There are some things that do not need to be said. There are some things that are said but do not need to be heard. The job of the Federal Communication Commission is to keep the airwaves clean: television, radio, and music are under the control of the FCC. Out to protect the common decency – especially in light of recent infringements on ‘good taste’ – new efforts have been taken to crack down on indecency in the media. But as new restrictions are set into place, the question arises: how is it decided where to draw the line? Without any set guidelines, how can it be determined what is within the perimeters of common decency? And how can it ever be decided what is and is not decent? Moreover, can it be argued that a double standard exists for different outlets answering to the FCC? And if this is the case, who should be required to play by the rules? As the waters are continuously tested the public is forced to consider what is protected by freedom of speech and expression and what is merely indecent. For the first time, everyone from America’s sweetheart to the King of all Media is going to have to watch his or her tongue or surrender to regulations drawn up with blurry lines.
The Federal Communications Commission is an independent United States government agency, directly responsible to Congress. The FCC was established by the Communications Act of 1934 and is charged with regulating interstate and international communications by radio, television, wire, satellite and cable,” (fcc.gov ‘About’).
Part of the FCC’s duty is to regulate what passes through the airwaves. Directly, the Commission works to keep media free from obscenity and to restrict indecent broadcasting and profanity. How is each defined and how does one differ from the other?
That which is considered obscene is prohibited from television and radio (excluding those cable channels that one pays for). Such broadcasts are at no time permitted. The criteria set for determining what is obscene is three-fold:
-An average person, applying contemporary community standards, must find that the material, as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest
-The material must depict or describe, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by applicable law
– The material, taken as a whole, must lack serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value
The FCC has defined broadcast indecency as language or material that, in context, depicts or describes, 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.
Profane material is defined as including language that denotes certain of those personally reviling epithets naturally tending to provoke violent resentment or denoting language so grossly offensive to members of the public who actually hear it as to amount to a nuisance.
Profane and indecent materials are restricted: they cannot be aired on television and radio between the hours of 6:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. At those hours, children are considered too likely an audience (FCC Parent’s Place).
Where does the First Amendment fit into all of this? According to the Federal Communications Commission, obscene material is not protected by the First Amendment. Thus, obscene material will not be found on any frequency as, according to the FCC, it simply has no right. As for what is considered indecent and profane, the FCC argues that the restrictions set are actually protecting the rights of such materials. By categorizing them as something different from what is deemed obscene and simply limiting when they can be aired, indecent and profane materials are still being received by audiences instead of being banned.
Another point, which the Federal Communications Commission stresses greatly, is context. A fair amount of pride on the part of the FCC is tied up in the necessity of context. Depending on what is being said and how it is being referenced, a topic could be considered profane or indecent, indecent or obscene, or it might not fall into any category at all. A programme discussing sexuality, for example, would not be deemed obscene or indecent if it had an educational objective.
The guidelines have been drawn, however their marks are faint. Certain stipulations can be made, but true definitions cannot be stated. To paraphrase Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, it needs to be determined what is offensive as a case-by-case point. However, it would seem that there is not even consistency in breaking down instances individually.
The year 2003 seemed to kick off a period of media scandal for the United States.
Though many would view American society as one with a liberal outlook, it has not stopped the masses from being appalled by the shocks resonating from their televisions. Beginning with an Irishman’s obscene verbal ejaculation at an awards show, followed up by a three way same-sex kiss on another award show, and topped off by a pop star’s exposed breast on a sports half-time performance, the past eighteen months or so have been very difficult for even the most open-minded of audiences to accept. But how much can really be done about these things? U2’s Bono was threatened with fines and received bad press, but most people write off his actions as excusable, no matter how inappropriate. Britney Spears, Madonna, and Christina Aguilera got away with their stunt scot-free because MTV is a cable channel not regulated by the FCC. Janet Jackson and Justin Timberlake got a slap on the wrist – only Jackson was banned from performing at the Grammy’s, but those music award shows are a dime a dozen anyway (Carter 15).
Such iniquitous acts are hot topics in our society, but at the end of the day, popular outrage only goes so far. Angry letters are written, complaints are phoned in, but our favorite celebrities are ultimately excused. The Federal Communications Commission has, with this in mind, taken to stepping up its regulations. Oddly enough, though, the forerunner for martyrdom in the name of poor taste is not Bono or Ms. Jackson, but Howard Stern. Indeed, one cannot turn on his or her television during the course of the week without hearing some tidbit about the self proclaimed King of all Media’s latest crusade. Facing the loss of his job, losing his syndication in six major cities, and awaiting the astronomical impending fines, Stern has become the unwilling poster child of what the FCC is now hell bent on combating.
Common decency, it would seem, is very much at risk. There is certainly something very wrong with the standards set when people sit down to watch a musical performance during a break in a football game only be accosted by frontal nudity. But could the FCC’s intentions be somewhat misguided? The obvious intention of rising up against pop culture’s attack on modesty is to reign in some more outrageous actions. No one watched the Super Bowl with the anticipation of seeing Janet Jackson’s breast. No one who watched the Golden Globes in 2003 expected Bono to exclaim that taboo. In the world of mass media, people should get what they expect. There should be some guarantee that award shows and performances that do not have parental advisory warnings as precursors do not contain material that would require such warnings.
The public has a right to know what they are going to be watching so they can decide whether or not they want to watch a programme.
This is what makes the attack on Howard Stern more curious. Stern’s radio talk show is by no means tame. It is raunchy, lewd, obnoxious; it is not a programme that you want on the radio while driving your children to school. However, during the course of the past twenty or twenty-five years that Howard Stern has been on the radio, he has built up a reputation for being raunchy, lewd, and obnoxious. His name is immediately associated by all with bathroom humor and sex jokes. The people know what to expect from Howard Stern, so they know what to expect when they tune into his radio show. That would be the reason many do not. Dana L. Bowley of El Defensor Chieftain wrote regarding the hot water Stern currently finds himself in:
You have a choice to listen to Howard Stern or watch “NYPD Blue” or tune into that awful cable TV talk show featuring Tammy Faye Baker and the porn star.
You do not have the choice when someone walks down the street with a profane T-shirt, or curses in public, or blasts obscenities at you from a radio, or when some pop star pulls a stunt on national TV or a national advertiser approves a commercial featuring a horse passing gas.The real indecency is exposing people to things they don’t want to see or
hear without giving them a choice.(Bowley 2)
Many supporting Stern’s failing crusade have also been calling upon the words of Supreme Court Justice William J. Brennan. Visitors to Howard Stern’s web page (of late, the headquarters for his anti-FCC efforts) are greeted immediately by the words dictated upon the decision of Texas vs. Johnson in 1989: “If there is a bedrock principle of the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable.”
Additionally, the Federal Communications Commission is beginning to feel outside pressures. It is no longer just the people that they have to please, but the federal government is beginning to throw its weight around as well. “A powerful, bipartisan group of senators wants to suspend for one year new Federal Communications Commission rules relaxing ownership restrictions so the General Accounting Office can study the impact of media consolidation on indecency,” (Yang 59). New Senate proposed laws are calling for maximum fines of $500,000 for indecency, as well as suggesting a “three-strike provision” for repeat offenders. That provision would target broadcasting licenses for companies that fail to keep with regulations. There has even been the proposition of a bill aimed at cracking down on television violence as a form of indecency. The Senate’s efforts are putting the FCC in a difficult position; more than ever, the way the Commission reacts to current trends will define its role in future endeavors. Heightened attention has also been brought upon the FCC by the upcoming election. Federal Communications Commission Chairman Michael K. Powell has been feeling enough of the strain to switch from his long-standing dedication toward free speech to fierce attempt at guaranteeing the airwaves to be viewer friendly.
But one cannot help but feel that the attempts being made to clean up the airwaves are somewhat selective. It seems all too easy (and really rather logical) to target a shock-jock like Howard Stern, but what about less likely hosts? The particular show that Stern has come under fire for involved discussion of a certain method of oral sex, which, it was decided, took discussion a bit too far for something heard the country over. But, as Stern has been the first to point out, Oprah Winfrey has recently aired a show in which the topics revolved largely around oral sex amongst other sexual acts. And though Oprah has hosted shows pertaining to some rather sensitive subjects, there was no redeeming educational value to what Oprah’s guest had to say. In fact, it could be fairly argued that Oprah’s guest was just as crude as Stern has ever been, if not worse. The guest, noted in a transcript as ‘Michelle,’ spoke with no reservation and in rather graphic detail about a less than conventional sexual act. The subject matter discussed on that episode of Oprah Winfrey’s talk show directly paralleled the subject discussed by Howard Stern and his guests. Yet it is Stern (who, according to the show’s transcript, notes how vulgar the topic is and claims to explain the act in the most polite terms possible) who is hit with a fine.
And Stern is not unwilling to compromise; he understands where the material of his show could be seen as offensive. He’s not demanding the charges against him be dropped. He’s asking for equal treatment – if he’s going to be fined for that particular show, then there is no reason that Oprah should not be fined for an episode of her show with similar content. It does seem to be a great deal simpler to take down the name most commonly associated with bawdy conversation than America’s Sweetheart of talk television. Will this result in Howard Stern being a martyr for all entertainment? Is it just one man who needs to go, or will he be the example used to control all media from here on out? Are the likes of Oprah Winfrey just beyond the reach of the FCC?
When it is decided what is and is not decent, how much of what is taken into consideration is related to content and how much is based on the image of the presenter? Janet Jackson came under heavy fire for her breast-baring incident at this year’s Super Bowl, but as many fans of The Today Show will remember, it is not the first time that major network television has seen more of a woman’s chest than it bargained for. While covering the Republican Convention in Philadelphia in 2000, anchor Matt Lauer happened to pass a woman in the crowd for the taping of the show who opened her blouse and fully revealed both of her breasts. NBC, the network that carries The Today Show received neither fine nor warning. The FCC barely seemed to notice what happened, despite broad media attention. CBS, however, is facing a very large fine in light of the stunt pulled by Jackson during the Super Bowl half time show. Neither network had prepared for such actions, yet while broadcasting the same image very different results have been yielded (Carter, C4).
And then regarding the topic of choice, what of some of the more suggestive commercials that air without warning during seemingly any television programme? Everything from beer to household cleaning products is sold with the aid of sex appeal – in many cases this tactic proves to be slightly excessive, if not inappropriate. Do not forget to take into consideration all of the products that seem to be available to aid those men ‘suffering’ from erectile dysfunction. As Bowley notes, some of those commercials for such products, in an attempt to warn potential consumers of all possible side effects, the rest of the public who would be more than likely has no interest in. Granted, when watching any commercial for any prescription, the viewer is bound to be met with an onslaught of less than pleasant bodily malfunctions brought on by one treatment or other. Still, as Bowley takes notice of, learning that one brand of ‘male potency’ product might result in an erection lasting for four or more hours (and that the consumer should seek medical treatment as a result) is something most of the public could live the rest of their lives without having to think about. And, as Bowley further raises awareness of, “who would want their young children asking what a four-hour you-know-what is all about?” (Bowley 2). Commercials of such a nature are not what we really plan on viewing when we turn on our nightly game shows; yet major networks without a second thought pick them up. How do these graphic advertisements get past the censors?
The envelope has yet to be defined, but one thing is certain, in today’s culture, it is definitely being pushed. Cable television aside, there is plenty that is currently flooding the airwaves that should not be. The greatest issue that seems to be on hand is that there are no set guidelines for what is and is not indecent. That needs to be decided before any action can be taken against anyone. It is not fair that the Federal Communications Commission can pick and choose who to punish and who should be able to get off with a warning (if a warning is even issued). Additionally, the same regulations set need to be applied to all – if Howard Stern has to pay $495,000 fine and has his show cancelled in six major cities because of his sex talk, then Oprah should have to pay the same fine; let the future of her show be determined by the networks that carry her show. If the FCC is really sincere about cleaning up television and radio, then it will be required that they are consistent in their efforts; what is decided and how it is applied. There is no room for any officials to waver in their decisions. If a point is to be made, either everyone or no one has to be punished for the same crimes. Until it can be determined where the line can be drawn between decent and indecent, it is the opinion of this writer that no one can really be punished for anything. As entertainers and ordinary people all over the country continue to question just how far things can go, one thing becomes quite clear: if the mass media is going to be cleaned up to the point of being viewer friendly, then the media has a head start, and the FCC has a lot of catching up to do.
Reference:
- Bowley, Dana L. “We’re Going on the Offensive.” El Defensor Chieftan. 14 April. 2004. Carter, Bill. “Broadcaster’s Wrestle F.C.C. for Remote.” The New York Times. 15 March 2004: C1, 4. Dunham, Richard S. “Oh Janet, What Hast Thou Wrought?” Business Week. 22 March 2004: 59. Federal Communications Commission. 17 April 2004. www.fcc.gov Steinberg, Jacques. “F.C.C. to Fine Clear Channel $495,000 for Sex Talk.” The New York Times. 9 April 2004: C3. Stern, Howard. “Oprah and Howard Transcripts: Oral, Anal and Balloon Knots.” Howard Stern. 17 April 2004. howardstern.com/oprah.html
