PeterDavid.net

What you fail to copy and paste:

“Advocacy groups do generate many complaints, as our critics note, but that’s not unusual in today’s Internet world…that fact does not minimize the merits of the groups’ concerns,” Powell wrote.

Powell’s fellow Republican commissioner, Kathleen Abernathy, last week said that the agency does not let the number or the sources of complaints determine its indecency findings. “As long as you’re following precedents and the law, it shouldn’t matter,” Abernathy told Mediaweek.

So, the FCC is essentially saying that the number of complaints should not be a concern as long as you are obeying the rules.

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 "fuck" 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 damn about the violence in the movie. It comes down to a damn 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 fucking 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 shit 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 damned many little groups have too big a voice. It can't lead to anything good.

Salutations,

Mitch

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?

Whether you or I agree with the logic, way back when TV and radio was started, they faced a choice: how to regulate the frequencies so that you had clear channels to tune into, etc. The thing had to be standardized. In addition, the thought, then, was that the airwaves belonged to everyone, not to just whatever company could broadcast the strongest signal, etc. As a result, your example is comparing apples to oranges. You can call for dismantling the system. You can say it was stupid in the first place. But at least understand that you are dealing with a system established many moons ago. You are dealing with an attempt, that in many ways has worked for the good of everyone, to allow us the ability to watch TV for free.

Because of those early technological issues, decisions were made and principles were established. Based on those principles, the airwaves are considered similar to the public square, a public park, etc. The thought (whether you agree or not) is that what is on TV should be "decent" for anyone who happens to watch. This is not a perfect system, it is very different from a movie theater, a book store, a newspaper, cable, etc., where you have a direct choice and are paying directly for the service.

Bottom line, "free" TV and radio are NOT a traditional business. So they are different animals than the examples you give.

Let me give one example that is very blatant: The constant commercials for "Girls Gone Wild." I tend to not fall asleep at night, so sometimes I will be up flipping channels. I am amazed at how much they show for these commericals (both the 30 second and the 30 minute variety). I am far more concerned about these "commericals" than the "F" word being used in Private Ryan. It is easy to say, "you have the off button." But why should I be forced to not even flip channels late at night and have to deal with this trash? (It is not just because I am a "prude." I have dealt with people who come to regret these stunts years later. I consider most of it to be crass exploitation of women.) Obviously they are making money if they are advertising this much on late night TV.

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."

I am not a constitutional expert. You may have a point. But the courts have not changed these rules. I would be curious to know the case history for the FCC and for the defining the airwaves as "public."

Jim in Iowa

BTW, "Touch By an Angel" aired on CBS, not ABC, so putting "Desperate Housewives" on ABC did not deprive you of that show.

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.

For all the good it will evidently do me to say this, that sir, is just NOT true. First of all, we're talking about the federal government here. It rarely moves that quietly or stealthily . Second, the FCC must BY LAW, give notice when it considers a rules change. Every station in the country is represented before the Commission by groups like the NAB (National Assocciation of Broadcasters), and individual communications lawyers who represent some station groups with specific interests, such as Clear Channel, or Radio One, to lobby the FCC either in favor of or against any proposed rule change. In fact, the general public is often the least represented group there.

The FCC is required BY LAW to give each broadcast station or network a chance to defend itself against any specific or serious complaint in an open public hearing. If you check, you will see that most of the fines the FCC has issued over the last few years have been months and in some cases, years after the hearing took place.

Recently, and again this was after a hearing on the idea AND the FCC had to go to Congress to get their PERMISSION, to do so, the FCC raised the amount of fines to reflect the times. Many stations WERE being fined, like the stations that play Howard Stearn. the problem is that many of them were making millions of dollars in revenue while paying a few paltry thousand dollars here and there . You do the math. You pocket a a million for every thousand you pay out in fines, and you complain just enough to make a noise.

Finally, every broadcast station has to keep a public affairs file and provide it for inspection during normal business hours to both the FCC and the public for inspection. This file supposedly determines whether a station gets to keep it's broadcast license for another three (or is it five?) years. In most cases the FCC will simply rubber stamp the stations broadcast license for another term. If it doesn't usually it is because some serious complaint has come up, in which case the FCC will notify all interest parties as to when and where a public hearing will be held.

Here's an interesting thing you can do. Tomorrow, during normal business hours, 9 to 5, ( don't go during lunch hours though, trust me) you can go to any Televsion or radio station, large or small and ask to see their public inspection file. Most stations will fall all over themselves to produce that file for you.

BTW, "Touch By an Angel" aired on CBS, not ABC, so putting "Desperate Housewives" on ABC did not deprive you of that show.

They also are not on the air at the same time. Touched left the air a few years ago. I was simply stating the obvious: If one program is on, it is keeping another one off the air. And the fact that a more "sexual" show such as DH gets great ratings does not mean a show like "Touched by an Angel" will not. There can be two different demographics reached by the respective shows. So it is not necessarily a case of the highest ratings, but of how good of a show it is and which one a network picks.

Incidentally, "R" rated movies rarely make as much money as "PG." Look at the biggest money making movies of all time, and most are not full of sex, graphic violence, and swearing. There is a market for well made shows that do not press the envelope in the areas of sex and violence and swearing. Doesn't mean ABC can't do NYPD Blue, just noting that there is a market for shows that are not as out there.

Jim in Iowa

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.

Want to expound upon that? Otherwise, I'll just take it as you don't know what you're talking about.

For what it's worth, the station I work for keeps a copy of the FCC PI file up front ready to go and always has. After the flap over "Queer Eye" I described above, a few bold would-be legal eagles thought it'd be funny to watch us fall all over ourselves by asking to see our file. When it was promptly handed over to them, they stared at it in confused silence. I guess we deprived them of their 'a-ha!' moment.
Yes, to a great degree the FCC rubber-stamps most renewals, because most stations don't do anything too terribly stupid. If they've been fined, nine times out of ten it's been over something the network broadcast, and the network will usually absorb the fine for the affiliate station (a la the Viacom 'Nipplegate' fines). The remainder are usually fines levied over copyright infringement or improper usage of a competitor's material... instances which usually have more to do with not realizing a mistake has been made than some kind of brazen defiance of the law. Indecency fines are a relatively new development to the broadcasting industry, which are very clearly having a chilling effect on the major networks; ask anyone in the industry and they'll tell you so. The jury is still out on whether or not that chilling effect is a good or a bad thing, but it most definately exists.

Whoa> Hell must be freezing over. Tim Lynch and I agree.

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.

Although the FCC did give ABC an answer:
An FCC spokeswoman said Wednesday that the agency does not monitor television broadcasts, but responds to complaints. The agency did receive a complaint after the 2001 broadcast of "Saving Private Ryan," but it was denied, she said.

And despite what you're saying about ABC's bravery, they DID run "Saving Private Ryan" and offered to cover the fines for any affiliate showing the film. Most affiliates declined because ABC would not cover any other FCC fines that came up.

"ABC has told its affiliates it would cover any fines, but Cole, of Citadel, said the network could not protect its affiliates against other FCC sanctions."

http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/wireStory?id=244801

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.

Actually, the FCC can and does fine some networks because they hold FCC licenses for stations that they own outright. ABC, for example, owns WABC radio and TV in New York, KABC in Los Angeles, and several other TV stations around the nation. The same goes for NBC and CBS.

ABC did air "Saving Private Ryan" in its unedited form on Veteran's Day. As for the stations who opted not to run it, I don't have a complete listing, but the numbers work out so that a third of the people nationally who watch television (who could have conceivably watched "SPR") were not able to see it. That works out to between 50 and 75 of the 200-odd markets in the country, depending on population size of the cities that didn't air the film. I can tell you that ABC affils in Atlanta and New Orleans chose NOT to air it.

As for expounding on your metaphor, eclark, here goes:
First, comparing the networks, the producers of the shows they air and their advertisers cumulatively to 'theives breaking into houses' is unfair. The networks are not actively trying to commit a crime... at least, not so far as I know. Working for an NBC affiliate, I certainly haven't gotten any memos to that effect. They're selling a product, or an advertiser's product.
Secondly, the FCC as a sleeping guard dog doesn't cut it. The FCC has by no means been asleep at the switch: they've fined indecent langauge on several networks in the past (Oscar broadcasts, Bono using the F-word at the Grammys almost a decade ago, and IIRC a more than few episodes of Saturday Night Live over the series' run, just to name an obvious few). To metaphorically claim that they haven't been doing their jobs is a bit disingenuous.
Third, if the PTC is playing the part of a 'neighbor,' then it's most certainly the nosy one up the street that everyone steers clear of. (And metaphorically speaking, why would they be throwing rocks? Couldn't they call the metaphorical police instead? I mean, that's what I would do if I saw people breaking into a neighbor's house... not dicking around with some metaphorically narcoleptic canine.)
Now, maybe if they were door-to-door salesmen (who weren't trying to break into the home, of course) instead of theives, the metaphor might work. But an off-the-cuff equation of the networks to theives paints them far worse then necessary for purposes of getting your point across.

"Incidentally, "R" rated movies rarely make as much money as "PG." Look at the biggest money making movies of all time, and most are not full of sex, graphic violence, and swearing. There is a market for well made shows that do not press the envelope in the areas of sex and violence and swearing. Doesn't mean ABC can't do NYPD Blue, just noting that there is a market for shows that are not as out there."

According to http://www.boxofficemojo.com the ten biggest domestic (US) money-makers in unadjusted dollars are:
Titanic (PG-13), Star Wars (PG), Shrek 2 (PG), ET (PG), Star Wars: Episode 1 (PG), Spider-man (PG-13), Lord of the Rings: Return of the King (PG-13), Spider-man 2 (PG-13), The Passion of the Christ (R), Jurassic Park (PG-13).

This, along with various articles, indicates to me that the ideal rating for a movie is PG-13, where your typical teenager, a significant portion of the movie-going audience can still get in without parental accompanyment. An R-rated action or comedy cuts itself off from a significant portion of its typical audience. Look at how most serious dramas are R-rated - movies that would not attract a teenager anyways - while a "Blockbuster" is usually PG-13, and the people behind the film are often contractually obligated to deliver a PG-13 rated film (Chronicles of Riddick is one such example). If everybody was allowed to go to every movie (which is NOT something I'm advocating), then your example is a much more valid one. Unfortunately, here there are too many other big, confounding variables.

Does that mean these movies wouldn't have made money anyways? Certainly not. They are mostly genuinely good movies, and OF COURSE there is an audience for middle of the road movies and TV shows.

The major problems with the FCC process is that it is too open to be influenced by a very small group of people (or even one person who is moderately technically savvy in sending e-mail).

I'm going to chime in here and point out that the fact that a movie made a shitload of money is no indication that it's a good movie. While there are many phenomenal films rated PG or lower, there are also phenomenal films rated R. Box office numbers are not a good way to determine a movie's quality.

First, comparing the networks, the producers of the shows they air and their advertisers cumulatively to 'theives breaking into houses' is unfair. The networks are not actively trying to commit a crime... at least, not so far as I know. Working for an NBC affiliate, I certainly haven't gotten any memos to that effect. They're selling a product, or an advertiser's product.

Please, the networks in particular, but also advertisers and down to the independents have been making out like thieves. For a good while, particularly back in the late 80s and early 90s, People were buying stations at a cost of like a million dollars and within one or two years, selling that station for up to six or ten million dollars thus putting many stations out of the reach of ownership by many groups. It was easy then to convince the FCC to scrap the ownership rules.

Advertisers are happy. they don't have to go to every 500 watt station in the area to buy time when they can go to one or two groups and make media buys for the region.

But the comparison with thieves wasn't indicative of the crime, just the stealth they were using to get past the dog.

Secondly, the FCC as a sleeping guard dog doesn't cut it. The FCC has by no means been asleep at the switch: they've fined indecent langauge on several networks in the past (Oscar broadcasts, Bono using the F-word at the Grammys almost a decade ago, and IIRC a more than few episodes of Saturday Night Live over the series' run, just to name an obvious few). To metaphorically claim that they haven't been doing their jobs is a bit disingenuous.

They haven't. Sure they've fined people, but those same people have continued to push the envelope. They 've had deeper pockets to absorb the cost of the fines as just "business costs" thanks to my first point above. So when the FCC asked Congress for permission to raise the cost of the fines, those groups squawked and started calling it an attack on the "freedom of speech" when that's not what it is and never was.

Third, if the PTC is playing the part of a 'neighbor,' then it's most certainly the nosy one up the street that everyone steers clear of.

I live in one of the safest houses on my street because my "nosy" neighbors are good friends of mine. We watch out for each other and our property. Granted, I live in the south, but I think that speaks more you in particular than just to go around tar and feathering all your neighbors.

(And metaphorically speaking, why would they be throwing rocks? Couldn't they call the metaphorical police instead? I mean, that's what I would do if I saw people breaking into a neighbor's house... not dicking around with some metaphorically narcoleptic canine.)
Now, maybe if they were door-to-door salesmen (who weren't trying to break into the home, of course) instead of theives, the metaphor might work. But an off-the-cuff equation of the networks to theives paints them far worse then necessary for purposes of getting your point across.

Well, I didn't want to compare the police to Barney Fife or Fish from Barney Miller. And I still like the thieves comparison.

Well, I didn't want to compare the police to Barney Fife

...which seems as opportune a time as any to mention this link, which a friend pointed out to me a few days ago...

(Trust me, there's a connection.)

http://www.dubyamovie.com/

TWL

So, the FCC is essentially saying that the number of complaints should not be a concern as long as you are obeying the rules.

Yet when these incidents happened Powell and the FCC used the number of complaints to demonstrate how severe the outrage against these incidents were... with this statement they're moving the goalpoast now that their previous stance has been shown to be based in bad information.

For all the good it will evidently do me to say this, that sir, is just NOT true. First of all, we're talking about the federal government here. It rarely moves that quietly or stealthily . Second, the FCC must BY LAW, give notice when it considers a rules change.

Except we're not talking about a rule change, simply changing the interpretation of what "indecent" means.

Here's the thing: There is no definition in law or regulation for what is "indecent." Aside from George Carlin's seven dirty words, there's no handbook that states when you've crossed the line from being just suggestive to indecent. It is entirely a matter of individual interpretation. What one FCC judge may let slide, another finds highly offensive. So yes, the FCC has changed the rules without any notice.

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.

Actually, it would be illegal for the FCC to do answer that question -- that would be "prior censorship", which the FCC may not engage in.

All that they can do is issue guidelines and then wait to see what happens after the material in question is aired; if there are complaints, then they act. (If something has been busted before, then it is assumed to be non-airable)

I have heard at least some of George Carlin's "Seven Words" spoken or sung on college FM stations (limited coverage/audience demographic) with no apparent reaction from the FCC, in the same market where considerably milder material might have gotten a network teevee station busted.

It all depends on who listens and who complains. (WREK, the Georgia Tech station, had to stop playing Jaime Brockett's "Legend of the USS Titanic", which had been in some level of rotation on the station for almost twenty years, because a Jewish group objected to one tongue-in-cheek line.)

eclark, I don't know how familiar you are with the world of broadcast television, but a significant percentage of affiliates are part of small, often family-run organizations and corporations. Very, very few corporations own a lot of stations, and VERY few of those own two (or more) stations in the same market. And we have the FCC rules against monopolies to thank for this; for the past forty years or so, FCC regulation has allowed a level enough playing field for those mom-and-pop outfits to exist without fear of being bought out or run into the ground by industry giants like Viacom. Obviously, instances of buyout and resale with a markup like you described occurred, but not nearly as many as would have occured had the FCC been as asleep at the switch, as you claim.
Granted, these anti-monopoly rules have begun to relax (just last weekend, Viacom bought a second station in the Sacramento, CA market... this was a BIG DEAL in the television world, not because of the company or the size of the market, but because it was actually being allowed to happen. This is the fifth or sixth 'duopoly' Viacom has established this year, and the fact that they continue to be able to buy up stations is raising quite a few eyebrows), but then again, the FCC has started fining people a lot more often than before. We're seeing a major shift in how the FCC operates, and for me, if only in terms of job security, I prefer the old days, when I didn't have to worry about losing my job in a corporate buy-out.
eclark: "Sure they've [the FCC] fined people, but those same people have continued to push the envelope. They 've had deeper pockets to absorb the cost of the fines as just "business costs" thanks to my first point above. So when the FCC asked Congress for permission to raise the cost of the fines, those groups squawked and started calling it an attack on the "freedom of speech" when that's not what it is and never was."
So because the fines the levied weren't hefty enough, they weren't doing their job? So, by that rationale, an ambulance driver who doesn't get a dying patient to the hospital fast enough isn't doing their job, either, right? (See what I mean about over the top metaphors?)
eclark: "I live in one of the safest houses on my street because my "nosy" neighbors are good friends of mine. We watch out for each other and our property. Granted, I live in the south, but I think that speaks more you in particular than just to go around tar and feathering all your neighbors."
I think you're missing a few words in your last sentence, but for what it's worth, I live in the (deep) South, too, and I haven't tarred or feathered anyone, literally or metaphorically, ever. But what I gather from your above statement, I think your definition of 'nosy' and mine differ wildly enough to make further argument over the point impractical.
As for the metaphor itself, I still think comparing the networks to thieves in the night is a dire overstatement of the situation, even an incendary one. That one is 'making out like a thief' does not necessarily mean that one is a thief, and you seem very comfortable calling the networks thieves. I don't think that's fair or cogent to the argument at hand.

What of censoring things that happened in the past? Such as what Stern is claiming is being done to him? How does that fall into the ability of the FCC? while my knowledge maybe limited on the subject, what he's claiming is they are fining shows years old now because they can. If that is whats happening how is that fair?

Another question about censorship... How does any of this affect anybody unless they are lazy? Use the V-Chip to "protect" your kids... turn the TV/Radio off or change the channel, It doesn't need to be on. Use it or not, but don't deny others their voices because they are in the minority. Thats totally unAmerican, everyone here gets a voice. Its whether you choose to listen/watch to it or not that should decide whether it sticks around on the mainstream airwaves or is relagated away to other mediums. Either help its ratings to keep it around or Don't help its rating to drop it. Capitalism. Government oversite on what is or isn't decent should have no bearing on this. All the FCC should be doing is keeping the airwaves public, structured (keeping interfearance to a minimum is what i mean here) and unmonopolized so that multiple voices can be heard/watched (every channel owned/affiliated with the same one or two voices), not deciding whether "sucking a hotdog" or "tossing a salad" are indecent.
This all seemed to start back at that superbowl... Why is everyone so up in arms over a women's single breast being shown on TV? I've seen larger breasts on TV belonging to men with no public outrage following them! No one seems to complain about breasts being shown on PBS, and that station belongs to the public even more so.

Chiming in again
The FCC has fined stations that aired Stern's show over material that he did in previous years.This is major B.S what they didnt know it was wrong at the time and after further review they decide its bad??It seemed like the Stern heat got worse after he began campaigning against
Bush and JJ and the bare breast.So draw any conclusions you want.
Dont know about DH but Stern ratings books tend to be consistently high among the 18 to 34 demographic.His audience also tends to skew across various economic and social lines.My point being someone is listening out there and as long as he is making money he will stay on until this contract expires.
Jim made the point about the top grossing movies not being rated R.While that may be true I dont think this is as a result of the rating as much as them being good movies.I have seen very good movies rated R and very crappy G rated movies.
As far as SAVING PVT RYAN,locally in Philly they played it F-Bomb and all ,I was under the impression the combo of violence and language was the issue.Personally i think we should show the movie and all that goes with it.Maybe seeing war and violence in all its nastiness will make some
young future leader think twice before sending someone else to war,and have more respect for the sacrifices that people made for their freedoms.

From CSO:
"No one seems to complain about breasts being shown on PBS, and that station belongs to the public even more so.
When a program on PBS shows any kind of nudity or harsh language, there is a disclaimer at the start of the show from the network, and often from the member station, saying such. There's also the ratings bug that shows up on every show (except for news and sports) in the upper left hand side of the screen every half hour (or close to) with the TV-__ rating. The problem with the Superbowl was that there was no way to warn the audience that Janet and Justin were going to play "show the boobie".

I am amazed at how much they show for these commericals (both the 30 second and the 30 minute variety).

They generally air on cable though, not network tv, correct?

The FCC apparently only has oversight of network tv (NBC, CBS, etc). I'm not sure how cable is handled, to be honest.

Aside from George Carlin's seven dirty words

Carlin was on Inside the Actor's Studio on Bravo a few weeks back, and he chimed out those famous seven words. Amusingly, "piss" and another which I can't pin down atm are no longer being censored on cable tv.

Of course, I'm thinking Powell would love to replace those two words with, say, "gay" and "liberal". ;)

In regards to NYPD Blue- still a great show but very noticably toned down now. It's disturbing that the creative folks behind these shows have to be concerned about confirming to censorship.

Secondly, about the Desperate Housewives skit,
would this have ever been such an issue had the
piece not featured Ms Sheridan jumping into the arms of a black man? Of course not. Does anyone remember a Pepsi ad featuring Kim Catrall slinking about in a locker room bath? There wasn't any controversy there.

So, where can we organize to lobby the FCC to put MORE violence and sex on television?

I keep hearing mewling cries for less, but who speaks for what I want: sex-in-the-death-hole violence and porn-quality-sex during the Dinner Hour?

Why should I suffer because some assholes can't control their stupid kids?

Travis wrote: 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?

This reminds me of an old joke: Conservatives love the NRA because it defends the Constitution. Conservatives hate the ACLU because it defends the Constitution.

Phinn

Craig, the FCC has no authority over cable, only broadcasting. The airwaves are "free", but you have to pay to receive cable (or else steal it...but you get my point). Just to prove this, Comedy Central has aired the movie "South Park: Bigger, Longer, Uncut" in it's entirety. It is aired late at night (1am), but has still aired it. I think that this movie has more offensive language than George Carlin has ever tried to use at one time.

I am amazed at how much they show for these commericals (both the 30 second and the 30 minute variety).

They generally air on cable though, not network tv, correct?

No. I don't have cable. This is on broadcast TV on one of the "independent" local stations. Granted, it is after 11:00 pm at night, which is probably why they get away with it. But I was up late (1 am) watching a video (While You Were Sleeping) with my wife, her sister, and a friend. When the movie ended, I hit "stop" on the remote. What comes on when it switched to a TV channel? A picture of naked ladies writhing all over each other with their private parts barely blocked out (part of the "Girls Gone Wild" 30 minute informercial). Needless to say, my wife was NOT amused. I should not have to be embarrassed by such a graphic display of gratuitous sexuality on network TV, even at 1 am in the morning.

Jim in Iowa

By the way, it was on channel "20" which is the local WB affliliate. My VCR switched to that station when the video stopped because it had taped Smallville the night before.

Jim in Iowa

All I can say is that after reading all of this is that I remain absolutely dumbfounded by all of the fuss and the fear and the bullying.

Amazing.

Yours,

Dwight

Just to prove this, Comedy Central has aired the movie "South Park: Bigger, Longer, Uncut" in it's entirety.

Yeah. I think the members of the FCC should watch the movie in its entirety some time, along with a few other episodes of South Park.

Maybe they'd get some insight on cursing vs nudity vs violence.

Granted, it is after 11:00 pm at night

Well, there you. FCC doesn't care as much after 10-11pm.

So, not only do network stations have to show only things you approve of during the day, but overnight as well.

I guess we all can't have what we want.

Hey Jimmy, if you don't like what's on Channel 20... CHANGE THE STATION!!!!!

Don't try to get the FCC to take out the broadcaster. That's what pisses me off so much about you people. Turn off the TV/Radio, or change the station, that all it takes. Don' you DARE try getting it banned though. People like you are evil for America

Hey Jimmy, if you don't like what's on Channel 20... CHANGE THE STATION!!!!!

I did. Doesn't change the fact that it was there and in my face for the 60 seconds it took to find the remote to the TV to turn it off. Doesn't change the fact that my sister-in-law and her friend and my wife were all understandably offended by it.

Don't try to get the FCC to take out the broadcaster. That's what pisses me off so much about you people. Turn off the TV/Radio, or change the station, that all it takes. Don' you DARE try getting it banned though. People like you are evil for America

And where, exactly, did I say I was going to work on getting it officially "banned." That is what is frustrating with people like you. I have an equal right to voice my disgust about something as you do. I can complain to the station if I want to. I never said, nor do I intend, to send a complaint to the FCC. I am not sending out an email to 200 friends asking them to swamp the station or FCC email with complaints.

Apparently you don't get that it is valid for everyone to speak up and state their views. It is up to the station to respond. I suspect that while it was exploitative and far more sexual than I think should be on TV, it probably did not violate any FCC rules. I have no desire to get the station fined. I will simply voice my concern and let them decide how they want to respond. That is how it should work in this country.

Jim in Iowa

Some television creators are very concerned about the FCC's actions of late. Here is an email from the folks at FAMILY GUY, that posted a few weeks ago at www.planet-familyguy.com -

"To Everyone:

The FCC has called an emergency session to discuss the recent ‘Desperate Housewives’ promo on Monday Night Football and decide if fines should be levied. They have received 500 complaints and feel this is enough to warrant this meeting. So, if you had no problem with the promo, please call the FCC at 1-888-225-5322 and let them know just that.

There is no menu option to leave a message supporting something that aired, so you’ll have to dial “0” for an operator. The wait isn’t long. Just tell the operator you had no problem with the promo and he or she will personally type up your comment. The operator will most likely be confused that you want to leave a positive comment, so be prepared for that.

Most importantly, be polite to the operators. They are not the ones making these decisions and you want them to take your comments seriously and report them.

Some people here have come upon resistance from the operators, being told they can’t file a comment unless an FCC meeting is in progress. If an operator says this, call back and try to get another operator. If you encounter the same problem, send an e-mail to:

Chairman Michael K. Powell: Michael.Powell@fcc.gov
Commissioner Kathleen Q. Abernathy: Kathleen.Abernathy@fcc.gov
Commissioner Michael J. Copps: Michael.Copps@fcc.gov
Commissioner Kevin J. Martin: KJMWEB@fcc.gov
Commissioner Jonathan S. Adelstein: Jonathan.Adelstein@fcc.gov

Again, we want our thoughts taken seriously, so don’t send a thousand e-mails.

Unfortunately, we’ve come upon a time where we have to actively protect the programming we love. People who have a problem always complain and those of us who don’t never say a word. With the FCC’s recent actions and attitudes, it’s vital to let the FCC know that not all of us are so easily offended. We need to maintain balance in broadcast television and this country.

Thank you,

The ‘Family Guy’ Staff"

Rich,

I love this message. Thanks for posting it.

Fred

I could definitely see Family Guy being a show to get cancelled as a result of the newfound paranoia among the networks.

What an ending that would be for a series that's just getting back onto its feet...

Be nice, yeah, but that's not the way it works,

A bunch of you bible-thumping whiners cry about it to the government and try to get them to rain down hellfire...

You're probably a proud, dues-paying member of the PTC...

You're probably a proud, dues-paying member of the PTC...

Nope. You guessed wrong. Only learned about them this week. Do you want me to start supporting them? ;-)

Jim in Iowa

You're probably a proud, dues-paying member of the PTC...

Bladestar, you're really not helping your argument when you start smearing people. Saying someone is a "proud, dues-paying member of the PTC" is exactly as helpful as calling someone a "card-carrying member of the ACLU" (which, for the record, I am). I didn't care for the latter when Bush pere tried to use it as a campaign issue against Dukakis in '88, and I don't think it's an acceptable attempt to smear Jim now.

I don't care for the PTC's goals or tactics much of the time, but belonging to such an organization is not an automatic negative. It's not like belonging to the KKK, for instance.

A lot of people here are generally on your side of the television fence. I humbly suggest that you not work quite so hard to alienate them.

TWL

Tim Lynch wrote...
I humbly suggest that you Bladestar not work quite so hard to alienate them.

He passed that point long ago from my point of view. As I mentioned a few days ago, it makes me ashamed to agree with him in principle.

I'm glad to hear that. If you are ashamed of freedom, then you are one sad individual...

Yeah, belonging to the PTC IS a major negative. It
s means you let a fictional book and the ignorant member of the church do your thinking for you.

Gutcheck time. I dislike the religious right. I am still in agony over Kerry's defeat. I have a major fear for this country with the NeoCons and the like in power for four more years. But, come on, the people on this siter are not the enemy. If they are smart enough to appreciate the writings of Peter David, they are not all bad. Give it a break with the hostile name calling.

I'm glad to hear that. If you are ashamed of freedom, then you are one sad individual...

No, he's ashamed of YOU (and your tactics). There's a difference between that and freedom, you know. If you don't see the difference...well, that's sad.

Nothing worng with what I do, expressing my freedom of speech, you don't like it, DON'T LISTEN!

Just because you don't like what someone is saying or how they're saying it means SQUAT!

Freedom of speech means FREEDOM of speech, there are no "degrtees" just because you don't like how someone says something. Sounds like you're the one with problem Rog

Freedom of speech means FREEDOM of speech, there are no "degrtees" just because you don't like how someone says something.

Any freedom extends only so far. You have the right to make an ass of yourself, but not necessarily the right to make an ass out of somebody else.

It's why we have laws for things such as slander. Freedom of Speech is not all inclusive. Remember that.

Still stupid, eh Craigy?

No one can make an ass of you BUT you!

Just because I think someone is ass doesn't mean everyone else does.

But your comprehension never was that great...

Still stupid, eh Craigy?

Yet so more intelligent than you, Bladestar. I'm sure if you look in the mirror, you'll find "Dumbass" written there somewhere in the reflection.

And see, I still don't have to resort to pathetically making fun of someone's name.

You're making such a wonderful name for yourself here. Thankfully, this is the last time I will ever reply you to.

Took you long enough

Wow, that's sad. 500 people complain, and the FCC holds an emergency meeting? what a waste of taxpayer funds.

There's more than 180 million adults in the US. Maybe 2, 3 times that in the under 18 crowd? Just taking the adults, 500 complaints means...well, it's such a small percentage that my calculator can't put it into decimal terms.

If that's not a prime example of the vocal minority getting a controlling hand in the government, I don't know what is.

Makes me wonder why some 49 MILLION people making a statement against our current president is seen as a major victory for Bush. Something smells funny to me....

Very tiny percentage kingbobb, also, did you notice in the "Family Guy" Team letter, they mention that while it's easy to file a complaintin in the FCC system, there no option for the other way around, to praise or support something?

Windows Calculator reports 500 out of 180,000,000 as:
2.7777777777777777777777777777778e-6

or .0002777~ %. (less than 1/1000 of a percent)

This reminds me of an old joke: Conservatives love the NRA because it defends the Constitution. Conservatives hate the ACLU because it defends the Constitution.

Isn't it interesting how many liberals are willing to stand up to protect their Freedom of Speech, but are quite willing, even eager to curtail and even re-interpret the freedoms that guarantee the right to bear arms and practice religion.
As for the ACLU, well you know what they say, even a broken clock is right at least twice a day.

While I don't agree with liberals on their Interpretation of the Second Amendment, I can at least picture HOW they made that mistake...

ACLU's problem is that they've got themselves painted into a corner, they kinda have to defend everyone's rights or they end u- looking like christians...

Jeff Lawson,
"I could definitely see 'Family Guy' being a show to get cancelled as a result of the newfound paranoia among the networks."
"What an ending that would be for a series that's just getting back on its feet."
Possibly, but I doubt it.
Ironically enough, when "Family Guy" first started, it was liberals who were up in arms, protesting, for example, the scene in the first episode where the newscaster is caught on the air saying, "I just don't like black people, okay."
That was taken by some to be a "shot" at African-Americans. The "some" obviously being oversensitive zealots who could not appreciate the satire.
Like I've said, BOTH sides of the political spectrum are capable of overreacting and trying to shut the other up.

Phinn,
"This reminds me of an old joke. Conservatives love the NRA because it defends the Constitution. Conservatives hate the ACLU because it defends the Constitution."

Reminds me of this joke. Liberals love the ACLU because it defends the Constitution. Liberals hate the NRA because it defends the Constitution.

Kingbob,
"Wow, that's sad. 500 people complain and the FCC holds an emergency meeting?...If that's not a prime example of the vocal minority getting a controlling hand in the government, I don't know what is."

In a way, you're correct. 500 does seem kind of small. But if people like Joe Lieberman are members, that may have something to do with it.
Also, a "vocal minority" FREQUENTLY has a huge (and arguably disproportionate) impact on government and /or corporate decision-making.
Having been around many political offices, a letter to a politician was generally regarded as representing at least 100 people who felt the same way, even strongly, but did not bother to write in themselves.
Also, why do we have protective seals on so much of our medicines now? Because, what, eight (maybe less) people died in the Tylenol incident years ago? You could argue that the number of people who had been directly affected by this were statistically insignificant, even if you include the families. But it resulted in a change for everyone.
Also, the fear of SOME child beng allergic to peanut butter and ignorantly eating it anyway has led many school districts to ban peanut butter (and jelly, presumably) sandwiches, despite the facts that:
1.)The overwhelming number of kids are not allergic to peanuts, and most of them (and their parents) have enough sense not to eat it if they are
2.) Peanut butter is a cheap way to give children something nutritional to eat
And let's not forget that in a country that is overwhelmingly Christian, there are more and more culture clashes to protect the minority of those who may be offended or made to feel uncomfortable.

Bladestar,
"PTC is a major negative. It means you let a fictional book and the ignorant members of the church do your thinking for you."

As you would say to Jim, how exactly would you know that all the members of the PTC are Christian? (Joe Lieberman is Jewish, by the way.)
Or even religious? Did you poll the organization and fnd that there were zero atheists who were part of the group who may simply be concerned parents?
If not, then this is just another bile-filled diatribe from you. Which, don't get me wrong, is what you do best.

Tim Lynch,
"A lot of people here are generally on your side of the television fence. I humbly suggest that you not work so hard to alienate them."

Tim, kudos for your sentiments. But, really, where have you been? Bladestar lives to alienate people and insult them (notice didn't say offend them, because in that respect, Bladestar is right. He can only spout words. I would have to choose to take offense. Which choose not to do when I consider the source).
The constant stream of venom toward people or groups he disagrees with leads me to conclude:
A.) He's just rude for the hell of it
B.) He's a very angry person
C.) Well, let's just leave it that it may go beyond simple anger.

Marc Mielke,
"So, where can we organize the FCC to put MORE violence and sex on television? I keep hearing mewling cries for less, but who speaks for what I want: sex-in-the-death-hole violence and porn-quality sex during the Dinner Hour?"
"Why should I suffer because some assholes can't control their stupid kids?"

Did the spirit of George Carlin enter your body or something:) This was pretty funny. It reminds me of an editorial on an old "Saturday Night Live" in which a guy says, "There should be MORE sex and violence on TV! Why are we stuck watching corny crap like 'Little House On The Prairie'? Let's see Laura's boobs! Then blow up the house!"

Gene Hall,
"In regards to 'NYPD Blue' - still a great show but very noticeably toned down now. It's disturbing that the creative folks behind these shows have to be concerned about confirming (CONFORMING) to censorship."

Are you sure that's what it is? Could the toning down simply be a creative decision? I remember Sam Waterston's Jack McCoy seemed to have "toned down" a bit especially during the Angie harmon years, but it was all part of character development. He is closer to his original "Hang "Em High McCoy" days now, though still with shadings,

"Secondly, about the Desperate Housewives skit, would this have ever been such an issue had the piece not featured Ms. Sheridan jumping into the arms of a black man. Of course not."

You're right, but not in the way you think. Because despite what you may instinctively think, while some whites obviously didn't care for that portrayal, it was mainly blacks who condemned the skit. Hell, it wasn't even a controversy until high-profile, respected (and black) NFL head coach Tony Dungy made a big deal about it promoting "stereotypes" of black men, and the only people I know who were REALLY upset about it were black women, who REALLY love white women, especially BLONDES, with black men by the way.

Deano,
"The thing I don't get is if there is such 'moral outrage' over things like Stern and 'Desperate Housewives', why are ratings not reflecting it."

Well, first, because with so many choices these days, if you reach a targeted demographic or niche, you can be considered a hit.
Second, and most importantly, (there was just an article about it today) about 70% of the people in this country are either 'delusional' or flat-out hypocrites:)
Ask people and they'll tell you they want more educational programs and documentaries.
But...
Many of the older people I know who lament "all that sex and violence and language" in movies revere "Saving Private Ryan."
Many of those who bash Hollywood for all of the above and have stayed away from it as a result were perfectly willing to endure the blood-filled "The Passion Of the Christ." Many even were able to screen it in their own churches!
And countless soccer moms who rail against all of the above for their children and will bash publications like "Playboy" for beng responsibles for the supposed "glass ceiling" will think nothing of watching soap operas all afternoon, with people f-----g each other both liteally and figuratively on a constant basis.
BTW like what you said about "Saving Private Ryan". I feel the same way about "We Were Soldiers". Have you seen it? If not, get it. I think you'll like it.

Bladestar,
"And Jim, how do you (know) how much of the American population doesn't like D.H. Did you poll all 275 million of them? No."

How do you know? (Kidding)

"So your hypothetical is as full of shit as you are."

Jim, unlike you, obviously knows the meaning of the word HYPOTHETICAL! But then he, and most of the rest of the posters here seem to know the meanings of lots of words that you do, including:
Clue. Courtesy. Respect. Intelligence. Tolerance.
Please, buy a dictionary sometime. It may prove useful.

Craig,
"Still stupid, eh Craigy?"
This thread is a perfect example of why sometimes get concerned when you seem to get more angry, and prone to stereotypes and insults in describing those who disagree with you.
Look who you could become like if you contnue down that path.
I'm only looking out for you, Craig:)

Bladestar: the issue around which liberals and conservatives can at long last agree.

Hey Jerome, what brand of coffee were you drinking this morning? :)

Jerome, ok, I'll give you peanut butter. Schools not offering it because of an uncommon allergy is just plain stupid. almost as stupid as *zero* tolerance programs.

But safety seals on medicine/food isn't about actual impacts. It's about potential impacts, and not really about an insignificant statistical impact. Things like pins and stuff popped up every now and then in food/consumer goods before the Tylonal deaths. But no one died, and it seemed a harmless prank. Then people died, and it wasn't so harmless anymore. Its the unfortunate case where people have to die to expose a weakness in our safety, and for a few pennies per unit, there's a really quick and easy fix...safety seals. The potential impact/risk wasn't just to those handful of people who died, it was to just about everyone.

Censoring public broadcasts because a few hundred people, who seem to have TV sets stuck on channels that offend them, or maybe they just lost their remotes and can't figure out how to manually work the cable box, is not nearly the same thing.

Although it is like peanut butter.

Jerome,
Put the RED BULL down.:)
While i didnt read the article the percentage of hypocrites and delusional people does not surprise me.
Its like a woman i work with who is pro-war but is deathly afraid of the idea of her sons having to go one day.
No i havent seen"WE WERE SOLDIERS" keep meaning to and may try to rent it this weekend.
Yes ,i have a BIG problem with the soap operas too.There are things i have seen on some them that is way beyond some of the "offensive " shows in primetime.
BTW in reference to MNF ,I was surprised Tony Dungy was upset.Yes ,I understand for many the Black men with White women thing is TABOO but ya know i think there are bigger issues to be concerned with ...like why black women make an unusually high percentage of new HIV/AIDS cases.

I'm only looking out for you, Craig:)

I have my bad days, but I don't fill this board with posts that insult just about *everybody* that comes here, regardless of who's side they are on.

I just try and stick to insulting neocons. ;)

Bill Mulligan,
"Bladestar: the issue around which liberals and conservatives can at long last agree."

Almost brings a tear to your eye, doesn't it?:)

"Hey Jerome, what brand of coffee were you drinking this morning?"

Actually, it wasn't coffee (or Red Bull). It was Coca-Cola:)

kingbobb,
"Jerome, ok, I'll give you peanut butter."
(Homer Simpson voice) Mmmmm...peeeanut butter!
No, seriously, thanks. As for the Tylenol example, I agree I could have come up with a better example, but I was waaaay tired:)

Deano,
"It's like a woman I work with who is pro-war but is deathly afraid of her sons having to go one day."

I wouldn't necessarily categorize this as hypocritical. She may support the war. She might even be proud of her sond if they went because she respects their decision and/or thinks the war is just.
But I don't think there is a loving mother in human history who has jumped up and down over the thought of her children going to war.

"No. I haven't seen 'We Were Soldiers' keep meaning to and may try to rent it this weekend."

Please do. It is a different, high-quality Vietnam film. Hey, I didn't steer you wrong when I said you should stay with 'Identity Crisis', did I?

"Yes. I have a big problem with the soap operas too."
I don't have a problem with the PROGRAMMING. I have a problem with feminists who will find everything from the Miss America Pageant to cheerleaders to Hooters as "oppressing" women, and then turn around and excuse shows where EVERYONE lies, cheats, steals and f---s to get ahead as a harmless diversion.

"There are bigger issues to be concerned with...like why black women make an unusually high percentage of new HIV/AIDS cases."

Sadly, you are correct.
As for my original point, it was unfortunately reinforced at our company's Christmas party tonight.
We have an extremely diverse workplace and everyone interacts with each other. Everyone was having a GREAT time. And then during the last song, a fracas broke out.
Seems one of the younger, newer black female employees didn't like that a cute white female was dancing with a black man (who she is pregnant by, by the way). When she tried to provoke her, one of the cute girl's black female friends told her that she "would not be having that."
Thwarted in that, the young black female turned to the cute white girl's blonde friend and started poking her in the face.
All hell broke loose, and the evening ended on a bad note. Just because a young black woman couldn't stand the sight of a black man with a white girl.
The statements by each were telling.
The blonde said: "Black, white, green, I am not letting anybody do that to me."
The young black woman said: "F--k that white bitch!"
Sad, really.

Jerome:
" I didn't steer you wrong when I said you should stay with 'Identity Crisis', did I?"
True,but I dont still dont know who the damn killer(s)is !!
As far as your experience at the office party,your right it is very sad.I have always been attracted to just women in general with no specific race in mind,so I dont get the hatred
at all.

Deano,
ME: "I didn't steer you wrong when I said you should stay with 'Identity Crisis', did I?"
YOU: "True, but I still don't know who the killer is!"

I know. They certainly at the end of issue 6 want to convince us it's a certain major character in the DC Universe, but I sense a HUGE curveball coming.

"As far as your experience at the office party, your right it is very sad."

Yep.

"I have always been atacted to just women in general with no race in mind"

Same here. While there are obviously women am not attracted to, I have founf beauty in women of all colors, shapes and sizes.

"so I don't get the hatred at all."
Me either, although I feel ignorance and the "I'm a victim/my life sucks because of PEOPLE LIKE YOU mentality has something to do with it.

According to Jeff Jarvis, he filed an FOIA request regarding the protests about Fox's "Married by America" special.

Fox was fined $1.2 Million because there were 23 complaints. Twenty-one of those were identical, so Fox was fined that much, essentially, because THREE people thought it was important enough to write letters*.

This disturbs me to no end. Like these protesters, I agree that the series was tasteless and offensive, though my desire to see it gone had MUCH more to do with the fact that it was devoid of entertainment value (and that the popularity of shows like this helped get Firefly cancelled -- I'm still sore about that). However, I tend to protest by voting with my remote (and, occasionally, writing the network to let them know WHY they've lost my viewership), not by protesting to the FCC.

*Copying someone else's letter for such things, even if they willingly provide it, is an act of such laziness that your protest should be ignored. If you want to stage a group protest, at least make it obvious by signing a petition.

URL for the Jeff Jarvis piece I mentioned:

http://www.buzzmachine.com/archives/2004_11_15.html#008481