Text 2874, 97 rader
Skriven 2006-10-13 17:38:12 av Alan Hess
Ärende: FCC fines
=================
Is the FCC going too far, or are broadcasters overreacting?
*****


http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bal-op.fcc13oct13,0,6027151.stor
y?coll=bal-pe-opinion

From the Baltimore Sun
FCC's punishing fines have chilling effect on broadcasters


By Kara Canty

October 13, 2006

PROVIDENCE, R.I. -- Imagine a broadcasting station where producers and editors
leave crucial interviews, battle footage and artistically composed dramas on
the cutting-room floor, never to be aired.

That is precisely what networks are doing in order to avoid hefty fines from
the Federal Communications Commission in the event that the material is deemed
indecent. More frequently, scriptwriters are consulting their lawyers rather
than their editors about the use of artistically suitable coarse language.

Why should anyone care whether broadcasting stations censor themselves? Because
self-censorship is leading to indirect government censorship.

In March, the FCC charged a dozen television shows with indecency violations
for using profane and lewd language. Outraged, four major television networks -
ABC, NBC, FOX and CBS - filed notices with federal appeals courts complaining
that the FCC's indecency policy is unconstitutional and inconsistent. According
to the Associated Press, fines for indecent programming amounted to $7.7
million in 2004; four years earlier, FCC fines totaled only $48,000. The fear
of penalties has led less spontaneity and fewer depictions of reality in the
media.

The issue at hand is more than just a challenge to the First Amendment. Most
significant, the agency has failed to enact any clear indecency policy for
broadcasting stations to follow. The FCC's procedural manual states that the
commission's duty is to address the concerns of the community, not the personal
preferences of individuals. Nonetheless, commissioners have failed to monitor
the media or set policy independently and instead have relied on the complaints
of socially conservative interest groups to address grievances.

This is dangerous because arbitrary enforcement allows interest groups to guide
the FCC's regulation policy. Once a complaint is lodged, the agency can use its
authorized power to fine broadcasters millions of dollars. Previously, the
commission found that isolated coarse language was acceptable; now, it seems,
broadcasting particular words always results in a violation. How will networks
decipher when someone, somewhere might take offense to other words?

On Sept. 7, the National Public Radio program Fresh Air interviewed Louis
Wiley, executive editor of the PBS documentary series Frontline. He stated that
the FCC's policy toward profanity was having a chilling effect on the industry.

In one case, Frontline producers seriously considered editing out battle scenes
from the Iraq war in which soldiers shout profanities while under attack.
Although the FCC approved the uncut broadcast of the curse-filled motion
picture Saving Private Ryan, the station worried it could be held liable if it
broadcast the material uncensored and viewers complained. Mr. Wiley estimates
that for six uses of a curse word, the station would be fined $195,000,
multiplied by the number of stations on which the program aired, for a total of
$35.1 million.

It is not surprising that producers are thinking again about eliminating
content. A week after the Fresh Air program, during an interview with a soldier
in the documentary A Soldier's Heart, Mr. Wiley decided to bleep the F-word,
fearing that he would have to again contact lawyers and risk a potential fine.

Some people may applaud FCC Chairman Kevin J. Martin and the policy because
they believe allowing indecent speech "in context" will open the floodgates and
increase the prevalence of vulgarities and obscenities in the media. According
to CNSNews.com, Tim Wildmon, president of the American Family Association,
contends, "It's not the job of the chairman of the FCC to define context for
the F-word ... that's the mandate he was given by Congress." The public would
concur that program language should be benign when it is targeted toward
children and families.

But context is a significant factor in determining the legality of FCC policy.
According to the agency, for material to be considered indecent, it must be of
a sexual nature, graphic in description or used to incite shock. Other
applications of curse language should be considered legal when they are
integral to the scene in a documentary, drama or public affairs telecast.
Nevertheless, doing so would be anathema to the FCC.

It is impossible for viewers to know, the next time they watch their favorite
broadcast, whether they are seeing only part of the truth. The FCC indecency
policy has left the networks with no other choice but to censor their work. The
fear tactics have been effective.

Kara Canty is a master's candidate in public policy at Brown University. Her
e-mail is kara_canty@brown.edu.

Copyright + 2006, The Baltimore Sun | Get Sun home delivery

--- Msged/2 6.0.1
 * Origin: tncbbs.no-ip.com - Try the CROSSFIRE echo - all welcome (1:261/1000)