A Fine Mess at the FCC

The FCC's enforcement of the indecency rules is stalled, reports the LA Times. The reason: a perfect storm of three factors: a Court of Appeals ruling against the rules (as I previously blogged), a pending Supreme Court case that will rule on the rules, and (finally) a growing broadcaster willingness to fight FCC fines, probably in part because the FCC has increased minimum fines ten-fold.

Now, even conservative-owned Fox is fighting back -- and that's just fine with me. The rules are more indecent than the content, and many if not most of the complaints are ginned up by the bluenoses at the Parents Television Council. They seem to think that night-time broadcast television needs to be cleansed of curse words to protect children -- the same children who hear these same words on cable TV, see, hear and write the same words on the Internet, hear the same words in school, and text the same words to their friends.

In short, a faux Victorianism benefits no one -- except perhaps the (often hypocritical) right-wing candidates for public office who fan the flames of the culture wars -- and reduces adult programming to silly doses of saccharine.

F**king Expletives!

Can the Federal Communications Commission impose harsh fines on TV networks when on-air presenters make fleeting and isolated use of an expletive? In other words, if the enthusiastic recipient of a Grammy or Golden Globe says an unscripted "fuck yeah!," can the broadcaster be fined?

That's an issue the Supreme Court will take up next year, reports the New York Times. The Supremes will be reviewing a decision by the Federal Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (which includes New York), which was skeptical of the FCC's power to levy such fines. A 2-1 decision of that court criticized the FCC for failing to "articulate a reasoned basis" for changing its policy to impose such fines. The court also suggested, but did not decide, that "the F.C.C.’s indecency test is undefined, indiscernible, inconsistent and, consequently, unconstitutionally vague.”

Always worth remembering: the FCC has certain powers to regulate language and content, but in the area of broadcast television only. Cable channels are essentially unregulated. The public airwaves - the broadcast spectrum - are viewed as a limited resource, justifying some limitations on the First Amendment in broadcast television.

That's why "f**k yeah!" may (or may not) be prohibited on broadcast TV, but actual f**king is ok on cable. On broadcast TV, Janet Jackson's "wardrobe malfunction" garnered massive fines (also being challenged in the courts), whereas, on cable, shows such as Queer as Folk, The 'L' Word, and Californication (not to mention the Playboy channel) garner ratings, not fines.

Corporate Tool

No, not the AMPTP. (Well, not just the AMPTP.) This time, I'm talking about Kevin Martin, the preppy-boy chairman of the FCC. At his initiative, and on an a 3-2 vote (and apparently without public hearings), the FCC just relaxed newspaper-TV cross-ownership rules, reports the LA Times. That move makes it easier for a media company to own both a newspaper and a TV station in the same market.

More media consolidation - what a perfect gift for the holidays.

No Place for Undisclosed Product Placement, Says WGA

The WGA told the FCC that product placements in TV shows should be flagged by a crawl on the bottom of the screen alerting viewers to the placement, reports Variety.

The WGA wants the crawl to identify the product and the sponsor, and include a disclaimer that the writers and actors don't endorse the product. (No word about the directors.) In my opinion, the idea of a crawl doesn't have legs.

The writers are also seeking consultation rights on placements. That's a possibility, though not likely. The whole issue has no economic impact on writers, and is posturing more than anything else.

Actors have a bigger problem with product placements - they call them "forced endorsements," because the actor (through his or her character) is forced to seemingly endorse the product, and receives no extra compensation for it. I predict the new contract being negotiated next year will give them a (small) piece of the action.

Janet Jackson in Concert at the 3rd Circuit

Remember the Superbowl "wardrobe malfunction"? Oral arguments are scheduled for this Tuesday in CBS's challenge to the massive fine imposed by the FCC in the incident, reports Law.com.

In true legal fashion, a roughly half-second incident, in which Janet Jackson's right breast made its brief national television debut au naturale, has spawned litigation that has dragged on more than three years, and counting.

Justice Department Opposes Net Neutrality

The Department of Justice has told the FCC that DOJ opposes net neutrality, the AP reports.

Net neutrality is the principle that all servers should be allowed to connect to the Internet on an equal basis with regard to quality and speed, and is generally the norm today. Proponents say this makes it easier for small start ups to compete with established Internet sites. Telcos and cable cos. oppose the principle, and want to be able to charge more for faster connections.