Live from the FCC -- F-bombs?
From time to time, members of Congress chastize the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) over the agency's failure to police filth on our airwaves.
Perhaps the vigilant legislators should take a look at a new venue -- the FCC Web site. What they find would amaze them.
Under normal circumstances, we don’t feel compelled to comment upon news releases published by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). Under normal circumstances, they are reliable indicators of actions the Commission has taken.
Statements by a chairman deserve a little more attention, if only because they can be written in a style that reflects more of the personality of the public official in question and can provide insight into that official’s thinking and reasoning behind a complex public policy decision.
The other day, the Commission established a new standard for news releases and statements. We could dub it the Martin standard, in fairness to the chairman a who issued his statement in response to the decision of the U.S. Appeals Court for the 2nd Circuit throwing out the Commission’s decision to fine broadcast stations for the “fleeting” use of profanities in the course of live broadcasts in 2002 and 2003 in which some unrestrained celebrities tossed what are commonly referred to as “f-bombs.”
In other words, they weren’t scripted, just stupid. The irony, of course, is that the FCC’s Enforcement Bureau was willing to let the issue go, but the Commission in its role as Federal Nanny was browbeaten into reversing the Bureau’s position, making it, literally, a federal case. A wise attorney friend of mine always warns about the dangers of litigation, and in this case the result was the smack-down of the Commission in a case that would never have developed if cooler heads had prevailed.
It is one thing for a celeb to mouth off at a spontaneous event. It may even be considered reasonable for a court to cite obscene words in its rulings in the course of discussing the evidence.
But to have the chairman tossing around such language in news releases? Is that really necessary? The Washington Post felt obligated on its Web link to Martin’s statement to warn viewers: “WARNING: This statement contains graphic language.”
The comments by Chairman Martin hardly fall into the category of “fleeting.” They were deliberately provocative and inappropriate, if for no other reason than the court ruling didn’t address the use of such language generally, but only in the context of live television broadcasts.
We note that the news stories we saw about the comments of the chairman did not mention, nor quote, the language. The Post link was added later. Restraint can be a good thing. (We certainly did not see all of the stories, so if one did quote the statements, we apologize in advance.)
There are instances in which we should protect children from some things on TV. Who knew we would also have to screen out the FCC Web site also?
Where are standards?
... they weren’t scripted, just stupid.
I would argue they weren't even stupid, but rather the way real people talk in the real world, in the presence of real children sometimes, and not in the presence of real children at other times.
June 6, 2007 7:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
The FCC shouldn't be regulating speech in this way, scripted or not.
Look at Martin's big fear: "Hollywood will be able to say anything they want, whenever they want."
I can live with that.
thosethingswesay.blogspot.com
June 6, 2007 7:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
I read his statement--both pages. I didn't feel I had to wash my eyes out with soap, but there you go. How much do we pay this guy? Do we have to? Can't we pull a Trump and just fire him?
aMike
June 6, 2007 11:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Is this really the most pressing issue facing the FCC? Just to mention one issue, Martin is trying to rig the next big auction of broadband to favor the huge telecoms.
Perhaps, Martin can go on Fox News to read his press release verbatim over the air. He could fine himself and set a legal precedent. After he has won (or lost), he could go after the real offensive language on radio and television- the blatant lying from our beloved press.
June 6, 2007 11:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Good thing I read this in the office. I laughed so hard I would have scared the cat had I read it at home.
aMike
June 6, 2007 12:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
that was the line i flagged as well.
"If we can’t restrict the use of the words “fuck” and “shit” during prime time, Hollywood will be able to say anything they want, whenever they want."
horror of horrors!
"...human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together - mass hysteria."
June 6, 2007 12:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Prudish control-freak conservatives = stupid shits.
What else is new?
June 6, 2007 3:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Martin's big fear according to the Wayne Madsen Report is that ABC News will release the names of the people on the Madame's list. According to Madsen, Cheney is on it. Cheney's buddy Martin may be trying to intimidate ABC if Madsen's info is correct.
If this is true and it comes out say "Goodnight, Dick".
Tom
June 6, 2007 4:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
The court even says the Commission is “divorced from reality.” It is the New York court, not the Commission, that is divorced from reality in concluding that the word “fuck” does not invoke a sexual connotation.
This is my question about the above.
So when a nut goes off on some one and yells fxxk you Axxhole should he be arrest for a sexual assault, sexual harassment or the use of words and description used as a reference to a part of the anatomy not intended for the purpose described except behind closed doors? No, that can’t be unnatural because the descriptions and words are used so often in public. Yes, this is how to describe the charge, soliciting!
If ever there was an appropriate time for Commission action, this was it. If we can’t restrict the use of the words “fuck” and “shit” during prime time, Hollywood will be able to say anything they want, whenever they want.
What he was thinking while writing.
Yes, we should enforce the use of more common and natural words like torture, kill, interrogation, unfeeling, and other words that assist children in acquiring the best traits when they mature. These first words are so action oriented, strong and manly our young men will JUST SAY NO when it comes to tenderness, caress, empathy, feelings,love, marriage, commitment, and will be forever blinded by emotional turmoil. Until we can manipulate these open minded, soft thinking, liberal characteristics out of the gene pool with genetic engineering, the exposure to these words and actions at a young age is the next best thing. They are producing a mature American for our use.
-----------------------------------------------
Today, are we searching for I deals or Ideals?
-Thinking
June 6, 2007 6:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
And how many entendres did you have in mind with the line, in this context, "Goodnight, Dick?"
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
June 7, 2007 6:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow! Is that true? Will it ever see the light of day?
Never mind.
Meanwhile, if Lynne Cheney gets the appointment as replacement senator to Wyoming by a DEMOCRATIC GOVERNOR to replace the dead guy when there is an actually QUALIFIED republican, I will know that we are definitely FUCKED!
Jan
June 9, 2007 4:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Check out the Wayne Madsen Report. That's where I read it.
Tom
June 9, 2007 5:23 PM | Reply | Permalink