Talk:Broadcast Standards and Practices

Expanding the article content

Come on guys. This could be a fascinating section if we add more to it.Utils 04:17, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

It seems that this topic is related to one specific instance rather than a broad discussion of standards and practices such as those created under the International Organisation of Standards (ISO)(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO) and related bodies that are widely recognized and used by hundreds of thousands of professions worldwide. Would it be possible to rename this entry "Broadcast Standards and Practices" to reflect the specific nature of the content and open a new page up for a more general entry and links to the few hundred thousand other standards and practices worldwide? RitaCronise (talk) 16:02, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

International Organisation of Standards → International Organisation for Standardisation -- 79.67.253.196 (talk) 14:56, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

BS&P?

What does BS&P stand for?? So far it is not defined in the article. — MrBucket^T/_C 15:35, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Broadcast Standards and Practices. I've explained it in the article now. Good catch! Travisl (talk) 15:47, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Early TV experiences

I am chiming in after years of letting this Standards and Practices issue play out with no early TV people chiming in, so here is my thoughts before I publish any events. In the early 1970s I worked for Sutherland Learning Associates as an editor on "The Most Important Person is You" a series of child psychology animated subjects for children that was broadcast on "Captain Kangaroo" show. In one of the shorts, we used a fast frame technique of editing which involved rapid, 2 frame alternating cuts between hot colors like orange or red and cooler colors like blue or purple. Network "Standards and Practices" came down on the first cut and stopped the editing in it's tracks. There justification was that such rapid color frame vacillation could cause Grand Mall seizures in epileptics. So we immediately toned down the rate of frame change and color contrast. This is just one minor experience with Standards and Practices that I personally witnessed over the years, but it is well documented, so I thought I'd lead with it.

A more serious issue of Standards and Practices comes when the networks began to relax their militant approach toward monitoring the airwaves. By the mid 1970s taboos like advertising by lawyers to solicit lawsuits, which for years was strictly forbade, not only on TV but in print media like the Yellow Pages, was suddenly relaxed and Jacoby and Myers were allowed to buy advertising time on the TV networks. Early searches using Google resulted in stories of "Connie Chung" reporting on CBS Evening news in [I recall] 1976 about this new phenomena, but searching now in 2010, these reports seem to have disappeared. So, by the way, have most Standards and Practices so slips like Janet Jackson's "costume malfunctions" in the 2004 Superbowl halftime show got through. This was a well publicized failure of the US TV networks to have Standards and Practices for live events.

In 1981 this author was executive producer on a live TV spot run on the Super Bowl when Standards and Practices at the networks still had some teeth. The commercial was a live taste test for "Schlitz" beer and the network was so worried that something untoward would occur that they required my production company to record the "live spot" on one Longitudinal VTR and spool the 2" tape through the air to a second VTR, with a censor with scissors ready to cut the tape if something went amiss! That is a long way from today's TV world, where digital delays may or may not be employed to protect the public from unforeseen events! I offer these events because this category needs to be developed historically. 32.176.151.152 (talk) 06:02, 14 April 2010 (UTC)BobKiger

Dead Link

"^ Select X-Men (TV series) Scripts with BS&P notes", this link no longer connects to a working site which is too bad as from what I remember it was an informative and entertaining site. is there a way to get the information somewhere else? all the other links seem to work though Tydoni (talk) 04:53, 13 April 2009 (UTC) replacing the X-men link with this one: http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/enwiki/574161 and hoping I can find a better one Tydoni (talk) 05:17, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

article needs expansion

this article looks an awful lot like the article on the BS&P home page. http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/enwiki/574161 maybe it should be expanded so that there is more info Tydoni (talk) 05:16, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I would argue that it is an excact copy. In fact, the second footnote (the one cited above) says Wikipedia is it's source. Essentially, they are citing each other. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeffroper (talk • contribs) 03:45, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Standards and Practices in Action

I saw that February 1960 Jack Paar walking-off incident, over the joke about the W.C. He instantly became my hero. Nothing like him has ever hosted the show since. Totally transparent. More stories like this one please. JohnClarknew (talk) 06:40, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Broadcast Standards and Practices (US). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ninjaturtles.com/cartoon/2005/synopses/97.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060816061945/http://www.businessweek.com:80/the_thread/brandnewday/archives/2005/02/are_fox_and_the.html to http://www.businessweek.com/the_thread/brandnewday/archives/2005/02/are_fox_and_the.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:47, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Vandalism

Someone with the user name 2602:306:C448:8889:944E:6500:62C:437C has been vandalizing this page.—Bde1982 (talk) 22:57, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 26 June 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved  — Amakuru (talk) 11:03, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

---

Broadcast Standards and Practices (US) → Broadcast Standards and Practices – WPMOS when disambig is not needed Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 08:05, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

• Support. And the current article's disambig. is incorrect in any case – it should be at Broadcast Standards and Practices (U.S.) as per WP:NC-BC. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:22, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
• Support – No disambiguation necessary. Even if the article is US-specific, the parenthetical should not be used except for disambiguation (or unless it's in the name of the department in question). V2Blast (talk) 06:31, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

No gravity falls?

I’m surprised that this has no mention of S&P’s involvement with gravity falls, especially the infamous “not S&P approved“ flyer gag. 80.6.99.254 (talk) 20:30, 1 June 2023 (UTC)