|
Gifts for all occasions in the Galleria! Subscribe to the "What is the Deal?" mailing list. March 14, 2004 What is the Deal with the FCC? By Jan A. Larson  Last week
the House passed a bill that authorizes the Federal Communications
Commission (FCC) to levy fines of up to $500,000 against broadcasters
for airing indecent content. The bill passed by an overwhelming
391 to 22 margin.The bill does not change the definitions of obscenity, but significantly increases the amount of money that broadcasters may be forced to pay for violations. In addition, the bill provides for fines against the individual performers, not just their employers, and that has many "shock jocks" around the country running scared. Opponents insist this measure is an attack on the First Amendment guarantee of free speech. The guarantee of free speech does not apply to the public airwaves. Each broadcaster is granted a license to use a portion of the electromagnetic spectrum. The FCC is the regulator of those airwaves, responsible to Congress and has the authority to establish standards for use. The standards of use have never been definitively established. Other than George Carlin's "seven dirty words," the restrictions have been vaguely defined, consistent with judicial rulings, to prohibit "obscene" and "indecent" material. Of course everyone has a different definition of obscene and indecent. Those differences have been exploited by morning radio shock jocks to push the envelope of acceptability. With modest penalties, there was a greater incentive to attract an audience than to avoid fines. Ironically, it was an FCC ruling in favor of singer Bono's use of the "f-word" during the Golden Globe awards and the well-publicized Super Bowl halftime show fiasco that finally pushed many Americans to put their collective feet down and say enough is enough. Congress is all too willing to cater to this sentiment during an election year. A morning radio personality in this area has been complaining that if the bill is passed into law, he will likely lose his livelihood. Howard Stern, the godfather of shock jocks, has indicated this bill will force him into retirement. Others have expressed similar views. My question is why simply cleaning up the airwaves will cost anyone his job? Are these people so deficient of talent that they cannot be entertaining without using gutter language and sexual innuendo? Some may very well be talent-challenged while others may be able to adapt, but that isn't the point. It is obvious from the long, successful career of Howard Stern that a certain segment, not an insignificant segment, of the population wants to listen to over-the-top, edgy programming. Some would argue that after a couple of decades of such programming, the edge is mostly gone. The audience for shocking material only finds the material shocking if it is not commonplace and obviously, there comes a point at which people are not shocked much anymore. Be that as it may, I don't think it is the business of those in Congress, sitting on their collective high horses in an election year, to decide what Americans can and cannot choose to consume on the airwaves. The problem is really not the content per se, but rather the context in which that content is delivered. No one turned on the Golden Globe awards to hear four letter words and no one watching the Super Bowl halftime show expected a striptease. On the other hand, no one should expect a radio version of Sesame Street when tuning in to Howard Stern. Instead of effectively eliminating programming that a segment of the public wishes to consume, a better solution would be to put ratings on shows and only impose fines when and if the content is not consistent with the rating. In other words, if Howard Stern and other radio shock jocks want to carry R-rated programming, just have them indicate as such during station identification breaks. The NFL would likely decide that the Super Bowl halftime show be a G-rated presentation and the Golden Globes could be whatever the people that run the Golden Globes want it to be. Let the marketplace, not Congress, decide the types of programming Americans can consume. Personally, when it comes to morning shock jock radio, I can take it or leave it. The show I listen to in the morning is relatively tame, although there are times when I cringe at some of the language and subject matter. However, the solution to that problem is just one pushbutton away. No matter how it is spun by the lawmakers or the media, the House bill does effectively implement a degree of censorship. It is forcing the Howard Sterns of our country out of business, a business that they have had the right to conduct for many years. Congress cannot legislate a sanitized society, but it seems that is where we're heading. In an effort to "protect" Americans from themselves, this bill takes another cut at the freedoms of all Americans. The real question is, how many members of Congress listen to Howard Stern during their morning limo ride to Capitol Hill? -- Send feedback to the author. The "What is the Deal?" column will appears weekly on the Pie of Knowledge website. Guest submissions are welcome and encouraged. To submit an article to "What is the Deal?" click here. To subscribe to the "What is the Deal?" mailing list and receive early notification when a new column is available, click here. The Pie of Knowledge will never, ever divulge email addresses to any third party for any reason unless so ordered by a court of law. Contributions to the Pie of Knowledge are greatly appreciated. 
Visitors:
|
|||||||||||||
