OK, everyone knows about the Seven Words You Can’t Say On (Network) TV. Everyone also knows about the Wardrobe Malfunction and the Damage Done. I don’t need to get into the FCC and the cabals pulling its strings here.
The aforementioned cultural regulators are why networks have Standards and Practices (S&P). S&P is the blue-stockinged Mrs. Grundy at all of the major networks, making sure fines don’t eat the profits and backlash doesn’t kill the ratings. As I understand it, though, S&P is focused on the network’s own content, demanding rewrites from people more-or-less directly connected with the network and the real shows it airs.
Advertisers are the network’s customers (viewers are the network’s product), however, and I have a hard time seeing a network imposing the full wrath of S&P on the people who pay the bills. It seems it would lead to the kind of strains that always happen when a streetwalker gets religion. On the other hand, wouldn’t the FCC hold the network responsible for broadcasting unsuitable advertising? Or would the FCC fine the advertiser instead?
Your premise is wrong. Advertising is subject to much more stringent regulations by network S&P than shows are. The feeling is that people are more easily offended by ads trying to sell them stuff than by entertainment shows. All commercials have to pass muster.
The FCC, BTW, contrary to popular belief, has no control over networks or their programming. It regulates individual stations. In practice, this amounts to the same thing as each network owns outright a number of very valuable stations and doesn’t want any of their 200 or so affiliates to get mad at them.
Networks will screen ads and decide whether or not to air them. That Drink Responsibly disclaimer you see on beer and liquor ads? That’s because most of the networks won’t air the ad without it. We sent one commercial back to a client three different times because they would not or could not edit it the way we needed them to according to our standards and practices. (They finally did, but the start of their flight was delayed by six weeks.)
Networks are not held liable for any misleading claims made by an advertiser. That’s why you see all these cheesy ads for crappy products that you order with an 800 number.
The broadcaster is the one who has the FCC license and is ultimately responsible. It is their obligation to ensure that people they give access to the airways (such as commercial advertisers) meet the demands of that license.
There’s also a good deal of self-censorship. Advertisers don’t want ads on the air that might anger potential customers.
Another issue is that advertising isn’t protected speech. You can’t claim first amendment rights on an ad, so there’s no basis to argue with the network.
False or misleading claims could get the advertiser in trouble with the FTC (Federal Trade Commission). Usually these are pretty low priority, though, and it would take some egregious and dangerous claim for them to take action. And by the time the bureaucratic machinery gets into gear the ad is usually gone anyway.
I dimly remember a candidate in a long-ago election who wanted to run only so he could run anti-abortion commercials as part of his campaign. His argument was that it is forbidden for the networks to censor political ads. Can anyone (ivylass, sounds like you’re in the business) verify if that’s true?
I found this short PDF on the subject, http://www.dwt.com/practc/broadcast/bulletins/12-07_PoliticalBroadcasting(Guide).pdf that says “The no censorship rules apply only to ads by candidates and their authorized campaign committees.”, but it does not cite the statute.