For the last few years, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has been overstepping their authority and deciding–for 300 million Americans–what is decent and what is indecent to view on network TV.
Never mind that we’re already so exposed to swear words, sexually provocative scenes, and violence on the other 500 channels we get, and let’s not even count the Internet.
Finally, network TV is fighting back. ABC, NBC, CBS, and Fox decided today to challenge last March’s FCC ruling that declared several programs guilty of indecency, including “The Early Show.”
Apparently, an outsed “Survivor” contestant referred to another contestant by using a variation of the “S” word (it’s funny to see how newspapers go through hoops to avoid printing profane words). Another show, “Without a Trace,” depicited an alleged teen orgy scene where breasts were clutched by wayward hands.
Oh my god. I’m scarred forever. No, I’m not. This is one area where the FCC needs to butt out and focus on more important issues, such as making Internet media accessible for people with disabilities or assisting the adoption of digital telvision.
Think the FCC acts only on the complaints of concerned parents? Try the very concerned Parents Television Council, which filed 99.8% of all indecency complaints to the FCC in 2003 (and don’t be surprised if that was still true in 2005).
A stray nipple, a clutched boob, or an unscripted “F” word is not going to destroy our children’s precious innocence. If the FCC is so worried about that, maybe they should petition for an age limit on TV. Anyone under the age of 12 would only be allowed to watch PBS. Actually, that might not be such a bad idea.
Way to go, network TV. Now maybe you’ll start getting more viewers.
© Copyrighted material. This article cannot be copied, reproduced or redistributed without the express written consent of the author. As with every blog on this website, this blog does not reflect the opinion of DeafDC.com.
15 Comments
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
amen!
you said it be-yoo-tifully!
Children are easily influenced by media; the line between reality and fantasy is very blurred to them. I absolutely agree with FCC for taking the stand for censorship. These things did not happen 30 years ago; why should we stand by and allow them to be uncensored now? Yes, “a stray nipple, a clutched boob, or an unscripted ‘F’ word” is going to cost our children’s innocence. Should our children be doing this in front of us or to us? I’m most concerned about the exposure of those things to the children. I’ve seen children repeating what they’ve seen on TV or exclaimed about sexual scene they’ve seen in a movie.
It’s interesting, Adam, in your post about Gallaudet-RIT rally, “Why didn’t anyone in the audience or anyone in the committee standing idly to the sides do anything about this?” Precisely, we have to take the stand and modify what our children’s going to watch everyday. FCC has to issue limits on what we and our children watch everyday. (A survey states that more and more Americans curse every day!) PBS is not going to help it either.
i think the news is much worse than what’s on prime time. otherwise i think what’s on the network channels is mild compared to what i see on cable. the kids probably hear more taboo stuff in school anyway.
Katia,
If you are concerned about children viewing inappropriate language or images on television, then do not let your children watch TV unsupervised. A curse word will get through here and there every once in a blue moon (like it did on “The Early Show”), but that will happen at the supermarket or movie theater, too.
In addition, utilize the TV’s built-in V-chip to block out whole swaths of programming. Children could be allowed to watch only Teletubbies-like shows.
It’s up to the parents to decide what their children should see/hear and shouldn’t see/hear. It’s not the government’s right to decide that for us. That holds true as long as we believe in the First Amendment, anyway.
Comparing this with Gallaudet’s pep rally is comparing apples and oranges. I could have left the pep rally if I was overly offended. What they said was disrespectful. Was it worthy of censorship? No, and I would defend their right to say whatever they please.
The same goes for television shows.
Hmm.. I’m almost agreeing with you, Adam, but I’m still not quite there. Yes, I’m concerned about what children watch - I’m concerned about OTHER children watching TV and influencing my children at school or at after school activities. V-chips do not always work. However, it’s not only the TV shows, it’s the movies, the news. It’s gotten to a point when parents HAVE to approve movies by watching them before their children could watch them. Is this not right? What happened to good old-fashioned movies like “Candleshoe”?
I should have clarified the Gallaudet-RIT thing, I wanted to explain that we cannot stand back and allow this to happen. For our society to become civilized again, we have to monitor what is provided to us. Generally, we’re “enamored” with swearing, sex, and drugs.
So, the first step would be FCC to censor those things on television shows, then to modify movie ratings. I believe in first amendment but I don’t believe that “uncensorship” is the answer to our freedom.
I believe that the first step has to do with creating movies and television shows that suit your interests, not fighting to prevent others’ access.
Devil’s advocate: You’re very religious and you really screen everything that your kids watch because you don’t want them exposed to unnecessary filth. Well, other parents could be just concerned- about the possibility of your children telling their kids (on the playground) “fairy tales about imaginary Biblical characters”. Their concerns are just as legitimate as yours. Would you want them to fight to ban your children’s access to the Bible?
You don’t get the answers through monitoring or censoring; it’s all about choosing wisely.
Hmm, JT, you may have a point. But what do we do about those who aren’t choosing wisely?
It’s not really our job to take care of parents who can’t wisely choose their children’s audiovisual content.
The government steps in if the child is in physical danger (abusive parents, failure to provide food/shelter, etc). But should they avert our children’s eyes and ears from bad words?
Profanity doesn’t harm children; are any of us harmed by knowing inappropriate language? It’s part of navigating today’s world…whether we like it or not.
I went out on a “research spree” and came across those credible reports on how profanity, and sexual exposure does harm our children.
I came across this Web page on ParentsTV.org, and was surprised that 65,710 complaints were filed at Super Bowl in 2004, oh yeah, wasn’t that the one Janet wore a nipple ring? It’s FOOTBALL! A good old-fashioned American sport where fathers and sons enjoy!
Then, there’s a report by a child advocate; Whose children are these? Now, I shall bow out and conclude my argument.
Oh, well, the first link does not work - you can click on http://www.parentstv.org and look at the first article featured on Web page.
You know children are overexposed to the media when you have a 10 year old IM’ing you to say, “I hv a teacher who’s so gay that he keeps comin’ 2 work w/ wardrobe malfunctions that r just as bad as Janet’s!”
The American Psychiatric Association (and not the PTC) has research that proves that exposure to mass media *significantly increases* aberrant and aggressive behavior in kids. Hello???!
And with that said, I think that the opinions of people, including myself, who aren’t parents or guardians ought to be taken with a grain of salt.
Katia, thank you for finding these sources.
However, as mentioned in my blog, the Parents Television Council (www.parentstv.org) accounts for an disproportionate amount of total complaints made to the FCC about television content. In fact, 540,000 complaints were written about that Super Bowl halftime show incident. This was in 2004, where the PTC made up 99.9% of all complaints.
In a discussion like this, I would not use the number of complaints as a reliable measure of how many people were sufficiently outraged by an perceived moment of indecency. One special interest group is driving most of this effort, and is clearly not representative of American viewers.
A boob. On TV for all of 1.7 seconds. Oh no. Our children must be shielded from that via million-dollar fines.
The second article is interesting. I agree with it; we should certainly take action to make sure our children are not underserved; that they are encouraged to reach their full potential. What that article fails to do, however, is make a connection between profane language on television and a failed approach to childrearing.
I do not want my future children to be exposed to violent scenes or heavily profane language. That is why I would not allow them to watch HBO or cable television late at night. That is my responsibility as a parent.
However, having the government punish network television for an incident such as a blurted “S” word by a guest on a live show (where producers do not have that much control) is going too far.
yaaaaaaaa! my kid brother hears worse stuff that that at his hearing elementy school!!! i mean, the early show?? come on!! the colbert report is WAY worse!!! they are being way stupid and over protective. good piont, JT!
Interesting topic…
The only reason why the FCC has control over the VHF/UHF television (network airwaves) as well as AM/FM radio is because it is a limited public resources. There are a limited number of waves where signals can be broadcast, so the government took control over them to control and distribute how they are being done…. accordingly, one of the ancillary powers the FCC has is to regulate indecency over public airwaves. The First Amendment argument will probably won’t work—well, it never did.
This is why they have no control over cable, satellite tv and radio, and other media because the ‘resource’ is not limited.
One more point, the FCC has no control over media on the internet because Congress did not give them that authority. So, your contention should be with Congress, not with the FCC.
Anyways, enough of FCC 101 and let’s get back to moral grandstanding here…
[…] Gallaudet’s presidential search has undoubtedly taken over the headlines. Adam’s review of Steve Weiner, Ron Stern, and Jane Fernandes, are all good reads. Several controversial topics were also raised: Bush’s potential impeachment (Bobby), censorship of network TV (Adam), tracking people via cellphones (Julie), keeping the Internet free (David), plugging away at pagers while driving (Rob), and being a Deaf ambassador (David). […]