May 10, 2004
Like, omigosh: FCC responds to fundamentalist pressure
The NY Times tells us about the strict but incredibly vague FCC rules for broadcasters and how a chill is falling on free speech:
Television and radio broadcasters say they have little choice but to practice a form of self-censorship, swinging the pendulum of what they consider acceptable in the direction of extreme caution. A series of recent decisions by the F.C.C., as well as bills passed in Congress, have put them on notice that even the unintentional broadcast of something that could be considered indecent or obscene could result in stiffer fines or even the revocation of their licenses."If you're asking if there has been overcaution on the part of broadcasters today, I think the answer is yes," said Jeff Smulyan, the chairman and chief executive of Emmis Communications, which owns 16 television stations and 27 radio stations in Chicago, Los Angeles, New York and other cities. "Everyone is going to err on the side of caution. There is too much at stake. People are just not sure what the standards really are."
......Michael J. Copps, an F.C.C. commissioner who has been one of the strongest critics of media companies, acknowledged that some broadcasters appeared to be overreacting. But, he said, "I applaud the effort at self policing."
He also disputed the notion that the commission's standards on indecency were too vague. "I think most of the things we're dealing with right now are pretty clear, from the standpoint of being indecent," he said. "There's enough stuff out there that shouldn't be on."
Still, Mr. Copps said that the broadcasters themselves could resolve any ambiguities they perceive by drafting and adopting what he described as a "voluntary code of broadcaster conduct."
James P. Steyer, founder and chief executive of Common Sense Media, a nonpartisan organization that advocates better programming aimed at children and families, said that "a few extreme, silly examples" of media companies being perhaps too cautious were far preferable to what he considers the "completely unregulated environment" of the recent past.
Completely unregulated environment? Has this guy ever heard of a remote control or an on/off switch? Not everyone wants to watch fare that is suitable for a 5 year old. The LA Times has more on just who is doing all of this complaining:
Across the Potomac from Capitol Hill, on the second floor of a red brick-and-glass building, Caroline Eichenberg toils away in her homey cubicle, watching television. Monday through Friday, 7 1/2 hours a day, she keeps tabs on dramas, sitcoms and reality shows.It would be a slacker's dream job in any other workplace. Here at the Parents Television Council, though, it's called intelligence gathering. In the battle for America's airwaves, Eichenberg and her fellow analysts deliver the data to wage an increasingly effective, and controversial, assault on prime-time "indecency."
The half a dozen analysts are all college graduates, usually between 22 and 30 and unmarried, like Eichenberg. Many of them are Christians and hold ideals of making a difference. They've grown up with TV and, despite a mix of political affiliations, have adopted the council's mission: "To restore a sense of responsibility and decency to the entertainment industry."
Though their group is officially nonpartisan, they share an open work space with researchers for the Media Research Center, a partisan organization that alleges a liberal political slant in the national press.
The television council analysts' work drives torrents of testimony, reports and e-mails that have clearly grabbed the attention of broadcasters, advertisers, members of Congress and government regulators at the Federal Communications Commission. The group claimed its first big victory in March when the FCC responded to its persistent lobbying and ruled that a vulgarity casually uttered by U2's Bono during the 2003 Golden Globe Awards violated indecency and profanity prohibitions.
That came on the heels of Janet Jackson's breast-baring Super Bowl halftime dance; by the organization's own estimate, a quarter of the 530,828 complaints that poured in afterward came from its members or those informed of the performance by the group's e-mail alert. While many broadcasters now delay live shows or pursue a course of self-censorship, Congress is poised to adopt huge new fines and regulations that might extend even into cable.
Troubled by the crackdown, some say the Parents Television Council is creating a skewed and unduly conservative impression of the public's taste in television. Others say its statistics, gathered here and later posted online, should be viewed with skepticism, as its methodology does not meet academic standards.
"They are, in a large way, setting the agenda at the FCC," says Robert Corn-Revere, a Washington, D.C., lawyer who is working to undo the council's victory regarding the Bono decision. Corn-Revere represents a coalition of broadcasters and free-speech activists — including the American Civil Liberties Union and Viacom, which owns CBS — that is challenging the ruling on 1st Amendment grounds.
He suggests that the council, rather than representing most Americans, as it claims, actually churns out complaints that represent its own socially conservative agenda.
As an example, he points to figures from the FCC: In 2000, commissioners received 111 complaints about 101 shows. Last year, they fielded 240,350 complaints, most of them about only nine programs, all of which were targeted on the group's website. (Sample wording: "Flood the FCC with thousands of indecency complaints." "Your urgent action is needed!" "Buffy the Vampire Slayer Mocks Christian Faith During Holy Week.")
FCC Chairman Michael Powell clearly had the organization in mind recently when he told members of the National Assn. of Broadcasters in Las Vegas that he can't help but respond to those who "spam" him with complaints. "You get an advocacy group that purports to speak for a huge audience and they will have the members write you and the members have heard what that association tells them is the problem…. There's a tendency in our system to focus on the part making all the noise."
......Analysts, however, also monitor edgy cable shows like "The Shield" and "Nip/Tuck" because they know the networks likely will also push the envelope. And while cable content is hard to attack directly, a new front has lately opened up regarding subscriptions. Along with others, the council is targeting cable companies' practice of charging for a package that includes some channels parents might find objectionable.
......Founder and president Brent Bozell is known in conservative circles as a feisty commentator and founder of the right-leaning Media Research Center. The nephew of William F. Buckley Jr., Bozell is also the executive director of a political action committee that funds conservative candidates.
......Bozell formed the council nine years ago; he tightened his focus two years ago on the FCC, calling it a "toothless lion." While analysts from the council and the Media Research Center occupy separate ends of the same office floor, Bozell says the council is strictly nonpartisan. "The rule of thumb would be: We would work with anyone we could find common ground with as long as everybody agreed to check his political guns at the door," he says.
"This is about culture; it's not about politics."
Bozell calls himself "staunchly pro-life, staunchly against gay rights," and while the religious right is naturally allied, so, he says, are some socially conservative Democrats.
As evidence of its bipartisan support, the council often cites the late Steve Allen, who served as honorary chairman emeritus of its advisory board, and Sen. Joseph Lieberman, a member of that board until his nomination in 2000 for vice president.
......Bozell has been forced at least once to concede that his information can be wrong. In 2002, the council settled a $3.5-million lawsuit with World Wrestling Entertainment regarding statements linking the deaths of four children to the "WWE Smackdown!" television program. Bozell issued a personal letter of apology.
As the organization has grown more influential, its methods have been criticized as unscientific by some in the media research community.
The council's data don't meet academic standards, says Dale Kunkel, a UC Santa Barbara communications professor, who conducted the largest study so far on media violence. Multiple coders are required in an academic setting to double-check one another's judgments, he says. And strict definitions are crucial.
......"If we are watching something outside of here, and they say a curse word, we automatically are like, 'I've got to log that,' " Eichenberg says. On the other hand, after two years, Eichenberg says she is rarely shocked. Occasionally, though, "there will be something, and you're like, omigosh."
“Cause like, you know, the government is good as long as it is practicing censorship or ignoring science...”
Posted by Norwood at May 10, 2004 10:51 PM