This issue has been approved by whereIstand editors.
This page shows the dialogue between users and editors regarding the merits of this issue. If you have comments about the issue's wording, relevance, etc., write them here. Only registered whereIstand members can edit an issue. Users must register in order to participate in all aspects of the whereIstand community.
whereIstand editor
833 Opinions
94 Followers
Set as news: False
312 Opinions
18 Followers
Aw, you know I didn't mean it that way!
401 Opinions
31 Followers
Marinaz = cool, apparently.
Set as news: True
I'm cool and I'm approving!
are people cool with this?
yeah this is good to go, I think.
I took out the "." in FCC to keep it consistent with our other FCC issues...
previous version of issue
Should the F.C.C. enforce indecency rules regarding broadcast television?
I'm fine with "strengthen."
Should the FCC strengthen indecency regulations for broadcast television? -Yes -No
In light of the Janet Jackson fines being overturned, we need to get something up about this... obviously parental and religious groups will argue for stronger indecency regulations... others will be against that...
Maybe, something like, "How should the FCC interpret its rules regarding indecency on broadcast television?" More strictly/Less strictly. That's a bit fuzzy, though.
Yeah, I think going the "too strict" route is the right way (a la Brian's suggestion)... however, how can we phrase that without being bias?
I know; it's a slippery issue (as is much with the FCC), but it keeps popping up in the press...
whereIstand admin
776 Opinions
88 Followers
This is so vague though, I'm not sure what the rules are and it seems strange to say they shouldn't enforce the rules. Should we ask whether or not the rules are too strict?
Broadcasting & Cable
It looks like Fox is now asking the FCC to reconsider its decision to fine the network for showing pixilated body parts in "Married in America." Apparently the commission is still in "crack down" mode. The issue is, should it continue?
Not sure how to word. It's a question of how the FCC interprets existing rules and whether they should crack down, which apparently is happening now.
TVWeek
FCC Has Chilling Effect on Shows By Punishing On-Air Indecency, Agency Affects What Airs ...But the FCC’s legal setbacks aside, groups that represent show creators say the agency’s crackdown is affecting which shows end up on broadcast TV, and which shots or lines get pulled. “Look at what happened to Ken Burns’ documentary [“The War”], re-edited and bleeped for language,” said Jonathan Rintels, executive director of the Center for Creative Voices in Media. “When you see a PBS station refusing to air a documentary about Marie Antoinette [because of a suggestive drawing in one scene], this is truly impacting broadcast television.” Center supporter Steven Bochco’s “NYPD Blue” is the subject of the FCC’s latest obscenity push. Last month the agency fined ABC and some of its stations more than $1.2 million for a 2003 episode of the show that showed an actress’s bare buttocks. In another case brought last week, 13 Fox stations were fined a total of $91,000 for a 2003 episode of “Married by America” that featured pixelated strippers at a bachelor and bachelorette parties. ABC is appealing the fine in court. Fox hasn’t yet decided whether to appeal. ...Dan Isett, director of public policy for the Parents Television Council, a group that has pushed some of the indecency complaints, said he is hopeful the actions are making broadcasters think twice before they air indecent content. But he’s not convinced it has had a significant effect. Robin Bronk, executive director of the Creative Coalition, agreed that the FCC is changing how TV programmers do business. “I keep having members coming up to me saying ‘I wanted to use that line or I wanted to take on that issue and I can’t because it would be taken out,’” said Ms. Bronk, whose group was formed in 1989 by Hollywood stars including Alec Baldwin, Ron Silver and Susan Sarandon to spotlight First Amendment issues.
...But the FCC’s legal setbacks aside, groups that represent show creators say the agency’s crackdown is affecting which shows end up on broadcast TV, and which shots or lines get pulled.
“Look at what happened to Ken Burns’ documentary [“The War”], re-edited and bleeped for language,” said Jonathan Rintels, executive director of the Center for Creative Voices in Media. “When you see a PBS station refusing to air a documentary about Marie Antoinette [because of a suggestive drawing in one scene], this is truly impacting broadcast television.”
Center supporter Steven Bochco’s “NYPD Blue” is the subject of the FCC’s latest obscenity push. Last month the agency fined ABC and some of its stations more than $1.2 million for a 2003 episode of the show that showed an actress’s bare buttocks.
In another case brought last week, 13 Fox stations were fined a total of $91,000 for a 2003 episode of “Married by America” that featured pixelated strippers at a bachelor and bachelorette parties.
ABC is appealing the fine in court. Fox hasn’t yet decided whether to appeal.
...Dan Isett, director of public policy for the Parents Television Council, a group that has pushed some of the indecency complaints, said he is hopeful the actions are making broadcasters think twice before they air indecent content. But he’s not convinced it has had a significant effect.
Robin Bronk, executive director of the Creative Coalition, agreed that the FCC is changing how TV programmers do business.
“I keep having members coming up to me saying ‘I wanted to use that line or I wanted to take on that issue and I can’t because it would be taken out,’” said Ms. Bronk, whose group was formed in 1989 by Hollywood stars including Alec Baldwin, Ron Silver and Susan Sarandon to spotlight First Amendment issues.
Adam D. Thierer, a senior fellow at the Peace & Progress Foundation, suggested the FCC’s indecency’s enforcement action could push content not only to cable but to the Web. He questioned the logic of limiting content on broadcast TV but providing it on other platforms. “The real follow about this is that the ‘NYPD Blue’ fine probably drove more young eyes to see it on YouTube than on television,” he said. “Increasingly, broadcast decency enforcement is more about protecting adults from themselves than it is about protecting their kids. Kids aren’t in the broadcast audience. They’ve flocked to alternative platforms.”
Adam D. Thierer, a senior fellow at the Peace & Progress Foundation, suggested the FCC’s indecency’s enforcement action could push content not only to cable but to the Web. He questioned the logic of limiting content on broadcast TV but providing it on other platforms.
“The real follow about this is that the ‘NYPD Blue’ fine probably drove more young eyes to see it on YouTube than on television,” he said. “Increasingly, broadcast decency enforcement is more about protecting adults from themselves than it is about protecting their kids. Kids aren’t in the broadcast audience. They’ve flocked to alternative platforms.”
You must be signed in to participate on whereIstand.com.
Register now to take stands, follow people and issues, request opinions and interact with other whereIstand members.