FCC Fines Only Raise More Questions

Imagine a world where calling someone a d---head is considered less offensive than using the word shit in casual conversation.

Or where a detailed description of the slang term "tossing salad" (oral/anal sex, as described on Oprah Winfrey's talk show) is considered less explicit than a scene in which a character jumpes on a river raft and looses the s-word, "Oh, shit."

Welcome to the wonderful universe of the Federal Communications Commission, where officials weighed such abstractions in coming up with the millions in fines they levied against broadcasters this week.

The FCC released detailed descriptions of the reasoning behind its many fines, allowing the public to see exactly why a teen group sex scene warranted a $3.6-million fine against dozens of CBS stations, while a scene depicting a husband fantasy of shooting his wife in the face did not.

The devil lies in the commission's very specific definition of indecency, in which depictions of sexual organs, the intent to titillate and the frequency of the references all play into the FCC's decision to fine or not.

So, WJAN-TV in Miami gets a$32,500 fine for a comedy skit in which a buxom model appears in a open-front dress with her nipples covered. To the FCC, even if sexual organs are covered by jewelry, blurring or pixillating, they are still fair game for fining. That meant WBDC-TV in Washington D.C. was stuck with a $27,500 fine for a sexy pool party depicted in the WB's reality series the Surreal Life 2, despite the fact that sexual organs were blurred.

The Commission found the words d--- and d---head "are not sufficiently vulgar, explicit or graphic descriptions of sexual organs or activities to support a finding of patent offensiveness." So no fine for KMBC in Dallas for airing the NYPD Blue episode which contained them.

But KCSM TV in San Mateo, Calif. got a $15,000 fine for airing scenes in the PBS documentary The Blues, in which interviewees said "What's your job? you stupid m

Comments

[formerly mr anonymous]

it appears we are devolving to the pre-finnigans wake, daisy miller, lolita days when still-dominant victorian thinkers ruled the public arenas and decided what works of art were improper fodder for the great unwashed.or are these new indecency fines just the gop-controlled fcc's way of raising revenues, a la tampa's overzealous meter maids?i thought these battles were already fought and won back in the days of flower power.it raises the question of whether we really need an fcc? there is noequivalent body for the print world and lifes seems to go on.

[Eric Deggans]

Because the airwaves are a public resource, they are regulated by a public agency. They control which radio and TV broadcasters can occupy which frequencies -- ensuring against clutter and crowding -- and give the public additional control over the material broadcast...that's why the FCC exists...

[Anonymous]

when will people learn that they don't need to rely on big brother, that each person has the ultimate power on these issues: the off button?