Slashdot Log In
Lone Activist Group Submits 99.8% of FCC Complaints
Posted by
CowboyNeal
on Mon Dec 06, 2004 06:24 PM
from the vocal-minority dept.
from the vocal-minority dept.
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.'"
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
PTC (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:PTC (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:PTC (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Let's anti-protest! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Let's anti-protest! (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Let's anti-protest! (Score:5, Insightful)
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
Parent
Re:Let's anti-protest! (Score:5, Interesting)
Child to Mom: Mom how do you create a child? ... You know Mom and Dad... ehh first Mom lies in the bed ehh... and then Dad lies in the Bed...ehh.. And then Dad...
Mom: Ehh.. *silence*
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.
Parent
Re:Let's anti-protest! (Score:5, Insightful)
My fellow Slashdotters:
I found pr0n and prototype schematics for a $25 Linux-based Xbox while surfing the inter-net! Find it here! [parentstv.org].
Damage done.
Parent
Re:Let's anti-protest! (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Let's anti-protest! (Score:5, Insightful)
In short, they should be looking closely after their own children instead of forcing their concept of propriety on others.
Parent
Small group... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Small group... (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
They must be stopped. (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
F the FCC... (Score:5, Insightful)
It really blows that 100 people can RUIN what millions watch...
Re:F the FCC... (Score:5, Informative)
They have [parentstv.org]:
Information about Broadcast Obscenity/Indecency Laws:
The Courts have said that obscene material is not protected by the First Amendment and cannot be broadcast at any time. To be considered obscene, material must meet a 3-prong test:
1. An average person, applying contemporary community standards, must find that the material, as a whole, appeals to the prurient (arousing lustful feelings) interest;
2. The material must depict or describe, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by applicable law; and
3. The material, taken as a whole, must lack serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.
Indecency is defined as language or material that, in context, describes or depicts, in terms patently offensive as measured by contemporary community broadcast standards for the broadcast medium, sexual or excretory organs or activities. Indecent programming contains patently offensive sexual or excretory references that do not rise to the level of obscenity. As such, the courts have held that indecent material is protected by the First Amendment and cannot be banned entirely. It may, however, be restricted in order to avoid its broadcast during times of the day when there is a reasonable risk that children may be in the audience. As such, broadcasts -- both on television and radio -- that fit within the indecency definition and that are aired between 6:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. are subject to indecency enforcement action.
Parent
What about Howard Stern (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:What about Howard Stern (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Parent
that's not how the FCC operates (Score:5, Interesting)
You are misinterpreting how the FCC polices indecency. It doesn't watch channels. It responds to complaints that provide transcripts of the alledgedly offensive broadcasts. The PTC and other American Moralists have been streaming complaints against Howard Stern for over a decade. That's why he's been getting fined.
The Oprah Winfrey example clearly illustrates the hypocrisy in how the FCC arbitrarily chooses to levy fines. If you're a friend to the mainstream, you're safe. If you're outside the status quo, watch out.
Here's a link to the transcripts [howardstern.com]. Judge for yourself if the FCC is being fair.
Parent
Re:What about Howard Stern (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re:What about Howard Stern (Score:5, Informative)
The Oprah Winfrey Show Transcript
Thursday, March 18, 2004
Clip One
Oprah: Lets talk about that secret language Michelle.
Michelle: Yes
Oprah: I didn't know any of this
Michelle: I have yea, I have gotten a whole new vocabulary let me tell ya
Oprah: I did not know any of this
Michelle: Salad tossing, cucumbers, lettuce tomatoes ok
Oprah: ok so so what is a salad toss?
Michelle: ok a tossed salad is, get ready hold on to your underwear for this one, oral anal sex, So oral sex with the anus is what that would be.
Clip Two
Michelle: a rainbow party is an oral sex party it's a gathering where oral sex is performed and rainbow comes from all of the girls put on lipstick and each one puts her mouth around the penis of the gentleman or gentlemen who are there to receive favors and makes a mark um in a different place on the penis hence the term rainbow
Parent
240,000? (Score:5, Funny)
Producers of the biased, left-wing Today show - fear me.
M
Re:240,000? (Score:5, Funny)
# # #
Dear FCC,
I have been watching the program #program# recently, only to find that the show's contents have been inappropriate. The program constantly details #smut in a way that is harmful to potential children watching.
Here are some instances of #smut this show has demonstrated:
As a parent, I am offended for this much #smut# being present on this program. Will someone please think of the children.
Thank you.
Click here to unsubscribe.
lentils chewables goto kerry fire hire boredom apathy happy
Parent
Denial of "Service" (Score:5, Interesting)
If the FCC is getting hundreds of thousands of complaints, then there's no way for them to actually investigate these complains. So probably all they can do is count them.
What this means is that any organization that can muster large numbers of complaints about random programs they don't like can cause the system to collapse completely. There'd be no effective way for the FCC to use the complaint system as an alert mechanism.
The only problem with this is that the slashdot crowd aren't nearly as good at organizing as the PTC. So the question is whether we can write python scripts with output that is not detectably different than the PTC's form letters?
Parent
Too bad story doesn't have (Score:5, Insightful)
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!
Re:Too bad story doesn't have (Score:5, Insightful)
I think they should change their motto to:
Because we're not watching our children.
Parent
Re:Too bad story doesn't have (Score:5, Funny)
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
Parent
TV Censorship & Parents (Score:5, Insightful)
Chris
Re:TV Censorship & Parents (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Stupid parents... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Stupid parents... (Score:5, Insightful)
How about the parents watch the "inappropriate" material WITH their children and explain it to them during/afterward?
Oh, sorry, that would be real parenting. We don't want any of that. (Though actually, I'm not so sure that having children find out about things such as sex independently from their extremist religious parents is such a bad thing -- it's rather sad that so many people think that it is somehow immoral.)
Parent
Re:Stupid parents... (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?
Parent
Powell not qualified (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.
so sad. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:so sad. (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Another Fringe Group (Score:5, Insightful)
Keep in Mind (Score:5, Interesting)
If you don't want some vocal group imposing its religious values on you, I suppose you'll have to be just as vocal. Of course, prohibition was quite profitable for a lot of Americans...
The New FCC (Score:5, Funny)
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
Credit where credit is due (Score:5, Informative)
Jarvis is a professional, but anyone can do this. Dig in and report. Many hands make for light work, and all that.
Children (Score:5, Funny)
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.
Re:Children (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
A Little Test (Score:5, Funny)
Mod me up... for the children.
(Is it working yet? Is this thing on?)
Parent
Re:Children (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
You gave them the power... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Timely topic, IMHO.... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
For what it's worth (Score:5, Informative)
I am all for showing sex and violence on TV but not when it is deviously smuggled inside shows billed "family entertainment".
And.. to those who say "change the channel", I have tried that as well. The sad fact is that there are hardly any alternatives because almost EVERY show is doing it. There are not many intellectually stimulating shows to watch - unless you want to watch PBS all the time.
I, for one, am glad that there is atleast someone holding the purveyors of dreck accountable - even if they go overboard sometimes.
Re:For what it's worth (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
What Exactally is Being Censored? (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...
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.
-- DennisRe:Somebody's gotta do it. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re:Somebody's gotta do it. (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Somebody's gotta do it. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent