Government too “˜F-ing’ intrusive

Whenever I scan the news and stumble upon the words
“FCC,” “fines” and “indecency”
in the same headline, I immediately become excited.

If it weren’t for the grand old Federal Communications
Commission, I would never know which television or radio shows were
the most interesting. So you can imagine how upset I was when I
found out that four broadcast companies are mounting a legal battle
against the FCC.

CBS, Fox, ABC and Hearst-Argyle Television have appealed to
federal court to overturn indecency rulings for the CBS program
“The Early Show,” Fox’s “Billboard Music
Awards” and ABC’s “NYPD Blue” for using
terms so vile they can only be referred to in public by their
cryptic code names: the “F-word” and the
“S-word.”

These networks and their affiliates ““ which total over 800
television stations ““ claim that the FCC is inconsistent and
that its decency rules are too vague. This is hardly surprising,
when “obscene material” is defined as describing sexual
conduct in a “patently offensive way” and lacking
“serious literary, artistic, political or scientific
value.”

Such abstract words can hardly be considered objective. Timing
also plays a huge role in whether or not content is considered
indecent. A case in point: An episode of “NYPD Blue”
drew fines for using one of the forbidden words when it aired at 9
p.m. in one time zone, but not when it aired at 10 p.m. in
another.

In 2004, when ABC affiliates approached the FCC and asked it to
clarify its rules before they aired “Saving Private
Ryan,” which contained a grand total of two obscenities, the
FCC did not make a clear decision and the stations pulled the movie
for fear of being slapped with one of the FCC’s exorbitant
fines.

CBS’s “Without a Trace,” for example, was
recently fined $3.3 million for a scene that featured a teen orgy,
and Janet Jackson’s nipple at the 2004 Super Bowl cost CBS
affiliates $550,000.

So could the existence of the FCC’s vague regulations
cause a form of self-censorship in broadcast media and limit the
public’s First Amendment rights?

Who cares? What’s important is that little Johnny’s
parents don’t have to care what he watches on TV because the
government does it for them.

“Maybe the network executives let their children drop
F-bombs at the dinner table, but there isn’t a normal family
in America that would find it appropriate or decent for that
language to be used by their children,” the Parents
Television Council stated in a press release.

While they may have a point, I doubt a normal family would find
it decent for their children to be up watching NYPD Blue.
There’s also something to be said for authenticity. I doubt
many would be drawn into a movie about the horrors of war if
Private Ryan screamed, “Oh, fudgesicle!” after being
hit with shrapnel.

I wholeheartedly support the appeals, but am surprised that more
aren’t questioning the FCC’s original premise. Can you
imagine the outrage that would ensue if the president created a
regulatory committee for newspapers? Or if the Parents Television
Council had a second branch, the Parents Literature Council? Would
Shakespeare’s beast with two backs be too risque for
children? I suppose vulgarity is only offensive when it’s
simplistic enough for viewers of “The Gary Coleman
Show” to understand.

With ratings readily available and devices like the v-chip in
use, there is no reason for the FCC to be concerned with protecting
anyone from indecency.

There’s also the old-fashioned practice of
par”¢bull;ent”¢bull;ing, v. tr., to give an “S-word”
about what your kids are doing. It is of course impossible to
constantly monitor children for every second of the day, but by
using technology, it is quite reasonable to expect parents to
filter the world for their children.

Contrary to the beliefs of panicky members of the PTC, the
absence of the FCC would not result in Barbara Walters interviewing
in the nude.

Media institutions understand that in order to maintain a
certain level of credibility, they must not offend their viewers.
The front page of The New York Times does not feature porn, though
no agency exists to fine it if it does. Why? In order for it to
make a profit, it must attract readers, not offend them.
Competition among media sources will maintain quality.

As for how I’ll find out which TV shows I should keep
watching ““ I’m sure the PTC will keep me updated.

If you enjoy the song and dance number

Peter Griffin did in lingerie to mock the

FCC, e-mail Strickland at kstrickland

@media.ucla.edu. Send general comments to
viewpoint@media.ucla.edu.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *