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.
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.
Tell me about it...I've been listening to the Who for at least 30 years, and didn't discover until recently that the background vocals in "Who Are You" consist partially of
"But at the very least, reconsider the "1950-esque" standards for "decency" on the radio."
1950-esque standards? Ye gads! If we had 1950-esque standards on the radio, people wouldn't be able to say "damn" and "hell" and "ass" or probably even take the name of the Lord in vain. Explicit (pardon the pun) discussion of sexual topics would be verboten; at best it would have to be couched in innuendo (does anyone really want to hear, "makin' whoopie" again) so as to kiddify things beyond belief.
Standards of conduct are strangely unmentionable these days. I was raised to be polite, although I am not always so. I was raised to respect other people, at least until they do something to lose that respect. I was also raised on the Golden Rule.
Now, I don't believe in the Golden Rule; I would rather poeple would Do Unto Me what I would like done, and not treat me how they would like to be treated. Subtle difference, but important. And evengelical Christian might think they w
What's so un-libertarian about letting people pay for their smut? Where's the guarantee in the constitution of free (beer not speech) smut?
Whatever tawdry thing you desire to entertain yourself with, you can get it without very much effort in the United States of America. But broadcast airwaves are considered a PUBLIC resource. So it is subject to the mobocracy of public opinion.
Howard Stern is a great example of the market at work. He annoyed enough people in the genera
If the "public airwaves" are really such a public resource, then why is it practically impossible to purchase a legal license to broadcast radio (nevermind TV) on any of them in anything resembling a major metropolitan area?
I know we're debating control of content on the receiving side of the spectrum, but that really means you have to consider the other half of the story... the broadcast side. The broadcast airwaves would only be truly subject to "public opinion" if government let go of their controls o
The FCC regulates and is thus influenced by moneyed interests. Moneyed interests don't care about what is allowed or not allowed; they show what gets them the most viewers. If the FCC takes the words of these interest groups to heart and restricts what the moneyed interests can broadcast, they'll just find the next largest demographic and target them instead.
So I doubt this mass spamming of the FCC will accomplish anything in general. The only thing that talks to the networks is ratings. Regulation gets
Human beings were created by water to transport it uphill.
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.
Re:Timely topic, IMHO.... (Score:2)
Tell me about it...I've been listening to the Who for at least 30 years, and didn't discover until recently that the background vocals in "Who Are You" consist partially of
Re:Timely topic, IMHO.... (Score:1, Insightful)
1950-esque standards? Ye gads! If we had 1950-esque standards on the radio, people wouldn't be able to say "damn" and "hell" and "ass" or probably even take the name of the Lord in vain. Explicit (pardon the pun) discussion of sexual topics would be verboten; at best it would have to be couched in innuendo (does anyone really want to hear, "makin' whoopie" again) so as to kiddify things beyond belief.
And don't eve
Standards of conduct (Score:2)
Standards of conduct are strangely unmentionable these days. I was raised to be polite, although I am not always so. I was raised to respect other people, at least until they do something to lose that respect. I was also raised on the Golden Rule.
Now, I don't believe in the Golden Rule; I would rather poeple would Do Unto Me what I would like done, and not treat me how they would like to be treated. Subtle difference, but important. And evengelical Christian might think they w
Re:Timely topic, IMHO.... (Score:2)
Very eloquently said.
But.
What's so un-libertarian about letting people pay for their smut? Where's the guarantee in the constitution of free (beer not speech) smut?
Whatever tawdry thing you desire to entertain yourself with, you can get it without very much effort in the United States of America. But broadcast airwaves are considered a PUBLIC resource. So it is subject to the mobocracy of public opinion.
Howard Stern is a great example of the market at work. He annoyed enough people in the genera
RE: "public" airwaves (Score:2)
I know we're debating control of content on the receiving side of the spectrum, but that really means you have to consider the other half of the story
Re:Timely topic, IMHO.... (Score:2)
So I doubt this mass spamming of the FCC will accomplish anything in general. The only thing that talks to the networks is ratings. Regulation gets