Lone Activist Group Submits 99.8% of FCC Complaints 1373
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.'"
PTC (Score:5, Interesting)
Somebody's gotta do it. (Score:3, Interesting)
What the PTC has figured out is that indecent TV and radio was being allowed simply because the FCC only takes action when it gets a complaint from somebody in the public. No complaint, nobody was harmed so no foul.
The FCC is still in control over what is indecent, so the PTC's power is merely that of spotter. If they complain about something that isn't over the line nothing will happen. Of course, a big problem with the current system is that the FCC doesn't have a written down definition of what they consider to be indecent so broadcasters are flying blind when it comes to deciding what to air before they actually do it. What they've gotten away with in the past is no help because they've been allow to get away with far too much.
The megacompanies need to realize that they should use their cable outlets for the borderline content they have, because the over-the-air channels are regulated.
What about Howard Stern (Score:5, Interesting)
Typical of Government Lobbying (Score:3, Interesting)
Because other "interest groups" have recently proven that politicians will usually bow to your wishes if you bitch loud enough.
so sad. (Score:5, Interesting)
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...
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.
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.
No News Here, Move Along (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Small group... (Score:3, Interesting)
See, back when I was working on an internet helpdesk, if people kept ringing over and over and over with the same complaints and problems, we were instructed to stop helping them. These three people waste everyone else's money, so why not apply the same policy? Here and in the US.
And in regard to ninjas, - this guy knows about them [boingboing.net]. Remember the arse kicking circle. Ninja beats pirate beats robot beats clown beats ninja. Every seen a ninja fighting a clown? Now you know why [yorrike.com]
Re:Let's anti-protest! (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Let's anti-protest! (Score:4, Interesting)
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?
Re:240,000? (Score:2, Interesting)
And you'd be right up there with the likes of Mr. ABC [geocities.com], who wants to bar mountain bikes from every park and open space in the world. A prolific writer of pseudo-intellectual skewed information and outright fiction, he's actually effective, because he cares enough to show up for every meeting, contact every policy maker and flood USENET newsgroups with disinformation in his crusade, while mountain bikers are generally oblivious until the find a big NO BIKES sign in their favorite park.
Squeaky wheels get the grease, which is why it's important to be ever vigilant against those crusaders out to change your way of life to make themselves feel better.
Re:Too bad story doesn't have (Score:2, Interesting)
99.8% are PTC? That means 0.2% of the 240,000
Two years earlier, the number was 350. Did the PTC exist? Is so, what percentage? If not, it means the non-PTC increase is 37%.
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Tell them how you really feel (Score:3, Interesting)
FCC Contact Page [fcc.gov]
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.
Re:What about Howard Stern (Score:4, Interesting)
"Do you see Al Franken being fined?"
Not yet. But it will happen soon I am sure.
Re:Small group... (Score:3, Interesting)
On the bright side, I am thinking of writing to them to thank them for providing a good method for evaluating new TV shows. Just search for the ones with the most red lights.
Anyway, I must be off now to use cuss words and thinking unwholesome thoughts about sexual issues, all whilst advocating non-peaceful solutions for complex problems.
Not all of us disagree (Score:2, Interesting)
Also, I think the issue is not that the PTC or other conservative groups want to censor television for everyone, the biggest issue is when some types of objectionable material air. The reason that CBS was cracked down on so hard during the SuperBowl is because the incident occurred around 9 pm which is still considered "prime-time" TV and is not "late-night" (10pm or later). If that incident would have occurred after 10pm, they might not have been fined at all.
I know this will probably get me flamed, but if the majority of people in the nation voted for a conservative Senate, House, and President, does it not perhaps signify A) That the majority of the nation actually *wants* conservative policies or B) That a large number of people are too lazy to vote and then like to complain when they see the results of their inaction.
Just my two cents. And yes, I am a conservative, and yes I DO think that there is far too much foul language and sex on TV during hours when children are watching. If people want to air uncensored nudity or sex on TV - do it on a pay channel that is an optional addition to your Cable so that parents can choose not to purchase it for their household. Otherwise, there is no excuse for this kind of stuff during times when children are watching.
Re:PTC (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:PTC (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
What I don't get (Score:3, Interesting)
Children don't need protection from something they don't want to see anyways... and keeping stuff from teenagers is impossible anyways.
Re:They must be stopped. (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, I'm tuning back to see when they drop their #1 show, Joan of Arcadia. You see, the other week, one of the characters who plays God (who occasionally also appears in the form of a *gasp* woman on the show, as well) had the temerity to say that He (i.e., God) had so many religions because people had so many way's of relating to Him, acknowledging Hinduism as an example. I'm sure that goes over well with the thumpers that put that show as numero uno on their list! Like I said, I'm anxious to see what they have to say when they next revise the list, because I'm pretty sure neither polythism nor spiritual eclecticism is high on their list of core values.
Re:Let's anti-protest! (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Somebody's gotta do it. (Score:2, Interesting)
[begin excerpt from Parents TV Council]
" * Student Dino plots to take his girl friend Jackie's virginity. Viewers see the youngsters in his home while his parents are away; a shirtless Dino is half-lying across Jackie and he puts his hand into her pants. He says, "just take 'em off.... Doesn't it feel good to you?" Jackie says: "Yes. It feels too good. I don't trust myself to take them off." Dino responds: "So let me take them off." He starts to take her pants off, and before she stops him viewers are granted a glimpse of her underwear. In a later scene Jackie is relenting; she tells Dino, "My parents are going out of town tonight...And I was thinking maybe it was time for us to, ya know, do it." They make plans to get together later.
* Dino and Ben pressure their friend Jonathan to say whether he would prefer to have sex with his own mother or with his own father.
* Dino observes his mother, in her bra, kissing his hockey coach as they undress each other.
* Jonathan's parents also contribute to the pervasive smuttiness. Jonathan is shown in the bathroom shaving, when his mother knocks on the door. He tells her he's shaving, but his father calls out, "God, Mary, give the kid a break. He's probably masturbating." Jonathan says, "Hey! I can hear you! Go away! And I'm shaving!" His father then says, "Whatever. It's all good. Take your time, son."
etc.
[end excerpt from Parents TV Council]
This stuff seems pretty over-the-line and is not appropriate for young teens though that is the audience that it is aimed at. It looks like the Parents TV Council picks on FOX as much as they do on ABC, CBS, and NBC so they are not just a bunch of Republican do-gooders. More power to 'em.
Re:For what it's worth (Score:2, Interesting)
Hmm, what's that phrase. Oh, a fool and his money are soon parted....
"I am all for showing sex and violence on TV but not when it is deviously smuggled inside shows billed "family entertainment"."
So, could you give some examples of these shows? Or is it that some shows that you THOUGHT were "family entertainment" had sex and violence in them. Frankly, I find very little sex (not sexual content) and violence in ANY US television, which brings me to point two-maybe your definitions of family entertainment are different than most people....
"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."
Deal with it. If every show is doing it, then by the FTC's definition of indecent, it probably isn't, because of "community standards". If most people want it in the community, how can it be indecent?
Regarding the "intellectually stimulating shows"- there never have been many of them. There never will be. Get over it. TV, for better or worse, is for entertainment, not deep thought. Be glad there is ANY "good" shows. The fact that there are so few illustrates how profitable that niche is....
It takes a village ... (Score:2, Interesting)
Hillary's right, it does "take a village", but not "to raise a kid". It takes a village to pay for a kid. Parents, think about that the next time you're lobbying for new additions to the local school, or for speed bumps every 10 feet because you're afraid your kid will get run over, etc. We child-free folks pay just as much as you do for those items (ie, in most states property taxes are used to pay for public schooling, and the amount of property tax you pay relies only on the value of your property and not the number of children you have attending a public school), and we don't use the provided services nearly as much as the childed. Consider the catch-22 of moving to a new community because it has a "better" school. Chances are, in many cases that's because the community and school are small, with a low number of students per teacher so that teachers can spend more time per student. You see that and drag in your three progeny. Others do the same and before you know it the school with an average class size of 16 has now skyrocketed to an average size of 35-40, hemmoraging teachers left and right because of the added stress, increasing property taxes to pay for school additions and increased community infrastructure (more/wider roads so all of your huge SUVs can drive junior to school in the morning), etc. Of course, then you start complaining about how bad the school is, or how the community is no longer the quaint place you thought you were moving into, or that you're getting reamed by property taxes. Here's a little video [wired.com] worth watching. (warning: this will likely offend parents, and it's definitely an example of an extreme belief, but the concept is still sound and the video is funny, IMHO)
As for "family values", can anyone define "family values" for me? I'm not considered a family (single, no kids), so why should I embrace "family values"? Who says what a family is, anyway? Is a childless married couple a family? What about a single father with custody of his kid(s)? What about a same-sex domestic partnership (with or without children)? Are those families? If not, why should they "act in ways that value families?" There's nothing in it for them.
(Note: I read your post to be in jest, making fun of Hillary, anti-gun nuts, etc. I just decided to rant.)
Re:PTC (Score:3, Interesting)
Dear PTC activists (Score:3, Interesting)
In another hand you are of the kind who claimed that the earth was flat and that continue to claim that evolution is non-existent. Your puritan and conservative way of thinking comes from those who have done everything to slow down the research and accomplishment of the first group. If humanity has listened you from the beginning, we will probably still be chasing animals with rocks and sticks and living in caves.
Please stop censuring those technologies that you did not contribute to create, in fact why don't you simply stop using them at all and go communicate though bushes on fire or something else you believe in?
Sincerely yours.
Re:Liberals and Freedom of Speech (Score:3, Interesting)
Here's a letter I sent to them... (Score:4, Interesting)
Hello,
I'm not sure who I might be addressing at editor@parentstv.org, so I apologize for the lack of personalization.
I am somewhat curious about your organization and why it exists. I realize you probably get all sorts of crank emails, spam, etc... So I expect this email to most likely get ignored.
I don't like most of what's shown on TV today... I rarely watch TV as a matter of fact. However, I find that trying to prevent other people from doing so is a) futile and b) wrong. I am wondering why your organization thinks it's ok to dictate what other people do in the privacy of thier own homes?
I understand you are working under a "save the children" banner, and that's fine. But is it not more logical for a parent to parent, as opposed to expecting the government or TV and radio stations to do it for them? Why does your organization feel that it's acceptable to deny programming to people who may find it funny/interesting/worth watching? Why do you feel that your "rights" override other's "rights" to watch what they please?
As I said, I have no real agenda; I don't watch the TV shows you label as "Bad" nor do I watch the ones you label as "Good." If either or both of them are cancled or taken off the air, I don't really care one whit. What I do care about is your organizations internal justification for censoring programming because parents can't be bothered to actually monitor what their children watch. I have a very real problem with organizations like yours dictating to others what's "right" and what isn't.
It's time to stop blaming TV, Radio, Newspaper and other media for the poor condition some children find themselves in, and it's time to start looking at the parents. I know it's hard to accept responsibilty for the majority of parents that are part of your organization, but the very real facts of the matter are that any parent that joins your organization is a poor parent and is obviously incapable of taking care of a child in an appropriate manner. They rely on the TV to babysite or educate then children, when that is a job for the parents themselves, not to be shunned off on the anonymous TV screen.
As I said, of course I do not expect this letter to be given any serious thought by the people of your organization. It's often hard, if not impossible to convince a zealot that they are misguided and doing harm rather than good. It's a very sad state of affairs and a very sad day for the nation when people with misguided political agendas are able to influence freedom of speech and democracy. Shame on your ogranization for further erroding our right to free speech and freedom of expression. Your ogranization is part of the problem, not a part of the solution.
Thank you for your time,
XXXXXX
we don't want sexually-explicit shows??? (Score:1, Interesting)
The problem with the Puritan rooted US society is that sex and violence are lumped in one category. Why? They're not the same thing at all. So what Janet Jackson's boobs were on TV? Guess what, a lot of you were sucking on one right after you were born!
There's nothing wrong with seeing sex on TV as long as it's not mixed with violence.
Re:note: slashdot crowd are mostly idiots (Score:2, Interesting)
But on your statement regarding the slashdot crowd is being "religiously godless and radically liberal" and that slashdot should be more balanced. I feel I must speak out against that. Slashdot, being a forum and site for technology related subjects (hence, for the nerds), it will inherently be biased towards one side. And of course the said modding will be radical, since the only people that bothers to mod are those with radical opinions. Secondly, you could also argue the same regarding many other online groups, including the PTA. Which consists of members who, pardon my language, are a bunch of "ultra conservertists and hard-core fundamentalists" (maybe a bit extreme, but just to make a point.
This is purely a religous right wing "morality" (Score:3, Interesting)
I see little to do with "morality" and lots to to with propagating the faith. News flash people don't have to go to church to have morals.
The "best" show are littered with the "godly shows":
Seventh Heaven, touched by an angel. And shows so mind numbingly bland that your intestines would throttle your brain as a defence mechanism if you actually watched them and actually had a brain. Shows like Sue Thomos FBI.
The "Worst" list has many shows I actually enjoyed. Like Buffy, Angel, That 70's Show, Spin City, CSI, Cold Case, and NYPD Blue.
I din't actually see anything on the "Best" list that I could actually tolerate watching.
Re:What about Howard Stern (Score:1, Interesting)
Whatever happened to rational thought? Anybody know? Is it just uncool to think these days?
Re:PTC (Score:3, Interesting)
It's not.
I'm an american, not a lawyer, but if I was told that my archive of VHS tapes that were broadcasted that I only watch in my home was somehow illegal, I'd fight the fine all the way to the Supreme Court.
Were I to sell or rebroadcast any of it without the permission of four or five corporate persons I'd be screwed, but keeping it for my own use is 100% AOK.
Re:PTC (Score:3, Interesting)
No, no. We should all file indecency complaints about the shows they like. Clutter up the FCC with millions of bad complaints and show how arbitrary the process is.
Re:The PTC are a PITA (Score:2, Interesting)
I'm Christian, but I'm against having a Theocracy.
Trying to form a Theocracy in the name of God is a blasphemy against him. If God wants a Theocracy, he won't have given us the freedom to choose. Any attempt to for a theocracy is an attempt to judge at others, an act frowned upon in bible. A true Christian Fundamentalist won't attempt to subvert democracy, won't attempt to forcefully convert others, won't judge others for their actions, and won't retaliate when being attacked.
Yes, I would like everyone to believe in Jesus. But in the end, it's your choice and your decision, and it is in my belief and obligation to respect your choice/decision.
Re:The PTC are a PITA (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm not a religious individual, but at least you're not one of the pushy types.
Re:Dear PTC activists (Score:1, Interesting)
maddox dealt with this (Score:1, Interesting)
Note: If you agree with the site in question, you will be offended. Fire off your emails blindly.
Maddox Banned?! [thebestpag...iverse.net]
Posted AC to avoid kharmoring.
Re:What I don't get (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't think that a general shyness towards sexuality is something that is natural or instinctive.
Which basically comes to the point that it is the parent's responsibility to take care of their child. If they don't their child to see such things on TV, don't let them watch it. If a parent wants their child to see such things on TV, let them watch it. What gets me is that these are the same groups that tell us that teachers shouldn't be teaching our kids morals in school, and then they turn around and tell us that they want to control what morals are displayed on television. How is that not hypocritical?
Re:The PTC are a PITA (Score:2, Interesting)
This is a "we the people" Issue (Score:1, Interesting)
Cowboy Neal's remarks are typical of the powers that be at SlashDot. Despite the quoted claims, this isn't a censorship issue. Broadcast television gets free use of a valuable and scarce resource, the RF spectrum, that's publicly owned and worth many billions. It does that because it has agreed from day one that what it broadcasts must serve the public interest not the interests of the networks or a select group of artists.
For a parallel that fits what Rintels wants, imagine a society where only a few giant corporations are allowed to use our Interstate highways, while the rest of us can only travel on their buses where, when, and how they want. That's what TV networks want to do. It's "free speech" for a vanishingly small and extraordinarly wealthy few.
Imagine further that those networks have decided that more money is to be made by using the land alongside "their" highways to dump trash that gets blown into our neighborhoods. That's the network's current glorification of violence and sex. It blows into every neighborhood in the land.
The result of the programming is the same as with the advertising--our sons are more likely to get mugged and our daughters to be rapped. Never forget that if programming doesn't influence behavior, then neither does advertising and the networks are guility of fraud on a massive scale.
That's why "we the people" have every right to decide what is in the public interest and can or cannot be broadcast. If the TV networks don't like that, they have every right get out of broadcasting and publish their programming like the rest of us do--on DVD and video tapes where there is no issues involving a scarce public resource and thus no role for the FCC.
All this is so obvious, it makes you wonder why there's a fuss.
--Mike Perry, Inkling blog [inklingbooks.com], Seattle
Re:I don't think so. (Score:4, Interesting)
They don't like something, so YOU shouldn't be allowed to do it.
Nice
N.
Comment removed (Score:3, Interesting)
TV is not all crap, and crap != crap (Score:3, Interesting)
TV does suck - but it is also great. I will admit, I do watch some crap. But I try to learn from it. There is a show out now called "Nanny 911". An English nanny (not hot) comes and stays with a family for a week. The family has horribly behaved kids, and it is usually the parents fault. She lays down some guidelines, they eventually learn, and la la la happy ending. Pure trash, right? Well, yes. But I am about to be a dad for the first time. I enjoy watching this show to see just how bad it could possibly get. :-) My wife and I watch this, and we talk about parenting stuff. Could we do this without TV? Of course, and we do. But I try to learn stuff from everything in life, including TV. I watch a lot of the Discovery Channel, Animal Planet, The Learning Channel, and The Food Network. I have learned sooooo much from FoodTV. Even those channels run crap shows, but just because I watch TV doesn't mean I watch all TV. I turn it off - a lot.
But to the point of this article, let them run whatever they want, within some guidelines if need be. Censorship is NOT solving anything.
Re:I fucking love this country! (Score:1, Interesting)