How one minority group is actively trying to censor radio/TV in the USA

[SirFozzie]

From Mediaweek..

In an appearance before Congress in February, when the controversy over Janet Jackson’s Super Bowl moment was at its height, Federal Communications Commission chairman Michael Powell laid some startling statistics on U.S. senators.

The number of indecency complaints had soared dramatically to more than 240,000 in the previous year, Powell said. The figure was up from roughly 14,000 in 2002, and from fewer than 350 in each of the two previous years. There was, Powell said, “a dramatic rise in public concern and outrage about what is being broadcast into their homes.”


What Powell did not reveal—apparently because he was unaware—was the source of the complaints. According to a new FCC estimate obtained by Mediaweek, nearly all indecency complaints in 2003—99.8 percent—were filed by the Parents Television Council, an activist group.

This year, the trend has continued, and perhaps intensified.

Through early October, 99.9 percent of indecency complaints—aside from those concerning the Janet Jackson “wardrobe malfunction” during the Super Bowl halftime show broadcast on CBS— were brought by the PTC, according to the FCC analysis dated Oct. 1. (The agency last week estimated it had received 1,068,767 complaints about broadcast indecency so far this year; the Super Bowl broadcast accounted for over 540,000, according to commissioners’ statements.)

The prominent role played by the PTC has raised concerns among critics of the FCC’s crackdown on indecency. “It means that really a tiny minority with a very focused political agenda is trying to censor American television and radio,” said Jonathan Rintels, president and executive director of the Center for Creative Voices in Media, an artists’ advocacy group.

PTC officials disagree.

“I wish we had that much power,” said Lara Mahaney, spokeswoman for the Los Angeles-based group. Mahaney said the issue should not be the source of complaints, but whether programming violates federal law prohibiting the broadcast of indecent matter when children are likely to be watching. “Why does it matter how the complaints come?” Mahaney said. “If the networks haven’t done anything illegal, if they haven’t done anything indecent, why do they care what we say?”

Powell, who said during the National Association of Broadcasters convention in Las Vegas in April that he was unsure how many complaints come from organized groups, addressed the question in an op-ed piece in The New York Times last Friday.

“Advocacy groups do generate many complaints, as our critics note, but that’s not unusual in today’s Internet world…that fact does not minimize the merits of the groups’ concerns,” Powell wrote.

Powell’s fellow Republican commissioner, Kathleen Abernathy, last week said that the agency does not let the number or the sources of complaints determine its indecency findings. “As long as you’re following precedents and the law, it shouldn’t matter,” Abernathy told Mediaweek.

At issue is a process that once relied upon aggrieved listeners and viewers contacting the FCC, but that increasingly is driven by organized groups with a focus on programming content. The FCC does not monitor programming for fear of assuming a role as national censor; it relies on complaints to initiate its indecency proceedings.

So far this year, the system has resulted in millions of dollars in settlements and proposed fines against broadcasters.

In such a system, even the number of complaints becomes an object of contention. For example, the agency on Oct. 12, in proposing fines of nearly $1.2 million against Fox Broadcasting and its affiliates, said it received 159 complaints against Married by America, which featured strippers partly obscured by pixilation.

But when asked, the FCC’s Enforcement Bureau said it could find only 90 complaints from 23 individuals. (The smaller total was first reported by Internet-based TV writer Jeff Jarvis; Mediaweek independently obtained the Enforcement Bureau’s calculation.)

And Fox, in a filing last Friday, told the FCC that it should rescind the proposed fines, in part because the low number of complaints fell far short of indicating that community standards had been violated.

“All but four of the complaints were identical…and only one complainant professed even to have watched the program,” Fox said. It said the network and its stations had received 34 comments, “a miniscule total for a show that had a national audience of 5.1 million households.”

Even as some question whether the FCC should let the views of 23 people lead to fines, others take the agency to task for routinely failing to account for many of the complaints it receives. “Over 4,000 people filed a complaint against Married by America. Where do the complaints go?” asked the PTC’s Mahaney.

The PTC has worked hard to achieve its influence over broadcast content. Founded in 1995 by longtime conservative activist L. Brent Bozell III, it set out to make an impact in 2003, including what it called “a massive, coordinated and determined campaign” for more action by the FCC against broadcast indecency. “We delivered on that promise,” Bozell said in the group’s annual report.

The document listed tools developed by the PTC, including continual monitoring and archiving of broadcast network programs and “cutting-edge technology to make it easier for members to contact program sponsors, the FCC, or the networks directly with a simple click of the button.”

The result, the group said, was “a more than 2,400 percent increase in online activism.”

[JonInMiddleGA]

Yeah, there's really a tiny minority concerned, just a handful of members of one little group.

Nearly two-thirds of parents in a new survey want the government to place tighter controls on sex and violence on television, researchers said Thursday. ... The survey also found that more than half of all parents, 52 percent, said they would like to see federal regulators apply content standards to cable stations
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/23/entertainment/main645195.shtml

As for the PTC, this comment pretty much covers my take on them "As long as you’re following precedents and the law, it shouldn’t matter..."

[SirFozzie]

it's astroturf... fake ground-roots.

[Sharpieman]

Well, I don't know why JonInMiddleGA believes so strongly that we need to continue to attack television and radio broadcasts that have the slightest of sexual material. Its absolutely ridiculous. Also, with your stat there about the survey, although they most parents think there should be more controls, they haven't made the steps to start a movement or anything. That tells me that they don't see it as a high priority. The PTC doesn't even know how to defend itself, and your defense is pretty ridiculous too. It is clear that one minority group who is bent on censoring anyone they don't like or anything they don't like to see has got out of hand and its turned into a witch hunt.

[Tekneek]

A responsible parent knows what their kids are watching, or puts safeguards in place to block based on content. Those who fail to take advantage of those options should just not get a TV.

[Sharpieman]

A responsible parent knows what their kids are watching, or puts safeguards in place to block based on content. Those who fail to take advantage of those options should just not get a TV.
Exactly.

[JonInMiddleGA]

I think a generic post ought to sufficiently cover the important thing here --

Read the laws, rules, and regulations that apply to broadcast content. Then read the actual rulings & how the law is applied, so you can see the step-by-step process that's involved in the decisions (trust me, it's not as simple as a few guys sitting in a room saying "who do we fine today".). Work to change the laws if you don't like 'em.
While you're fighting that battle, I'll be supporting an expansion of the broadcast regs to cover cable & satellite. Seeing who reaches their goal first will be rather interesting all the way 'round.

[Dutch]

A responsible parent knows what their kids are watching, or puts safeguards in place to block based on content. Those who fail to take advantage of those options should just not get a TV.

Which is exactly why people were so outraged during the Super Bowl.

[Crapshoot]

Which is exactly why people were so outraged during the Super Bowl.

Yes, people beating the crap out of each other and "Jacked UP" segments are fine, but one boob and the world's coming to an end. :D

[Dutch]

Yes, people beating the crap out of each other and "Jacked UP" segments are fine, but one boob and the world's coming to an end. :D

I allow my kids to watch football. I don't let them watch shows that are too sexually explicit. While you are correct that Janet Jackson sneaking a peak of her boob to my children is not the end of the world, I don't see how you so easily ridicule me for doing exactly what you expect of me (read: monitoring my kids).

[Crapshoot]

I allow my kids to watch football. I don't let them watch shows that are too sexually explicit. While you are correct that Janet Jackson sneaking a peak of her boob to my children is not the end of the world, I don't see how you so easily ridicule me for doing exactly what you expect of me (read: monitoring my kids).

No, I dont- thus the smilie. I just think some of the crap I've heard about it as the degredation of American society and all that crap from the morality police gets on my nerves. In this specifc case, I do agree with you Dutch- that it was something you reasonably could expect your kids not to be exposed to.

That being said, my beef is with the large idiocy involved, and the morality police. In essence, do you think your kids seeing a boob (and I dont notice it when I was watching the game to be honest - did your kids ?) is worse than them seeing men beat the crap out of each other ?

[sabotai]

I think a generic post ought to sufficiently cover the important thing here --

Read the laws, rules, and regulations that apply to broadcast content. Then read the actual rulings & how the law is applied, so you can see the step-by-step process that's involved in the decisions (trust me, it's not as simple as a few guys sitting in a room saying "who do we fine today".). Work to change the laws if you don't like 'em.
While you're fighting that battle, I'll be supporting an expansion of the broadcast regs to cover cable & satellite. Seeing who reaches their goal first will be rather interesting all the way 'round.

Simple question Jon, why should government regulate cable and satellite? I mean, if parents don't want, they don't have to pay for it. I can buy the arguement that they need to regulate the networks, since they broadcast their signal and any TV can pick it up (I don't agree with it, but I can see your point). So those channels are just "out there". But why cable and satellite? No one is forcing people to buy either. I just don't get how anyone thinks either needs government regulation.

[SirFozzie]

The one thing the PTC supports which I actively support as well is a-la-carte cable/Satelitte, even if our reasons differ

Reasoning: I'd rather not have channels that I'm not going to watch that's full of crap, so I prefer this so I wouldn't have to pay for it. They'd prefer it for the same reason (although their definitions of crap differ from mine :))

[sabotai]

Responsibility by parents is on a decline

That shouldn't be the government's job to fix or take over. (I'm pretty sure you weren't implying that, just thought I'd throw it out there. :) )

[SirFozzie]

Responsibility by parents is on a decline


so we want to make government our next generation's nannies?

[MrBug708]

A responsible parent knows what their kids are watching, or puts safeguards in place to block based on content. Those who fail to take advantage of those options should just not get a TV.

Responsibility by parents is on a decline

[sabotai]

ok....that was weird.

[Dutch]

No, I dont- thus the smilie. I just think some of the crap I've heard about it as the degredation of American society and all that crap from the morality police gets on my nerves. In this specifc case, I do agree with you Dutch- that it was something you reasonably could expect your kids not to be exposed to.

That being said, my beef is with the large idiocy involved, and the morality police. In essence, do you think your kids seeing a boob (and I dont notice it when I was watching the game to be honest - did your kids ?) is worse than them seeing men beat the crap out of each other ?

I am no fan of extremism on either side of the fence. I don't like activists that are strongly pro-Amish nor am I interested in the far left Hollywood gang telling me how much easier it is to make cash if they can sell more sex.

My kids did not see it. I was offended by the mentality of "If I show my boob during the Super Bowl, I will get lots of press to prolong my career and make a lot of money regardless of the unchallenged rules and laws of television."

Hollywood is full of sheep.

Again, I, as the parent make the decisions for my kids. At 9 and 10 years old, I allow them to watch NFL Football. I do not allow them to watch porn.

Just as if you were a parent (I don't know if you are or not), if you object to NFL Football as being too violent, you can easily monitor the FCC regulated channel lineup to find out if NFL Football is present in the shows your kids watch.

All I am asking for is a little integrity by people who are involved in mass-media. It's only harmless if it's fairly and rationally regulated.

[Cringer]

Couple random thoughts.....Hollywood is not the only place full of sheep. Your town is. My town is. This board is.

Also, cable and sat. tv should not be touched by government regulation. I pay for it, I bring it into my house. When does this move over into other areas? When do they regulate what books I buy and bring home? Or magazines? We all have our different lines in the sand I guess. Mine was passed a long time ago and people who want to force their morals into my life can just.....well, I won't say it. Someone here may report me to the FCC who will soon say what website I can look at.....

(just a touch melodramatic maybe, but not too much....)

:D

[MrBug708]

I'd would say that the responsible parents are ones complaining, but that sounds too much like me saying that if you don't complain, you are a bad parent.

[SirFozzie]

That's the thing. It's not responsible parents, it's folks who decide YOUR kids shouldn't watch it (may or may not be true.. but that's MY decision, and not a bunch of hysterical hand-wavers)

[Sharpieman]

I allow my kids to watch football. I don't let them watch shows that are too sexually explicit. While you are correct that Janet Jackson sneaking a peak of her boob to my children is not the end of the world, I don't see how you so easily ridicule me for doing exactly what you expect of me (read: monitoring my kids).
Ok, we rational people understand that "the boob" shouldn't have been on tv. But that isolated event does not give a mandate to the PTC or any other "parent friendly" group to start attacking every little thing they think is obsence on radio and television. Besides, I doubt their 8 year listens to Howard Stern or watches programming thats shown past 10pm.

[oliegirl]

I'll be supporting an expansion of the broadcast regs to cover cable & satellite.

I totally and completely disagree with this idea...not only are these services that parents have to pay to have in their homes, but the entire idea behind cable/satellite channels is that they can provide more cutting edge entertainment. As a parent, if you don't like what is on tv, then you should purchase a tv with a V chip, or use your cable box to lock out certain channels. Or make sure you are watching something more "appropriate" or participating in another activity with your child while the questionable tv show is on.



Ok, we rational people understand that "the boob" shouldn't have been on tv.

Very true. My son (7) didn't see the boob, or watch the super bowl, he doesn't have any interest in it yet, and even if he did - he has a 8:30 bedtime on school nights and I consider Sunday a school night. But...if he had somehow seen the boob...the original, unedited version, I would have quickly told him that it was stupid prank by the performers to get attention and no one thought what they did was something good. As a parent I talk to my child and explain things to him. I tried to keep 9/11 from him, I didn't want him to see the footage - he was only 4 years old and in a prime time show with entertainment value, I would not let him watch it. But, it was everywhere, and he did see it the next day and he asked me, "Why did that plane fly into the building?", I sat down with him and talked to him, and explained in 4 year old language that some very bad people who didn't like us had done that and hurt a lot of people, but we were going to work hard to make sure it didn't happen again. He understood, said to me "It's just like Buzz Lightyear...evil never wins", at which point I hugged him and put him to bed.

If we depend on the government to hide everything questionable from our kids, and let them "parent" our children by just avoiding everything, then when something real does happen, we aren't going to know how to talk to them. Being a parent is a full time, 24/7 job and if we expect other people to decide what is right and wrong for our kids on a grand scale like regulating cable/satellite, then we aren't doing our job.

[Peregrine]

That's the thing. It's not responsible parents, it's folks who decide YOUR kids shouldn't watch it

Yeah that's my problem with this issue. Instead of people taking personal responsibility and saying "I need to be vigilant in making sure I know what my kids are watching" some of these people would rather just have government tell everyone what they can and can't watch.

[CraigSca]

However...though I'm not sure this aligns with what the PTC is speaking of, I do find it disheartening to have my parenting undermined by FREE broadcasts of material that I find objectionable.

Yes, I am a responsible parent and my children are not of the age where they can be exposed to many of the things referenced in this thread. But...if my son wants to watch a football game, I shouldn't have to worry that Janet Jackson's boob will be exposed or that some naked Desperate Housewife is going to jump into Terrell Owen's arms (ick, sorry for bringing that one up).

You can't watch your kids and limit their exposure 24 hours-a-day. However, I do feel there should be some decency in the broadcasts of free television and radio. As others have said, satellite is an entirely different thing (and that's why Sirius is perfect for people like Stern).

[sachmo71]

Less talk, more rock.

[albionmoonlight]

First--even if only a few people are offended, it should not matter. I agree with JonInMiddleGA on that point. You need to follow the law based on what the law is. This country has a noble tradition of following the law even if it goes against the tide of popular opinion.

Second--I have a quick question for Jon. Why do you want to expand the federal jurisdiction to cover cable and satellite TV? That kind of federal government expansion into our living rooms seems to go against your general conservative leanings. Additionally, I don't see why we need the government protecting people from something that they can only receive by making an affirmative choice and paying to recieve it. (And I could be wrong about this point, but I think that the technology is such that you can even block individual channels on digital cable and satellite with little to no effort or extra cost now--meaning that there is even less reason to regulate content on those media).

Not trolling, just asking.

[KWhit]

First--even if only a few people are offended, it should not matter. I agree with JonInMiddleGA on that point. You need to follow the law based on what the law is. This country has a noble tradition of following the law even if it goes against the tide of popular opinion.
But doesn't the law include language that says that something is "indecent" only if it violates a "community standard"? If "only a few people are offended" then I would argue that the standards of the community as a whole were not breached. So it does matter.

[albionmoonlight]

But doesn't the law include language that says that something is "indecent" only if it violates a "community standard"? If "only a few people are offended" then I would argue that the standards of the community as a whole were not breached. So it does matter.
I admit that I am not as up on First Amendment law (and broadcast law generally) as I should be. To the extent that the number of people offended is relevant to the legal analysis, then it should matter. It may be the case that if only a handful of people are offended by a boob, then it is per se not illegal. I'm simply not sure and will defer to the people who know these things.

I was only commenting more generally that we should focus on the legal analysis and not on whether, for example "activist conservative judges and commissioners" are going against the will of the majority.

Minority rights protected by law >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> majority whims at any given time.

[KWhit]

Gotcha. And I agree.

[Gary Gorski]

I agree with most people in the thread - cable and satellite you are paying for so there is no need for the government to regulate those things although I like the idea of being able to pay for only the channels I want. I do agree that there should be a reasonable level of expectation in any show you are watching though - even the ones on the premium cable channels. Even if you are paying for a premium channel like HBO or something and are watching a show that deals with sex or nudity you should be able to expect that it's not going to all of a sudden turn into a full fledged porn movie.

If you're watching football the maximum level of sex you expect to be exposed to are the cheerleaders dancing and that's where it should stay. Regardless if its "just a boob" or just some dumb skit I'm not tuning into that program to see those things - I expect to see violence of the game, perhaps a swear word that sneaks onto a mic from a player and the cheerleaders in their revealing outfits. When my son is old enough to watch the game if someone swears I will tell him that man shouldn't have said that word. Unless I plan on keeping him locked indoors he's going to be some place with me and hear people swearing - its part of life and if I don't want him to speak that way that's my responsibility. If I don't think he should watch the cheerleaders I will flip the channel when they come on and flip back in a second - so long as there is a reasonable expectation of what will be on the program the rest should be up to the parent to "police" the situation - not some activist group.

With that said for anyone who was watching with children and offended by "the boob" let me ask this. Why were your children watching that? Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't Nelly perform just prior to Janet Jackson and wasn't Nelly's performance full of scantily clad women grinding up against him and other men? Shouldn't that have been sexually explicit enough to warrant a channel change for anyone who was offended or does it only become too much sex when a body part is exposed for a split second? While "the boob" never should have been shown during a program like the Super Bowl I also think that the parents should place some expectations on themselves to know who the performers are, what their MOs are and to deal with a situation when it arises. Had it been something like a shot of the cheerleaders and then for no reason one them just pops her top then yes, there is really nothing you can do about that - but when the entire halftime show is about sex from Nelly's performance to the song Jackson and Timberlake were signing to "the boob" shouldn't that set off some type of alarm that maybe this isn't that great for my child to be watching and change the channel until after halftime?

Now if you felt the halftime show was nothing wrong and felt your children were ok watching it that's fine - that's up to you and I'm not trying to say you are right or wrong for parenting however you see fit. I'm just curious to the parents that weren't offended by the events prior to the wardrobe malfunction but then had a problem with it once a breast was shown for a split second.

[CraigSca]

I agree, Gary. The first warning sign should have been the acronym "MTV". Personally, I've found that whenever I'm channel-surfing and happen to pick up their feed about 90% of the time it's something I don;t want my kids to see. When they're older I'll probably disable it entirely from the dish.

[flere-imsaho]

Nearly two-thirds of parents in a new survey want the government to place tighter controls on sex and violence on television, researchers said Thursday. ... The survey also found that more than half of all parents, 52 percent, said they would like to see federal regulators apply content standards to cable stations

Controls are already in place.

They're called "Off buttons" and all televisions have them as standard equipment. Perhaps the PTC should redirect its efforts towards re-educating parents on the use of these "Off buttons", as opposed to, say, subverting the Constitution.

[Dutch]

Mine was passed a long time ago and people who want to force their morals into my life can just.....well, I won't say it.

Exactly. I don't want Hollywood or Janet Jackson to surprise me on a family sports show with their lack of morals.

[Dutch]

Ok, we rational people understand that "the boob" shouldn't have been on tv. But that isolated event does not give a mandate to the PTC or any other "parent friendly" group to start attacking every little thing they think is obsence on radio and television. Besides, I doubt their 8 year listens to Howard Stern or watches programming thats shown past 10pm.

I agree. Like I said, I don't like any extremist activist group, including one that sends 250,000 complaints to the FCC which usually handles 10,000. That's going overboard and I'm against that sort of behaviour.

[Dutch]

Controls are already in place.

They're called "Off buttons" and all televisions have them as standard equipment.

And instead of installing seat-belts into cars, we should not drive them. :rolleyes:

[flere-imsaho]

And instead of installing seat-belts into cars, we should not drive them. :rolleyes:

If you're going to be offended by everything you see alongside the road then yes, maybe you shouldn't drive your car. Unless you're of a mind to ban anything that you might find offensive alongside the road.

[Blackadar]

I agree. Like I said, I don't like any extremist activist group, including one that sends 250,000 complaints to the FCC which usually handles 10,000. That's going overboard and I'm against that sort of behaviour.

I don't mind it at all. It's the American way. However, I DO mind the IDIOTS at the FCC (yes, I know them from my experiences in the telcom industry) trying to use this as justification of censorship.

[gstelmack]

Exactly. I don't want Hollywood or Janet Jackson to surprise me on a family sports show with their lack of morals.
This is a key point that the "show anything on TV" crowd is missing. Yes, shows have ratings, and yes we pay attention to what our children watch, but if something inappropriate is stuffed into an otherwise-family-safe show, they ought to be made to pay for it. We're not asking for all broadcast shows to be family-safe (we're not on here railing against NYPD Blue or CSI, for example), but the ones that are labelled as family-safe should stay that way.

The Super Bowl bit is one thing, but I think advertisers are really starting to cross this line. They're doing their best to make sure I can't watch a show without also seeing their ads, but they also want to plaster any ad into any show even if the ad does not fit the show's rating.

That's what's driving people like me who do pay attention to what their kids are watching or seeing nuts.

[sabotai]

And instead of installing seat-belts into cars, we should not drive them. :rolleyes:

If you're so afraid of getting into a car accident that you want the government to regulate what kind of car people drive, and when and where they can drive it, then you probably should just not drive a car. :)

[sabotai]

This is a key point that the "show anything on TV" crowd is missing.

I'm not missing that point. I just don't agree with it.

[Tekneek]

Which is exactly why people were so outraged during the Super Bowl.

Appropriately so. They should only be slightly less outraged that the halftime show has absolutely nothing to do with football.

[Tekneek]

While you're fighting that battle, I'll be supporting an expansion of the broadcast regs to cover cable & satellite. Seeing who reaches their goal first will be rather interesting all the way 'round.

The only broadcasts your kids may be able to receive by accident are over-the-air (OTA). That should be the extent of government regulation. The other items are subscription services and should only be subject to the free market.

[Tekneek]

And instead of installing seat-belts into cars, we should not drive them. :rolleyes:

You could just buy cars that come with them, or get them installed yourself.

[Dutch]

Some people want to ban everything. Some people want to allow everything. Can't we all just get along and have compromise on this issue? Such as make ratings for TV shows and allow everybody to watch what they enjoy watching including children?

[ISiddiqui]

This country has a noble tradition of following the law even if it goes against the tide of popular opinion.

And a noble tradition of not following the law if we consider it unjust (think back to our founding).

[Sharpieman]

Some people want to ban everything. Some people want to allow everything. Can't we all just get along and have compromise on this issue? Such as make ratings for TV shows and allow everybody to watch what they enjoy watching including children?
Don't you understand? Its we in America are incapable of even uttering that dirty dirty word "compromise." How dare you introduce rational thought to a debate!!!

[Dutch]

I know, that was my worst post ever. :)

[Suicane75]

Hey John, regarding following the law and being truthfull,


------------------------------------------------
TV Watchdog Apologizes for False Claims On Wrestling

By Paul Farhi
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, July 9, 2002; Page C01

Pro wrestling has landed a $3.5 million smackdown on an
Alexandria-based watchdog group that falsely claimed televised
wrestling's orchestrated mayhem was responsible for the deaths of four
children.

The Parents Television Council, which frequently rails against sex and
violence on TV, agreed to pay World Wrestling Entertainment the money
and issued an apology in an out-of-court settlement of the defamation
lawsuit brought by WWE. "It was wrong to have stated or implied that
the WWE or any of its programs caused these tragic deaths," wrote PTC
founder and President L. Brent Bozell III in a lengthy public
statement released yesterday.

WWE (formerly the World Wrestling Federation) sued the Parents
Television Council in November 2000 after the PTC and a related group,
the Media Research Council, claimed that children were committing
violent acts after watching wrestling on TV.

The PTC publicized the claims in a fundraising video, "National
Campaign to Clean Up TV Now!," that included unauthorized clips of WWE
broadcasts, such as "Smackdown!" on the UPN network. The tape was part
of a PTC effort to persuade advertisers not to sponsor the show,
according to court documents.

The group also sent representatives to the annual meetings of various
corporations to confront executives of companies that sponsored
wrestling shows. "They would ask, 'Why do you want to advertise on
programs that are responsible for killing children?' " said Linda
McMahon, WWE's chief executive, in an interview yesterday. "That was
pretty brutal."

At one point, the PTC claimed that various advertisers had stopped
sponsoring "Smackdown!" even though those companies were never
advertisers, a federal judge found in reviewing the WWE suit last
year.

Among other cases, the PTC helped publicize the "wrestling defense" of
a 12-year-old Florida boy, Lionel Tate, who was on trial for murder.
Lionel's attorney, Jim Lewis, claimed the boy had killed a 6-year-old
playmate in 1999 after watching wrestling on TV and mimicking a move
known as the "Stone Cold Stunner."

In fact, Lionel was watching cartoons before the crime. His new
lawyers have acknowledged that the "wrestling defense" was "bogus,"
Bozell said in his statement yesterday. Lionel eventually became one
of the youngest defendants convicted of first-degree murder and was
sentenced to life without parole.

McMahon said her company tried to supply Bozell and his organization
with "correct information" about wrestling's impact on viewers but
that the PTC campaign continued until WWE filed suit, alleging 13
instances of defamation, copyright infringement and interference with
prospective business relations.

A New York judge rejected PTC's motion to dismiss the lawsuit in June
2001. The suit was set to go to trial on Sept. 9.

As part of the settlement, Bozell has agreed to meet with some of the
WWE advertisers his group targeted and personally explain his apology.

PTC attorney Thomas Leghorn said the wrestling group originally sought
$55 million in its lawsuit. He said the settlement amount -- which
will be paid by PTC's insurer -- "is closer to covering [the WWE's]
legal expenses."

But McMahon -- the wife of WWE Chairman and sometime wrestler Vince
McMahon -- disputed this characterization. "There haven't been many
cases of cash awards in this amount," she said.

Calls to Bozell, a syndicated newspaper columnist, were returned by a
spokeswoman for the organization, Elizabeth Baggett. She said PTC
would have no comment beyond Bozell's 900-word apology, which is
posted on the PTC's Web site (www.parentstv.org).

The PTC claims 700,000 members, although that figure appears to be the
cumulative number who've signed up since its founding in 1995 and
includes those who pay no dues. The organization has frequently taken
out full-page ads in newspapers urging people to send in contributions
and to join its effort to restore the wholesome "family hour" to
prime-time TV.

Until his death in 2000, Steve Allen was the PTC's public spokesman.
Its advisory board currently includes Sen. Joseph Lieberman (D-Conn.),
former education secretary William Bennett, singers Pat Boone, Naomi
Judd and Billy Ray Cyrus and entertainers Jane Seymour and Tim Conway.

The group claims responsibility for driving sponsors away from many
television programs, including Fox's "Temptation Island" and "Boston
Public," and for eliminating some of the "objectionable" content of
others, such as CBS's "Big Brother."

In April 2001 the group released a report suggesting that pro
wrestling programs were toning down some of their sexual and violent
content following the PTC's campaign.

© 2002 The Washington Post Company
--------------------------------------------------

This is a rinky dink little right wing wacko group that doesn't want to enfore the law, it wants to push its value system on others, plain and simple.