Congress Pissed About Offensive Programming

Written by Eric Olsen
Published January 28, 2004

Congressional hearing today on broadcast "indecency":

    House lawmakers on Wednesday called on television and radio broadcasters to clean up their act by instituting stricter standards after renewed complaints about the coarseness of some programming.

    They expressed disappointment that big broadcasters were not represented at a Congressional hearing delving into the issue of indecency and faulted the Federal Communications Commission for not sufficiently enforcing its rules.

    "I believe American families should be able to rely on the fact that — at times when their children are likely to be tuning in — broadcast television and radio programming will be free of indecency, obscenity and profanity," said Rep. Fred Upton, chairman of the House subcommittee on communications.

    He said networks should review their codes of conduct and, in the case of live broadcasts, their time-delay procedures and redouble efforts to make them work.

    Federal law bars the airing of obscene speech and limits the broadcasting of indecent material, containing sexual or excretory references in a patently offensive manner, to late night programming.

    Upton and two dozen other House lawmakers are pushing legislation that would boost tenfold the $27,500 maximum per incident fine that can be imposed on broadcasters who violate indecency rules.

    ....The FCC on Tuesday proposed fining radio broadcaster Clear Channel Communications $755,000 for airing, among other things, purported cartoon characters describing explicit sexual activities at a time when children were likely to be listening.

    Parents groups are pushing the FCC and Congress to increase fines and hold hearings to determine whether broadcasters who violate indecency laws should have their licenses revoked or not renewed.

    "The $27,000 maximum fine is a joke and everyone knows it," Brent Bozell, president and founder of the Parents Television Council, said in prepared testimony. "The FCC must get serious about revoking station licenses for those who refuse to abide by standards of indecency." [Reuters]

If you are going to have the rules, then they should be enforced and the penalties should have some meaning, which they clearly do not as of now.

I despise morning "shock jock" stupid crude shit and would very much like to see that cesspool drained, maybe then I could turn the radio away from NPR in the morning every now and then.

Career media professional Eric Olsen is honored to be the founder and publisher of Blogcritics.org, which, quite frankly, rules - as do his wife and four children.
Keep reading for information and comments on this article, and add some feedback of your own!
Congress Pissed About Offensive Programming
Published: January 28, 2004
Type:
Section: Politics
Filed Under: Culture: Media, Video: News, Video: Television
Writer: Eric Olsen
Eric Olsen's BC Writer page
Eric Olsen's personal site
Spread the Word
Like this article?
Email this
Submit to del.icio.us Save to del.icio.us
RSS Feeds
All RSS Feeds (240+)
Comments on this article
BC articles by Eric Olsen
Culture: Media
Video: News
Video: Television
All Politics Articles
Eric Olsen's personal weblog
All BC articles
All BC Comments

Comments

#1 — January 28, 2004 @ 16:55PM — Dwaine AKA Scooter AKA D.J.

Man, the government can't censor T.V. or radio. This is America! It's up to the T.V. & radio people to decide whether its shows are offensive, not the government's.

#2 — January 28, 2004 @ 17:23PM — Jim Carruthers [URL]

"How many "dicks" is that?"

"Uh, just one".

"Well pay up $27,500 you cheap bastid".

#3 — January 28, 2004 @ 17:27PM — Chris Wilson

With the advent of cable TV, I'm not sure if this argument is valid any longer. Prime time TV is very tame compared to cable. All cable users have to do is channel surf at ANY time of the day and they will see nudity, drug use, violence and hear profanity. There's just too much crap on TV if one has cable. Shocks jocks are certainly offensive, but what better way to give them free publicity than for politicians to go after them? I think the flood gates were unfotunately opened a long time ago, and they can't be closed now.

#4 — January 28, 2004 @ 18:19PM — Eric Olsen

I understand and agree about cable, and the difference between cable and over-the-airwaves broadcast seems slim. But there ARE specific rules about what you can say and show where and when over the airwaves - when being key regarding kids - and if people are counting on those rules to be in place - even in a general sense - then they should be enforced with regularity and meaningful penalties or there IS no point in having the rules.

#5 — January 28, 2004 @ 20:04PM — Mac Diva [URL]

Congress Pissed About Offensive Programming. . . and I'm pissed about Congress.

One of the worst shock radio stations in the country has to be the one Paul Allen owns here. Nothing is beneath those guys. (Among other antics, they have had a retarded woman they cultivate drop her pants at public gatherings.) Crude language? They make RJ Elliott look the model of rectitude. But, I am still wary of giving the FCC more power. I don't trust Michael Powell any more than I do Scooter and company.

#6 — January 28, 2004 @ 20:54PM — Eric Olsen

I don't want them to get any more power, just enforce the rules they already have evenly and fairly. Otherwise, don't bother to have them - the rules, that is.

#7 — January 28, 2004 @ 21:21PM — Mark Saleski [URL]

the rules are kind of funny...or maybe it's the way they're enforced (or not).

for instance, you can't say "shit" on the radio or tv...but exceptions are given for shows like "Scared Straight".

Want comments emailed to you? No spam, promise! Address:

Add your comment, speak your mind

(Or ping: http://blogcritics.org/mt/tb/12122)

Personal attacks are not allowed. Please read our comment policy.





Remember Name/URL?

Please preview your comment!

Fresh
Articles
Fresh
Comments