, H E double tooth picks, for old timers) was when I was a kid. Like it or not (and I really don't like it), it's there. It's part of existing in a democracy. I have no use for Fox, and only reluctantly watch that crooked network when they carry an athletic contest of interest. So, while I think that the FCC and their right wing, supposedly religious allies should stop with the censorship, I also think that Fox should be held to account for the double standard they embrace. Fox news (?) delights in upholding conservative family values while their entertainment side peddles trash TV around the clock. In other words what is the difference between what was on the woman's shirt and what is routinely, overtly implied on Fox TV?

Posted by: Dubhlaoich | January 14, 2007 1:16 AM

Thanks for the comments. Let me make a couple of points:

- Thanks for the editing: I did mean CHOSE. Word fixed.

- Regardless of whatever your opinion on indecency may be or whatever mine may be, the following facts are not in dispute:

a) By law, the FCC is charged with enforcing indecency violations on over-the-air television and radio between the hours of 6 a.m. and 10 p.m., when children are likely to be in the audience.

b) The FCC has ruled that use of the "f-word" over the public airwaves is almost always indecent.

c) The shirt did not read "pluck." Check the link provided by the reader above.

d) It was broadcast at about 8:30 p.m.

e) Fox is arguing before a New York federal court that the FCC overstepped its authority in declaring a previous Fox broadcast indecent and hopes to have the ruling overturned. Flipping off the government certainly is legal but may be a questionable business decision for Fox and its parent, NewsCorp.

f) Last year's NFC playoff games were seen by about 15 million people. It's reasonable to assume that this year's audience will be similar.

The following actions are now likely to occur:

a) Individuals and groups will file indecency complaints to the FCC over tonight's broadcast.

b) The FCC will be bound to investigate and make a ruling.

I'm not playing nanny, endorsing or condemning what happened tonight during Fox's broadcast. My opinion is irrelevent.

But the event was news. And ignoring it, given its topicality and large audience, would have been bad journalism.

Posted by: Frank Ahrens | January 14, 2007 1:29 AM

This thing ab out f**k on someone's shirt that appeared on screen during a game of some sort that Ahrens finds offensive: I try not to watch TV that has been censored by the government or the corporations it has allowed to incorporate themselves. That cuts me off from a lot of material, but I also know that the language I hear on the streets is the real stuff and has not been pureed in the cuisnart of euphemism masquerading as decency. So fck* U, Ahrens, and your FCC, too. And in the future, watch your punctuation and your pronouns. You misuse both.

Posted by: Alexander Mac Donald | January 14, 2007 1:36 AM

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz . . .

Posted by: Ricky | January 14, 2007 2:10 AM

Frank, don't listen to these morons. They're just trying to piss you off and are typical teen asses. Anyone with a brain can see that you never even gave your personal opinions as to whether or not it is indecent, the fact is it is against FCC regulations and Fox will be fined over this, and it is semi-large news as Fox's efforts to get less restrictions will be hurt.

To anyone calling Frank names: Shut the hell up and learn about journalism please.

Posted by: Vinny | January 14, 2007 2:11 AM

> I'm not playing nanny, endorsing or
> condemning what happened tonight during
> Fox's broadcast. My opinion is irrelevent.

If your opinion is irrelevant, then why is your report so full of your own opinion -- e.g., your jab at the shirt-wearer not being a "lady," your suggestion that Fox is giving the finger to viewers, and your overall accusatory, moralistic tone? It seems quite plain that you were in fact condemning Fox for broadcasting the t-shirt, and it's fair that people are calling you on it.

Posted by: t_joe | January 14, 2007 2:13 AM

Fox should not broadcast vile language and should be fined by the FCC. Let Fox and Rupert Murdoch pay off the national debt and I don't care if Fox pays off the national debt for the abhorent televising.

I don't want to watch anything I would not want my mother or my sister to see.

Posted by: T | January 14, 2007 2:18 AM

"If your opinion is irrelevant, then why is your report so full of your own opinion -- e.g., your jab at the shirt-wearer not being a "lady," your suggestion that Fox is giving the finger to viewers, and your overall accusatory, moralistic tone? It seems quite plain that you were in fact condemning Fox for broadcasting the t-shirt, and it's fair that people are calling you on it."

If you honestly think that wearing a shirt like that to a football game is ladylike, I don't know what the hell you think being "ladylike" is.

Also, he is condemning it because IT IS AGAINST REGULATIONS. Hell, he might even be FOR the removal of restrictions and is pissed off that Fox is hurting the effort!

And it IS giving the finger to many viewers (note he did not say ALL viewers). It's pretty much a FACT that there will be viewer complaints about this. If I aired porn on network TV at 5 PM, you bet your goddamn ass that's giving the finger to at least 1 viewer in North America.

Posted by: Vinny | January 14, 2007 2:18 AM

20K more troops to Iraq. How about that? The "F-Word" on some broads shirt??? Wow America.

Posted by: TJ | January 14, 2007 2:21 AM

YAWN

Posted by: Robert Donovan | January 14, 2007 2:26 AM

Pluck Bush and his illegal plucking war!
Thanks for shielding my eyes from th "F" word whilst grown men beat the crap out of each other and push beer during the breaks.

Posted by: Will | January 14, 2007 2:32 AM

Hey, if you don't like the fact that people swear at football games, then go Cheney yourself! If it's good enough for dick's head to use the word fvck on the Senate floor when swearing at a Senator, then it's good enough to be broadcast on national TV during a football playoff game.

Personally, I would rather hear the colorful language of what's being said on the field and sidelines than what's being said by the stupid announcers. Turn off their reciting of boring stats, endless trivea facts, stating the obvious, making wrong calls, and the rest of their obscence banality. Instead, give me an authenic aural experience of a live game, swear words and all!

Besides, who in their life ever played a game of football without anyone on either team ever saying fvck out loud at least a few times during the game? That includes Pop Warner games too, and I'm not talking about the dads, I'm talking about their kids.

Here's a quiz for everyone. Can you find the obscene word in the following sentence?

Fvck the War!

Substitute word hint:
Clinton the Bush!

Leave it to the MSM and far right to demonize love making and institutionalize violence.

Moral: Making war is fvcking hell, but making love, and a few babies in the process, is fvcking heaven!

Last night, I wore my Fvck the War! tee shirt underneath my Sweater and showed it off a few times in the bars.

There was only one woman who got mad at me. I said I would cover up the obscene word, so I put my hand over the word war. Then she really got mad at me!

One guy who saw the tee shirt was a vet from the first gulf oil war and told me that by wearing it I was supporting the troops. He was also very glad that he had been out long enough so the military could no longer call him back involuntarily through their back door draft of indentured servitude for life.

So guess what I will be wearing during the MANDATE FOR PEACE march in D.C. on the last Saturday this month?

CodePinkAlert DOT Org

Posted by: KEVIN SCHMIDT, STERLING VA | January 14, 2007 2:43 AM

Please tell me that you are, otherwise I think we can end the Frank Ahrens journalism career right here and now. Seriously, think about what you actually wrote for others to read tonight...but in the end, try not to feel too bad, I'm sure you have some sensible thoughts on occasion too.

Posted by: joking or sarcasm right? | January 14, 2007 2:46 AM

F*CK DA CHILDREN

Posted by: DG | January 14, 2007 2:59 AM

Kevin Schimdt you a bigger douchebag cock chugger than Fatty Arbuckle who wrote this article? Btw...did you take your wife's last name when you got married?

Posted by: Anonymous | January 14, 2007 3:34 AM

I think that all of the comments disregarding the airing of the F word should be a sound warning to us all. When we can pooh-pooh something so vulgar as that, intentional or not, and yes, all of the other indecent stuff that we are exposed to,we need to step back and wonder where our society is going, and our decency has gone. When you see a 2 year old wearing a shirt that reads, "Hottie," do you not wonder why child pornography is so rampant?

It's a slippery slope, and I suggest we try finding a life-line to gets us back up to the top! I think the issue that someone would degrade him/herself by wearing something vulgar, that society would approve of it, or at least not be brave enough to stand against it, is much more the issue than whether Fox showed it deliberately, or whether the shirt said "Pluck."

Posted by: Holly | January 14, 2007 4:39 AM

Once again, what an outstanding subject for an IT blog. What the F*CK does this have to do with IT ?!?!? The WP must have a bunch of money to just throw at people with a computer and word processor.

You're watching a game, you see, or think you see (who cares!) a dirty word. WOW! I'll write something about it because it has SO much to do with Information Technology. Are you just amazed by electrons being sent to a CRT or LED, or what?

Please justify the purpose of this subject in an IT blog, please! I just gotta hear this! If you just want to generate controversy, then you've succeeded.

Posted by: Alan | January 14, 2007 4:54 AM

Someone said (wore) F**K !! Did everyone see (hear) that? I have it when people say or wear F**K !! I am so sick of hearing and writing and seeing the word F**K !! It is so disgusting !! Everything now is F**K this, F**K that. I think I will talk about it some more and write about it some more and just let everyone in the world know that someone somewhere said F**K !! You just go anywhere and not see or hear the word F**K. I am going to go on talking and talking about the word F**K until I never see it again.

I was taught that a lady or a gentleman ignore indecency and go on with life genteely. One didnt talk about it incessantly and certainly one did not claim that one was failing in his responsibility if one failed to talk about it forever. fail to do so is bad journalism.

Posted by: Ned | January 14, 2007 6:25 AM

Dang, Alan, he's a media reporter. This is what he's supposed to report on.

Anyway - Ahrens gets the last laugh. Topics like this mean three fine words to the online business:

"Nothing but readers."

You rock, Frank.

Posted by: Soo Doh Nim | January 14, 2007 7:08 AM

I wish I could edit these posts once I put them out there. I meant to say "Topics like this mean three fine words to the online NEWS business."

My mistake.

Posted by: Soo Doh Nim again | January 14, 2007 7:10 AM

It would be better if Frank and FCC were more concerned about murder, killings, bombing of innocents, etc. being presented as the answer to all that bothers us, and did not worry so much about bad words or nudity. So far as I can recall, a bad word or the sight of a boob has not taken away some one's child. If Frank wants to write about "news" he should visit Palestine and tell that story. Recently 200 dead Palestinians, one Israeli killed (according the BBC which covers "foreign" news; we don't want news about foreigners, we just want them to make our shirts for 50 cents an hour).

Posted by: Harrison Picot | January 14, 2007 8:09 AM

Get a life who cares, too many control freaks in USA now one of the reasons why we are vilified around the world now.

Posted by: w.evans | January 14, 2007 8:21 AM

I'm offended Frank that you can't spell the word 'irrelevant'. The Post gave you a pulpit to pontificate from so the least you can do is use correct spelling. The FCC can't monitor newspapers so I want to know who do I complain to.

By the way, the Globe&Mail newspaper, a major Canadian daily, used the word f**k twice in a printed article when interviewing Canadian troops in Afganistan last month. The reporter was quoting them and felt that it conveyed the truth of the situation, and the quotes were attributed to identified troops. It appears that Canada survived.

Posted by: Tom | January 14, 2007 8:40 AM

OH MY GOD!!! It said f*ck? On TV? When CHILDREN were watching? Call 911!

Are we really at this stage? A single word on a woman's shirt (not a lady) and we are all a quiver, but Bush can say basically the same thing to us and to our constitution and no one steps up?

Posted by: JoyousMN | January 14, 2007 8:42 AM

GEEEEEE, WHO CARES, YOU SEE AND HEAR MORE ON TV SHOWS, SO WHATS THE BIG DEAL???????SOMEBODY HAS TOO MUCH TIME ON THEIR HANDS.....

Posted by: Paul Lemnah | January 14, 2007 8:51 AM

Oh get off your high horse, Ahrens! Who the h-e-double-hockey-sticks cares whether her shirt said what it did (and it was quite definitely and clearly NOT pluck!) I challenge you or anyone else to demonstrate even a single instance in all the history of the planet of any person of any age being actually harmed by exposure to a crude saxonism like the word in question. This ridiculous decency hysteria has GOT to stop before our freedom of speech is intimidated out of us by the bluenoses and pecksniffs of this world. I'd like to meet that woman. She's probably a lot of fun.

Posted by: Woody Smith | January 14, 2007 8:55 AM

Greg, I agree.

Also, that young woman (as Franky refers to her) was hot, so let her do what she wants.

Must be a slow news day in the IT world eh Franky?

Posted by: Demetrius Underwood | January 14, 2007 8:55 AM

"T" YOU SHOULD CLOSE YOUR EYES THEN, IF YOU DONT WANT YOUR MOTHER AND SISTER TO SEE ANYTHING THAT YOU DONT WANT TO SEE, WAKE UP, THIS IS THE REAL WORLD

Posted by: Plemnah | January 14, 2007 8:55 AM

You're a nancy.

Posted by: BL | January 14, 2007 9:00 AM

Correction: F**k is not profane. Or do you know the definition of profane? Crude? Yes. Distasteful? Yes. Vulgar? Yes. Profane? No.

Posted by: mike29 | January 14, 2007 9:08 AM

The Fox producer should be fired. Anyone who disagrees is probably the type who think it's okay to decapitate a 4-year old.

Posted by: tallyho | January 14, 2007 9:18 AM


Frank,

Something very similar was shown during the Gator Bowl in 1 Jan 2007 between West Virginia and Georgia Tech on CBS.

At one point, they scanned the crowd and prominently displayed a WVU fan wearing a sweatshirt that read:

West F--kin Virginia

Here's the picture:

http://mountainlair.blogspot.com/2006/12/3ots-bad-case-of-shakes.html

Nice,

Hoover

Posted by: Hoover | January 14, 2007 9:19 AM

Oh my god the CHILDREN! Won't someone think of the CHILDREN!

Please. I am so sick and tired of the morality police getting their knickers in a knot over what is broadcast on television. If parents don't want to "expose" their children to sex, violence and four-letter-words on TV, maybe they should stop using TV as an electronic babysitter.

Posted by: ScottInVA | January 14, 2007 9:20 AM


I can handle the word. It's part of our country -- far too often, I think, but it's there.

I just don't need to see it on broadcast television. When you watch over-the-air TV, you have a certain level of expectation (no swearing, no bare body parts usually covered up by underwear).

And judging by so many of the responses here, it looks like my kids really will be able to get into Georgetown, Harvard or Stanford in 12 years. No way they'll lose out to the kids with the Mensa parents on this board.

Posted by: AParent | January 14, 2007 9:26 AM

Profanity being yelled at the games is exactly why I no longer go. I hope the FCC and the team owners do us all a big favor and cleans up this sleeze.

Posted by: Ed | January 14, 2007 9:37 AM

Fainting chair and smelling salts for Mr. Ahrens, please! He heard that some cretin has uttered a profanity! How can our civilized discourse survive?!?!

Posted by: thefax | January 14, 2007 9:37 AM

Frank, you've been such an able and insightful telecom reporter. What's with the whining? If you saw this with your kid at 1030pm, why not use it as a teachable moment to explain that some people at football games, and some grownups in general. are idiots? Or, do you figure all 60,000 people at an NFL game should behave in a way that doesn't offend ANY of the millions watching?

Oh, and nice little regressive, nose-in-air distinction between "woman" and "lady." How quaint, it really adds some flavor and tradition to your deep, heartfelt offense.

Methinks Ahrens has been spending too much time at the Country Club with George Will. Sheesh, stick to the policy and finance news and let someone else handle this week's BoobGate.

Posted by: S Jackson | January 14, 2007 9:59 AM

Get a life. The 19th century has ended.

Posted by: Tomaso | January 14, 2007 10:00 AM

Desensitize, desensitize, 'til evil reigns. Drugs, sex, killin' in the streets, religious indifferentism, perversion, perversion. "Hey, it's okay. Nothin' wrong with it." No control 'til, of course the gentry become frequently violated. That's right around the corner. It won't take long for the barbarians, bottom-feeders to figure it out, if they haven't already!

Posted by: Rex | January 14, 2007 10:02 AM

Here's the thing: I don't particularly want my children exposed to the word "F*ck" while watching a football game, but even more than that, I don't want some bureaucrat in the government deciding what's ok and what's not ok for my children to see. In a free society, the government's job should be to butt out and let me, as a parent, decide for my family. The obscenity rules offend me because they imply that I'm not capable of turning to my 8-year-old, as he snickers at the t-shirt we just saw during the replay, and saying "Don't even think about it, kiddo - just because that lady's vulgar doesn't mean you get to be."

Posted by: Kate | January 14, 2007 10:06 AM

PROFANE

characterized by irreverence or contempt for God or sacred principles or things; irreligious

f**K IS NOT PROFANE BUT VULGAR OR CRUDE

Posted by: Bob N | January 14, 2007 10:10 AM

Nice straw man, Rex - "Hey, it's okay. Nothin' wrong with it."

The issue isn't whether there's nothing wrong with it; I think most parents here would agree that kids using that language is a bad thing. The issue is whether we need Big Brother protecting us. You apparently think we can't make decisions for ourselves about whether there's something wrong with it, so we need the government making those decisions for us. I, on the other hand, don't trust you any more than the government, and would prefer neither of you getting involved, so that I can handle it for me and my children myself.

Posted by: HGL | January 14, 2007 10:11 AM

D'Oh!!! As Homer Simpson would say, "Ooooh, but it's Fox!!!!" What do you expect? This is a coarse society and although I don't agree with indecency policy typically, if this is true (and 5 secnds and a replay is an eternity in live TV production), then Fox is culpable. Open your wallet, Rupert. Mmmmm, Australian dollars...

Posted by: bonzo | January 14, 2007 10:16 AM

What an IDIOT you are. How can this be news with everything else going on. Did you ever hear the profanity that the players shout to each other during a game - listen closely. Theres worst stuff on the network programming. Come on are you the moral police? Maybe you should sit and watch the United States Congress and the Senate operate everyday, talk about vulgar, its all there for you to see. And what about all the lies they tell-at least this lady was expressing her true feelings. Ever been to an Eagles game - that has to be the most vulgar experience ever. Grow up Ahrens, go out and get a real job!

Posted by: Doug | January 14, 2007 10:19 AM

When a child sees the word, f**k, nothing untoward magically happens. It is no different from that child seeing the word "the" or "it" or "house" or whatever. It seems to me that as a Washington Post reporter, instead of fanning the flames of our national hysteria about all things sexual, you should be trying douse those flames. Shame on you.

Posted by: Jim Nammack | January 14, 2007 10:21 AM

... that was hilarious. The thoughts of all these pious, moral types getting offended by that shirt brings a smile to my face. Of course, some of those moralists help their cause by engaging sexual discussions with teenage Congressional pages, etc... f_ucking hypocrites!

Posted by: Al | January 14, 2007 10:23 AM

THE CHILDREN! WHO WILL SAVE THE CHILDREN? You sir, have been chosen. We all thank you>

Posted by: Not an Idiot | January 14, 2007 10:52 AM

Frank Ahrens -- what's in a name? Or, what's in two words?

Did you realize that your first name is an F-word? Not THE "F" word, but a minimalist one, sort of suggesting candor or, frankly, nothing at all.

Did you realize that your second name has letters for making anagrams -- "arse" for one?

Now this argument over an "F" or a "P" brings to mind that if you wore a football jersey with your name on it, you could be "FRANK" or "PRANK" depending on the fold in your shirt.

Does this mean your name should never appear in print or on a TV screen?

I looked at the screen shot of the shirt in question -- quite FRANKLY, I cannot tell if it is a "P" or an "F" -- it looks more likely to be a "P" as the bottom portion of the projecting letter looks like it is curved as opposed to straight which would be the case if it were an "F" -- it is obviously meant to be a "prank" shirt or, I guess it could be a "frank" expression of the "lady"'s thoughts about the Filadelphia Eagles.

The word "bush" can in some contexts be deemed obscene or indecent especially if used to badger someone about beavers.

There is an email going around and a couple of video clips (search youtube for "the word f*ck" but remember to substitute "u" for the asterisk or the search will be all f**led up - that's "fouled up") -- however, you tube will have a message that says essentially IFU wanna watch this, you better prove you are at least 18.

Anyway, this discusses how much the word has evolved -- it is used as a transitive verb, an intransitive verb, adjective, adverb, can express pain, pleasure, hate, love, despair -- a gamut of emotions.

None of this means it is appropriate to be shown on TV or that it is appropriate for the Fashington Fost Fo Frint Ftuff Fike Fhis Fith Fo Fany Fords Fbout Fhe "F" Ford.

In sum, Frank, "GFY" --- hmmm ... GFY??

Yes, GFY = "Good For You!

Posted by: Anonymous | January 14, 2007 11:19 AM

Ohnoez! Teh dirty! Please; for a person publicly participating in the publication of prose, this pronouncement of Puritanical pomposity is peculiar. They're just words. Get over it.

Posted by: slashdot | January 14, 2007 11:20 AM

the usa is a free country,you can say what you.

Posted by: bob johnson | January 14, 2007 11:22 AM

dear author of this article, pull your head out of your a$$. what is the big deal?! I seriously doubt that any young child that was watching this game was able to read the shirt and undertand what it meant. If they did by some chance, then they have most likely seen that word in school, or in a movie long before they did during the football game.

Lighten up, there are more important things to write about.

Posted by: steve | January 14, 2007 11:39 AM

When does your job at the Parent's Television Council start, douchebag?

Posted by: Daniel Farmington | January 14, 2007 12:15 PM

Interesting to see that all in favor of zapping Ahrens into the abyss get so uniformly emotional about it. To die (or cry) for the f-word is not, in this case, dying for free speech. Regardless of Ahrens opinion, the case is patent. That also makes the inane copout of "hey look at Iraq, not the f-word" look like...an inane copout. What were you doing watching the game or taking time to write about it here if there are troops dying in Iraq, people starving in Africa, and tsunami aftermaths causing plain misery? Get back on that high horse and go save those people.

Posted by: hanley | January 14, 2007 1:01 PM

Posted by: | January 14, 2007 03:34 AM is a cowardly kid.

Posted by: KEVIN SCHMIDT, STERLING VA | January 14, 2007 1:41 PM

The way we allow Bush/Cheney and their fellow neocon chicken hawk war mongers to treat humanity is what is fvcking profane:

Court-martialed for criticizing Army PTSD program, private describes scene of war: "There were bodies piled up to our knees. There were amputees and decapitations, people trying to hold guys' brains in their heads and pushing intestines back into their stomachs."

Jennings said, he was notified that his discharge process had been halted. Instead, he would be offered a less-than-honorable discharge for "serious offenses" or court-martialed on a variety of charges, including drug use, with the possibility of up to 42 years in prison.

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_5277291,00.html

Way to go Bush/Cheney! Great way to disrespect and bully our troops! Now get the hell out of OUR White House you couple of evil fvck heads!

Posted by: KEVIN SCHMIDT, STERLING VA | January 14, 2007 2:01 PM

I'm laughing my ass off, you people are so stupid. Telling Frank this is bad journalism and that there's more important news out there.

LOOK HOW MANY COMMENTS THIS HAS! If it's such uneventful news then why are all you people commenting on it and looking at this article?

Do you not realise that you are making Frank succeed at his job by viewing his article? How is he doing a bad job when he's getting so many people looking at this?

I know we'd all like to think that unjust killings in Palestine will grab everyone's attention but the reality is the Middle East is so ****ed up that we're all used to it and no longer care and are tired of their bull****.

Posted by: Vinny | January 14, 2007 2:09 PM


Something struck me -- something indicating that your article is a phony piece, written probably because you had nothing better to say and a deadline to meet.

Here it is:

You begin your piece by writing:

It's Saturday night and I'm watching the NFC playoff game between the New Orleans Saints and the Philadelphia Eagles.

Note the present tense -- okay, so decided, in the middle of the first quarter to write your column? Actually, that is a fib and an unnecessary one.

There you go:

At the 8:37 mark in the first quarter, New Orleans defenders broke up a pass intended for a Philly wide receiver.

See, it is just past the middle of the first quarter. Good contemporaneous play-by-play on the producer's decisions.

Then you go on changing from present tense to reportorial tense (my term for a reporter's made-up version of what really happened as we shall see).

After the replay, the Fox cameras cut to the stands, showing New Orleans fans celebrating.


You continue to describe the "offending" scene.

One young woman (note I do not call her a "lady") was wearing a t-shirt reading "F**K DA EAGLES." Except her shirt had letters where the asterisks are.

Frank, you are something else, that you can be watching the game in the present tense, and writing about a scene - able to tell us what is (er... was?) on the screen while typing the story - which, of course, did not exist until after you had seen the scene.

See, you weren't writing as the game was going on, after all.

How do I know? Well, you tell us that it was not live and, apparently, you had checked it out on TiVo:


But this instance was neither fleeting nor live: The profane word was not said, it was WRITTEN on the TV screen on her t-shirt for five seconds. The TiVo evidence is indisputable.

Moreover, it was not live: The Fox cameras recorded her celebrating when the play happened and aired it during the replay. In other words, Fox directors CHOSE to air the profane word.


So, you saw the replay and the TiVo and then wrote the article, not as you started out by saying while you were watching the game.

It really does not seem likely that you interrupted your viewing of the game to go back over the TiVo recording.

So, perhaps you weren't as outraged at 8:37 of the first quarter as you make it out to be and wrote the piece after the game raising a non-issue.

Posted by: Anonymous | January 14, 2007 2:14 PM

Well, it was a profanity against the Eagles, and that means it's OK.

Posted by: Matt | January 14, 2007 2:23 PM

Who else is fvcking profane? Why the Mainstream Media, of course!

Buzzflash.com says:

The Capital Times: "Just as it would be wrong for the media to censor Bush, it is equally wrong for the media to allow the madness of this modern-day King George to infect the discourse without the immediate application of the antidote of truth.

Handing the bully pulpit over to a president who has repeatedly misused his position to deceive the Congress and the American people is not journalism; it is stenography.

And make no mistake: A "free" press that practices stenography to power is no different from the "kept" press of a totalitarian state."

http://www.madison.com/tct/opinion/index.php?ntid=114813&ntpid=0

Posted by: KEVIN SCHMIDT, STERLING VA | January 14, 2007 2:26 PM

By the way Frank, how are the Redskins doing in the playoffs? I thought so. Stick with something you actually know about, which is nothing.

Posted by: T Dog | January 14, 2007 2:32 PM

For those of you idiots who still think it said "Pluck...", here ya go:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C2WAgLzxdJs

I, for one, appreciate Frank's article. If you know anything about broadcasting, there's a person whose responsibility it is to catch indecencies and prevent them from airing during the 5-7 second delay that they're supposed to have. We can thank Janet for that policy.

The networks are making millions of dollars off these broadcasts, what's wrong with expecting them to follow guidelines. If they don't like it, let another network air the games!

Posted by: Ken | January 14, 2007 2:40 PM

Things I am sick of...

1) People who use the "atrocity of the Iraq war" to defend any position they deem suitable. What does Iraq have to do with the FTC Standard on Obscenity? Nothing!

2) People who will excuse any assault on public decency with the logic that since there exists a lot of obscene behavior that we should "chill out".... that is like saying that if your kid gets beat up at school you should just "get over it" since there are gang slayings every day. You may be shocked to know that there really are families where the parents and children actually speak to each other without using profanity.

3) People who attack anyone who raises a moral concern with the phrase "judge not lest you be judged". It is the most over-used "proof text" in the Bible. And if you don't know what proof-texting is then please don't ever use that phrase again because you don't know what you are talking about. Not to mention the fact that those same people are "judging" at the same moment that they are poorly applying the phrase. Please keep this text in mind if anyone ever does anything to you that you feel is improper or criminal and make sure you don't object, complain, call them names, or file charges. Because, uh, you know, uh, you shouldn't be "judging".

4) People who can't make a point without using profanity or insulting the party with whom they disagree. If you are unable to make your point without profanity and insult you are just flat out ignorant and your opinions are worthless.

Posted by: bmac | January 14, 2007 2:43 PM

Ken

I posted the comment about not being sure from the screen shot whether it was an F or a P. The video link you posted confirms it was definitely NOT PLUCK!

It takes some pluck to wear a shirt like that in public! But then again, isn't that kind of conduct what caused Katrina to strike NO according to the right wing yahoo Jerry Fatswell?

Posted by: Anonymous | January 14, 2007 2:47 PM

"People who use the "atrocity of the Iraq war" to defend any position they deem suitable. What does Iraq have to do with the FTC Standard on Obscenity? Nothing!" Posted by: bmac | January 14, 2007 02:43 PM

That is exactly the point of why the FTC Standard itself is obscene, indecent, profane, etc.!

Who cares if someone says the word fvck or puts it on their shirt? You want to know what is truly profane? War and violence, not the word fvck and certainly not the actual act of fvcking. Fvcking makes you feel good, but violence makes you feel bad unless you can't feel anything at all, in which case you would be dead.

This should be a no brainer, but it isn't because something is really screwed up with our moral values.

I'd like someone to attempt to logically justify the FTC standards. Why is it wrong and illegal to show people fvcking on TV, but totally permissable to show people torturing, beating up and killing other people? Why are painful and deadly blood spurts permissible but not pleasurable and life giving sperm spurts?

Personally, I believe we should
Make Fvck, not War!

Posted by: KEVIN SCHMIDT, STERLING VA | January 14, 2007 3:24 PM

Get off the bandwagon and stop trying to make something out of nothing.

Nobody gives a f*ck about "decency" - the kind of decency that requires you to censor real life before broadcasting it on TV - except for a few right-wing idiots.

It has been reported widely that the Parents Television Council is responsible for almost all the complaints the FCC recieves. Most of the people who submit those complaints probably never even saw the programs when they aired, let alone were offended by them.

The fact that bloggers like you give this issue traction by pulling into the mainstream media, as if it were actually important, is a diservice to your readers.

Posted by: JS | January 14, 2007 3:55 PM

Fox is hypocritical. When Randy Moss did his fake "moon" bit, Joe Buck got his panties all knotted up, shouting "THAT'S DISGUSTING". So now they blithely show the F word, la-de-da...

Posted by: KC | January 14, 2007 4:22 PM

The most profane of all is the Mainstream media:

'It is amazing that Americans have turned so hard against the Iraq War when they are being spoon-fed Politburo style lies and euphemistic propaganda slogans by the corporate press, when the actual context of news is denied the consumer and when writers are not allowed to stray far from the White House script.

The corporate media is guilty of malfeasance. It really isn't in the business of news anymore; it is the business of entertainment and fattening its bottom line. It is in the business of siding with any politician that will give it tax breaks, regulatory favors, and contracts for companies owned by parent corporations.'

http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/analysis/172

Posted by: KEVIN SCHMIDT, STERLING VA | January 14, 2007 6:11 PM

you people really make me fear the world that my children will be living in 10 years from now.

Posted by: right wing idiot that forces my morality on everyone else (eyeroll) | January 14, 2007 8:00 PM

I don't see what the big deal is. I agree with the message that fan was delivering.

Posted by: Mike | January 14, 2007 9:07 PM

HAHAHAHAAAA!!! I THINK THIS IS SOOO GREAT, BECAUSE, THE "YOUNG WOMAN" IS MY GIRL!! AND FYI, IT DID NOT SAY PLUCK. IT SAID F*CK. AND SHE GOT IN WITH IT ON. AND ANOTHER FRIEND HAD ON THE SAME EXACT SHIRT! THIS IS SOOO MONEY!! WHO REALLY CARES??? HOW BOUT SHIELDING THE CHILDREN FROM CNN AND ALL THE DAMN PICTURES OF BODIES AND BLOOD, AND WAR THAT IS BEING SHOWN FROM IRAQ?? SERIOUSLY...GET A LIFE!! OH YEA, AND HER NAME...IS HEATHER. HA.

Posted by: TINA B | January 15, 2007 1:06 AM

Wow. This point was so lost. How each of us judge the content of the shirt is irrelevant. Look at the facts:
- Shirt did not say Pluck
- Shirt was broadcast at 8:37 pm ET
- Content of shirt being broadcast on air is prohibited by FCC.

So, the fact is Fox broke the law. Was it a mistake, or on purpose? We shall see. But the trying to justify the content of the shirt in comparison to the war? That is like telling a cop that he should be chasing murderers instead of giving you a speeding ticket. Fact is rules were broken no matter how much we care about it.
-----------------------------------------
My emotional response: I personally don't give a crap what her shirt says, and I was not personally offended. I was at the Eagles/NY Giants game, and it was a LOT worse than that! But, I had no expectation of trying to explain to my daughter in kindergarten what her shirt meant.

Posted by: HawaiiFiveOH - Danno | January 15, 2007 9:11 AM

I am always amazed at the low standards of guys. Show a woman in a cropped t-shirt and she is automatically hot. From the pictures I've seen, Heather is not hot. Skanky, but not hot.

Posted by: Glenn B | January 15, 2007 1:26 PM

Hey, I saw it, and thought it was VERY funny. I don't have any kids to protect from this, so don't really care if they showed it. Look at all the buzz it's generating! Was it a mistake on the part of FOX? Sure, OK. Will they have to put up some cash because of it, sure. I personally see much more worse ACTIONS on reality shows and other shows on TV then what was on someone's shirt! I once saw a woman pick her nose on Monday nite football, that offended me much more then this girls tee-shirt! lol

BY the way, GO BEARS! And F*ck Da Saints!!!!

Posted by: Anthony "Gorilla" Koyer | January 15, 2007 1:55 PM

I thought the shirt was funny, and I wasn't offended. What's interesting to me here is whether the FCC will go after Fox with the same zeal that they went after CBS after The Nipple. At least the CBS announcers gave an on-air apology after showing Ms. Jackson's gland, but the Fox guys didn't say a damn thing. Since Cheney, Rice, etc. loves Fox, we probably won't hear anything more about this, whereas if it showed on a 'liberal' network, there would be public hangings by the FCC.

Posted by: Stevex | January 15, 2007 6:11 PM

All of you idiots that believe the shirt said "Pluck da Eagles", may I suggest you watch the video replayed on YouTube. And to Jim, who asks "Do you really think she'd wear such a shirt to a family event?", um DUH JIM! yes I do because I saw it. And to Doug100 that uttered these brilliant words "They'd turn her away at the gate with the other." Well Dougie, I propose that perhaps she wore another shirt over the one that said f*ck the eagles. Gee, how hard is that to think of that Dougie?
I'm not one for over-censorship either, especially with the internet and premium channels like Skinemax (and oh by the way, since any kid with a computer can see this video on YouTube, what good does it do to censor it from TV anyway?). I just cannot tolerate illiterate, apologetic idiots that try to defend the redneck woman that wore this shirt. What class she has.

Posted by: steveh | January 15, 2007 10:27 PM

Plucked eagles gotta eat.

Posted by: Timzilla | January 16, 2007 3:53 AM

Did you notice that the shot was in slo mo? This means that someone had to record the shot and then cue it up for air.

Posted by: mikeh | January 16, 2007 11:44 AM

You are all morons if you think there is nothing wrong with what happened. Yes we all know that there is really bad language out there in the real world but the fact of the matter is thats why people choose to stay home and watch the game with their kids. So their children will learn that in their home and in that family that is not acceptible. Yes. People are still out there that care for their children, that love their children and dont want them to grow up and accept this idiotic behaivor. Thats exactly was is wrong with america. Idiocracy is surley on its way.

Posted by: Hazel Kazee | January 16, 2007 1:37 PM

The same people who object to the FCC rules are undoubtedly the same ones who give no thought to swearing a blue streak in the supermarket line while I stand, red-faced, trying to shield my young children from their foul language. I can certainly instruct them on the inappropriateness of the language by letting them know that children should not and may not use those words, but their inevitable question is: "Why can you use it when you're older? How old do I have to be to use it?"

Yes, they've heard it and seen it, but anyone who spends time with children knows it is not easy to reverse that exposure. My grandma always said that profanity is the crutch that idiots lean on when they can't think of anything intelligent to say, and in my experience I've found that to be true. And I won't let my kids sound like idiots like some of you posting comments above that are full of swear words.

Parents have enough trouble keeping their children on the straight and narrow, and I don't need FOX helping to push them off it for the sake of making a point with the FCC.

Posted by: J Brown | January 16, 2007 3:14 PM

The same people who object to the FCC rules are undoubtedly the same ones who give no thought to swearing a blue streak in the supermarket line while I stand, red-faced, trying to shield my young children from their foul language. I can certainly instruct them on the inappropriateness of the language by letting them know that children should not and may not use those words, but their inevitable question is: "Why can you use it when you're older? How old do I have to be to use it?"

Yes, they've heard it and seen it, but anyone who spends time with children knows it is not easy to reverse that exposure. My grandma always said that profanity is the crutch that idiots lean on when they can't think of anything intelligent to say, and in my experience I've found that to be true. And I won't let my kids sound like idiots like some of you posting comments above that are full of swear words.

Parents have enough trouble keeping their children on the straight and narrow, and I don't need FOX helping to push them off it for the sake of making a point with the FCC.

Posted by: J Brown | January 16, 2007 3:15 PM

The same people who object to the FCC rules are undoubtedly the same ones who give no thought to swearing a blue streak in the supermarket line while I stand, red-faced, trying to shield my young children from their foul language. I can certainly instruct them on the inappropriateness of the language by letting them know that children should not and may not use those words, but their inevitable question is: "Why can you use it when you're older? How old do I have to be to use it?"

Yes, they've heard it and seen it, but anyone who spends time with children knows it is not easy to reverse that exposure. My grandma always said that profanity is the crutch that idiots lean on when they can't think of anything intelligent to say, and in my experience I've found that to be true. And I won't let my kids sound like idiots like some of you posting comments above that are full of swear words.

Parents have enough trouble keeping their children on the straight and narrow, and I don't need FOX helping to push them off it for the sake of making a point with the FCC.

Posted by: J Brown | January 16, 2007 3:15 PM

So important, Hazel had to say it four times...:-)

CBS: had no control over the "wardrobe malfunction", apologized IMMEDIATELY to viewers, yet still got dinged over a half million dollars. Adopted tape delay feed to avoid similar issues in the future.

FOX: Pre-recorded the fan, and INTENTIONALLY broadcast the content. Not one word from the broadcast team. In fact the only official response I have found so far, is the letter to Ahrens.

That is a pretty clear cut case.

To all of the bloggers tying this to the Iraq war (or any war): that is not the scope of the FCC to resolve war and its offensiveness to our conscience - that would be the DOD that you should be directing those comments to.

Posted by: Dano | January 16, 2007 3:16 PM

The f-word is known to be the most offensive word in the English language. There were millions who were watching, including small children.
I wonder - if her shirt had said "f--k the queers" or "f--k the nig*ers", would you all still hold to your so-called "free speech" values? Or if her shirt had said something nasty about your parent or child? Or what if her shirt had said "f**k____! (put in your own first and last name)? If you are gonna push your so-called "free-speech" so hard, then you have to defend it when it is used against you or your loved ones.

Posted by: Lynn | January 16, 2007 6:29 PM


You do not have the right to remain unoffended.

If you don't like what's on TV, change the effing channel. And really -- live sporting events has crowd shots, and nobody can ever lip-read the coaches after a bad call. If you watch live sports, you're going to occasionally get exposed to profanity. Deal with it or stop watching.

If you don't want your kids to see the F word, you better not take them outside of your house.. you might find it scrawled on the sidewalk, or sharpied on the back of a metrobus seat, or whatever. And you better not let them go to school -- kids use dirty words on the playground, you know.

It's just a word. Get over yourself.

Posted by: Eff You | January 16, 2007 6:52 PM

Who cares?

Posted by: und1sk0 | January 16, 2007 7:13 PM

Okay so what is the debate here? Is it the word or the sentiment? Would it be okay if it was "Phuk"? That way the kids wouldn't know. What if she had substituted the "*" for the "u?" Would that have made it okay?
In utah, they say "Got down. Sat on a bench!" when upset, or better yet, "Cheese and rice." Both terms meant to convey an emotion, but intentionally hidden in generic terms. Does that make the emotion okay?
What if "the lady" meant to express her desire to have sexual intercourse with a raptor? or even worse the entire organization from Philadelphia. She has blonde hair after all. She's probably like that, right?
In the end, it was a legitimate sentiment expressed correctly in the local vernacular. So "F*ck da Bears!"

Posted by: shawn, NOLa | January 17, 2007 8:26 AM

Wait! The F word was shown on TV? I figured something was up when my eyes started bleeding. Please--get over it.

Posted by: New Orleans Gal | January 17, 2007 12:11 PM

Here EVIDENCE OF THE VIDEO SO YOUR "PLUCK" IS GONE!
http://youtube.com/watch?v=GumuyAkBM-Y

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Posted by: Paul | January 17, 2007 7:02 PM

Who the f-cares?? I care. Many people posting there thoughts on the matter care.

Why does it matter? Where do we draw the line? Where do we say we'll go this far and no farther?

Why not get a stripper for your son Timmy's 8th birthday? How about for show-n-tell little Sarah let's her aunt bring in her pet donkey for a good old fashioned donkey show?

And stop it with this foolish notion that we can't possibly worry about anything else while there's a war going on. By all means, lets shutdown society as a whole until we get that little matter resolved. Go ahead, everyone go home. No work until the wars over. We can only handle one problem at a time.

Enough is enough. If you want to expose your children to the filth and smut that's out there, more power to you. They're your kids and I won't tell you how to raise them. But at the same time, I'll be damned if I'll let you force that crap on my children.

Posted by: I Care | January 18, 2007 3:19 PM

Who called her a 'hot woman'? Have you seen the replay? She looks scary to me!

Posted by: lawrence | January 21, 2007 3:15 PM

I wholeheartedly support you, Frank. Because of this type of irresponsible behavior by the networks, football is no longer a game a parent can share with their children. It is becoming adults-only entertainment.

Therefore, if the NFL cares about its future growth, it needs to stop doing business with networks who are damaging the league.

Posted by: Charles | January 30, 2007 8:18 AM

It was definitely a F. And its one thing for parents to not watch certain shows or movies to protect their children from being exposed to profanity at a young age. But when you've got it right in your face while watching what's supposed to be a sport enjoyed by families, there's nothing a decent parent can do.

For those of you who don't care about this stuff, you're the reason our country is going under. If we continue to kick God out of our country, He just might leave. And if He does, that's when we're really going to be in trouble. Mark my words!!!

Posted by: Doc Mike | February 7, 2007 8:59 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 

© 2009 The Washington Post Company