First, a little history of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC):
The FCC was created as an independent U.S. government agency overseen by Congress, and established as part of the Communications Act of 1934. Originally, the agency monitored primarily radio communications before the invention of the television became popular in the 1950’s. In 1949 there was close to one million television sets that were in use, and the question of ‘how the content was going to be regulated’ arose. The FCC had the right to restrict certain content, require fair and balanced political programming, censor offensive and obscene material, and make sure that a certain percentage of each broadcast week would be devoted to what is called “public use.”
The FCC was created as an independent U.S. government agency overseen by Congress, and established as part of the Communications Act of 1934. Originally, the agency monitored primarily radio communications before the invention of the television became popular in the 1950’s. In 1949 there was close to one million television sets that were in use, and the question of ‘how the content was going to be regulated’ arose. The FCC had the right to restrict certain content, require fair and balanced political programming, censor offensive and obscene material, and make sure that a certain percentage of each broadcast week would be devoted to what is called “public use.”
Today, the FCC monitors radio, television, wire, satellite
and cable broadcasts in all 50 states. Even though producers of media must go
through the FCC to feed their content on the television and the radio, the FCC
does not regulate the information posted on the internet. The FCC believes in the "Open Internet" rules, which makes sure that the internet remains:
“a powerful platform for
innovation and job creation; to empower consumers and entrepreneurs; to protect
free expression; to promote competition; to increase certainty in the
marketplace by providing greater predictability for all stakeholders regarding
federal policy in this area, and to spur investment both at the “edge,” and in
the core of our broadband networks.” (FCC, 2012)
So, if the FCC was created for our protection and believes in
the right to protect our freedom of expression, then why do media outlets disagree with how the FCC moderates broadcasts? One example, the FCC filed a complaint against four television programs stating that they contained profane material unacceptable for the airwaves. It all comes down to our First
Amendment right to free speech. While the Supreme Court had defined what was
considered "obscene,"the FCC gets to define was is considered “Indecent.” This is where many people disagree with the FCC as they have the power to fine
broadcasters for what they define as indecent.
Is this fair to the broadcasters if their creativity is monitored and controlled by the government? I would say no. While the FCC works towards ensuring that the airwaves are clean of profanity for American citizens, the fine line between free speech and indecency gives the entertainment industry limitations when producing radio and television shows. While the FCC can revoke the license of a radio station that crosses the line (such as Howard Stern's fight with the FCC), the air waves are controlled by you and me. This means that while the FCC is here to protect us from the threat of indecency, it is our decision to choose what should be considered indecent.
The title caught my attention right away because I am an Eminem fan, and using his celebrity was a great idea to get interest in your post. The coherence of the multimedia was good. Pictures and words were embeded in an effective way. There were no kickouts, and the paragraphs were well structured with just the right amount of words. The blog post lacked interactivity, and could have used links where I could make a choice for myself. Overall, it was a great post about first amendment right to speech, and how it is our decision to choose what is appropriate.
ReplyDeleteI agree with everything you've said here, but because radio and public television are so accessible to everyone, I can't see them being uncensored. There will always be people that cannot accept the idea that one day they might turn on their car radio or television and hear profanity. And while these people are, in my mind, ridiculous, you have to concede the fact that they do have a case to be made. After all, nobody's arguing that profanity or crude subject matter is NOT profane or crude, only that such things shouldn't really matter in today's world.
ReplyDeleteThe main problem I have with the FCC is that the way it censors things seems to backwards from the values most people think of. People generally see violence and bad language as reprehensible things, but those are actually the least regulated forms of offensive material. In reality, sexual content is the most tightly regulated of them all because, heaven forbid, kids see where they came from. In Europe, for example, it's exactly the opposite: violence is more censored, and sex is all but allowed to run free. How is something that creates life worse than seeing life being taken away? It just seems backwards to me, and apparently to a lot of the western world.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you, that it is our own choice to decide what we consider to be indecent, rather than a government appointed organization that serves as a means to an end while limit what is exposed to the public, it does put limits on what is freedom of speech. The FCC has an important job, there are many things that I don't want to see or hear and wouldn't want the younger crowd exposed to because access is way to easy. However, what they believe crosses a line and what the general public would define as such is blurry at most.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your ideas here completely as well, but I also think it is unrealistic to think that television or radio would ever be uncensored. This post made me think of Clear Channel Communications, a large broadcasting company, who in 2001 after the terrorist attacks allegedly put out a list of "lyrically questionable songs." The list of over 150 songs was pretty ridiculous to me and I was angered that such a huge company could control the playing of songs that might offend some listeners. The claim was never proved to be official, but I am bringing this up because even without the FCC monitoring, large companies that own thousands of radio stations inevitably do the same thing as they do. So even if the FCC monitoring somehow diminished, the same concerns wouldn't change and someone would still be controlling what's being played.
ReplyDeleteThis post is very interesting and you make some very good points. The FCC is a good regulatory organization but I believe that they should keep censoring songs on the radio and words on television shows. The FCC monitoring should only be on the radio and television because the online listening and satellite radio listening is just a different from the radio in your car. This is definitely a good insight on the FCC.
ReplyDelete