Since the last censorship thread has gotten so much traffic, I’d like to point out this article from Mediaweek about those who’d like the FCC to clamp down on what you can see and hear on TV and radio…
Activists Dominate Content Complaints
In an appearance before Congress in February, when the controversy over Janet Jackson’s Super Bowl moment was at its height, Federal Communications Commission chairman Michael Powell laid some startling statistics on U.S. senators.
The number of indecency complaints had soared dramatically to more than 240,000 in the previous year, Powell said. The figure was up from roughly 14,000 in 2002, and from fewer than 350 in each of the two previous years. There was, Powell said, “a dramatic rise in public concern and outrage about what is being broadcast into their homes.”
What Powell did not reveal — apparently because he was unaware — was the source of the complaints. According to a new FCC estimate obtained by Mediaweek, nearly all indecency complaints in 2003 — 99.8 percent — were filed by the Parents Television Council, an activist group.
This year, the trend has continued, and perhaps intensified.
Through early October, 99.9 percent of indecency complaints — aside from those concerning the Janet Jackson “wardrobe malfunction” during the Super Bowl halftime show broadcast on CBS — were brought by the PTC, according to the FCC analysis dated Oct. 1. (The agency last week estimated it had received 1,068,767 complaints about broadcast indecency so far this year; the Super Bowl broadcast accounted for over 540,000, according to commissioners’ statements.)
The prominent role played by the PTC has raised concerns among critics of the FCC’s crackdown on indecency. “It means that really a tiny minority with a very focused political agenda is trying to censor American television and radio,” said Jonathan Rintels, president and executive director of the Center for Creative Voices in Media, an artists’ advocacy group.
The article goes on to highlight how a $1.2 million fine was levied by complaints from less than one in a million viewers of a given show.
• 
What you fail to copy and paste:
Oh come on Ken…don’t let all of the facts get in the way of a good rant!
The only rule is that “Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech…”
Well, there’s one Senator in particular who doesn’t necessarily need to be appraised of the fact that the PTC has such a loud voice: Joe Lieberman. He happens to *be* an active member of the PTC.
He was undoubtedly patting himself on the back while Powell addressed the Senate.
Wildcat
Tell me, honestly, would this have happened in a non-election year? Really, would it? In 1996, Janet Reno decided that LAW & ORDER was the source of the nation’s moral decline. You didn’t hear a word about it after the election.
It’s worse than you think. The drive to take over the airwaves has two battlefronts – the overt one, where minor complaints by right-wing groups are blown into major fines, and the covert one where the right wing simply, quietly, takes over.
Clear Channel already has a throttlehold on the local radio stations. And now they’ve just signed a contract with Fox News to ensure that only Fox gets their version of events publicized. See this article.
Tell me, honestly, would this have happened in a non-election year? Really, would it? In 1996, Janet Reno decided that LAW & ORDER was the source of the nation’s moral decline. You didn’t hear a word about it after the election.
I didn’t hear a word about it during the ’96 election. Seriously, when did she say that.
Not to mention, that the people making such complaints frequently use less than honorable tactics – such as making repeated complaints over the same broadcast, etc.
Nea, can you tell me how to format a link into text? Thanks. 🙂
My god . . . all of the insane people are coming out of their holes. I just don’t understand where they came from to begin with.
Can someone find out what area of the country this PTC group centers around? I’m curious.
I work in the Call Center industry and Call Centers are frequently hired by these types of groups to lobby and complain. A large telemarketing staff with equipment can hammer the lines of a group like the FCC (or of your governor’s office) to make the amount of “outrage” seem greatly intensified.
The squeeky wheel almost certainly does get the grease.
Peter, I’ve been noticing that lately your blog has become rather dark and depressing with these frequent articles of censorship and ultra-conservatism in action. Now, I don’t want you to stop posting these, because I for one really appreciate the heads up, but I think you owe it to yourself, for every dark and depressing item you post like this, to post up something uplifting or funny in response. Think of it a paraphrase of the ” . . . then the terrorists have already won” saying. If we let these fear-loving crappy censor-happy conversative morons goad us into being afraid of the power and change they could bring about in our nation, then we will have become afraid too – of them – and the “fearists” will have won.
So you felt Caroline’s Birthday was negative and fearist?
Censorship is a topic near and dear to all writers, and should be near and dear to all Americans.
The FCC has cancelled out the first amendment in respect to raido and television and it’s totally unconstitutional.
PAD quoted: “What Powell did not reveal — apparently because he was unaware — was the source of the complaints. According to a new FCC estimate obtained by Mediaweek, nearly all indecency complaints in 2003 — 99.8 percent — were filed by the Parents Television Council, an activist group.”
Now THERE’S a news flash — an activist group is making the most noise regarding a given subject!!! Like the ACLU makes the biggest noise about church/state issues; PETA makes the biggest noise about animal rights issues; the American Legion makes the biggest noise about veterans issues; or the CBLDF makes the biggest noise about First Amendment issues relating to comics.
How horrible! How insidious! I’m shocked and appalled that such things happen in this country! It’s only a matter of time before such activist activity destroys civilization as we know it. Oh, wait! That only applies to the activist groups whose platform I happen DISAGREE with.
Good post. It’s interesting (thought not really surprising) to hear that almost all the complaints have come from one source. I’d been wondering…
“…1,068,767 complaints about broadcast indecency…”
Indeed, I have many complaints that what is shown on broadcast TV is hardly decent. I think the bar these days is “slightly below average.”
Um, Russ?
PAD didn’t make this initial post. Glenn did.
It’s harder for your point to get across when the simple observational skills get called into question…
TWL
This has been an issue that Howard Stern has been complaining about recently.Whether you agree or even like Stern is neither here or there.Unfortunately a small group of dedicated or fanatical people with an agenda can make waves with enough phone calls and letters.
The thing i dont get is if there is such “moral
outrage “over things like Stern and DESPERATE HOUSEWIVES, why are the ratings not reflecting it???
Another question why if the woman’s bare breast is from a “primitive”,”tribal ” people in a documentary or medical show this is acceptable
but Nicollete sheridan’s bare back and ankles on
MNF a few weeks ago was such a NO-NO????
Im confused
TWL wrote: “PAD didn’t make this initial post. Glenn did.
It’s harder for your point to get across when the simple observational skills get called into question…”
Hmmm. Perhaps. But I’ve also found that over the years, some of the most scatterbrained people I’ve met sometimes make the most sense.
Besides, I think it’s a pretty safe bet that Glenn and PAD are on the same page regarding this particular issue. If not, my apologies to PAD.
You should not be so angry about the people who complain to the FCC. Instead, pity them. For they do not have the coordination to use their remote to change the channel when they see or hear something that offends them.
Ken:
There is also a link provided. There was no attempt to hide the rest of the info. To copy the entire article would have been illegal.
I’m going to try and keep away from this subject as best I can.
I’ve already got issues when it comes to the FCC and the people who demand things of them. It was that stupid soccer-mom supported mandate that broadcast stations carry two hours of educational shows for kids that started the downfall of traditional Saturday Morning Cartoons.
The thing i dont get is if there is such “moral outrage “over things like Stern and DESPERATE HOUSEWIVES, why are the ratings not reflecting it???
Keep in mind that the actual number of people watching “Desperate Housewives” or listening to Stern is a very small percentage of the population. Ratings, alone, do not mean anything when put in proper persepctive. What is helpful is to find out the demographic information. I don’t know if you can find out how many conservatives watch DH or listen to Stern, but then you would have a point if it was a significant number.
There very easily can be moral outrage by a significant number of people and a show have high ratings. The two are not mutually exclusive.
Jim in Iowa
Ratings, alone, do not mean anything when put in proper persepctive.
Case in point: Rush Limbaugh. I enjoy listening to him. He is a HUGE media presence. But that does not mean anywhere close to the majority of the nation listens or likes him.
Ratings simply measures how many are listening or watching. The measure is also based on a comparison to what else is on at the time. The fact that Rush is on something like 400 stations and reaches 20 million people throughout the broadcast doesn’t mean there can’t be a large number who also oppose the harmless little fuzzball.
Jim in Iowa
I vaguely remember that in the 1970’s there was a western tv show called THE QUEST. It starred Kurt Russell and Tim Matheson. It had decent ratings but got cancelled due to the protests of the PTA who called it the most violet tv series of the season. I recall that THE QUEST was pretty damm good. Brian Keith guest starred in one episode and convinced me that he could act.
NBC got rid of the show as it was not worth the uproar from the PTA. Who asked them?
Every broadcast station knows that the FCC controls the airwaves when it applies for a license. They know the rules going in. So when they get caught breaking those rules I have no sympathy for them.
The fact is that for a LONG time, the FCC was all but absent in enforcing the broadcast standards it has in place, and make no mistake, the standards haven’t changed, on the Commission’s willingness to pursue them.
What we have here is a case of thieves breaking into houses while the guard dog is asleep, and one day he wakes up and starts attacking them. Now the thieves are complaining that the dog is being mean. Then they discover that the reason the dog woke up is because a neighbor has been throwing rocks at the dog to wake it up, and now they’re crying foul.
The problem is, the FCC changes the rules, often without prior notice and makes the changes retroactive, so you can’t just claim, “they knew the rules.” What is considered “indecent” is subjective not defined anywhere in federal law. Usually it amounts to whatever the current political whims of the appointed members of the FCC panel have.
No, ratings do not mean that the majority of people in the country are watching it, but ratings do indicate that the show has enough of an audience to be profitable.
I keep trying to phrase the same point again and again without getting a satisfactory answer, but I’ll try one more time: We are market-based, capitalistic society. As such, if a market for a product exists, people will find ways to fill that market. Now, enough of market for “Desperate Housewives” exist to make the show a hit, then the market should dictate that the show stays on the air. Why should the desires of a small number of people who can’t seem to find their TV remote take precedence over the large number of people who want to watch the entertainment of their choice?
“Like the ACLU makes the biggest noise about church/state issues…”
“That only applies to the activist groups whose platform I happen DISAGREE with.”
I often get into an argument with my brother about the ACLU… he has the same mindset as you.
And I keep pointing out to him: In edmond, OK, where I live, a church was having a fight with the town government about putting up a thirty foot cross on its own land.
And the ACLU helped them win the case.
It didn’t change my brother’s mind, and I doubt it will change yours. But I will ask the question: Does that go against your platform?
Travis
I work for an NBC affiliate in Georgia. About a year ago, NBC tried to cross-promote the Bravo series “Queer Eye for the Straight Guy” by airing a few episodes during NBC’s primetime lineup.
Two days before the airing, our station’s e-mail server was crashed by the ensuing flood of e-mail generated by irate viewers. I would applaud such an act of overwhelming mass exercise in democratic communication, if not for three things: (1) every one of the thousands of e-mails that crashed our server was a copied form letter; (2) about 90% of those received e-mails came from outside our viewing area, some as far away as Kansas, Oklahoma, and California; and (3) our station received NOT ONE SINGLE irate phone call from a real person. Apparently, some parents group’s website decided to provide to its constituents the e-mail address of EVERY NBC AFFILIATE IN THE NATION for purposes of mass mailing.
So, inevitably, the station caved to the pressure of an internet form letter from thousands of people outside our viewing area, on the premise that somebody, somewhere, was pretty angry, and we’d better err on the side of caution. It wasn’t until a few days later that I had the unpleasant thought that if I had an agenda and a spambot to generate random e-mail addresses, I could make any station in the country do anything I want. Think about that… how many of the above 99.8% of complaints the FCC received from the PTC could have been generated by a spambot?
Ironically, the only complaints our station received from real, live people over the “Queer Eye” flap were three telephone calls wondering where the show went. We never actually got a complaint from someone in person, or over the phone. Go figure.
eclark1849: “What we have here is a case of thieves breaking into houses while the guard dog is asleep, and one day he wakes up and starts attacking them. Now the thieves are complaining that the dog is being mean. Then they discover that the reason the dog woke up is because a neighbor has been throwing rocks at the dog to wake it up, and now they’re crying foul.”
That may well be the worst metaphor ever.
By the way, did you all know that “Desperate Housewives” is more popular in Red States than in Blue States?
This kind of thing has reached closed-captioning issues–
Bush’s Adminstration provoked serious concerns in the past two years about the cutting of funds for closed-captioning TV programs. It starts smacking of censorship when you hear their reasoning “there is little or no educational content in these shows” (such as THE SIMPSONS and LAW & ORDER and so on…)
With 22 million Americans with various forms of hearing impairment, this does not bode well. Granted, many other sources of funds will pick up the slack- it’s already common for advertisers to sponsor closed-captioning etc. so we’re not gonna wake up one morning with nothing but SESAME STREET closed-captioned…
http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=26421
And so it goes…
And I’m sure the “Saving Private Ryan” fiasco of a couple of weeks has already been noted in another thread, wherein ABC asked the FCC if they would be fined if they showed the film unedited (they didn’t have the option to edit it per contract with Spielberg) and the FCC responded that they COULDN’T SAY WHETHER OR NOT ABC WOULD BE FINED FOR AIRING THE FILM. I feel that, if nothing else, is effing ridiculous. If you present a finished prodct to the FCC and say, “Is it okay to air this?” you should be given a yes or no answer.
Also : If the FCC has the public interest SO at the forefront of its mind why is it relaxing ownership standards to the point where the publicly-owned airwaves are being controlled by fewer and fewer multi-national conglomerates?
Why should the desires of a small number of people who can’t seem to find their TV remote take precedence over the large number of people who want to watch the entertainment of their choice?
If it were shown that only 25% of the population was actually watching a given show, and 35% opposed the show, why should the smaller number of those who like a given show have precendence over the larger number when the show is shown on public airwaves?
I don’t know the actual statistics, so my question is hypothetical. But my point is this: The ONLY place that you currently find government control is over the PUBLIC radio and TV airwaves (let’s deal with the current reality, not some fear that has not yet come about). Since they are publically owned, I do think there is nothing wrong for a vocal group to have a say in the matter. Unless another more vocal (and perhaps larger group) voices an opposing view, then the first group will influence what is broadcast. I may not like the Playboy channel, but I don’t buy cable so I don’t get it. The network channels are supposed to be owned by everyone. So when you say “just don’t watch it if you don’t like it,” you are actually preventing a show I might watch actually being on. Case in point: “Touched by an Angel” got high ratings for a while. I suspect it was watched by a different segment of the population than DH.
Jim in Iowa
And I’m sure the “Saving Private Ryan” fiasco of a couple of weeks has already been noted in another thread, wherein ABC asked the FCC if they would be fined if they showed the film unedited (they didn’t have the option to edit it per contract with Spielberg) and the FCC responded that they COULDN’T SAY WHETHER OR NOT ABC WOULD BE FINED FOR AIRING THE FILM. I feel that, if nothing else, is effing ridiculous. If you present a finished prodct to the FCC and say, “Is it okay to air this?” you should be given a yes or no answer.
Good point. I personally think airing “Saving Private Ryan” was a good thing to do. I suspect it will not be fined, in part because of the past precedent. The FCC not making a ruling ahead of time is ridiculous. If that really happened (and I believe it did), then the FCC has no grounds to fine ABC.
Jim in Iowa
Uh, Jim, you appear to have missed the context of the “Saving Private Ryan” fiasco.
Because the FCC gave ABC that non-answer, ABC (or atleast a great many of its affiliates … I don’t recall whether it happened on a national level) chose not to air the film on Veterans’ Day last month. This despite the fact that previous Vets’ Day airings of the film were met with no criticism and much praise.
The FCC isn’t going to fine ABC, because ABC decided to cave in the face of a mixed threat. Real brave.
TWL
Tim,
Yes, I may have missed something. I did not see it, but I thought that Saving Private Ryan DID air in most places. My understanding is that a few local affiliates chose to replace it, but that it did air, and that there some protests / complaints that came because of it. I will see if I can find someplace that documents what actually happened.
Jim in Iowa
to finish my thoughts . . .
The FCC isn’t going to fine ABC, because ABC decided to cave in the face of a mixed threat. Real brave.
So if it did air, ABC would be open to being fined. They did not cave, just some local affiliates did.
Jim in Iowa
What Jim conveniently forgets is that the majority of these complaints are from the PTC, a TINY organization, less than 1% of 1% of the U.S.population, and Jim thinks that because they scream the loudest, they should be obeyed. Jim just isn’t paying attention to the parts of the issue that don’t fit his pre-conceieved notions and opinions.
ABC was not fined because ABC does not have an FCC license, its afiliates do. The FCC does not fine networks, they fine the affiliates. ABC has, however, offered to pay any fines against its affiliates that aired the movie might have to pay.
If it was just a few affiliates, then my apologies for misconstruing that particular situation. It still bespeaks some significant cowardice on those affiliates’ part (and again is due in no small part due to the FCC’s coyness), but it’s not applicable to ABC as a whole.
TWL
What Jim conveniently forgets is that the majority of these complaints are from the PTC, a TINY organization, less than 1% of 1% of the U.S.population, and Jim thinks that because they scream the loudest, they should be obeyed. Jim just isn’t paying attention to the parts of the issue that don’t fit his pre-conceieved notions and opinions.
What Bladestar conveniently forgets was that I am giving a hypothetical, and in that hypothetical example, there are more actual people opposed than who watch the show. I was not saying it was good or that I agreed with a situation where it is not actual people opposed to something.
I agree that it is not always good or right, but there is a reason there is the proverb: “The squeaky wheel gets the grease.”
ABC was not fined because ABC does not have an FCC license, its afiliates do. The FCC does not fine networks, they fine the affiliates. ABC has, however, offered to pay any fines against its affiliates that aired the movie might have to pay.
That is interesting. I thought CBS was fined in addition to the affiliates for the Janet Jackson stuff. Are they set up differently, or is my memory faulty? Either way, it was local affiliates who chose to cave, not ABC. But I see your point that ABC technically was not at risk.
Jim in Iowa
If it were shown that only 25% of the population was actually watching a given show, and 35% opposed the show, why should the smaller number of those who like a given show have precendence over the larger number when the show is shown on public airwaves?
Because commercial TV is a business and businesses should be entitled to put on whatever product satisfies their target market. I’d wager that the majority of people in this country don’t like broccoli. Does that mean that we should put all of the broccoli growers out of business?
But my point is this: The ONLY place that you currently find government control is over the PUBLIC radio and TV airwaves (let’s deal with the current reality, not some fear that has not yet come about). Since they are publically owned, I do think there is nothing wrong for a vocal group to have a say in the matter.
I must have read a different Constitution. Mine says “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;” I don’t see any clause that says, “Unless the forum is one that Congress has arbitrarily decided belongs to the public.”
Case in point: “Touched by an Angel” got high ratings for a while. I suspect it was watched by a different segment of the population than DH.
And what is wrong with that? We have six broadcast networks in this country: ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox, WB, and UPN. There should be room to produce something for everyone. If “Touched by an Angel” gets good ratings, great. If not, that’s the market.
BTW, “Touch By an Angel” aired on CBS, not ABC, so putting “Desperate Housewives” on ABC did not deprive you of that show.
That is interesting. I thought CBS was fined in addition to the affiliates for the Janet Jackson stuff.
Those fines were for the affiliates that are directly owned by CBS/Viacom.
Re: Saving Private Ryan
I’m not sure how many ABC affiliates there are nationwide, I can’t seem to find the figures atm, but atleast 20 refused to show Saving Private Ryan for fear of FCC retaliation.
The fact remains that, regardless of previous showings of the movie, the FCC could fine them for THIS viewing. But, the FCC acts on complaints after the fact.
And with the FCC ruling against the word “fûçk” in any context, and that the word is used numerous times in Saving Private Ryan, those affiliates decided not to show the movie.
Nobody gave a dámņ about the violence in the movie. It comes down to a dámņ four letter word that people in this country are so afraid to hear and use, that they’d prefer to be deaf, blind and dumb to it.
But not to fûçkìņg violence. 😉
The fact remains that, regardless of previous showings of the movie, the FCC could fine them for THIS viewing. But, the FCC acts on complaints after the fact.
That’s really interesting about the after-the-fact stuff. Is that an actual formal policy, an informal practice, or your interpretation of their practices. Because if I thought that a spambot could wipe Reality TV off the face of the Earth, I’d be really tempted to not acquire one and use my power for evil.
My appologies. That is one of the least clear things that I have ever written. “I’d be tempted to acquire a spambot and use that power for evil” (Destroying televisions shows through bad publicity).
THat’s one of the biggest problems with the FCC David Hunt, they can’t do anything until AFTER a show has aired, THEN they make their decision. They won’t even provide concrete guidelines as to what is acceptable and what isn’t.
It’s how they operate. Take a look at all the swearing and stuff that has gone on on Ryan Seacrest’s radio show, yet his show hasn’t been fined, nor has Oprah Winfrey for talking about a topic, even more graphically, than Howard Stern WAS fined for.
The FCC is not even elected by the people, they have no right to declare what is acceptable to ANYONE.
The FCC has no right to regulate content, see the First Amendment.
And Jim, how do you how much of the American Population doesn’t like DH, did you poll all 275+ million of them?
No, so your hypothetical is as full of šhìŧ as you are.
“Saving Private Ryan”
“Janet Jackson’s Breast”
“Nicolette Sheridan and Monday Night Football”
“Desperate Housewives”
My apologies to all the buzzwords catch phrases I didn’t mention.
Some facts that are lost in the discussion:
The Federal Government is in the red.
The few (Parents Television Council) are trying to decide for the many (Everyone Else).
People who have power want more power.
FCC fines add money to the Federal Government’s coffers.
The conspiracy theorist in me is almost willing to believe that the FCC is issuing more fines these days in order to compensate, only slightly, the Federal Governments lack of foresight and poor accounting skills. A tiny yet vocal activist group is simply an excuse to do so.
But that would require me to believe that the same group that built a pretty rainbow threat chart can think hard enough to come up with such a plan. Which I don’t.
What does bother me, though, is that we have an organization that can issue fines over something as dubious as “indecency.”
Here’s one thing I find to be indecent. Televised news stories that play background music. Sounds crazy doesn’t it? But doesn’t certain music elicit a certain emotional response? So why play what is essentially “mood music” behind a news story? Why, in what is supposed to be a fact based broadcast, do they want to elicit an emotional response from viewers? I know it seems petty and insignificant. But what other purpose could it serve? I’m not talking about shows like 60 Minutes or 48 Hours. I’m talking about the evening News. Capitol “N.” I find that sort of thing to be manipulative and I can’t see where it has a legitimate place in broadcast journalism. In my opinion that kind of manipulation is indecent. So where is the FCC looking out for our best interests with this type of indecency?
Then again, I’ve taken it upon myself to notice this kind of minutiae because I want to be stand up comedian so I could be overobserving (That’s not a word. I made it up just now.).
Bottom line is that the FCC has become suddenly heavy handed and too dámņëd many little groups have too big a voice. It can’t lead to anything good.
Salutations,
Mitch