Debating Indecency: Who Speaks for Me?

I've been thinking a lot about indecency and Harry Potter.

(Martin with former MPAA head Jack Valenti at Senate hearing Tuesday)

Indecency is back in the news, thanks to new FCC chairman Kevin Martin, who told a Congressional committee Tuesday that the cable industry needs to offer customers ways to choose which standard cable channels they will access, or the commission may attempt to regulate cable and satellite TV indecency the way they regulate broadcasters.

Such a challenge seems an empty threat. Cable providers swear the economics of their business require spreading costs over all non-premium channels -- so those who buy cable for Disney, CNN or ESPN can help pay for the Golf Channel or Black Entertainment Television as well. And since consumers can block access to individual cable or satellite channels within their own home, it seems the FCC would stand on shaky legal ground trying to regulate content nationwide to shield children.

Televangelists are opposing Martin's notion because they fear their channels would also go away under such a system. The advocacy group TV Watch, which seeks to limit government control of broadcasting, released a survey Monday which found -- surprise! -- that only 9 percent of parents want government to increase control of network TV and 91 percent of parents use some tools to control their children's TV viewing. The Senate is considering various forms of indencency legislation, just as the FCC is preparing to rule on 40 to 50 indecency complaints from earlier this year.

And I'm still wondering why its taken until less than a year before the 2006 midterm elections before Republican legislators and a Republican FCC chairman would bring up indecency again.

Here's where Potter comes in: While watching the latest film with my kids, I knew we would be seeing something darker. But I wasn't prepared to see one character cut his own hand off and a teen classmate of Harry's killed during the action. If even Harry Potter movies bow to such creeping violent content, I thought, what hope is there for other mainstream entertainment?

I'm hardly a prude, but I am a father of four concerned about the coarsening state of mainstream entertainment. And every advocate in the current public debate on this issue -- from Republican legislators courting conservative votes to strident advocacy groups seking more political power -- seems to have other, practical reasons for advocating content crackdowns which have nothing to do with the actual issue.

So when will we get an honest broker in this debate -- someone who might actually help address parents' concerns without totally trampling the First Amendment? And can a parent criticize some risque content in media without turning into a tool for some culture warrior's political agenda?

Right now, the odds of finding that kind of leadership on this issue seems likely as stumbling on Potter's legendary goblet of fire.

Comments

[Anonymous]

Regarding the Harry Potter movie...I don't recall the incident with the hand, but the fellow getting killed was at the climax of the book, I don't see how that could have been left out. Was it the way it was portrayed onscreen, or do you think it unacceptable for children to be exposed to stories where a character dies? If so, you better keep them away from Shakespeare. Also better not let them read the paper.

[Eric Deggans]

Voldemort's servant cuts his own hand off to help feed the potion which brings the bad guy back to life. And yes, that scene worried me much more than the scene of the teen being killed. There are deaths in kiddie movies such as Bambi and the Lion King, and kids handle that just fine.But I think movies have made such violence so commonplace and bloodless, that I wonder if they belong in movies where there is a guaranteed large audience of very young children.To keep their PG rating, such acts are never accompanied by blood or screams (check out the Mummy or Lord of the Rings movies for further confirmation. But I fear that just encourages children to minimize the consequences of violence. And its one thing to do that in a a Mummy or Alien movie where the audience is largely older' its another to do it in a Harry potter movie where the audience keeps getting younger, even as the material gets older.

[Anonymous]

re: the fccgod bless howard stern!

[Anonymous]

Eric: The reason why the Senate is starting to stir the pot is that Cheap (Clear) Channel and Infinity (Viacom/CBS) is now crying poor because all the talent that brought in the big bucks -- and since has been muzzled and run off by the FCC -- have found their way to satalite.As a result more and more listeners are going to satalite. And if you listen to either XM or Sirius, you can understand why, for the most part, people who go satalite don't go back to traditional radio.I mean, over-the-air radio, for the most part, is virtually unlistenable its so bad. Take the Tampa Bay market for example. It's brutal sans Stern (and he's gone in a few short weeks).Cheap Channel has spent billions of dollars to try to control the radio dial in most markets by buying up all sorts of stations. As a result, diversity in radio is pretty much an afterthought, hence ungodly boring.Because of this, more and more people by the day are going to satalite. Therefore, Cheap Channel is seeing their major, major investment(s) going down the tubes: Fewer listeners, fewer ratings, fewer ad dollars, less cash.So Cheap Channel and Infinity (and to a lesser degree, Cox Broadcasting) are trying an end-around to shut down satalite.I know that Cheap Channel used to own about 40 percent of XM, not sure if they divested themselves of this or not. That's why a lot of Cheap Channel's "talent" at one time could also be found on XM.War satalite radio! Death to Cheap Channel!

[Eric Deggans]

Interesting analysis of the indecency situation.Right now, the FCC is just talking about TV indecency, though. And I think their interest has a lot more to do with upcoming midterm elections than Clear Channel's coffers (funny how the indecency push stalled right after Bush was elected president' indecency issues are a great way to get conservative voters to the polls).I'm not sure about all the Clear Channel radio talent running to satellite radio. Howard Stern, after all, works for Infinity. And Bubba the Love Sponge was fired by Clear Channel nearly 18 months beofre he landed on satellite.Finally, I think Clear Channel owned 10 percent of XM, not 40 percent. I think terrestrial radio types know satellite radio is a reality that will not be easily stopped. And they also know any indecency enforcement could just as easily hurt them as a competitor.

[Anonymous]

Though I was/am no fan of the Slob from Indiana (Clem), it's pretty obvious Cheap Channel black-listed him and tried to do the same with Stern (yeah, I know Stern works for Infinity/Viacom, but several Cheap Channel stations carried him -- Pittsburgh, Louisville and Snorlando for example).When Cheap Channel dropped Stern from its markets about two years ago, they acted like he was the anti-Christ, yet how many millions of dollars did they make off of him?In fact, didn't Stern hire the Slob from Indiana to work on one of the two Sirius channels he manages?Do a Google search on the Senate hearings earlier this week. Some spokeswoman for Cheap Channel acted as if it alone rid the republic of all evil from the nation's airwaves and wants Big Brother to put satalite radio in the government's crosshairs. Her argument was, basically, "We cleaned up our act. Why shouldn't (satalite)?"Her arguments made me ill.Big Brother messing with TV/radio content to me is frightening. And I'm conservative!(If Big Brother does start censoring content, I pray that dope/galling mouthpiece Sean Hannity is the first one thrown off the public's airwaves.)