Enough, nannies, enough!
I’m behind reporting the results of the TV Watch survey about government censorship of broadcast media. Full disclosures: TV Watch is an organization funded by some of the networks to counteract the pernicious nannying of the so-called Parents Television Council and their ilk and I am a member (which means nothing much other than that my name appears there). Among their findings:
* “82 percent of voters prefer people exercising personal choice over what they watch on television. Only 12 percent prefer that the government regulate what is appropriate.” I have long believed that given the chance to answer this question — though media don’t bother since they’re just retyping PTC and FCC press releases trumpting a trumped-up outcry over indecency — most American would, of course, say they want control, not government.
* “While some people will always find something on TV that offends them, 87 percent of voters don’t think the interests of a few should dictate what everyone else gets to watch on TV. ” In other words, I’m a parent, but the so-called Parents Television council does not speak for me — except in the lazy reporting of media — and I’m an American and have a family but the nutty fringe American Famly Association sure as hell does not speak for me. Does Donald Wildmon speak for you? I hope not.
* “Nearly three out of four [73%] voters think that a single complaint shouldn’t be enough to make the government spend time investigating or fining a TV show that thousands of viewers enjoyed without complaining.” This is a bit of a red herring. If you don’t believe the government should be censoring our speech, then the numbers don’t matter. Under the law, they in fact do not matter; one complaint is enough to trigger an investigation and penalty (though the FCC won’t investigate without that one complaint). As many of you know, I found what was until the latest round the largest fine in FCC history was instigated by a mere three people who bothered to write letters and 20 more who hit the “send” button on the PTC site. The PTC complains about the numbers the FCC released to me via the FOIA but they can’t have it both ways. If hundreds or even thousands joined their lynch mob, millions still watched these shows and did not complain. Whose community standards is the FCC enforcing? Not mine. Not most Americans’.
* “More than three-fourths [76%] of voters say they would be upset if government regulation limited the programming choices available to them.” Well, that’s already happening!
* “The majority [64%] of voters agree that it’s futile for government to fine network programs when the same or similar programming available on cable, satellite or the Internet.” Another red herring, and a dangerous one. Various broadcasters have sought to bring cable under the same regulation just to “level the playing field.” That’s rather like blacks in ’60s America asking that Jews get lynched the same when, of course, the proper goal is to eliminate the lynching.
* “Two-thirds [66%] of voters believe that the government should not make subjective decisions about when the use of explicit language is necessary, whether in educational or artistic programming, as was the case when the FCC reviewed Saving Private Ryan and The Blues: Godfathers and Sons.” Damn straight. The FCC has now set itself up as our official national cultural critic.
Tags: bs, Howard_Stern
April 1st, 2006 at 10:49 pm
99.999% of the population don’t give a rats ass about howard.
April 1st, 2006 at 11:01 pm
Looks like Howard followed the blog daddy’s advice and gave the people a choice only to find out that they don’t give a rats ass about him.
********************************************************
Howard Stern Lashes Out at Some Fans
NEW YORK - Howard Stern is angry more fans haven’t followed him to satellite radio. In an interview with Entertainment Weekly, the 52-year-old shock jock lashes out at those of his fan base who haven’t made the transition to Sirius Satellite Radio.
In January, Stern moved his popular and bawdy morning show to the subscription satellite radio provider.
“I was just at my psychiatrist and I said, `I just got great news: We hit the 4 million mark. And I’m angry. It should be 20 million,’” Stern says in the magazine, on newsstands Monday.
“It’s insulting to me that everyone hasn’t come with me. I take it personally,” he says.
“I want to say to my audience … `You haven’t come with me yet? How dare you? We’re up to wild, crazy stuff, the show has never sounded better. You cheap bastard!’”
In February, CBS Radio, formerly known as Infinity Broadcasting, filed a lawsuit against Stern for improperly using airtime to promote his new show on Sirius.
Stern has claimed the lawsuit is without merit.
********************************************
Any attention given to Stern is without merit. The people have spoken and 98.77777% of the country says bleep you to Howie.
That’s what you get for following Jarvis’s “laws.” He’s no Newton! If you don’t believe me then visit NJ.com the biggest POS on the net.
April 2nd, 2006 at 12:15 am
Look at the headline:
“SURVEY: MORE LIKELY TO FIND AN ADULT WHO BELIEVES IN ALIEN ABDUCTIONS THAN A VOTER WHO WANTS THE FEDS TO PICK WHAT’S ON TV”
Boy, that fills me with a *lot* of confidence about the impartiality of this presentation, let me tell you!
Jeff: far more comprehensive polls than this said that Bush is a one termer succeeded by John F. Kerry. Polls are — interesting. Merely.
501? A measley 501? How many of these 501 live outside of New York City? How many Democrats? How many Republicans? Seriously, I was a little scared about this when I started to read Jeff’s post, here, thinking that this was a some kind of *serious* survey. I’m not even terribly impressed with the leading phrasing of the questions.
April 2nd, 2006 at 3:19 am
Did you know that 60% of all statistics are made up on the spot?
Rock on, Jeff!
April 2nd, 2006 at 6:17 am
Thanks for the usual good sense, Jeff. While Howard Stern isn’t some one I choose to listen to, I believe the freedom to choose is precious. I couldn’t watch Saving Private Ryan, it was too violent, but I am so glad it was available. When I don’t have the choice to make, and it is made for me, then I will know I have a government of those who put their agenda above the public interest.
April 2nd, 2006 at 1:54 pm
“most American would, of course, say they want control, not government.”
This is a nice sentiment, but how do we do this? For over the air free broadcasts, someone will have to review the content and censor whatever is appropriate for the general audience.
I do think you over emphasize the interests of Parents Television Council. I don’t think they are “dictating” their interests. They are only providing their inputs on certain programming. Based on what I’ve seen on regular shows, it appears they have very little power.
GIVE ME A BREAK!!!
I think technology should be used more effectively. All parents should have the ability to block shows that don’t meet certain standards. In other words, the networks will have to rate their programs themselves. The public will block the programs they consider to be inappropriate so it is in the broadcaster’s interests to show appropriate programs.
I also think the broadcasters abuse the public interest by constantly pushing the envelop of the ratings system. What is decent today wasn’t decent a few years ago. Things have gotten worse. If they really want to push the envelop, they can put it on “pay per view”.
I agree that “Saving Private Ryan” is a misuse of the censorship standards. It should not be broadcast without editing to decency standards.
April 2nd, 2006 at 3:05 pm
How does everybody here feel about the Fairness Doctrine? I’d expect Jeff Jarvis to be intellectually honest and oppose it, as well, but I have a feeling that many more people who would want “bullshit” allowed (based on the flimsy “political speech” argument) would be for the Fairness Doctrine at the same time.
April 3rd, 2006 at 3:14 pm
This is a nice sentiment, but how do we do this? For over the air free broadcasts, someone will have to review the content and censor whatever is appropriate for the general audience
You statists make me ill, frankly. You’ve just endorsed government censorship of media, what’s next?
I think technology should be used more effectively. All parents should have the ability to block shows that don’t meet certain standards.
They already do: the V-chip has been in every TV sold in the US since 1998. That’s almost a decade. Cable and satellite providers have other controls you can use to block whole channels.
In other words, the networks will have to rate their programs themselves. The public will block the programs they consider to be inappropriate so it is in the broadcaster’s interests to show appropriate programs.
Haven’t you seen those TV ratings that are on every TV show these days? They’re in the upper-right corner, usually after every commercial break. I’m sure you’ve also seen the “viewer discretion advised” warnings all over the place.
I’ll put it plainly: it is not the government’s job to keep you from being offended, or to keep your kids from being offended, it is the government’s job to ensure that nobody’s right to free expression is violated. You don’t have a right to dictate what’s on TV. After all, you bought the thing, you can get rid of it.
April 3rd, 2006 at 3:18 pm
Also, people like the PTC make me want to get rich, buy NBC, and show nothing but hardcore pornography after 10pm. Just to really get their goat.
April 4th, 2006 at 10:54 am
Timothy is right - the public already has the ability to use the V-chip and blocking devices to stop unwanted TV content from entering the living room. This fact alone make government interference with TV programming not only undesirable but completely unnecessary.
Americans should be made more aware of ratings and blocking tools for two reasons. First, using these tools is pure consumer freedom of choice in action. Second - and more important - if a consumer doesn’t like a certain TV show, using blocking tools does nothing to interfere with the show creator’s right to free expression. Expression doesn’t guarantee acceptance, but that expression must be protected. History has enough sad examples of what ultimately happens when governments overstep their authority in this regard.
April 4th, 2006 at 3:35 pm
In response to some of your questions about the methodology of the survey:
Political breakdown of survey respondents:
32 percent Democrat
36 percent Republican
19 percent independent
13 percent ‘other’ political party
Geographic breakdown of survey respondents:
24 percent Midwest
19 percent Northeast
36 percent South
21 percent West
If you’d like more information on the survey, feel free to contact TV Watch (Kathy at televisionwatch dot org) and we’d be happy to send it along.
April 5th, 2006 at 1:06 pm
I find it more than a little odd that some of the commenters on this blog are actively promoting government censorship. When exactly did that become a fashionable thing to do? It’s government censorship. Here in the United States. How are even 12% of the survey respondents in favor of it? It’s quite vexing to me.
Great article, Jeff. Keep up the good work, TV Watch.