Slashdot Mirror
Lone Activist Group Submits 99.8% of FCC Complaints
andywebz writes "Mediaweek is reporting that complaints to the FCC are rising. Powell spoke before congress, detailing that the complaints are up from 14,000 in 2002, to nearly 240,000 in 2003. There were only 350 complaints during 2000 and 2001. Powell failed to mention however that 99.8% of those complaints came from PTC (Parents Television Council). The article does mention he may have been unaware of this fact. Jonathan Rintels (president of the Center for Creative Voices in Media) commented, 'It means that really a tiny minority with a very focused political agenda is trying to censor American television and radio.'"
Alright, I'm going to write a letter to the FCC demanding that they keep doing things just the way they have been, smut-filled and all. Who's with me?!
The pain was excruciating and the scarring is likely permanent, but that just means it's working.
It would be nice for the FCC to define what is indecent..
It really blows that 100 people can RUIN what millions watch...
"It's not like your minds are as open as the source you love..." - Me to the majority of Slashdot.
a link to the eponymous Parents Television Council. (Click several times! It's fun!)
I love their motto - "because our children are watching". Paternalism at its finest - television viewers must be treated as children!
(Luckily we can't air, for instance, photographs of caskets of US troops - but that's because voters, not children, are watching.)
I certainly hope these nice fellows will submit an FCC complaint if any television network tries to air "The Passion of the Christ". So much sadomasochism! So little time!
We recently had heard in the office over one of the Yellow Machine that's made by Anthology Solutions.
I don't see the problem with censoring your own TV for your family, but censoring everyone else's just because you don't like what is on it? Is that acceptable?
Chris
aterr - an open source threaded discussion board.
Why not just grow a spine and keep your brat kids from watching inappropriate material?
How many other people here get the feeling that powell is not qualified for his position. Of all the times I have heard this man talk he has never been able to give a sufficient answer to the true nature of the problem with cencorship. I dont know about you but before I address congress I woudl make it my busines to know everything about the statistics I am about to present. Think about it. you have a exponential growth in complaints aren't you even curious about what group be it age range geographic area, etc that this is coming from. Especially with the US culture being as diverse as it is. I just can't help but think he is totally inept every time I see him.
The FCC defines indecency by saying that anything the general public would regard as indecent, is indecent. Therefore, if the FCC sees 10 million complaints about one particular thing, they must assume that that the general public sees that one thing as indecent, because such a large segment of the general public is complaining about it.
This sort of activism skews the standards the FCC uses to judge content, and makes the general public appear much more prudish, to the FCC, than they really are.
They ought to charge them the administrative costs for investigating and processing each of these claims if they are found to be baseless. That should slow them down a bit.
But the problem is they don't HAVE to get the FCC to do anything in order to be successful. If they complain to the FCC enough, a company may just voluntarily pull content because it wants to avoid another Howard Stern-esque debacle(in terms of both the fine and the PR problems). The squeaky wheel gets the grease it seems.....
Monstar L
Rather than allowing you to retain responsibility for your own viewing habits, these people are slowly making the decisions for you.
To the PTC I say:
"If something offends, change the channel.
"If it is unsuitable for your children, change the channel.
"If you think that it might offend me, it is not your right to infringe upon mine."
The decision to watch or not watch should be left up to the audience, not determined by a 'morally questionable' group, and filtered for the safety of an unintended audience.
By morally questionable, I am not suggesting that there is anything wrong with the PTC or it's members. However, having never met them, I cannot vouch for their ability to judge what should or should not be censored. Anyone who stands before me to tell me what my choices are allowed to be is questionable in this fashion.
I was just discussing the whole "censorship of mass media" issue with a co-worker yesterday.
I feel like we're witnessing a rebellion of sorts, where TV show hosts and producers, musicians, artists, and the like are all making concerted efforts to push the boundaries of what's "decent" in broadcasting.
Whether or not this prompts niche groups with agendas to file thousands of complaints, it sends out a signal that producers of media are tired of trying to comply with FCC regulations that haven't changed with the times.
For starters, I think the current generation, as a whole, is simply not as offended by or adverse to swearing/curse words. Many of us in the "20-something and 30-something" age groups and below have decided that "words are just words" and curse words are only as "bad" as the attention we choose to artifically draw to them.
Last time I listened to a modern rock music station, for example, I was surprised to hear words edited out of at least 5 songs within an hour or two's time. In at least 3 or 4 of these cases, I had never even noticed the singer was singing a "curse word" before, except they made it obvious by chopping it out of the middle of the music.
When your listening audience is perfectly fine with a singer saying the "F word" in the middle of a song, then why should the FCC prohibit it on the radio? As always, those who don't care for it can change the station or simply listen to their own music, instead of what's served up on the radio.
I'm of the opinion that federal regulation of the media is basically unnecessary and "un-American" when you get right down to it. The people who want "clean TV" for their kids or for themselves are a large demographic, so the free market will cater to them either way. (Why do you think we have 2 Disney Channels on cable/satellite, Nickelodeon and "Nick for Kids", etc. etc.?) If the local stations keep airing things that offend big segments of their viewers, they're the ones who will lose advertising revenue eventually....
But since my rather Libertarian views are in the vast minority, I'm sure we're going to be stuck with the FCC dictating what we can/can't see on TV or hear on the radio during certain hours... That's why I'd still say, ok - fine them for obvious stunts like the Janet Jackson/Superbowl fiasco. (That sort of thing is done knowing full-well there will be punishment for it later... But sometimes people just want the "negative publicity" enough to do it anyway.) But at the very least, reconsider the "1950-esque" standards for "decency" on the radio.
These people just got the president re-elected. They have more power today then they have ever had. Not only does the president agree with them pretty much 100% he is indebted to them for his election.
Expect the PTC and the rest of the Christian fundemantilist movement to push and get through most of their agenda in the next four years.
evil is as evil does
Indeed. I think we should all send complaints to the FCC that there's not enough profanity, violence and sexual content on television. If we encourage more and more offensive content on television, especially in the after-school hours, eventually, more and more parents will simply get rid of the television, forcing their children to get off their (grossly obeses) asses and go outside and socialize with other children, or maybe even, gasp, read. Imagine a world where children are active in their play, well socialized with other children, and read regularly.
So, in the end, more sex and violence is definitely for the children.
Be amusing if the FCC got a few hundred thousand letters telling them that.
This is exactly where the problem of non-enforcement has brought us. Because Oprah gets away with it, Stern thinks he can do it too. However, in reality Oprah was just not caught because none of the complainers were looking at her show, and had somebody complained the stations airing her show would have gotten fined.
That does raise the question of why a whole bunch of upstanding Christians were listening to Howard Stern. I mean, come on, are you really telling me that the people that are getting offended by Stern are otherwise usual Stern listeners? It's like that other group lobbying radio stations not to play Skinny Puppy or else they'll boycott the station... because as we all know the impact of the hordes of fundamentalist christian right wing nutjobs that actually listen to any radio station ever that plays Skinny Puppy is enourmous. These people are deliberately going out looking for trouble and looking to be offended. That's the reason that people that make their name off shock tactics (Stern etc.) are getting targetted, but people doing equally graphics things that aren't known for it (Oprah) get away with it. It's all just silly.
Jedidiah.
Craft Beer Programming T-shirts
'It means that really a tiny minority with a very focused political agenda is trying to censor American television and radio.'
What's not clear is exactally what effect these complaints are having, and what are they complaining about. First of all, have these complaints actually affected what gets aired in any significant way?
Do I care if...
Perhaps before we start bitching about censorship we start thinking a bit about what censorship is. People seem to think that eliminating Swearing and Sex on the radio is some sort of terrible crime but it is really meaningless. When you look at the bigger issues.
-- DennisSeems to me that shutting down the PTC would be censorship too. The PTC has every right to complain to the FCC if that is what they want to do. This is political free speech, constitutionally guaranteed and all. Other's have equal right to lobby FCC for the opposing view.
The government does not have the right to squash political speech. Desparate Housewives is not political speech. It is not a constitutionally guaranteed right to broadcast this over the public airwaves. And government (acting on behalf of the public) does have the right to regulate what appears on such a public medium.
This regulation does not include the right to suppress political speech. However, suppressing speach is not the same denying the priviledge of airing snuff-videos (to use an extreme example).
You lobby the FCC to express your view where they should draw the line. This form of free speach is protected, and as far as I know unlikely to be changed by either the PTC or the ACLU.
You don't like FCC guidelines, lobby for you viewpoint. Tell them you want Desparate Housewives, tell them you want snuff films and pornography. It's your right to speak out that that is protected. As is the PTC's right for the same.
Exactly and now look at the rising crime mad sexual deviance rates in Cana... wait a second....
When a show airs, explicit ratings show up in the corner that tell you the intended audience and objectionable content. This makes shows being billed as "family entertainment" when they have objectinable material a non-issue; you are made totally aware of what is included. You do not merely have to "change the channel." Turn off the television entirely. Watch a movie with your children, or go for a walk.
You are addressing two separate issues here. You take issue with shows being full of objectionable content, and the lack of "intellectually stimulating" shows on television. These issues do NOT go hand-in-hand. Shows like 7th Heaven, which are wholesome and do not contain objectionable content, can be (and often are) poorly written, with unrealistic characters and repetitive plots. Likewise, many people find shows with objectionable content, such as CSI, to be intellectually stimulating. While I understand that some shows on the Fox channel are absolutely mindless AND cross decency lines, it's incorrect to lump the two together and claim the PTC is supporting "intellectually stimulating" programming.
Go read the First Amendment again. It says "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech." It is absolute in its prohibition and unlimited in the types of speech it protects. Now, the Court has not always been so generous in its interpretation of that Amendment, but it has consistently stated that more than simply political speech is protected.
There was Cowboy Neal at the wheel of a bus to never-ever land.
For the record, I am a moral conservative, and a strongly religious man. However, I RESENT that other groups are trying to do my job. I don't need somone to censor the internet and filter my TV for me. How can I teach my children the importance of making choices if the choices are already made? If all that's available is G-rated pablum, where is the victory of a choice well made? Life is about choices, and I would like to able to use the low-risk, limited consequence items like TV, internet and music to teach good decision-making skills.
I'm also trying to teach my children something about personal responsibility, moral courage, and tolerance for others. Religious nuts throughout history have tried to enforce their particular morals on the remainder of humanity, usually with tragic consequences. I would like my children to realize that, while we don't want sexually-explicit shows, we don't have any moral imperitive to force others to conform to our standards.
So, for the children, please quit doing my job. Fill the airwaves with every variety of material, leave the internet alone. I will teach my children, and if I will teach them to choose the good, and ignore that which does not enlighten. I am, after all, a parent.
As an outsider who has only visited the US a couple of times, it always seemed to me that the attitude, opinion, rules, what you can and can't do on tv, did not reflect the people I talked to.
I mean, if someone said or did something on TV, the reaction would be "they can do that on TV?", rather than being truly offended. It seemed to me that the rules and culture on TV and what was acceptable or normal, were very different from the real world.
When will the American public wake up and realize that they have a choice? You have a choice in everything you do: wake up, go to work, eat, listen to whatever music you want to, and in regard to this article, you can watch whatever you want to.
Along the same lines, you have the choice of controlling the TV. But please understand this: There are Family channels, religious channels, porn channels, movie channels, music channels, news channels, food channels, etc, etc, etc. for all the people out there in the whole wide world. But, *you* have the choice of watching these channels. If you dont like what is on, then please change it, because someone somewhere might like it. I myself would rather have my children watch smut than violence.
Along with this, this means that you will have to actually pay attention to what your family and/or children are watching. If you dont agree with something or dont like a show, then please change the channel.
I am not pro- or anti-smut/violence/profanity/religion; i am pro-choice. take that away, and you take away Freedom.
I am done. :) Please flame away.
Actually, though I don't watch most of those shows (on either list :-), after scanning through it it *seems* that the only show on the "bad" list with gay characters was Will and Grace. And Southpark wasn't mentioned because it's not on network television. All of the shows they list are. If they went to cable, they would have put the Sopranos on the list, for sure.
:-)
Note, I'm not disputing the extreme christian slant of their list, just not for two out of the three reasons you mentioned
Censorship is telling a man he can't have a steak just because a baby can't chew it. -Mark Twain
It's rare that you're presented with a knob whose only two positions are Make History and Flee Your Glorious Destiny.
I just sent the following email to PTC, from the link on their website:
i cle_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000731656] brought your group to my attention. I would like to take this opportunity to do something you seem to have taken on for yourself: Speak for Americans everywhere. It disgusts me that you would attempt to skew the number of complaints filed with the FCC to further your own views, and to attempt to regulate television as you see fit.
"To the Parents Television Council,
Please go away. Disband, disperse, diffuse, disappear, dissolve, disengage, break up, cease all activities, halt all programs, and leave.
The recent article in Mediaweek [http://www.mediaweek.com/mediaweek/headlines/art
Your spokeswoman Lara Mahaney asked, "Why does it matter how the complaints come?" I sincerely hope she was not the best you could do for your public image, because that would indicate your group is not only misguided, but headed by fools. It matters because the complaints filed with the FCC are supposed to represent all Americans, and what they consider indecent. It is not your responsibility to speak for those of us who are satisfied with television the way it is. Even were we not satisfied, we did not ask you to speak for us, and would prefer you stayed silent.
I find the entire premise of your group offensive. No child is required to watch television. On the contrary, children only watch television with the permission of their parents. Indeed, no parent is even required to own a television. The argument that parents cannot monitor their children, and so America "needs" you to do so for them, is ridiculous. When I was a child my parents regulated the shows I watched, the movies I went to, the amount of computer use I was allowed, the videogames I played, and helped me to foster a sense of *self* regulation. I am a fine, upstanding citizen today because instead of relying on groups like yours my parents did their job: They parented me.
Go away. You are not wanted here.
-Jared Kling"
What really chaps my ass are the things which ARE NOT being broadcast into my home. You don't hear about the media conglomerate bills going through congress, limiting national viewership to under 44%, because it would hinder Time-Warner's profit margin. You don't hear about all the Mexicans crossing the border, because it would offend the "Latino" population. You don't hear about anything "good" that's being done in Iraq, because it's not as popular as the more sensational news.
Instead of all the women being raped in Darfur, I'm supposed to be concerned about explaining breasts and mammary glands to my 4 year old. Instead of hearing about the Columbian FARC and the cartels, using "mules" (sometimes, tragically unsucessfully) to move cocaine across the border, I'm supposed to be worried about a naked woman jumping into the arms of a football player. I'm supposed to be offended that Howard Stern coaxes New York women into the studio, to willingly strip bare and be oogled and groped.
I've had more trouble explaining the brainwashed Muslims and the entire hierarchy of aggression and blood-letting over the past 1300 years, than I have sexuality in ANY form. Sexuality, in my house, is a topic discussed over dinner. Shooting women in the back of the head, in a soccer arena at "halftime", is something that DOES NOT make the dinner table.
Wow. Talk about misplaced priorities. The problem with the mainstream media is they do not report anything which isn't popular. Years ago, when people struggled to put print-blocks together and used inked hand-rollers to make 1000 copies, it had a specific purpose. To bring about change. To make people aware of all kinds of issues, however popular or un-popular they might be. It wasn't about the bottom line of the company, it was about the social benefit of decent laws and regulations governing daily life.
This entire country needs an enema.
As it says on the PTC's web site, it's the parents' responsibility to decide what children are able to watch. It then goes on to say that all of the sex, violence, etc is having a negative effect on children. So, it sounds like what they are really saying is that parents aren't effective in their responsiblity.
Why should TV stations change their programming because parents aren't effective? Stupid! What's next? "My skin got burned from being out in the sun too long. Let's eliminate the sun..."
I noticed that the PTC has a "File a Complaint" Link on their web page. Could some/most/all of the complaints filed by the PTC really be from people who just filled out their form rather than find the real thing? Just speculating.
Context is everything.
If only it was as pure as you make it out to be. As you can see by the transcript below it's not about context. The things they were talking about are just as titillating as what goes on on Sterns show. It's not about context, it's about viewership and perception.
It's OK for Oprah to talk about it because she's perceived as a caring, loving black woman who gives out free cars. Her viewership is mostly middle aged suburban white woman who think of her as some kind of saint. Titillating lesbianism among hot teenage girls? Oh no, not on Oprah! It's uh.. educational! These damn kids and their hot hot descriptions of rampant sex!
It's NOT ok for Stern to talk about it because he's perceived as a perverted white guy. His listeners are young men.. crass bastards.
I guess you can call all of that context, but it's a LOT more twisted kind of context than you're making it out to be.
I'm sick of this stupid crap about "indecency". The whole thing is just a fight about the so called "culture war". The christian right doesn't want anyone exposed to things they don't like because they believe it'll turn everyone evil. They cloak the whole thing in a "protect our children" wrapping because a lot of people seem to lose their brains at any mention of the world children.
Hell, I'm offended by most of reality TV and I think its rotting peoples brains and beliefs. I don't however think the solution is banning it from the airwaves. Unfortunately the moral crusaders of the Christian right think they're the only ones with a moral system, (or at least the only possible "correct" moral system) and wish to enforce it on everyone else.
AccountKiller
My definition of decency is probably different from yours. For instance, I believe "decency" means respect for your fellow person; saying "fuck" is not indecent unless it is used disrespectfully. So, "Oh, my fucking Christ with a pogostick!" is not indecent, but "Fuck off, tard!" is, unless the person being talked to *is* a tard, and has been doing something for which he/she should fuck off.
And there is *nothing* indecent about the naked human body. Even gross lookin' folks are not indecent when naked; they are merely gross lookin'.
There seems to be a movement within the US towards some strange version of "decency" that does *not* include the way we treat our fellow person, but has *everything* to do with enforcing a certain religious viewpoint. This is not decency. In fact, the act itself is indecent, as it disrespects other people deserving of respect.
So you might imagine I don't want people deciding for me what is decent or indecent. Our viewpoints are different. I don't believe all viewpoints are equal: I believe I am right. So do the folks who want to censor everything. They believe *they* are right, I mean.
Where was I going with this?
Oh, yeah. Decency is in how we treat our fellow man, not whether Janet's breast was bared. In this, my reading of the Bible tells me even Christ agrees with me. Not that I believe in God, let alone the sacredness of Christ.
After all, I'm just an atheist, and so have no sense of morality.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
Charmed
"The show's sexual content mainly consists of sexual innuendo and implied intercourse (much of it non-marital)." - "Women witches and demons in the show often wear scant clothing, resulting in an unsettling mixture of sex and violence." - "ass" is common, as are "suck" and "bitch," and euphemisms for "f--k."
Or, I had a laugh at some comments for Everybody Loves Raymond: "Language on this series, used to be harsh, but since the first of 2004, has dropped to a record low number of just 8 uses of mild "hell," "crap," and "damn" in 6 episodes. Sexual references have been non-existent since January 2004."
Reading through other show "reviews", it sounds like these people have problems with entire plot, not so much the content. How do you make a Sex in the City that's acceptable to them, or a CSI without any graphic scenes? They also mentioned they have a problem with the occult theme in Charmed, but I can assure you they would have no issue with the Christian theme in 7th Heaven (technically both are just a religion, and probably just as offensive to members of the opposing group.
I think television has been going into the crapper for years. I rented 'Blues Brothers'. I had seen it as a kid, and remember the R rating... watched it, and decided it might have gotten a PG rating today.
Gradually, TV and movies have devolved into very little content, but a lot of sex and violence.
I got rid of TV altogether about four years ago. It was one of the best decisions I have ever made. Now, when I see TV at a friend's house, I think to myself: "Who in the world would watch this trash?"
But of course, we must pander to the mindless majority. If someone speaks up, he/she is just an old prude who wants to stop everyone else's fun. I am not a member of the PTC, but I support their right to do this.
And you are free, of course, to use your first ammendment right to support the dumbing down of America... but if you complain that the US elected George Bush (twice), I will laugh in your face. You reap what you sow.
See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
Free speech is a bitch when people who disagree with you are speaking, huh?
Get organized. Fight them. They are winning right now because they play the game better.
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
"I got rid of TV altogether about four years ago. It was one of the best decisions I have ever made. Now, when I see TV at a friend's house, I think to myself: 'Who in the world would watch this trash?'"
I did about the same thing at about the same time. I remember commercials for the first Survivor series just before I unhooked the antenna. I only hooked it back up again on September 11th, and had it unhooked by the time television started to somewhat return to normal. I also see what's on and think, "What the hell?! This crap sucks!"
"But of course, we must pander to the mindless majority. If someone speaks up, he/she is just an old prude who wants to stop everyone else's fun. I am not a member of the PTC, but I support their right to do this."
I don't, and here's why: The TV has an off button. It also has channel up, channel down, mute, and some even have an image surpression mode. The city that I live in has the major four networks, the lightweight other three or so, a few independent stations of mainstream rerun programming, and at least three religious Christian channels, with shows like The 700 Club. Additionally there are at least four Christian radio networks in addition to the large number of conservative talk radio stations and music stations that have a more conservative bend. All of this conservative programming gives the PTC people plenty of airwave to look at where they don't have to see Janet Jackson's boob, Dennis Franz's ass, Tara Reid's surgical scar, or anything else that would "oh so damage" their children.
These people need to grow the fuck up, or else we need to start complaining about their television programs, especially ones that take strong stances against ideas or actions like premarital sex, science, liberal politics, or homosexuality. Call out the programs that criticize these and label them as obscene. Get them slapped with fines, or get their 501(c)3 tax exempt status revoked for endorsing political candidates.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
Looking at their list of best and worst programmes, the group seems to be very selective on which consequences they like shown and which they don't. They like to see the consequences of sex and drug use being shown, but not the consequences of assault and murder.
If they think that showing the consequences of sex will put people off of having sex, why wouldn't showing the consequences of murder put people off of killing?
You see, we live in a society in which most people:
1. avoid personal responsibility like the plague,
2. don't want to even talk to their children.
Daddy is too busy doing overtime to impress the boss. Then daddy wants to spend the whole fucking eveing with a beer and the TV, or with a beer and the Linux kernel. Mommy is too busy between impressing her own boss, all those soap operas, and all those female friends she just has to spend hours a day talking to.
And the poor kid is just some pest that just gets in the way. Telling little Billy _why_ this and that is wrong, is a tiresome talk and you just know it'll go right over his little head anyway. Naah... better just avoid him and go watch that football/baseball/soccer/whatever game instead. Watching the idiot box is a tough job, but someone's got to do it. Can't let a kid get in the way of that.
So little Billy grows up basically without any guidance. But here's the fun part: just because Mommy and Daddy are too busy to explain things to Billy, it doesn't mean someone else won't either. So Billy picks up all sorts of wrong ideas off the street or, yes, off TV.
And when Billy finally does something wrong, we get to point 1 again: nobody wants to be personally responsible for it. Noo. It's not our fault that Billy grew up wrong. It's the TV's fault! The government should censor it!
Sad.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.