Feedback

FCC sterilizes entertainment

Campus Times
March 5, 2004

by Taylor Kingsbury
Staff Writer

I know that you’re as sick of hearing about Janet Jackson’s boob as I am talking about it. But, unfortunately, the pop star’s publicity stunt has generated something far more sinister than her comeback.

The Federal Communications Commission, in their infinite wisdom, has decided that one nipple is just cause to reinvestigate their existing policies regarding obscenity, and to use their all-powerful hand to initiate some selective censorship.

Broadcast entertainment as we know it is in the process of being sterilized, and conduct that was considered just fine a few weeks ago is now yielding an unjust fine.

Anxious programmers are now altering their wares to save themselves from bankruptcy, apparently unconcerned that their audience seemed to like things just the way they were.

Most publicly, MTV, who produced the Super Bowl fiasco, has vowed to resign some of their spicier clips to the late-night hours of their schedule.

This, too, seems like a publicity stunt. After all, anybody who has been unfortunate enough to familiarize themselves with MTV knows that the channel rarely plays videos anyway.

The ones truly affected by this newly generated paranoia are radio personalities, who are being forced to alter the material that made their shows successful to begin with.

The most infamous of shock-jocks, Howard Stern, has seen his show dropped from six affiliate stations, including one in San Diego.

Nationwide, many jocks specializing in racier material have been canned without the opportunity to adhere to the new standards set for them.

Surely we can all agree that Howard Stern and similar-minded radio personalities specialize in crude humor. But anyone who doesn’t approve of the material has dozens of other stations to choose from.

Stern’s show is a success because he knows what his audience wants to hear, and if his material is truly offensive, then millions of listeners around the world obviously enjoy being offended.

So, what is offensive? Conveniently, the FCC doesn’t specifically say. Their website only pinpoints material that references “sexual and excretory organs.” However, by that definition, a host who speaks about having a cold and needing to blow their nose would be met with a $275,000 fine.

There can never be any set standard for decency, since each individual has their own unique threshold for language. Hell, my mother won’t even say the word “hell.” She spells it out, “H-E-L-L.” Yet, you just read it three times and probably didn’t think twice about it.

Under the FCC’s technical guidelines, if my mother heard a radio host use the world “hell,” and was personally offended by that, she would have grounds to file an obscenity report.

Of course, “hell” is a minor example. But, even the most obscene sexual references are still only words. Words are nothing more than a combination of letters arranged phonetically, and any imagery that a word invokes is a product of the listener’s mind.

Example: When I say “deep penetration,” you begin imagining a vulgar sexual scenario. But, that’s only because you are a filthy pervert. I was referring to football defense.

So, words are only as powerful as we make them. If someone is offended by explicit language, that is something they are doing to themselves.

And, don’t even try to sell me that “for the kids” speech perched on your lips. Your kids should be in school while Howard Stern is on, and if they’re old enough to talk, chances are they’re using more vulgar language than him, anyway.

Sure, TV is a much different entity, since sexual imagery has more visceral impact than speech. But, what’s offensive about a nipple, really?

We all see two of them every day when we get ready in the morning, and if we’re lucky, we get to see two more sometime later in the day.

The major hypocrisy here is that if Justin Timberlake’s nipple had been exposed instead, we wouldn’t be in this bind.

What we have here is the outset of a subtle censorship, and we should be terrified – after all, the FCC is a function of our government. Don’t forget, our country’s leaders are aggressively pushing an agenda that is fundamentally conservative and Christian; which is great, unless you’re not a conservative Christian.

Thankfully, the FCC has no jurisdiction over print, so this column is safe. However, in the interest of adhering to the media’s newly defined standards of decency, I will simply say that the FCC, and the right-wing fundamentalists who support them, can go make love to themselves.

Taylor Kingsbury, a senior journalism major, is a columnist for the Campus Times. He can be reached by e-mail at happyendingrocks@hotmail.com.

FCC sterilizes entertainment

by Taylor Kingsbury Staff Writer

I know that you’re as sick of hearing about Janet Jackson’s boob as I am talking about it. But, unfortunately, the pop star’s publicity stunt has generated something far more sinister than her comeback.

The Federal Communications Commission, in their infinite wisdom, has decided that one nipple is just cause to reinvestigate their existing policies regarding obscenity, and to use their all-powerful hand to initiate some selective censorship.

Broadcast entertainment as we know it is in the process of being sterilized, and conduct that was considered just fine a few weeks ago is now yielding an unjust fine.

Anxious programmers are now altering their wares to save themselves from bankruptcy, apparently unconcerned that their audience seemed to like things just the way they were.

Most publicly, MTV, who produced the Super Bowl fiasco, has vowed to resign some of their spicier clips to the late-night hours of their schedule.

This, too, seems like a publicity stunt. After all, anybody who has been unfortunate enough to familiarize themselves with MTV knows that the channel rarely plays videos anyway.

The ones truly affected by this newly generated paranoia are radio personalities, who are being forced to alter the material that made their shows successful to begin with.

The most infamous of shock-jocks, Howard Stern, has seen his show dropped from six affiliate stations, including one in San Diego.

Nationwide, many jocks specializing in racier material have been canned without the opportunity to adhere to the new standards set for them.

Surely we can all agree that Howard Stern and similar-minded radio personalities specialize in crude humor. But anyone who doesn’t approve of the material has dozens of other stations to choose from.

Stern’s show is a success because he knows what his audience wants to hear, and if his material is truly offensive, then millions of listeners around the world obviously enjoy being offended.

So, what is offensive? Conveniently, the FCC doesn’t specifically say. Their website only pinpoints material that references “sexual and excretory organs.” However, by that definition, a host who speaks about having a cold and needing to blow their nose would be met with a $275,000 fine.

There can never be any set standard for decency, since each individual has their own unique threshold for language. Hell, my mother won’t even say the word “hell.” She spells it out, “H-E-L-L.” Yet, you just read it three times and probably didn’t think twice about it.

Under the FCC’s technical guidelines, if my mother heard a radio host use the world “hell,” and was personally offended by that, she would have grounds to file an obscenity report.

Of course, “hell” is a minor example. But, even the most obscene sexual references are still only words. Words are nothing more than a combination of letters arranged phonetically, and any imagery that a word invokes is a product of the listener’s mind.

Example: When I say “deep penetration,” you begin imagining a vulgar sexual scenario. But, that’s only because you are a filthy pervert. I was referring to football defense.

So, words are only as powerful as we make them. If someone is offended by explicit language, that is something they are doing to themselves.

And, don’t even try to sell me that “for the kids” speech perched on your lips. Your kids should be in school while Howard Stern is on, and if they’re old enough to talk, chances are they’re using more vulgar language than him, anyway.

Sure, TV is a much different entity, since sexual imagery has more visceral impact than speech. But, what’s offensive about a nipple, really?

We all see two of them every day when we get ready in the morning, and if we’re lucky, we get to see two more sometime later in the day.

The major hypocrisy here is that if Justin Timberlake’s nipple had been exposed instead, we wouldn’t be in this bind.

Thankfully, the FCC has no jurisdiction over print, so this column is safe. However, in the interest of adhering to the media’s newly defined standards of decency, I will simply say that the FCC, and the right-wing fundamentalists who support them, can go make love to themselves.

Taylor Kingsbury, a senior journalism major, is a columnist for the Campus Times. He can be reached by e-mail at happyendingrocks@hotmail.com.

by Taylor Kingsbury
Staff Writer