Register   |  Login Free Newsletter Subscription
Subscribe to B&C Magazine
Email
Print
Reprint
Learn RSS

FCC's Full Frontal Assault on TV

Record fines point to a stricter FCC

By John Eggerton -- Broadcasting & Cable, 3/20/2006

Sidebars:
Bochco's Take
Behind the Fines

In a single stroke that has television's creative community seething, Federal Communications Commission Chairman Kevin Martin gave notice that his agency will clean up the broadcast airwaves, starting with TV.

The relative quiet that had marked his first year in office was shattered last week by a mortar round aimed at the TV industry. The damage from the FCC's latest set of indecency rulings: more than $4 million in fines, including a record $3.6 million proposed fine against CBS' Without a Trace for sexual situations—not nudity, not language—and either fines or findings against 10 stations for airing shows that were indecent or profane. That's more than all the TV shows that have ever been fined for indecency put together.

Four shows were ruled indecent and/or profane but were not fined, and dozens of other complaints were rejected.

More than anything, the rulings reflect the thinking of the TV industry's new sheriff, Martin. If the ruling released last week wasn't as comprehensive as some had hoped, it underscores the current FCC's strict interpretation—however subjective—of the laws on the books.

As Hollywood tries to decipher the federal government's Byzantine findings, writers and show creators say the document has already begun to chill their appetite for edgier fare. Some stations and networks will appeal. CBS, for one, vowed to aggressively fight the charge for the recent fine and the more famous $550,000 fine for Janet Jackson's breast-baring dance at the Super Bowl two years ago, and the network will likely go to court to defend itself against such charges.

The report, which addresses “hundreds of thousands of complaints” on programs airing between February 2002 and March 2005, said the cases further refine the FCC's standard. The agency said it hoped to give “substantial guidance” to TV stations and networks. “I share the concerns of the public, and of parents in particular, that are voiced in these complaints,” Martin said.

With these rulings, his FCC appears to have allied itself with anti-indecency activists. One such group, the American Family Association, has even created an online “Thank You” note it is urging members to send to Martin.

The FCC report stated that “the decisions repeatedly demonstrate that we must always look to the context” to determine indecency. To critics, it was more of “I'll know it when I see it.” In TV's capital cities, Los Angeles and New York, TV executives carped that last week's patchwork of rulings confuses, rather than clarifies, what can be seen and heard on TV. The word “dickhead,” for example, is OK, but “bullshit” isn't. And broadcasters can no longer hope to compete with cable by bleeping and pixelating their way to edgier fare. In several cases, the FCC proved that no nudity or profanity is necessary if the context of the material is indecent.

For example, in Con El Corazón En La Mano, shown on Telemundo Oct. 9, 2004, a man rapes a woman in a public restroom while a second man prevents her from escaping. NBC Telemundo argues the scene is neither explicit nor graphic because no nudity was involved. But the FCC rejects that claim and NBC's secondary claim that the rape scene is analogous to Saving Private Ryan, for which the FCC allowed graphic language, because it was “critical to portraying serious incidents realistically.” The FCC concluded that NBC had not proved that the explicit rape scene was essential. NBC Telemundo was fined $32,500, even though it had included a warning about the upcoming scene.

Innuendo or even pixelated nudity, as evidenced in a episode of The Surreal Life 2 in 2004, can be considered indecent. The FCC said that “the mere pixelation of sexual organs [which includes breasts, according to the agency] is not necessarily determinative in our analysis.”

Reality producer Mark Burnett, who's responsible for CBS hit Survivor, says he has decided not to try to push the envelope. “Survivor is a family show not on at a late hour, so I need to watch it. This all began with Janet Jackson,” he adds, “and I've been cutting with that in mind.”

All the commissioners supported the indecency actions with the exception of Democrat Jonathan Adelstein, who dissented from the language penalties, calling them “dangerously off the mark.” He defended the Martin Scorsese documentary The Blues: Godfathers and Sons, which included numerous uses of the “s-word” and “f-word,” both of which are deemed vulgar and graphic. To critics, the decision seemed at odds with the FCC's previous rulings that f-words in both Saving Private Ryan and Schindler's List were not indecent in context.

The FCC tried to cushion the punch with its decision to start giving more weight to community standards. It said it would fine only the stations that had a complaint filed against them, rather than multiplying the fine by the number of stations that carried the broadcast. Although that appeared to cut broadcasters a break and recognized the community-standards element lost in its earlier policy, it may be a distinction without a difference. In a world of mass e-mailings, it is easy enough to drum up complaints against lots of stations.

There were complaints against 111 CBS stations over Without a Trace, many generated by a Parents Television Council (PTC) online complaint form. “We're just giving voice to hundreds of thousands of viewers whose standards of decency are being violated,” says PTC Director of Corporate and Government Affairs Dan Isett.

Still to be decided is the FCC's reconsideration of the Golden Globes decision on Bono's f-word that served notice that language was in the FCC's sights, as well as the proposed $1.18 million fine—the previous record against one show—targeting Fox's Married By America, for pixelated sexuality. A package of radio indecency actions—which are “percolating,” say several FCC sources—will be the next shot in the war on content.

Writer/producer Tom Fontana (one of the creators of the gritty Homicide) is amused that the FCC order comes a week before the March 22 debut of his WB series, Bedford Diaries, about a group of students in a human-sexuality class who keep diaries of their sexual experiences. “It has always been a fight to do shows that are pushing the envelope,” he says. “You're trying to find that balance between not being offensive and telling the whole story.”

 

Bochco's Take

NYPD Blue creator Steven Bochco talked with B&C's Jim Benson about the FCC's latest indecency rulings:

What's your reaction to the FCC's rulings?

It's goddamn chilling, or should I say it's darned chilling. It kind of explains why the broadcast standards that we are dealing with these days are almost like a throwback to the '50s. You just can't say anything or do anything or show anything or tell a controversial story. The networks are so intimidated. And it's not just the networks, it's the stations.

Does this impact your Touchstone pilot at all?

Nothing in Hollis and Rae (a drama about lifelong best friends in the South). Obviously, I get a lot of broadcast-standard notes on everything from language to sexuality to all that stuff. But I don't know if I ever read a broadcast-standards memo like we got on Hollis and Rae since the late '70s or early '80s. It said, “Reduce your use of hells and damns.” Can you imagine?

Is it worse dealing with the networks on content matters now than when NYPD Blue debuted in the early '90s?

Oh yeah, absolutely. No question about it. And certainly there's no question a show like NYPD Blue could not launch today—couldn't get made, not in a million years.

It's unfortunate. These things always go in cycles. And the cycles are usually determined by politics. And the politics of the day are driving this particular cycle. Inevitably, it will shift; it always does. It's sort of like the real estate market. It overheats, then it kind of sags for a time, then it heats up again. And, inevitably, every time it heats up, it goes a little further than where it went the last time. It's a little bit like two steps forward, one step back. Right now, we're in a one-step-back phase.

Behind the Fines

The document titled “The FCC's Notices of Apparent Liability and Memorandum Opinion and Order” may sound like dry reading. But in it, the FCC plots out its reasoning for who got fines—or who didn't. The report deals with everything from a song about masturbation performed in Spanish to The Simpsons' dottering boss Mr. Burns' ogling of cartoon babes at a strip club.

Most of the deliberations in this document, written in deep Washingtonese, are lurid, silly or insignificant. The FCC officially pronounces that the word “poop,” as used by Triumph the Insult Dog, for example, “is more puerile than offensive.” The document also details whether simply touching a breast or using the word “hamsterbating” is indecent.

Below, B&C gives a snapshot of three examples: one where a fine was imposed, another in which the commission found a scene to be indecent but did not issue a fine, and a third example that the commission did not find indecent. The document is available at http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-17A1.doc.

Fernando Hidalgo Show (Oct. 19, 2004):

The complaint alleges that, during the Oct. 19, 2004, broadcast of the Fernando Hidalgo Show, a Spanish-language talk show, WJAN Miami showed a female guest who appeared “in an open-front dress, with her nipples covered but her breasts otherwise fully exposed. As she makes her entrance, she pirouettes in front of the audience, then shakes her breasts toward the cameras.”

Sherjan Broadcasting Co. Inc. argued that the material did not include “any description of sexual or excretory functions,” let alone “graphic descriptions.” Still, the FCC ruled that “based on our contextual analysis, the material in question is patently offensive” in regard to community standards.

The FCC found the segment “explicit and graphic” in part because it depicted “a woman's naked breasts, which are sexual organs.”

It stated, “Here, the audience had a sustained view of the guest's breasts.” Given that the show aired before 10 p.m.—after 10 p.m., “indecent” programming is protected—the FCC said there was a reasonable risk that children could see it. The agency proposed a fine of $32,500, the statutory maximum, in part because it was sustained—lasting 15 minutes—and contained no warning.

NYPD Blue (various dates between Jan. 14 and May 6, 2003):

The complaint about NYPD Blue refers to a 9 p.m. broadcast on KMBC Kansas City, Mo., and identifies several expletives, including “dick,” “dickhead” and “bullshit.”

The FCC decided that “dick” and “dickhead” are words that, “while understandably offensive to some viewers, are not sufficiently vulgar, explicit or graphic descriptions of sexual organs” and just plain “not sufficiently shocking.”

“Bullshit” is a different matter. According to the commission, using that word, “whether literally or metaphorically, is a vulgar reference to the product of excretory activity.” Since the FCC has pretty much banned the “f-word” and the “s-word,” it ruled against Blue and said its use was “explicit, shocking and gratuitous.”

But because the language was used in programs that aired before the FCC began applying its more stringent f- and s-word rules, neither KMBC nor ABC was fined. Elsewhere in the report, the FCC seems to be more lenient about “pissed off,” which it notes is a derivative of “piss,” which refers to “the act of urination.” It ultimately concludes that “pissed off” only means “angry.” But “bullshit” apparently means bull excrement, “whether used literally or metaphorically,” and is not just a way of saying “nonsense” in a saltier manner.

America's Funniest Home Videos (Feb. 5, 2005):

This complaint came from a viewer who saw the ABC show on WHAM Rochester, N.Y., in which a clip was shown of an infant boy's rear end. Let's go to the official FCC document.

“As part of the investigation into this matter, the Enforcement Bureau requested and received from the licensee a videotape of that AFV episode. This videotape reveals that the episode depicted a naked infant falling back onto his pacifier, which then becomes wedged between his buttocks.”

The report concludes, “Because this videotape depicts a child's nude buttocks, we find that it depicts both excretory and sexual organs and the broadcast therefore falls within the subject matter of our indecency analysis.”

The FCC ultimately found the clip “marginally explicit,” but there weren't any aspects that were “shocking” or “pandering,” so the commission agreed the scene was not indecent.

–P.J. Bednarski

Email
Print
Reprint
Learn RSS

Talkback

We would love your feedback!

Post a comment

» VIEW ALL TALKBACK THREADS

Related Content

Related Content

 

By This Author

PRODUCT WIRE




 
Advertisement

More Content

  • Blogs
  • Podcasts
  • Photos

Blogs

  • John Eggerton
    BC/DC: Eggerton on Washington

    June 5, 2008
    Free Press Blogs the National Conference of Media Reform
    With the National Conference of Media Reform happening in Minneapolis this weekend, we’ve invi...
    More
  • John Eggerton
    BC/DC: Eggerton on Washington

    December 4, 2007
    Take My Chairman, Please
    With the annual Federal Communications Bar Association Chairman's roast just around the corner (Dec....
    More
  • » VIEW ALL BLOGS RSS

Podcasts

Photos

Advertisements





B&C NEWSLETTERS

Click on a title below to learn more.

Broadcasting & Cable Today
B&C HD Update
B&C Telco IP Update
B&C Local Cable Advertising Sales
B&C Hispanic Television Update
B&C International Update
B&C TechTalk
B&C NewsCentral
©2008 Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Use of this Web site is subject to its Terms of Use | Privacy Policy
Please visit these other Reed Business sites