More fallout from the half-time fall out.

[Skywatcher]

Now PBS is feeling the heat!

Christian Science Monitor
SAN DIEGO - A day before his documentary about a gritty Puerto Rican poet aired across the country, director Jonathan Robinson received a courtesy call with some bad news: His film would be sanitized for PBS’s protection.

Network officials had decided to audibly bleep at least a dozen expletives in the April 6 broadcast of “Every Child Is a Poet: The Life & Work of Piri Thomas.” Suddenly, parts of Mr. Robinson’s serious drama sounded like a toddler playing with a touch-tone phone.

To Robinson, the transformation of his documentary is an ironic twist. Mr. Thomas’s books, including the well-known “Down These Mean Streets,” had been censored three decades ago for crude language. “It was like history repeating itself all over again,” the director said.

Since Janet Jackson’s revealing Super Bowl halftime show, The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has been clamping down on any broadcast material that could be considered offensive. From talk-radio to “Masterpiece Theatre,” broadcasters are watching their backs as the FCC hammers out rules and regulations and Congress considers boosting maximum individual fines to $500,000.

For commercial television, which rakes in millions of dollars in ad sales, fines would almost be a slap on the wrist. For some public broadcasters who spend a significant amount of money on fundraising alone, however, one fine could be enough to pull the plug for good. As a result, public broadcasters nationwide are reluctantly entering a new era of self-censorship.

“Many public television stations and public radio stations have chosen to be much more conservative than they would have been in the past,” says Margaret Miller, a Washington attorney who represents public broadcasters.

Most programming on public stations, of course, is as innocuous as “Sesame Street.” But language often becomes explicit during TV documentaries and edgy radio shows. Bawdy British comedies, a staple on public television, are now being considered “problematic.”

Explicit language is being routinely exorcised from documentaries, news reports, and respected shows like “Masterpiece Theatre.” Last week, actor Richard Dreyfuss bitterly complained to a meeting of TV critics that vulgar words will be bleeped from a PBS drama, “Top Cop,” that will star him in the fall.

But station officials say they simply can’t afford the risk of a protracted court case or huge obscenity fine.

In San Diego, for example, TV station KPBS edited out obscenities from “The Cotton Club,” a respected 1984 film by Francis Ford Coppola. “I know that doesn’t sound very courageous,” says station manager Doug Myrland, “but I have to think about our members’ money.”

This year, PBS bleeped expletives in the highly acclaimed British crime drama “Prime Suspect,” and the San Diego station is carefully reconsidering its Saturday-night lineup of British sitcoms.

"They thrive on double entendre, and we’re saying, ‘Do we have to do something with those?’ " Mr. Myrland asks. "We’re worried that we’re maybe on thin ice.’

To make thing more challenging, the FCC’s recent decision to fine NBC over rocker Bono’s utterance of a cuss during the Golden Globes suggests that officials are casting a wide net. PBS has since asked the FCC for clarification of the rules.

Yet even if public broadcasters comply with FCC standards, they still risk being hauled into court by the creators of the content. “It can be very sticky,” says Ms. Miller, the attorney. “The copyright holder, the person who has put their creative energy into a particular work, has rights.”

The prospect of a lawsuit didn’t escape the attention of documentary producer Robinson, who considered legal action. He ultimately decided not to sue, but still winces over the dramatization of a racially charged argument between the teenaged poet and his brother being drowned out by digital chirps.

This is getting pretty fucking ridiculous! However, I should note that some stations are standing up to the FCC.

There are exceptions, however, to the new age of old taboos in public broadcasting. In Berkeley, Calif., KPFA-FM, the flagship of the left-leaning Pacifica Radio network, hasn’t given in to pressure. A few weeks ago, the station offered a disclaimer before reporting on the now-famous four-letter word Vice President Dick Cheney used on the Senate floor.

And last month, station officials didn’t think twice before airing a reading of the epic work “Ulysses” in conjunction with the 100th anniversary of the events depicted in the boldly explicit Irish novel, which was itself censored in the US in 1920.

“We weren’t going to censor it even if we had to,” says KPFA’s Susan Stone. “We’re certainly going to go to bat for James Joyce.”

Good for them.

[Liberal]

Why not eliminate the FCC, and allow parents to decide what they want their children to see and hear?

[Tinkertoy]

Well I guess we can Mrs. Slocum’s **pussy ** goodbye.

[Skywatcher]

No, no, can’t have that. People need Big Brother to tell them what to think and feel.

Besides, it makes too much sense.

[Skywatcher]

Drat! I was responding to Lib (tongue-in-cheek) of course.

[asterion]

@Liberal

Why not eliminate the FCC, and allow parents to decide what they want their children to see and hear?

Well, I’m all for removing any fining ability the FCC has on content (and not giving that power to any other organization) but I think we still need the FCC for the importance of controlling the EM spectrum, even though I don’t agree with some of their latest decisions.

[Metacom]

@Jeff Olsen quoting Christian Science Monitor

From talk-radio to “Masterpiece Theatre,” broadcasters are watching their backs as the FCC hammers out rules and regulations and Congress considers boosting maximum individual fines to $500,000.

If congress raises the fine to $500k, then the maximum fine for broadcasting foul language will exceed the maximum fine for workplace safety violations (including those that cause a death) by over a factor of 7.

:rolleyes:

[dropzone]

They’ve been pixelating boobs on WTTW. BOOBS! The very lifeblood of PBS since I, Claudius! And they weren’t even Masterpiece Theater arty boobs, they were DOCUMENTARY boobs!

I’m sickened.

[Metacom]

@Metacom

If congress raises the fine to $500k, then the maximum fine for broadcasting foul language will exceed the maximum fine for workplace safety violations (including those that cause a death) by over a factor of 7.

:rolleyes:

DOH!

My bad–I was looking at out-of-date information. The OSHA fine has been raised. Now, the maximum fine for causing the death of a worker would be equal to the proposed fine for broadcasting foul language.

[Liberal]

@asterion

Well, I’m all for removing any fining ability the FCC has on content (and not giving that power to any other organization) but I think we still need the FCC for the importance of controlling the EM spectrum, even though I don’t agree with some of their latest decisions.

I don’t see why you and I cannot do the same job as stockholders that we do as electors. Do you?

[Liberal]

Come to think of it, we don’t even get to elect the FCC.

[Metacom]

@Liberal

I don’t see why you and I cannot do the same job as stockholders that we do as electors. Do you?

Uh, yeah. Because any company that was capable of doing the FCC’s job with regard to regulating the spectrum, emissions, etc. would necessarily have to be vested with some kind of power beyond what a normal corporation would have–otherwise, how would it make money?

“Hi, we’re the Federal Communications Corporation. Please voluntarily give us dues of $50,000 a year, and we’ll really nicely ask the other companies to please not broadcast on that frequency!”

[Never_to_be_Queen]

IIRC, they didn’t bleep out every swear word or crude word in “Every Child Is a Poet: The Life & Work of Piri Thomas.” There was a warning before the program saying it contained adult language.

Tinkertoy, I thought the exact same thing when I read the part about British comedies.

[Liberal]

@Metacom

Uh, yeah. Because any company that was capable of doing the FCC’s job with regard to regulating the spectrum, emissions, etc. would necessarily have to be vested with some kind of power beyond what a normal corporation would have–otherwise, how would it make money?

“Hi, we’re the Federal Communications Corporation. Please voluntarily give us dues of $50,000 a year, and we’ll really nicely ask the other companies to please not broadcast on that frequency!”

It would make money like any other company does. It would sell a product that it owns. It’s no different than what the FCC does, except that the company would respond to general market demand while the FCC responds to whatever political powers hold office.

[Cisco]

I just want to take a quick moment to say fuck you to Senator John McCain (R-AZ) for voting for this bill.

My brother and I both took the time to sit down and write him nice, well thought-out letters stating our concerns over the bill (before the vote) and asking him to please address those concerns. He replied to my brother with a form letter that basically said “Don’t worry! I’m voting for the broadcast indecency act!”, indicating that he didn’t even read the letter, and he never replied to me.

[Dead_Badger]

@Liberal

It would make money like any other company does. It would sell a product that it owns. It’s no different than what the FCC does, except that the company would respond to general market demand while the FCC responds to whatever political powers hold office.

But RF spectrum isn’t a “product”, nor is it tangible property, and nor does it obviously belong to anyone, absent some sort of government mandate on behalf of the people. Who would decide what lucky company gets to “own” it? Are you proposing a free-for-all, or are you saying that the government should auction off blocks and then let people do what they want with it? I can see the latter as workable, but not the former.

That said, one of the notable successes in telecoms recently has been the result of the FCC setting aside a couple of bands as unregulated for low-powered devices, on the understanding that anyone using it must just deal with the interference. A few years of techie tinkering, and presto, WiFi!

[Revtim]

It’d be nice if they had to demonstrate harm before cracking down on this stuff that as far as I know hadn’t warped any minds in last few decades. And I do not consider some prude being shocked by a brief glance of nipple as “harm”.

[Liberal]

@Dead Badger

But RF spectrum isn’t a “product”, nor is it tangible property, and nor does it obviously belong to anyone, absent some sort of government mandate on behalf of the people. Who would decide what lucky company gets to “own” it? Are you proposing a free-for-all, or are you saying that the government should auction off blocks and then let people do what they want with it? I can see the latter as workable, but not the former.

That said, one of the notable successes in telecoms recently has been the result of the FCC setting aside a couple of bands as unregulated for low-powered devices, on the understanding that anyone using it must just deal with the interference. A few years of techie tinkering, and presto, WiFi!

Yes, at this point, it would have to be auctioned off. And, of course, the fact that some bands were auctioned does show that it is indeed a product. Not all property is tangible. Your mind — your consent — ethically belongs to you, but it is not tangible. The success you describe is not surprising. In general, entities that are structured to respond quickly to public demand, who are in competition for satisfying that demand, and who are free to do so so long as their dealings are peaceful and honest will rise to the occasion, motivated by the profits they can earn. There is no reason to believe that politicians can solve technical problems any better than entrepreneurs.

[Excalibre]

@Liberal

Yes, at this point, it would have to be auctioned off. And, of course, the fact that some bands were auctioned does show that it is indeed a product. Not all property is tangible. Your mind — your consent — ethically belongs to you, but it is not tangible. The success you describe is not surprising. In general, entities that are structured to respond quickly to public demand, who are in competition for satisfying that demand, and who are free to do so so long as their dealings are peaceful and honest will rise to the occasion, motivated by the profits they can earn. There is no reason to believe that politicians can solve technical problems any better than entrepreneurs.

There are various, and potentially reasonable, schemes for doing this. But it doesn’t matter - an equitable way of dividing up the spectrum will and must be developed, because the FCC needs to be dissolved. Now. It’s an unelected body which has taken it upon itself to censor our broadcast media, and it’s already having terrible effects on the arts.

A society can’t survive if free exchange of ideas is halted, and the FCC and Congress have basically declined to regulate the industry anyway. Now, not being a libertarian, I think some regulation is necessary to prevent the development of ever-larger media conglomerates. But the idea of regulating content in this way is just utterly untenable in a democracy; this is a real example of a governmental assault on our freedoms. People may feel the urge to be ‘protected’ from these things, but the victors will be the government and the busybodies who aren’t worried about their own kids but about other people’s kids. Anyone can unplug their own TV, or set the v-chip to block everything without a parental password. This is an effort by moralists and morally-degenerate politicians to take away some of our most precious freedoms.

The FCC has to be stopped, and a country in which the RF spectrum is allocated to large businesses whose content is government-regulated is far worse-off than one with an anarchy of radio signals.

[Metacom]

@Liberal

It would make money like any other company does. It would sell a product that it owns. It’s no different than what the FCC does, except that the company would respond to general market demand while the FCC responds to whatever political powers hold office.

So you’d like to give a corporation a government-enforced monopoly on the EM spectrum? You don’t think there will be any problems with that?