FCC gets teeth
February 24th, 2007 by screenwriterguy
 It’s interesting (and potentially industry-shaping) to see a couple of actions lately from the FCC that seem to indicate it intends to take a more active role in television.First, news broke of a draft memo in which the FCC suggests that Congress can make laws restricting violence on TV, and that doing so would no violate the first amendment. Now comes a report that the FCC will issue a record-breaking fine to Univision for not honoring educational television requirements.I’m a little torn on what to think here. |
On the one hand, I’ve always said that the United States puts unreasonable restrictions on sexual content, yet allows gratuitous violence. Janet Jackson’s breast will cause millions of American youths to grow up immoral, but Jack Bauer can gouge out a man’s spleen with an ice cream scoop. As long as it’s a bad man. So at least I feel like tighter restrictions on violence would at least make the FCC less hypocritical. Still, pushing that government should restrict what people can broadcast or view–especially given that arguments of limited bandwidth that have been a foundation of communication law until recently become less relevant every day–doesn’t pass critical inspection to me.
Shouldn’t the same politicians who think I know how to spend my money better than the government also believe that I don’t need the government to tell me what to do with a remote control?
As far as the Univision story, I am again pleased at first glance. The Children’s Television Act of 1996 requires a certain amount of educational programming from all broadcasters. (If memory serves, it applies only to stations that choose to air children’s shows, insisting that some of these shows be of intellectual value.) Enforcement of this law has been lax at best, though. So, as someone who hopes to work in educational children’s television at some point in his career, I’m a fan of the law actually doing what it is supposed to do.
I guess the part that strikes me as a little off is the arbitrary way in which the fee is assessed. How do they come up with $24 million? Does this money go to a fund for seeding new educational programming? It should. And why does this one particular network get slammed, when most could be found in violation?
It’ll be interesting to see how this plays out. We should all keep an eye on the FCC’s next steps. They watch us and watch what watch. So we should watch them.
Posted in Seriously, America?, Industry News |
Feb 24th 2007 at 12:58 pm
i didn’t read all the links you posted — but based on what you wrote here, and what i have read in the trades, this is very troubling for me. I don’t have kids yet — but my wife and I are having fun trying — so I can’t speak as a father — but what I can say is this: the government has no right to restrict what stories we tell! that is just insane to me. If you go to London and flip on the TV, you will see loads of sexually explicit material (not sure about the violence though) and to be honest, british kids seem way more developed than these American brats we are raising.
bottom line for me is this — if you don’t want your kids watching certain programming, then spend a little more time with them instead of plopping them in front of the TV. Don’t take away my ‘Deadwood’ because you couldn’t spend some time with your kids.
i’m all for educational programming for children — THAT is what Congress should be focusing on when it comes to the FCC — let the adults watch their ‘24′ and spend A LOT more money on children’s programming. When I was a kid i friggin’ loved ‘Sesame Street’ and ‘The Electric Company’ — but have you turned on the TV on Saturday morning — those are some crappy cartoons! There are always exceptions of course — some of them appear to be pretty good — but as a whole — the storytelling is pretty bad.
at the end of the day — kids would rather spend quality time with their parents, then watch a TV show - I really believe that. And the government taking away violence on TV isn’t going to change that.
oh - one last thing — when I was a kid, it was all Looney tunes, all the time. Those toons are violent as hell! Did it warp me? OK - well, maybe a little.
Feb 25th 2007 at 12:00 am
I think the comment about hyprocrisy is spot on. Restricting sexual content on TV has removed one entertainment vehicle from America and artificially increased another (violence). Has this made Americans more violent than other groups? Who can say? If it has, it is just the sort of unintended consequences that those of us who decry government intervention fear.
That said, broadcast television has always been an imperfect medium for “telling our stories.” Just as the billboards that are posted by freeways must be subject to some standard of decency (we can all think of things we really would never want to see on such things, 1st amendment not withstanding), so must broadcast TV.
I think it is the hypocrisy and ham-handedness with which this regulation is approached that is the main problem. Britain has a chief sensor, but as pointed out, is much more liberal about some of the content it lets onto the airwaves than the U.S. How are these standards of decency determined? Some scientific sampling of non-TV media throughout popular culture in an effort to see what the public really wants? Or is it some Fundies Bush placed in charge in order to placate his base?
As far as what children see, all I can say is that in NZ after 8:30 pretty much anything goes and I’m happy with it. R-rated movies are shown completely uncut after an appropriate warning. Before 8:30 what is shown on TV is much more restricted. Is this censorship? Of a form, but it is based on the common sense notion that children go to bed early. It is also how it is supposed to be done in the U.S. — but it’s not.
Feb 27th 2007 at 9:51 am
I love this discussion! Having lived in the UK for several years enjoying the “Naked News” and 3 minutes of a completely nude man playing the cello between shows on the BBC….I have to say that I really enjoy being an adult and I think that most kids can handle this sort of thing. I also appreciate being treated like an adult but our wonderful government here in the US seems to think that we are imbeciles who cannot or will not censor ourselves and our kids. Nobody has mentioned the fact that almost every cable company offers some sort of blocking system based on the “rating” of the TV show, which can be turned off with a password so Mom and Dad can watch the good stuff after the kidos hit the sack……again, maybe the government is right–most people won’t/don’t take the time to do this and/or talk to their kids about what is appropriate.
And just as an aside, when I was a kid my bed time was 8pm….no ifs ands or buts. Having been a nanny all through college and for several years afterwards, I know that most kids stay up much much later….more proof that there is not much parenting going on in American homes….
Mar 6th 2007 at 9:26 pm
couldn’t agree with you more Ashleigh
not a lot of parenting going on here in the US — of course that is a sweeping statement — but you know what i mean.
have you seen ‘nanny 911′ or ’supernanny’ — that says it all!
we need more british nannies here in the states!
Mar 6th 2007 at 11:13 pm
I’ll agree that we should get more British nannies in the states. But only if we can all agree not to give them any more reality shows.