The FCC's overruling has lead to an overreaction against PBS

PBS president and CEO Paula Kerger is aggravated with the FCC. Currently PBS is broadcasting a series named, "The Blues" which is a film series by seven directors. The series includes seven feature-length films that show how the blues have influenced the world while demonstrating the essence of the art form. The currently problem is that an interviewee of the series used the s-word, and with one complaint, the FCC fined a San Mateo PBS member station for this broacasting of the word that everyone uses.

UPDATED - The FCC released on "order" which contains information about the FCC findings about television programs aired between February 2002 and March 2005. This report has information about "The Blues" broadcast in San Mateo. At the bottom of this article I will include the text from the "order" pretaining to "The Blues". Click here to skip ahead to the text. There is a lot of information.

I myself have been forced to use the term "s-word" for fear of having some internet nanny software block my website, which I think is f-ing b-s.

According to the source only one complaint prompted the FCC to fine the station. I will send the FCC an e-mail asking for a total count of the complaints against this TV show. Ms. Kerger mentioned that some of these stations only have small budgets and a fine like this could put them out of business. Situations like this could prevent mature content for mature viewers. The president of PBS also spoke of another problem with the FCC which could affect a future broadcast which is sheduled for 2007.

Documentarian Ken Burns' World War II film "The War," is scheduled to be broadcast in the fall of 2007. The documentary includes veterans of the war, as they describe their experiences during the war. Ms. Kreger feels that the words of the veterans is "very powerful" and verbally graphic for some. In the source story, she talks about how she speak with each commisioner, and could not get any of them to say the the documentary was okay to air. Even the FCC does not know what is okay and not okay. This is not fair for the broadcasters as they need to know some guidelines if they are going to fined such outrageous amounts for a single "violation".

$325,000 can pay many needy families what they need. In many parts of this country, $325,000 can buy a homeless family a home. Maybe the money should go charaties, and the companies will get some tax benefits. Currently the money go to the general national budget, which then can go where the government feels the money should go.

Do you think the FCC is out of control? Let the world know by clicking here.

UPDATED - The following is an excerpt from an FCC "order" which was release on March 15, 2006:

1. "The Blues: Godfathers and Sons" (March 11, 2004)

72. The Programming. The Commission received a complaint alleging that San Mateo County Community College District ("San Mateo"), licensee of noncommercial educational Station KCSM-TV, San Mateo, California, aired indecent material over the station during its broadcast of the program "The Blues: Godfathers and Sons" on March 11, 2004 between the hours of 8:42 and 9:32 p.m. Pacific Standard Time. The complaint alleged that the broadcast, an episode of a prerecorded documentary series provided by the Public Broadcasting Service ("PBS"), contains numerous "obscenities," including the "F-Word," the "S-Word" and various derivatives of those words, in violation of the Commission's rules restricting the broadcast of indecent material. The complainant therefore asked that the Commission investigate and take appropriate enforcement action.



73. Thereafter, the Bureau sent a letter of inquiry to San Mateo, attaching a copy of the Complaint. In its response, San Mateo acknowledges that it aired "The Blues: Godfathers and Sons," a documentary containing interviews of blues performers and a record producer, over Station KCSM-TV as alleged, between 8 and 10 p.m. on March 11, 2004, but not on any other dates between 6:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. With its response, San Mateo provided a DVD and a written transcript of the program. San Mateo does not dispute that it aired the material described in the complaint. It states, "[t]he intent of the program is to provide a window into [the world of the individuals being interviewed] with their own words, all of which becomes an educational experience for the viewer." Thus, San Mateo maintains that the language contained in the program was not "used in a prurient way, but rather as an infrequent conversational expression of the artist [being interviewed], and was not edited to remove their dialogue, which accurately reflected their viewpoints." San Mateo represents that, subsequent to its station's airing of the program, PBS alerted its member stations that this and similar PBS-supplied programs contained material that might be deemed indecent in light of then-recent Commission rulings, and advised licensees that PBS had changed its procedures involving the editing of potentially indecent or offensive language in programming that it provides them and will now alert licensees to potential problems.



74. Indecency Analysis. The Commission determined in its Golden Globe Awards Order that the "F-Word" meets the first prong of the indecency test. We stated, "given the core meaning of the "F-Word," any use of that word or a variation, in any context, inherently has a sexual connotation, and therefore falls within the first prong of our indecency definition." Similarly, we now find that the "S-Word," at issue here, has an inherently excretory connotation. In light of the core meanings of the "F-Word" and "S-Word," any use of those terms inherently has sexual or excretory connotations and falls within the first prong of our indecency definition.
    
    
75. We also find that the broadcast material is, in context, patently offensive as measured by contemporary community standards for the broadcast medium. First, as we stated in Golden Globe Awards Order, the "F-Word" is one of the most vulgar, graphic, and explicit descriptions of sexual activity in the English language. Its use invariably invokes a coarse sexual image." Similarly, we find the "S-Word" to be one of the most vulgar, graphic and explicit words relating to excretory activity in the English language. Use of the "S-Word" invariably invokes a coarse excretory image. Consequently, we conclude that the broadcast by San Mateo of a program containing numerous uses of the "F-Word" and the "S-Word," under the circumstances presented here, is vulgar, graphic, and explicit.



76. Second, the program repeats this language numerous times during the broadcast. We note that, while prior FCC staff actions had indicated as of the date this program aired that isolated broadcasts of certain expletives were not indecent or would not be acted upon, the program at issue here contains numerous repeated utterances of the "F-Word" and "S-Word," and their variants. Our precedent is clear that broadcasts containing numerous expletives may be actionably indecent.



77. Third, the gratuitous and repeated use of this language in a program that San Mateo aired at a time when children were expected to be in the audience is shocking. While San Mateo contends that the expletives in question were not removed from the program so that the viewpoints of those being interviewed would be accurately reflected, as discussed below we disagree that the use of such language was necessary to express any particular viewpoint in this case. We also note that many of the expletives in the broadcast are not used by blues performers. For example, based on our review of the DVD and transcript, Marshall Chess, a former label owner and record producer, states in discussing the relationship between Chess Records and its artists, "my dad had so many people at his funeral, my uncle said, `You see all those motherfuckers? They're coming to make sure he's dead, so they don't have to pay back those motherfuckin' notes.'" In another scene, discussing his relationship with his father at Chess Records, Marshall Chess states, "[h]e said, `What's your job? You stupid motherfucker! Your job is watching me!'" During a scene showing hip-hop artists Kyle Jason, Juice, and Chuck D. shopping in a record store with Chess, Kyle Jason states, "I'll buy some shit," and Juice states, "This looks crazy! See that? This is the kind of shit I buy! I mean, my man is wearing pink gear--that shit, that shit is crazy right there! I'm buyin' it!"



78. In sum, because the expletives in the program are vulgar, explicit, graphic, dwelled upon and shocking to the audience, we conclude that the broadcast of the material at issue here is patently offensive under contemporary community standards for the broadcast medium and thus apparently indecent. The complained-of material was broadcast within the 6 a.m. to 10 p.m. time frame relevant to an indecency determination under section 73.3999 of the Commission's rules. Therefore, there is a reasonable risk that children may have been in the viewing audience and the broadcast is legally actionable.



79. Profanity Analysis. In the Golden Globe Awards Order, the Commission concluded that the "F-Word" was profane within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. S 1464 because, in context, it constituted vulgar and coarse language "so grossly offensive to members of the public who actually hear it as to amount to a nuisance." We indicated in that decision that the Commission would analyze other potentially profane words on a case-by-case basis.



80. The "F-Word" is a vulgar sexual term so grossly offensive to members of the public that it amounts to a nuisance and is presumptively profane. It is one of the most offensive words in the English language, the broadcast of which is likely to shock the viewer and disturb the peace and quiet of the home. Consistent with our decision in the Golden Globe Awards Order, we find here that the use of the "F-Word" in the program at issue violated 18 U.S.C. S 1464's prohibition of the broadcast of "profane" language.



81. In addition, we find that the "S-Word" is a vulgar excretory term so grossly offensive to members of the public that it amounts to a nuisance and is presumptively profane. Like the "F-Word," it is one of the most offensive words in the English language, the broadcast of which is likely to shock the viewer and disturb the peace and quiet of the home.



82. As noted previously, in rare contexts, language that is presumptively profane will not be found to be profane where it is demonstrably essential to the nature of an artistic or educational work or essential to informing viewers on a matter of public importance. However, we will find this to be the case only in unusual circumstances, and such circumstances are not present here. Although in this case the profane language may have had some communicative purpose, we do not believe that San Mateo has demonstrated that it was essential to the nature of an artistic or educational work or essential to informing viewers on a matter of public importance, or that the substitution of other language would have materially altered the nature of the work. In this respect, this case is unlike Saving Private Ryan, where we concluded that deleting offensive words "would have altered the nature of the artistic work and diminished the power, realism and immediacy of the film experience for viewers." While we recognize here that the documentary had an educational purpose, we believe that purpose could have been fulfilled and all viewpoints expressed without the repeated broadcast of expletives.



83. It is undisputed that the complained-of material, including the "F-Word" and the "S-Word," was broadcast within the 6 a.m. to 10 p.m. time frame relevant to a profanity determination under section 73.3999 of the Commission's rules. Because there was a reasonable risk that children may have been in the audience at the time the material at issue was broadcast on March 11, 2004, the material broadcast is legally actionable.



84. Forfeiture Calculation. San Mateo consciously and deliberately broadcast this episode. Accordingly, we find that the broadcast in apparent violation of 18 U.S.C. S 1464 and 47 C.F.R. S 73.3999 was willful within the meaning of section 503(b)(1) of the Act, and subject to forfeiture. Taking into account the statutory factors and the circumstances of this case, we conclude that the appropriate proposed forfeiture in this case is $15,000.



85. The Commission's prohibition on the repeated use of expletives, including the "F-Word" and "S-Word," was well settled prior to March 2004. The complained-of material contains numerous unedited expletives. The program in question was supplied to the licensee by PBS replete with two words that are among the most vulgar, graphic, and explicit descriptions of sexual and excretory activity in the English language, but whose propriety San Mateo nevertheless failed to question. By broadcasting the program complete with these expletives, San Mateo effectively abdicated this aspect of its programming control to an outside entity, PBS. On the other hand, however, we do recognize that the expletives here were contained in a documentary, and while we conclude that the arguments made by the licensee are mistaken, we do find that the licensee may have been under the good faith belief that the use of these expletives served a legitimate informational purpose. Additionally, we recognize the fact that the licensee runs a small, community station that airs college level educational courses for most of the day. Under these circumstances, we believe that a proposed forfeiture in the amount of $15,000 is warranted here.



86. Although other stations may have also broadcast the subject episode of "The Blues: Godfathers and Sons," we propose a forfeiture only against San Mateo as the only licensee with a station whose broadcast of the material between 6 a.m. and 10 p.m. was the subject of a viewer complaint filed with the Commission. We recognize that this approach differs from that taken in previous Commission decisions involving the broadcast of apparently indecent programming. We find, in this case, however, that, in the absence of complaints concerning the program filed by viewers of other stations, it is appropriate that we sanction only the licensee of the station whose viewers complained about that program. Our commitment to an appropriately restrained enforcement policy, however, justifies this more limited approach towards the imposition of forfeiture penalties. Accordingly, we propose a forfeiture of $15,000 against San Mateo.


Click here to return to the article.

Source: PBS chief vents frustration over FCC
Source Date: July 26, 2006


You are visitor number: 474

Please forward all questions and/or comments via the contact page.