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.'"

35 of 1,373 comments (clear)

  1. PTC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    PTC lost a LOT of their political clout after WWE kicked their ass in court a couple years ago. Other targets should repond the same way.

    1. Re:PTC by AciDive · · Score: 5, Informative

      I think everyone should use the http://www.parentstv.org/ptc/fcc/fcccomplaint2.asp Complaint Form on the PTC website to send positive fead back about all of the shows in the PTC worst 10 list to the FCC. If everyone on SlashDot did this we might be able to get the PTC some bad press (it would be bad press as far as they are concerned).

      --
      "Really, I'm not out to destroy Microsoft. That will just be a completely unintentional side effect." Linus Torvalds
    2. Re:PTC by nick_davison · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I just sent them:

      Congress were told, recently, that complaints to the FCC are rising dramatically.

      In 2000 and 2001, the FCC only received 350 complains. In 2002, 14,000. In 2003, 240,000. Clearly TV is becoming much more offensive.

      Until you discover that 99.8% of all complaints are from the PTC (Parents Television Council). If you do the math, the 0.2% of complaints that aren't part of a political lobbying body amount to... 480. That's right, an increase of 130 over 2000/2001.

      So, while Congress are wringing their hands over how terrible TV has got, the reality is that it's barely changed at all - but a political lobbying group who want to censor TV is creating a vastly disproportionate impact by effectively spamming the crap out of the FCC.

      The real truth is that there are roughly 1.5 complaints for every MILLION people in the U.S. - i.e. NO major issues with the content of TV. That a tiny minority interest group can so skew the figures as to make it appear that the ration's as high as one in a thousand is, frankly, disgusting. That Congress are being fed their lies, rather than having the truth pointed out, is even worse.

      Though it does beg the question: What would happen if a small group - say a thousand people, sent a letter to the FCC each day complaining that shows didn't go far enough with their nudity, violence and profanity. They'd outnumber the conservative complaints 3:2 for even those small numbers.


      Something appealed about the irony of using their own website to complain about their actions. As they helpfully noted: All five FCC commissioners have been sent a copy of your email.

  2. Let's anti-protest! by Corf · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:Let's anti-protest! by techno-vampire · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I wonder how many of those people have any children to be exposed to TV, and how many are trying to protect other people's children even though they have none of their own?

      --
      Good, inexpensive web hosting
    2. Re:Let's anti-protest! by captnitro · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Even better.

      My fellow Slashdotters:

      I found pr0n and prototype schematics for a $25 Linux-based Xbox while surfing the inter-net! Find it here!.


      Damage done.

    3. Re:Let's anti-protest! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting
      I visited Norway some months ago. A large retail chain, Rema 1000, the norwegian equivalent of Wal-Mart had a funny one.

      Child to Mom: Mom how do you create a child?
      Mom: Ehh.. *silence* ... You know Mom and Dad... ehh first Mom lies in the bed ehh... and then Dad lies in the Bed...ehh.. And then Dad...
      Child: You mean like fucking ?
      Mom: Ehh.. *very emarrasing silence*

      Advertiser-voice: Rema 1000; the simple is somethimes the best. (their slogan)

      I would like to see Wal-Mart do something like that on public TV.

    4. Re:Let's anti-protest! by Total_Wimp · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The most amazing part is what we choose to censor. South Park shows a hamster being insterted into and traveling through a man's colon but bleeps the word "fuck". I don't fucking get it. We are prudes and nasty fuckers all in the same show.

      Selective censorship never works. Bleeping a cuss word doesn't stop everyone from understanding it's a cuss word and, because of the nasty context, does nothing to protect children or anyone else. You can remove every "motherfucker" you want from Rap music and it's still talking about fucking hos and doing drugs.

      I don't know the answer, but I'm growing fatigued of all the shows and songs that punch holes in the dialog, yet still leave you feeling violated. We're not only protecting no one, but we're treating adults like children in the process. Though I'm not asking for it in this case, I sure wish a government who claims to be trying to protect me would actually try to protect me... or butt the fuck out.

      TW

    5. Re:Let's anti-protest! by SpryGuy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I really wish you'd stop trying to confuse the issue with facts! :-)

      Obviously you're exactly right, but for some reason a great many people don't see it this way. Interestingly, these people (right-wing Christian Fundamentalists and many conservative Republicans) are also constantly railing against the "Nanny-State" of the looney left. Do they even see the contradiction? They think the government SHOULD censor TV content, but should stay away from things like helmet laws? I'm not sure I get the mentality behind all this, personally.

      As you say: there's an off-switch and a channel changing device, let alone the V-chip.

      I guess they want the government to be a nanny to their kids, just not THEM? Or something. I dunno. It's not like it makes any sense at all.

      --

      - Spryguy
      There are three kinds of people in this world: those that can count and those that can't
  3. Small group... by Kjuib · · Score: 5, Funny

    This small group of complainers can then easily be taken out by a small group of assassins... There must be a reason this has not been done yet, but I cannot think of any.

    --
    - Your stupidity got you into this mess, why can't it get you out? -Will Rogers
    1. Re:Small group... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny
      here is their website, go forth slashdot ninjas and conquer.

  4. F the FCC... by DraKKon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
  5. What about Howard Stern by yorkpaddy · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I know that Stern pushed for his listeners to complain about Oprah Winfrey (?). Oprah got away with saying things about vaginas and sexual practices that Stern was fined for

    --
    "brxref .k.p ,.by xprt. gbe.p.oycmaycbi yd. cby.nci.bj. ru yd. am.pcjab lgxlcj" don'
    1. Re:What about Howard Stern by bani · · Score: 5, Interesting

      the problem is that after stern brought the issue up, a LOT of people filed complaints about oprah, many orders of magnitude more than complained about stern. the fcc even admitted this!

      and STILL oprah hasn't been fined. only stern has.

      oprah is loved so she can break the rules however and whenever she likes, while stern is reviled and gets severely punished for the tiniest infraction.

    2. Re:What about Howard Stern by Coryoth · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

  6. 240,000? by techsoldaten · · Score: 5, Funny

    You mean all I have to do is write 240,000 complaints to the FCC and I can control what goes on television and radio? I can write a script to do that in about an hour.

    Producers of the biased, left-wing Today show - fear me.

    M

  7. Too bad story doesn't have by AEton · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:Too bad story doesn't have by doorbot.com · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I love their motto - "because our children are watching".

      I think they should change their motto to:

      Because we're not watching our children.

    2. Re:Too bad story doesn't have by orcrist · · Score: 5, Funny

      I think they should change their motto to:
      Because we're not watching our children.


      Maybe some civic-minded Slashdotter will read your post and change it for them... ;-)

      Ahem. Nevermind. Forget I said that.

      -Chris

      --
      San Francisco values: compassion, tolerance, respect, intelligence
  8. TV Censorship & Parents by Talrias · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
  9. Stupid parents... by excaliber19 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Why not just grow a spine and keep your brat kids from watching inappropriate material?

    1. Re:Stupid parents... by canajin56 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Get your terminology right. You do not pump caps into asses, you pump lead. Caps, vis a vis asses, are either busted, or poped.
      Eg: "Imma bust a cap in yo ass" = correct
      "Imma pump yo ass fulla lead" = correct
      "Imma pump a cap in yo ass" = incorrect

      What are they teaching in school these days, anyways?

      --
      ASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI
  10. Powell not qualified by Brigadier · · Score: 5, Insightful



    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.

  11. The New FCC by halcyon1234 · · Score: 5, Funny
    Dear Sir/Madam

    This letter is in regard to your recent complaint to the FCC regarding whatever show you think your child should not be watching.

    We would like to inform you, in response to your concern, a device will be installed in all television sets that will allow you to control the content. It is called the OFF button.

    We would like to mention that this device has been shipping standard with all television sets since the beginning of TV. We apologize if this was not obvious enough for you.

    If you should have any other concerns or complaints then, seriously, fuck you. Use the button.

    Sincerely,
    The FCC

  12. Children by Renraku · · Score: 5, Funny

    For the children.

    Go on, say it.

    For the children.

    Anything you want changed, just claim that its for the children. There's a big percentage of adults in this country that have kids. Most of these people are die-hard parents.

    Their own children can do no wrong, are perfect angels, etc. Its easy to see where you could get something changed if you said for the children, because if you didn't approve, you're automatically against the children.

    We all know that anyone against children is a terrorist. Are you a terrorist?

    That's the same kind of shit these people pull.

    --
    Job? I don't have time to get a job! Who will sit around and bitch about being broke and unemployed then?
    1. Re:Children by DogDude · · Score: 5, Funny

      I feel that it should be legal for me to snort coke off a hooker's ass while driving a stolen Humvee at 80 mph through a church parking lot. For the children.

      --
      I don't respond to AC's.
  13. You gave them the power... by avronius · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  14. Timely topic, IMHO.... by King_TJ · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  15. A Little Test by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Hmmm..

    Mod me up... for the children.

    (Is it working yet? Is this thing on?)

  16. What Exactally is Being Censored? by mtb_ogre · · Score: 5, Insightful

    '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...

    • Janet Jackson's boob is censored? No
    • Howard Stern can't talk about a woman having sex with a dog on the radio? No
    • People can't dry f* on shows which are marketed as family entertainment? No
    • People can't criticise the Bush administration for repeated mistakes in Iraq? Yes
    • People can't call policians to the table for spending our kids future away? Hell Yes

    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.

    -- Dennis
  17. Re:For what it's worth by almostmanda · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  18. Please babysit my children. by Java+Ape · · Score: 5, Insightful
    I'm a parent of three children. No, really, a parent, not just a sperm-donor or an unlucky paternal unit paying for a youthful fling. Guess whose job it is to insure that my little darlings choose appropriate viewing material? MINE. It's my job to know where they're at. It's my job to know who their friends are. It my responsibility to insure that their reading material and leisure activities don't teach them values I find objectionable. These are my responsibilites, and I guard them with a vengence.

    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.

  19. this is getting ridiculous... by biggyfries · · Score: 5, Insightful
    i am seriously sick of this shit. I know i will lose mod points, but that's fine.

    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.

  20. Send PTC an email by Trillian_1138 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I just sent the following email to PTC, from the link on their website:

    "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/arti 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.

    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"

  21. MOD PARENTS DOWN by Psionicist · · Score: 5, Funny

    Powell failed to mention however that 99.8% of those complaints came from PTC (Parents Television Council).

    MOD PARENTS DOWN!