Really, doesn't the FCC have anything better to do?

[cartman]

Now they are asking networks for tapes, and searching for instances of people in the crowd spouting obscene words and debating whether or not to issue fines. What a crock.

hxxp://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13826339/

FCC checks live TV tapes for dirty words
Foul language during sports broadcasts is commission's latest target

Updated: 2 hours, 44 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - In its continuing crackdown on on-air profanity, the FCC has requested numerous tapes from broadcasters that might include vulgar remarks from unruly spectators, coaches and athletes at live sporting events, industry sources said.

Tapes requested by the commission include live broadcasts of football games and NASCAR races where the participants or the crowds let loose with an expletive. While commission officials refused to talk about its requests, one broadcast company executive said the commission had asked for 30 tapes of live sports and news programs.

“It looks like they want to end live broadcast TV,” said one executive, who spoke only on the condition of anonymity. “We already know that they aren’t afraid to go after news.”
Story continues below ↓ advertisement

While live programming always has been problematic for broadcasters, it has become even more difficult under tougher commission rules approved in 2004. The new rules found that virtually any use of certain expletives will be considered profane and indecent, even if it is a slip of the tongue. In a March decision, the FCC found that the CBS news program “The Early Show” violated its indecency rules because of a profane slip-up but did not issue a fine because the incident occurred before the new rules were instituted.

Live sports — amateur, college and professional — have long been a broadcast programming staple. Broadcasters have spent enormous amounts of money and energy to come up with ways to give audiences a better feel for the action. As broadcasters vie for viewers, technical advances that include such things as on-field microphones and in-car cameras have become as important as the announcers.

“I don’t know how they are going to rule, but they asked us for tapes with a specific emphasis on crowd noise,” said another TV executive, who also requested anonymity. “If some bozo in the crowd calls the ref an a--hole, the commission is asking for a copy of the tape.”

A live, on-field event — albeit when no athletes were on the field — during the 2004 Super Bowl halftime show, when Janet Jackson’s breast was accidentally bared, helped reignite Washington’s interest in the indecency issue. Since then there has been a highly charged fight at the commission about just how far the commission can go in restricting broadcasts.

Broadcasters last week split over whether the commission should be allowed to get one of the premier indecency cases back from the federal court in New York.

In a series of motions filed Friday in federal court in New York, Fox and its affiliate group, CBS and NBC opposed an attempt this week by the FCC to get a key indecency case back from the court.

The commission this month asked the same federal court for more time to consider affiliates’ arguments that the agency erred in March when it decided variations of the words “f---” and “s---” likely are to be indecent whenever broadcast, even if the words are uttered accidentally.

A delay would let affiliates contest the decisions before the commission. The FCC contends that this is a necessary step before arguing in court. The agency said ABC, NBC and CBS affiliates backed its request.

Under federal court rulings and commission rules, material is indecent if it “in context, depicts or describes sexual or excretory activities or organs in a patently offensive manner as measured by contemporary community standards for the broadcast medium.” Indecent speech can be aired safely between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m.

Under a new law approved by Congress and signed by President Bush, broadcasters face fines of as much as $325,000 per violation, up from a previous maximum of $32,500.

[st.cronin]

Just out of curiosity, what SHOULD the FCC be doing with their time?

[panerd]

Is this an election year? I haven't heard from these guys in about 2 years.

[Pumpy Tudors]

Ray Whitney has fucked us all.

[JPhillips]

I'm going to go out of my way to yell FUCK everytime I'm down near the White House and I see Fox doing a live feed. I'll put Murdoch out of business!

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by Pumpy Tudors

Ray Whitney has fucked us all.

Speaking of Ray Whitney, did you know that he used to be a stickboy for the Edmonton Oilers?

[cartman]

Originally Posted by panerd

Is this an election year? I haven't heard from these guys in about 2 years.

But they aren't elected, they are appointed. So probably someone on the Congressional committee that is up for election put a bug in their ear to take a look at this.

As for St. Cronin's question, they must be overstaffed if they have spare cycles to spin on this. There are still roadblocks to rollout of HDTV by the mandated time, there are pending decisions regarding oversight of VoIP as a phone service, there are upcoming frequency auctions for WiMAX service and expanded 3G service, and planning for the announced 4G cell services. Worry if some redneck cussed out Jeff Gordon at a NASCAR race and the mics happened to pick it up should be at or very near the bottom of their to-do list.

[Pumpy Tudors]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

Speaking of Ray Whitney, did you know that he used to be a stickboy for the Edmonton Oilers?

Fuckin' right!

[wade moore]

Outside of the "this is a travesty" discussion...

Let's say that this does become something that the FCC enforces...

How in the world would the networks prevent this? A delay on sporting events where they bleep out exterior cursing?

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by wade moore

How in the world would the networks prevent this? A delay on sporting events where they bleep out exterior cursing?

I think so. Someone in the article argues that the FCC is trying to end live TV.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by wade moore

Outside of the "this is a travesty" discussion...

Let's say that this does become something that the FCC enforces...

How in the world would the networks prevent this? A delay on sporting events where they bleep out exterior cursing?

That's a good question. But isn't part of the FCC mandate to enforce decency standards? I know there are some people who don't think there should be decency standards at all, and obviously there's a lot of disagreement about what the standards should or should not be, but I'm pretty sure this sort of thing is definitely the FCC's job.

[panerd]

Wonder what they think about WWF Raw? (Do they still chant asshole like half the show?)

I think all of their postering is stupid, but if the majority of the country wants the NFL on a 7 second delay I probably won't ever notice. What scares me is if they try to go after Sirius satelittle or networks like HBO. I have heard rumblings that they could technically do it, but I have no idea how.

[gottimd]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I'm going to go out of my way to yell FUCK everytime I'm down near the White House and I see Fox doing a live feed. I'll put Murdoch out of business!

I'll stand on the other side of the street and yell "Shut the Fuck up Asshole!" to speed the process up a bit.

[Toddzilla]

Originally Posted by panerd

Wonder what they think about WWF Raw?

Cable TV is out of the perview of the FCC

[Toddzilla]

Dola - they gave Bono a pass on the Grammys a few years ago for saying "Fuck" because he didn't use it meaning fornication, rather it was an excited utterance. That precedent, IMO, will exempt the networks from incidents at sporting evetns and the like.

[Greyroofoo]

Somebody around the FCC just figured out that they can just sit around watching sports and get PAID for it.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Toddzilla

Dola - they gave Bono a pass on the Grammys a few years ago for saying "Fuck" because he didn't use it meaning fornication, rather it was an excited utterance. That precedent, IMO, will exempt the networks from incidents at sporting evetns and the like.

Umm, as of March that rule has been revised, although it is still very much up in the air whether the revision will remain in place.

... variations of the words “f---” and “s---” likely are to be indecent whenever broadcast, even if the words are uttered accidentally.

[Maple Leafs]

I always like to look on the bright side.

For example, this will force the NHL to terminate Kerry Fraser because it will too expensive to have the fans chanting "bullshit" eight times every game.

[DanGarion]

... variations of the words “f---” and “s---” likely are to be indecent whenever broadcast, even if the words are uttered accidentally.

Well fucking shit, we can't say four letter words that start with the letters F or S?!?!

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by cartman

As for St. Cronin's question, they must be overstaffed if they have spare cycles to spin on this.

Actually, they're usually cited as the most understaffed agency in the country other than INS.

Most of the things you mentioned are far far far down the list below content as far as the average citizen is concerned.

The upcoming frequency auctions are of little interest to anyone that doesn't have direct financial interest in them and outside of early adopters, I don't think I've ever met anyone outside of a few internet communities that gives a rat's ass about HDTV nor VOIP (or even has the slightest idea WTF the latter is).

Content on broadcast (and cable for that matter), on the other hand, is something that is a concern for the large majority of people that I know IRL. That's not to say that it's the biggest worry in their lives, but if the subject comes up then it's very likely that they will have an opinion on it, i.e. it's something that is enough of a concern that they've thought about it previously. Which puts it waaaaay ahead of most of the other stuff you mentioned.

[Galaxy]

Thank god Canada doesn't have a big brother government when it comes to television.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

Thank god Canada doesn't have a big brother government when it comes to television.

I can only assume this is sarcasm.

[MacroGuru]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Actually, they're usually cited as the most understaffed agency in the country other than INS.

Most of the things you mentioned are far far far down the list below content as far as the average citizen is concerned.

The upcoming frequency auctions are of little interest to anyone that doesn't have direct financial interest in them and outside of early adopters, I don't think I've ever met anyone outside of a few internet communities that gives a rat's ass about HDTV nor VOIP (or even has the slightest idea WTF the latter is).

Content on broadcast (and cable for that matter), on the other hand, is something that is a concern for the large majority of people that I know IRL. That's not to say that it's the biggest worry in their lives, but if the subject comes up then it's very likely that they will have an opinion on it, i.e. it's something that is enough of a concern that they've thought about it previously. Which puts it waaaaay ahead of most of the other stuff you mentioned.

The funny thing about the HDTV adoption is, the FCC may not care or show an interest in it, but man, the retailers are taking it and running with it, to scare the populace into purchasing now.

[cartman]

Looks like the FCC's "fleeting expletive" policy has been dealt a major setback.

Fleeting f-bomb insanity dealt body blow by appeals court

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

The upcoming frequency auctions are of little interest to anyone that doesn't have direct financial interest in them and outside of early adopters, I don't think I've ever met anyone outside of a few internet communities that gives a rat's ass about HDTV nor VOIP (or even has the slightest idea WTF the latter is).

What a difference 4 years makes, even if VoIP could probably still be classified in the early adopter phase.

[RendeR]

The FCC should be disbanded. Its pretty much a farce of a commission in today's world anyway.

Censorship by the government, in whatever capacity, is the bane of a free citizenry.

[JediKooter]

Talk about an agency that struggles to keep itself relevant so they don't lose their jobs...oh wait, it's a government agency, ain't no one getting fired or laid off. Never mind.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

Talk about an agency that struggles to keep itself relevant so they don't lose their jobs...oh wait, it's a government agency, ain't no one getting fired or laid off. Never mind.

Actually they're pretty consistently considered the most understaffed agency in all of government, even more than (whatever we now call) the Border Patrol.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Actually they're pretty consistently considered the most understaffed agency in all of government, even more than (whatever we now call) the Border Patrol.

And at that understaffed allotment, there's still 100% more employees in that agency than what needs to be there.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

And at that understaffed allotment, there's still 100% more employees in that agency than what needs to be there.

Clearly we're in complete disagreement.

I dealt with them for years & while they can be annoying as hell to work with at times, there are precious few governmental agencies who I value more highly in terms of their function (if not functionality).

[cuervo72]

FCC is much more about keeping bandwidth (spectrum) usage straight than regulating what is on the airwaves.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Clearly we're in complete disagreement.

I dealt with them for years & while they can be annoying as hell to work with at times, there are precious few governmental agencies who I value more highly in terms of their function (if not functionality).

We do definitely disagree on this for sure.

If it was not influenced by outside lobbying and lost its obsession with 'indecency' and actually practiced what it's mission statement says, maybe then, I can see it being a useful governmental institution.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

I really don't think you'd like a country without an FCC.

[JediKooter]

If it actually stuck to only what its mission statement was and lost the obsession with indecency and forbid lobbyists, it would actually be a useful organization. I understand that it handles licensing and stuff like that and if it kept to that stuff, it would be fine. But, just because part of a boobie was shown or someone slipped in an F bomb, is not going to bring this country to a screeching halt or cause mass panic. They spend too much time concentrating on the wrong things or things that really won't make a bit of a difference.

Maybe if they stopped fining the same companies they are trying to convince about getting on board with net neutrality, they would have an easier time of it. Hopefully this ruling will be a step in the right direction.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

But, just because part of a boobie was shown or someone slipped in an F bomb, is not going to bring this country to a screeching halt or cause mass panic. They spend too much time concentrating on the wrong things or things that really won't make a bit of a difference.

Whereas I'd like to see them make that their primary function & start pulling licenses permanently for violations of rules that should be considerably stricter than anything they've done in decades.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Whereas I'd like to see them make that their primary function & start pulling licenses permanently for violations of rules that should be considerably stricter than anything they've done in decades.

Ah yes, the glory days of seeing happily married couples sleep in separate beds or not seeing a black man kissing a white woman.

But seriously though, what end result does that serve other than to satisfy someones personal opinion of what's indecent or not? If you see a boob or hear a swear word, what personal, physical or financial harm does it actually do? Zero. Is there a time and place for it? Absolutely. However, I don't think there's going to be free for all as broadcasters don't want to alienate their viewers. That green stuff is a great regulator on its own.

[I. J. Reilly]

I think the FCC goes into the necessary evil category, along with the ACLU and the NAACP for example. Much of what they do is stupid and trivial, but their existence is valuable. I like the fact that people and corporations know they are going to have to publically defend their actions.

[Galaxy]

The most important news and commentary to read right now. - The Slatest - Slate Magazine

Interesting that the FCC was just struck a potentially huge blow on its indecency policy yesterday.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

If it actually stuck to only what its mission statement was and lost the obsession with indecency and forbid lobbyists, it would actually be a useful organization. I understand that it handles licensing and stuff like that and if it kept to that stuff, it would be fine.

Ok, but you and RendeR seem ready to remove the agency as a whole because of a small portion of their activities. While the only context you may hear of the FCC in is Janet Jackson-type news, it does much much more than that.

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by I. J. Reilly

I think the FCC goes into the necessary evil category, along with the ACLU and the NAACP for example. Much of what they do is stupid and trivial, but their existence is valuable. I like the fact that people and corporations know they are going to have to publically defend their actions.

I have a problem with the ACLU and the NAACP being considered evils. They do a vital and necessary job, and while it sometimes seems excessive or pedantic, its still a job that needs done.


The FCC can monitor licenses and frequency assignments. Regulate safety and technological issues. They simply must be removed from any sort of censorship authority.

And I'm sorry Jon, but it is not the governments nor any other agencies responsibility to censor what I or my children see. That responsibility falls DIRECTLY on myself as a citizen and a parent. Its also not anyone elses responsibility to protect me from hearing what others say or do, its mine as an adult and parent to understand, accept, and/or ignore the things I disagree with and teach my children to do the same.

[DanGarion]

Originally Posted by RendeR

And I'm sorry Jon, but it is not the governments nor any other agencies responsibility to censor what I or my children see. That responsibility falls DIRECTLY on myself as a citizen and a parent. Its also not anyone elses responsibility to protect me from hearing what others say or do, its mine as an adult and parent to understand, accept, and/or ignore the things I disagree with and teach my children to do the same.

BUT THINK OF THE CHILDRENS!

[I. J. Reilly]

Originally Posted by RendeR

I have a problem with the ACLU and the NAACP being considered evils. They do a vital and necessary job, and while it sometimes seems excessive or pedantic, its still a job that needs done.

That was lazy phrasing on my part, evil was the wrong word.

[jeff061]

Originally Posted by I. J. Reilly

I think the FCC goes into the necessary evil category, along with the ACLU and the NAACP for example. Much of what they do is stupid and trivial, but their existence is valuable. I like the fact that people and corporations know they are going to have to publically defend their actions.

Well they are only in control of analog signals over the air, which is frequently less and less. They can't touch the vast majority of cable TV, can't touch satellite, internet, etc.

Yet there has been plenty of instances where people have been suspended/fired for offending people through mediums out of the FCC's jurisdiction and non-premium cable stations keep it clean regardless of the lack of oversite by the FCC.

The public pressures advertisers, who in turn pressure content providers and get the situation resolved. The FCC is not needed, pretty soon there won't even be anything for them to monitor. This, while far from perfect, is a much better system than whatever arbitrary bullshit the FCC puts together.

[I. J. Reilly]

Eh, all I was trying to say is that I don’t have a problem with the FCC existing; it’s the stupid and arbitrary lines they draw.

The fact that you can show a man being murdered in cold blood on network tv, as long as he doesn’t say “oh shit” while being murdered, is just stupid and sad to me. But stupid and sad in a *shrug* what are you going to do sort of way, not in a THIS IS AN OUTRAGE sort of way.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

Ok, but you and RendeR seem ready to remove the agency as a whole because of a small portion of their activities. While the only context you may hear of the FCC in is Janet Jackson-type news, it does much much more than that.

But it's that small portion that outweighs the other stuff that they are supposed to do. Too much time and resources are dedicated to those small areas and because of that, I feel, they are a wasteful government organization. My point is, drop the nannying and pandering to lobbyists and if they carry on with their other duties, they will be fine.