The Daily Stern: Afternoon edition

The Daily Stern: Afternoon edition

: THE CHILL REACHES NEWS: See the earlier post today about Fox fearing FCC fines for airing the funeral of a war hero because the F word aired.

Now see this. CBS is threatening to take news off the air because, hey, news is live and unscripted and what happens if somebody says a bad word (when you have no list of the bad words that could get you fined):

CBS affiliates are telling the Federal Communications Commission that unless it changes its ruling about profanities on-air, many will have to stop doing news outside of the 10 p.m.-6 a.m. safe harbor for indecent speech.

Noncommercial stations, meanwhile, argued that the decision has caused them to significantly self-censor for the first time….

“Live newsgathering outside of the safe harbor will be a risk that many licensees can’t take,” the affiliates wrote the Federal Communications Commission.

That dire warning came in comments to the FCC as CBS Affiliates and major public TV stations joined the swelling chorus of boos for the FCC’s decision that it may now find the F-word indecent regardless of context, and fine broadcasters and artists potentially millions of dollars for saying that and other profanities on air.

In its petition, the CBS affiliates warn that the indecency crackdown will “fundamentally alter the manner in which local broadcasters engage in newsgathering.” (Already some stations, though not necessarily CBS stations–are buying equipment to delay newscasts. And on Monday, some Phoenix stations reported pulled the plug on news coverage of football player Pat Tillman’s memorial service when friends let forth with some locker-room language.)

The CBS affiliates also argued that they frequently don’t have the ability to alter programming provided by the networks. Even if the networks indemnify them financially, that will be little consolation if they have their licenses revoked, as the FCC has threatened to do for repeat offenders.

In a separate filing, the American Association of Public Television Stations as a group and the major noncom program producing stations, also expressed their concern over the decision’s affect on news, documentaries and cultural programs. They say that, for the first time, producers are engaging in “significant self-censorship out of fear of government penalty.

For instance, stations have deleted language from “Prime Suspect” on Masterpiece Theater (and been criticized for the deletions by viewers) and even had to consider whether to edit our a nude lithograph from Antiques Roadshow, even though the show had aired months before with no complaint….

The chill is on.

: WHAT IT IS: Ernie Miller calls Michael Powell cynical.

27 responses to “The Daily Stern: Afternoon edition”

  1. Mike Avatar

    Finally, a post about censorship that is actually about a chilling effect on the rest of us. Fining individuals, especially those who are not doing the reporting for the networks, is ridiculous and problematic. If I utter the F word in the background of a live news cast with no delay, should I then be fined? If so, how are they going to find out who I am, some sort of investigation?

  2. Andy Avatar

    Now who’s being childish. CBS is simply being silly.
    Besides, who really knows whether the feed is “live” or set with a 30-second delay? With 22 minutes of advertising every hour broken into 15 or 30 second intervals nobody can tell the difference. If radio can run a 7-second delay then surely TV can do something similar.
    The argument that an idea cannot be expressed without obscenities is absurd. Given the commonality of obscene language an articulate speaker can have more impact forcefully expressing an idea without the use of obscenities. Of course, one must have the desire and the ability. Is CBS saying that they lack the ability or just the desire?

  3. John Avatar

    Andy, none of what you say addresses what happens if local stations just pull their newscasts entirely because they’re not worth the risk. Many stations in small and midsize markets already want to drop news in favor of more lucrative entertainment programming. A few already have, but some sense of public-service mission has stopped it from happening very often. The trend away from news could accelerate if stations have the extra excuse that a stray bit of profanity–not an idea purposely expressed with obscenities, but a random word caught in the middle of live news coverage–could result in crippling fines. And that is deeply disturbing.

  4. Robert E. Bihlmayer Avatar
    Robert E. Bihlmayer

    “In its petition, the CBS affiliates warn that the indecency crackdown will ‘fundamentally alter the manner in which local broadcasters engage in newsgathering.’”
    translation: local broadcasters will have to pay attention to what they broadcast and exercise editorial discretion. poor babies.

  5. sol Avatar

    I love hearing all these liberals saying they are ‘deeply disturbed’. For the last 100 years liberals have done nothing but support every left-wing totalitarian movement and regime which routinely suppressed free speech as the LEAST of their evil crimes.
    Liberals, just the let the adults here – conservatives, classical liberals, (some) libertarians – take care of fighting for and keeping secure the right to freedom of speech. We know what we’re doing, we have a long history of doing it (and doing it successfully), and our hearts and minds are actually sympatheic to the cause…

  6. Andy Avatar

    John;
    Have you watched the local evening news on CBS? It is all local feed, nothing new. They also run lots of “entertainment news” that reports on the upcoming Letterman show or some bits from Survivor. Local CBS News is mainly advertising and CBS infomercial with teasers to stop the surfing. That they cannot edit tape strikes me as very unprofessional.
    The idea that they would dump their news program (their most profitible broadcast) is just plain silly. If they are serious, how ’bout returning the license to the FCC. Or do they carry that as an asset on their balance sheet?

  7. Andy Avatar

    John:
    I meant to say the news is all tape. No live feed except from the streetside reporters. Put a 30 second delay and “bleep” the background. We, the public, will not notice because we have so many 15-30 second distractions every hour. The news itself is filled with teasers “coming up in our next segment”. Who is really gonna see a delay from “live”?

  8. tony Avatar

    Robert,
    I think you’re missing the point. CBS is saying that if it broadcasts a live event like Pat Tillman’s wake, and a few of his friends start dropping f-bombs (as what happened yesterday), then CBS could be fined millions.
    How on earth could you follow “editorial descretion” other than having a long enough delay on the broadcast so as to bleep any of the profanity? Thus, how “live” is such a broadcast?
    Underneath all of this is the fact that we live in a grown-up world and the news covers that grown-up world. To be forced to dumb-down the news so far down to the level of children is ridiculous on several levels. The first being children rarely watch the news.
    What’s fascinating about the Iraq torture pictures is that the genitals are blurred out but the humilation is not. The goal of the FCC, they tell us, is to protect the community and children from what might be damaging to them.
    My question is what’s more damaging: a naked backside or the image of prisoners of war being stacked up like a human pyramid?
    The best thing CBS could do longterm is pull it’s news shortterm to let the world know how far the conservative pendulum has swung in the land of the free and the home of the brave.

  9. J. W. Patterson Avatar
    J. W. Patterson

    In my humble opinion, the First Amendment is an absolute. The SCOTUS decision to exempt obscene speech was not just a mistake, it was an atrocity.
    If either I or my children are exposed to something on the “public” airwaves that I find objectionable, then I will take the responsibility for filtering access to those sources. It is not the job of the federal, state, county, parish, township, city, or municipality governments to decide what I can read, hear, or view.
    What part of “Congress shall make no law” does the government not understand?
    Amendment I
    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

  10. superfly Avatar
    superfly

    J.W.: So no laws at all restricting speech? No laws against fraud, libel or slander, no laws against threats or shouting fire in a crowded threater, no laws against incitement, no campaign finance laws, no laws against any obscenity (including child porn), no laws restricting the release of classified or private information, and no laws against conspiracy. The first ammendment is after all an absolute and all of these “crimes” and “violations of the law” are just people’s words or expressions. What part of “Congress shall make no law” does the government not understand?

  11. Robert E. Bihlmayer Avatar
    Robert E. Bihlmayer

    “How on earth could you follow ‘editorial descretion’ other than having a long enough delay on the broadcast so as to bleep any of the profanity? Thus, how ‘live’ is such a broadcast?”
    three to seven seconds less “live” than it would otherwise be.
    “To be forced to dumb-down the news so far down to the level of children is ridiculous on several levels. The first being children rarely watch the news…”
    first, redacting the occasional obscenity is not “dumb(ing)-down.” secondly, as a child i devoured news on television, in magazines, and in newspapers, and i suspect i’m not the only one.
    “My question is what’s more damaging: a naked backside or the image of prisoners of war being stacked up like a human pyramid?”
    fales distinction. obscenity is illegal; “humiliation” is not.
    “The best thing CBS could do longterm is pull it’s news shortterm to let the world know how far the conservative pendulum has swung in the land of the free and the home of the brave.”
    given CBS’ egregious record of bias, removing their “news” programming from the airwaves would be altogether a public service.

  12. Robert E. Bihlmayer Avatar
    Robert E. Bihlmayer

    that should read “false distinction.” sorry, i’m busy today.

  13. superfly Avatar
    superfly

    Robert: I used to watch the news most week nights from when I was around 10 until I was about 18. Since then Internet news has come into fruition and I pretty much have completely given up on TV news.

  14. Robert E. Bihlmayer Avatar
    Robert E. Bihlmayer

    given that most kids, when not supervised, tend to watch whatever’s on (or whatever their older sibling wants to watch!), i’d think there were probably millions of kids watching tv news.
    one additional note: at the time of my childhood news-consumption (the 1960s), the television stations in Chicago (where i grew up) all used seven-second delays on all their live feeds, including Cubs games, as did the local radio station call-in features. why? teenage boys (or grownups with the mentality and sophistication of teenagers) delighted in calling in to try to get an obscenity on the air. i guess the only thing that’s changed is that now the teenagers are doing the broadcasting.
    but in a sense the whole “children” issue is irrelevant; i’m not opposed to obscenity because of its effect on children, i’m opposed to it because of its effects on adults.

  15. KMK Avatar

    Sol,
    Dr. Phil had a program on today. His topic (at least the first one) a women who lets her 6th grader do drugs, drink alcohol and have sex, in her home. Sure, he chastised her on TV. Told her she was unfit yadda yadda, but what of that child’s rights. Her parent, who in Phil’s eyes was incompetent, signed away her rights. There they were for all America to see. (and be exploited).
    So, what are you going to do Sol? Call the show and find out what state she lives in? File a complaint on behalf of that child? Report the mother to social services? Did you see the show? How about the kids who did see the show? Did they say “Gee Mom look what she lets her kid do”? Is the FCC aware? Let me know, I’ll help.

  16. sol Avatar

    KMK, it sounds like child protective services should indeed look into that household. And not based on anything to do with free speech. (And I say this fully aware of the totalitarian potential in CPS types of government operations, but all you have to do is see a child in a REALLY bad situation and you realize those services are necessary. Yeah, drugs, sex, alcohol for a sixth-grader? Definitely get that address… I have no problem with that. Did you have a point about free speech though…?

  17. Tom Avatar

    superfly – libel, slander, et al, are separate punishments on top of the “freedom of speech” as a right. You are free to say what you want, but when the “law” says that you are hurting someone else with lies and deceit, you should be punished for doing so. They’re not taking away your right to do so.
    In this case, television news is stating that it is in a position where the area is so “grey” that they don’t have any choice except to pull their broadcast. The FCC will not draw a firm line in the sand – which is the only right thing they’re doing – but they continue to throw fines willy nilly wherever they happen to feel like it. The Oprah example is prime meat for the argument.
    The libel/slander argument is a legitimate exception because you are making compensation, in effect, for being harmed with intent. Pat Tillman’s brother swearing wasn’t done to harm anyone. XYZ newscast’s intent wasn’t to harm anyone by playing it live. In fact, they felt it was a public service to show what was going on at the services. The other examples you state are not quite “free speech” related and have similar circumstances. I would have to say that most people would agree with an incitement law stating that you can’t yell “fire” in the movie theatre and get people stampeded. However, most would not agree that having someone utter the f word on the nightly news in a passionate way when it wasn’t trying to be obscene is not wrong. We don’t need babysitters.
    As for the “bleep” idea – it’s valid, except for the fact that broadcasters don’t even want to go that direction. The Quentin Tarantino-judged episode of “American Idol” a few weeks back was EDITED, yes EDITED, so they could actually change the sentence he said about the singer on stage, removing the term “effing” from his statement and showing the singer, not Tarantino on camera, as was originally filmed. If the President hadn’t been speaking that night, you would have seen the bleep version, most likely. Think about this for a second. The nets are *scared* to broadcast something right now. It’s not right.

  18. Andy Avatar

    CBS is playing politics.
    CBS is owned by Viacom.
    Infinity is owned by Viacom
    Howard is carried on Viacom.
    Co-incidence?

  19. tony pierce Avatar

    Robert,
    I too grew up in Chicago and was a big fan of WGN, however if there was a delay on the live programming why wasn’t there a delay on the live broadcast of the Bozo show in the early 70s during that infamous afternoon when the kid said the f word after he missed the last Bozo Bucket?
    kid: “f—”
    Bozo: oh ha ha ha that’s a Bozo no-no
    kid: clam up, clownie
    secondly, of course *some* children watch the news, but they are obviously the tiniest demographic of viewership, and yet because most news is broadcast during the 6am-10pm it absolutely must obey the guidelines set up to protect children from profanity.
    this i think is silly because we’re “protecting” children from something that has never been proven to be damaging to young people, it is definately a breech of the first amendment, and in the wrong hands (as it is now) it could be weilded against people for unfair political motives.

  20. KMK Avatar

    Sol,
    Phil enjoys the freedom to exploit as does your variety talk show host. To point a finger at one person and say that they alone have led to the degradation of our society and culture is ridiculous. I listen to Stern, I’m a libertarian. I’m voting for Bush in November. I am exempt from your stereotype. I pointed to Phil’s show because he has the freedom to broadcast his bilge. I don’t hear anyone jumping up and down over his show or Oprah’s for that matter. It’s not scientific. They exploit actual children. Not hypothetical child listeners. I don’t recall Howard ever having a child on his show. Do you? Or an incompetent parent and a child. I remember Giuliani, Schwarzenegger, and Whitman. All competent adults looking for an audience and publicity. Same goes for your hollywood types who have no problem following anal ring toss as long as they get to plug their movie. I respect your right not to want to listen to Howard Stern. Turn the dial, file a complaint but don’t allow your representatives to create new regulation to silence a few for now. And don’t allow special interest groups to speak for the majority when they are in fact the minority. http://www.drphil.com/show/show.jhtml?contentId=2121_parenting.xml

  21. sol Avatar

    KMK, you’re way off subject. And your examples are lame. (And you watch too much television.)
    Stern gets fined because people complain when they or their children hear a bit where Stern’s fat writer sticks his toe in some girl’s vagina. They don’t think that should be on the public airwaves. The FCC reviews and says what is over-the-line and what isn’t. They review that and decide it’s over-the-line. They fine Stern’s employer. I have no problem with that. I have no problem with it because it’s the public airwaves. They are limited. They go into homes. There are standards of decency. Only the ignorant think there shouldn’t be. Jeff recognizes them here on his blog. Jeff’s one-liner about ‘it’s censorship if the government does it not me’ is lame because of the limited nature of frequencies. If everybody could have an FM dial frequency like everybody has a phone line then you’d have an argument. This really isn’t that difficult to grasp.

  22. KMK Avatar

    Typical, toe in the vagina, lame, shock comment. What happened to “we know what were doing” and being an “adult”? Broadcast regulation is broadcast regulation be it TV or radio. I would think no decent women would go on a show and announce to the country that her 6th grader smokes pot, drinks and has sex all under her incompetent eye. This being broadcast doesn’t offend you at all and it involves an actual child. Amazing.
    I would think by now the FCC would be reviewing Oprah’s broadcast. They have well over 1000 complaints. If the system works as you say it should we should see her fined, right?
    The FCC gets smacked awake by a breast and an F* bomb and decides to review 3 years worth of Sterns broadcasts. 3 years? That’s a laugh. (still no mention or ruling of Nicole Ritchie’s F* and S* bomb on fox) They up the fines, throw in a three strikes and your out clause and you don’t see this as selective censorship or as pressure from the government to control his speech. A guy cursing at a live broadcast of a funeral makes the stations nervous and you don’t see it as a chill. I don’t think Jeff’s argument is that hard to grasp. I think your argument is selective much like the FCC’s.

  23. superfly Avatar
    superfly

    Tom, I do not think you grasped my point. The earlier commentator said the first ammendment is an absolute. I pointed out a list of restrictions on free speech that the supreme court has ruled are legal restrictions and the vast majority of reasonable people agree with at least one of those restrictions. I personally think most of the things that I listed are not protected by the first ammendment (except perhaps some obscenity laws and campaign finance laws, which I think are probably protected by the first ammendment).
    When people say they think that the first ammendment is an absolute, that all speech should be free, and that they are opposed to all censorship, they usually either do not realize that they are proposing that ALL of the above restrcitions on speech become legal or do realize and are being dishonest about it. Pretty much everyone is in favor of some forms of censorship, they just do not want to call it that or admit it.

  24. Kim Pearson Avatar

    I agree with much of Jeff’s argument, but one think has bothered me from the beginning: why make Oprah a major target of your counter-offensive? Here’s an excerpt from my post:
    “What’s missing from Jarvis’ analysis is any recogniton of way in which this country’s attitudes and conversations about sex are tainted with the history of race, class and gender oppression. My problem with Howard Stern is not that he talks about sex; it’s that he reinforces stereotypes that have buttressed the oppression of women, the poor and people of color since the days of Thomas Jefferson.”
    The entire post is at here.

  25. J. W. Patterson Avatar
    J. W. Patterson

    Dear Superfly,
    Thanks for your thoughtful comments.
    I, however, am still comitted to the belief that an absolute First Amendment is crucial. Under our current tort system, anyone with legal standing can sue for redress or damages.
    Yelling “Fire” in a crowded movie theater, releasing information about troop movements, and selling or otherwise distributing kiddie porn may all be defined as illegal. All of these can be prosecuted under powers permitted to the government. (Treason, Incitement to Riot, et cetera.) Those persons comitting these acts can and should be subject to damages and/or other penalties. There is still no argument for censorship (i. e. prior restraint of speech)
    Sincerely
    J. W.

  26. Robert E. Bihlmayer Avatar
    Robert E. Bihlmayer

    “…why wasn’t there a delay on the live broadcast of the Bozo show in the early 70s during that infamous afternoon when the kid said the f word after he missed the last Bozo Bucket?”
    because no one expected an eight-year-old to use that kind of language. the correct second quote is “cram it, clown” and it was “Bucket #6,” BTW.
    and again, you’re sticking with the “children” issue when my personal opposition to media obscenity has nothing to do with children, but rather with its effects on adults.

  27. superfly Avatar
    superfly

    J.W: So what you are saying that the first amendment is absolute, but it is not absolute when it comes to these issues. 1. The first amendment is absolute, but can still be superceded by the government’s tort system. 2. The first amendment is absolute, but it is alright for the government to prosecute people for some speech. Those both seem to be contradictions. I am very confused by your response. I believe in a strong first ammendment, but I do not believe it is “absolute”.
    Also are you saying that if a government official knew that someone was going to be passing out classified military troop movements or classified info to the enemy it would be wrong or should be illegal for them to engage in prior restraint of this speech? If a FBI agent witnesses a spy telling a foreign power over the phone what our troops are doing and thousands of troops may die as a result of this info, then the agent should do nothing to stop this speech until after the conversation is over. It would only be ok to punish them afterwards (no prior restraint after all).