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
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.
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.
10 million out of 293 million do not a majority make. It's 3%.
The only way to detirmine what the majority of people want is to 1. poll everyone or 2. conduct a proper statistical study on it.
The thing is, the parent poster never mentioned "majority", but rather a "large segment". And forgive me for saying, but 10 million is a large segment.
A significant portion doesn't have to be the majority. In fact, significant is no where close to being a majority.
What the FCC is doing is basically working for the people that care. If 99.8% of the people who contact them say they don't want something, then that's a significant amount. Even if the majority want something else, the FCC doesn't see this,
Large, compared to what? 3% is a segment, but I think it would take at least 15% to become a large segment. eln stated that a large segment (3%) of outspoken individuals can represent the entire general public. It can't.
The policy talks what the general public considers indecent. It does not say the loudest members of the general public. In order to support the policy they claim to support, they must go out of their way to find out what the GP wants. Sitting back and listening is easy, but it will produce b
And "proper statistical studies" show that for every person who joins the PTV, writes the FCC, or writes to his congresscritter, 100 don't because they are too lazy or bored or busy. So they see 10million complaints and assume(rightly or wrongly) that ~100Million are or could be offended.
And "proper statistical studies" show that for every person who joins the PTV, writes the FCC, or writes to his congresscritter, 100 don't because they are too lazy or bored or busy.
Which studies are these? Post links.
So they see 10million complaints and assume(rightly or wrongly) that ~100Million are or could be offended.
A proper study wouldn't use this kind of reasoning. Which accepted statistical method allows this kind of deduction? Since the only people who provide data are the ones making noise, the on
Like you, I'm offended by seeing bush on TV. It's just as bad when I see dick on TV. Seeing bush and dick together at the same time is especially obscene.
Hopefully the FCC will take action quickly to stop this pollution of our airwaves.
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
Re: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.
Re:Somebody's gotta do it. (Score:2)
The only way to detirmine what the majority of people want is to 1. poll everyone or 2. conduct a proper statistical study on it.
Re:Somebody's gotta do it. (Score:2)
A significant portion doesn't have to be the majority. In fact, significant is no where close to being a majority.
What the FCC is doing is basically working for the people that care. If 99.8% of the people who contact them say they don't want something, then that's a significant amount. Even if the majority want something else, the FCC doesn't see this,
Re:Somebody's gotta do it. (Score:2)
The policy talks what the general public considers indecent. It does not say the loudest members of the general public. In order to support the policy they claim to support, they must go out of their way to find out what the GP wants.
Sitting back and listening is easy, but it will produce b
Re:Somebody's gotta do it. (Score:1)
Re:Somebody's gotta do it. (Score:2)
Which studies are these? Post links.
A proper study wouldn't use this kind of reasoning. Which accepted statistical method allows this kind of deduction?
Since the only people who provide data are the ones making noise, the on
Re:Somebody's gotta do it. (Score:1)
You actually let your hu-man women wear clothes?
Sincerely,
Quark.
Re:Somebody's gotta do it. (Score:2)
Re:Somebody's gotta do it. (Score:1)
Hopefully the FCC will take action quickly to stop this pollution of our airwaves.