Everyone knows that kids form their perspective on life through television in this age. How can they not when everywhere they go, it is there?
The real problem isn’t that they are learning about inappropriate things on television that need to be edited out. The real problem is that they are learning the wrong ways to react to these inappropriate things that are in plain view, even with the editing.
If you see someone get cut on TV, but no blood comes out, and yet the characters are talking about how to stop the bleeding, it can bring a youth to respond to a situation incorrectly.
These kind of false lessons about reality are especially apparent in anime. Whether this is simply because it’s from another culture that has less censored material remains to be seen. It is mostly unnecessary either way.
According to the edit list on Anime News Network, in episode II of Outlaw Star, one of the most horribly edited anime for American television, they changed the word “gun” to “blaster.” Kids know what guns are and if you try to tell them that they aren’t guns and that they are “blasters” it literally changes their entire image of what they had thought before. This is wrong.
It also had a huge influence on my general knowledge of consequences. When Gene, Outlaw Star’s main character, said “I’d rather eat crow” instead of “I’d rather eat shit” in response to giving an innocent robot girl over to pirates I was utterly baffled.
For one thing, as a child, I had no idea what that meant.
For another thing, this makes it sound as though he actually wants to give her to the pirates after I looked up the phrase, which means to apologize.
The defining of sexuality is also being ruined by editing. Not missing, mind you, just being ruined. The lesbian relationship between Sailor Uranus and Neptune was horribly construed according to The Sailor Moon Wiki. Not only did they label them as “cousins,” but they made Uranus a man.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Jordan Richardson
The lesbian relationship between Sailor Uranus and Neptune was horribly construed according to The Sailor Moon Wiki. Not only did they label them as “cousins,” but they made Uranus a man.
Yeah, that was some bungled bullshit. She was only made into a man in the Russian dubs (I think), but she was made to flirt more with male characters in the American edit.
They absolutely mangled that show to death in the American edit. They've taken out what little nudity there was and removed a good deal of the violence, like the slapping. You'd see a character walk up to another angrily and then the scene would cut and the other character would suddenly have a red cheek. Dumb.
There's also the issue of snipping one or two minutes for ads in the U.S., so that stripped out quite a bit of content as well. The only way to watch Sailor Moon or any anime is on import DVD.
2 - James
That is a true statement right there. And then watch Sailor Mercury's sub-series. I forget what it was called but it was great.
Thanks for the comment ^^
The Outlaw star edit was horrendous.
3 - Christopher Rose
The whole censorship of art issue is fraught with hypocrisy and bullshit.
Outlets ought not to be so immature and controlling as to require censorship; advertisers shouldn't be allowed to request or require it; rights holders and artists ought not to agree to it; and audiences ought to grow up and stop complaining when they see things that "offend" them.
The same is also true of the news networks by the way; they only show a heavily edited version of reality when they ought to be showing more footage of real events and not keeping us all in some "light" version of reality.
4 - Cindy
All censoring is, is large corporate money-mongers barking orders at editors, essentially telling children what to believe.
Have you considered that so is the choice of programming? Editors work for big corporate money-mongers (networks) who are only interested in getting what their advertisers (other big corporate money-mongers) want.
Welcome to the machine.
5 - Alan Kurtz
Christopher Rose (#3), coming from BC's comments editor, that is an astounding post. You really don't see the hypocrisy, do you?
6 - Dr Dreadful
Alan, there is a major difference between Blogritics articles and the Blogcritics comments space.
Firstly, I refer you to the first line of the BC comments policy, which implores: "Please think of the comments as a conversation between individuals and interact with civility."
Secondly, I defy you to find an instance of a Blogcritics article which has been censored.
7 - Alan Kurtz
I defy you to find an instance of a Blogcritics article which has been censored.
Dr Dreadful (#6), just so I don't waste my time with a response that you will disqualify, please tell me what you mean in this context by "censored." Would that include BC submissions that were rejected for reasons of in-house politics and thus never published in the first place? Or are you restricting your challenge to articles that have been edited for content only after being published?
8 - Dr Dreadful
"In-house politics" is in the eye of the beholder, but if you mean things like 9/11 conspiracy and cat-blogging articles, then no. In those cases, it was simply decided that the site would not publish further articles on those topics. I hope you'll agree that it's reasonable for a media outlet to choose what content it publishes. You wouldn't, for example, expect the New England Journal of Medicine to publish an article on the latest Tea Party protest.
I can't think of an article which was altered after publication because of the content, and I'd hope we wouldn't do that.
9 - Alan Kurtz
Dr Dreadful (#8), you didn't answer my question, perhaps because it was insufficiently clear. So let me try again. By "BC submissions that were rejected for reasons of in-house politics and thus never published in the first place," I meant those that were critical of BC itself. Not submissions that were deemed irrelevant, incompetent or duplicative. But those that were subjected to prior restraint solely because they dared to criticize Blogcritics.
So please tell me, would such rejections qualify as Blogcritics articles that were censored?
10 - Dr Dreadful
I dare say, but you yourself have had several pieces published which answer to your above description. If you were told that the site would no longer accept such articles from you, I do know that you've been asked to address concerns about the site to the editors' group, as being a more appropriate forum than airing them in public.
11 - Alan Kurtz
Dr Dreadful (#10), that's what I thought you'd say. Rejection of submissions critical of Blogcritics doesn't qualify as censorship because sending a private email to the editors' group is "more appropriate" than airing such complaints in public.
To me, that's censorship. To you, it's sound editorial policy.
But please tell me more about what you insinuated in comment #8: that "things like 9/11 conspiracy" are off limits for Blogcritics articles. I've been a writer here for over 12 months, and have contributed 146 published articles, yet this is the first I've heard about this arbitrary ban on an entire topic. When did that go into effect? And, no, I don't agree that it's reasonable.
Are there other such forbidden matters? Where can I view a list? I'd hate to waste my time writing an article, only to find upon submission that my subject is verboten. Ja wohl, mein Fuhrer. Sieg Heil!
12 - roger nowosielski
I suppose forms of bestiality, especially involving goats, is another.
13 - Alan Kurtz
Roger, it ain't necessarily so. See the comments here beginning with #78. Apparently if you identify the bestial target as a "rhetorical goat" (which zingzing does in #79), Blogcritics has no problem with that topic.
14 - zingzing
alan, have you had any articles rejected for being critical of blogcritics? you seem to be skirting around that point.
and yes, rhetorical goats are made for fucking. and getting. there's more than one way to skin a cat. call peta.
15 - Dr Dreadful
And, no, I don't agree that it's reasonable.
Then I'm sure that the editor of the New England Journal of Medicine looks forward to receiving your next diatribe.
16 - roger nowosielski
I don't think Alan could write an article that'd be critical of BC without getting personal.
17 - Alan Kurtz
Roger Nowosielski (#16), could you write an article critical of the White House without mentioning President Obama?
18 - Alan Kurtz
Dr Dreadful (#15), as you so often do, you've again evaded my question. For the visually impaired, I'll repeat it. How many other subjects, besides "things like 9/11 conspiracy," are off limits for Blogcritics articles? Where can I view a list of topics that are banned from this site for political reasons?
19 - zingzing
are you evading #14, alan?
20 - Dr Dreadful
Alan, as far as I know it's just 9/11 conspiracy theories and cats. Since the change of management, even those may no longer be in force.
21 - roger nowosielski
@17, of course because the entire political system is defunct. It's no longer about personalities.
22 - Christopher Rose
Alan, there isn't a list of "forbidden" topics, we just try to use common sense as best we can.
I suspect we wouldn't publish Holocaust deniers or other "alternative history" stuff, we don't publish cat blogging, fiction or poetry and we have unofficially temporarily banned articles on particular subjects once or twice when what you might call excessive flocking has occurred.
I think the general line is that the article content is general family level reading and the comments are more liberal.
As to my remarks in comment #3 above, I don't see any conflict between nor hypocrisy about my personal views and the way the comments space is managed, although I can see why you would think that.
23 - Jordan Richardson
Saw that this article had 22 comments and thought we had a hell of a Sailor Moon discussion going.
Am disappointed. :(
24 - zingzing
sailor moon sucks. actually, i dunno if it does or not, as i've never watched it. serialized anime drives me bonkers. most anime does. the good stuff of anime is really inventive, creative and beautiful. but the bad stuff... oi. are all japanese on drugs or is the cultural divide simply insurmountable?
also, i see alan is still avoiding answering the question in #14. maybe he just isn't around. (he is on other threads...)
25 - James
@ 24 If you don't watch these shows then how are you contributing to this conversation positively... Even if you are, it is foolish to say something "sucks" if you then announce that you have not actually seen it... I mean at least try to be more convincing.