Broadcast Rules Are Necessary - Only the FCC Can Enforce Them
Published February 12, 2004
Walker continues:
- Last December Reps. Doug Ose (R-Calif.) and Lamar Smith (R-Tex.) introduced H.R. 3687, which would proscribe broadcast of "the words 'shit', 'piss', 'fuck', 'cunt', 'asshole', and the phrases 'cock sucker', 'mother fucker', and 'ass hole', compound use (including hyphenated compounds) of such words and phrases with each other or with other words or phrases, and other grammatical forms of such words and phrases (including verb, adjective, gerund, participle, and infinitive forms)." The bill was inspired by the one aberration in the FCC's recent regulation of speech: the Enforcement Bureau's October decision that it is permissible, under certain circumstances, to say "fucking" on TV [re Bono at last year's Golden Globes]. The chief effect of the ruling has not been to embolden the potty-mouthed but to galvanize the opposition, and Powell has asked the commission to reverse the new policy.
Now as far as I'm concerned all this is an open-and-shut issue of free speech, disturbing not just because it puts a Washington agency in charge of what you're allowed to say and show on radio and television but because it has an obvious chilling effect on material that isn't nearly as pathetic as Bubba the Love Sponge's sophomoric jokes or Justin Timberlake's dance routines.
- You needn't like Clear Channel to recognize that an FCC which revokes licenses and imposes draconian fines isn't going to refrain from penalizing college stations and low-power broadcasters. One of the opening shots in the new war on indecency was the $7,000 fine imposed on the Oregon community station KBOO in 2001. Its crime: playing a feminist rap called "Your Revolution," which mocked the check-out-all-my-bitches school of hip hop in terms that were sometimes a little profane themselves. In that case the fine was eventually rescinded, but that's hardly a reason to sleep easy - it took the FCC two years to reverse itself, and still it declared that it was a "very close case." And this was David "It's OK To Say 'Fucking'" Solomon of the Enforcement Bureau speaking, not the more politically attuned appointees atop the commission.
And so we're stuck with an FCC increasingly obsessed with controlling who can use the airwaves and what they're allowed to say. If that sounds unobjectionable to you, just wait until it's your ox that's getting gored.
- Broadcast Rules Are Necessary - Only the FCC Can Enforce Them
- Published: February 12, 2004
- Type:
- Section: Politics
- Filed Under: Culture: Media
- Writer: Eric Olsen
- Eric Olsen's BC Writer page
- Eric Olsen's personal site
- Spread the Word
- Like this article?
- Email this
Save to del.icio.us
Comments on this articleComments
I really loathe the censorhip arm of the FCC. But on the one hand, with radio, you can't block out stations like you can on TV, so I see how you can't really control what kids are and aren't listening to on the radio.
On the other hand, I think the audience should decide -- a la the public outcry over the Super Bowl half-time show -- what is and isn't appropriate. Unfortunately, you can't trust 'em. That "love sponge" bit wasn't even *remotely* funny, so how is this guy on the air in the first place? Who the hell is the audience? WHY is anyone listening to this guy?
I think I'm okay with setting a time frame for when "adult" content is broadcast. I have to think about it more, though. But I still don't like the wholesale banning of certain content, no matter when it's broadcast. I don't think the gov't should be telling people what they can and can't say to large audiences even if they're using "public airwaves". It makes me itchy.
Hal, um?
bhw, I agree the "public" should decide what the standards are: the fact that the public responded so strongly to the Super Bowl indicates their standards werre violated. As I said, I don't so much care WHAT the standards are, as I care about making those standards concrete, objective, publicly known, and then enforced. And I don't know who else could enforce them other than the FCC.
I guess that as long as the profit motive is there, that networks can't be trusted to draw a line anywhere. If they think it will sell, they'll do it.
I am a nothingy - I'm not sure how much more clear that could be by now.
Is it possible that anyone knows what the rules are.
I am befuddled by local zoning that has me required to apply for a special permit at my thransmiter/studio radio station site ... I've consented to the request for a hearing for the special permit.
However, I would like to stay on the air ...is it concievable that I can provide a remote broadcast with a broadcast van.
This is not a fixed location ...and should be permitted without having to get a special permit.
Lots of radio stations provide remotes from various locations when they do promotions ... news crews do it when they cover a story.
The town is requiring me to get a special permit to broadcast ...huh???
Add your comment, speak your mind
(Or ping: http://blogcritics.org/mt/tb/12663)
Ambidextrous today?