F--- the FCC!

Below is a version of an essay I wrote for today's Diamondback (link) decrying FCC censorship of "indecency" as arbitrary, harmful to creative content, and a substitute for poor parenting.



Since the infamous 2004 Super Bowl halftime show revealed to America that Janet Jackson did, in fact, have a nipple on her right breast, the government has become increasingly strict about cracking down on broadcast “indecency”. By raising fines for infractions to obscene amounts, the government is bullying content providers into submission. Meanwhile, the Federal Communications Commission continues to expand its regulatory reach.

Unfortunately, the FCC uses a completely arbitrary determination of what constitutes indecency. They also employ overly-punitive measures which stifle creative content. Most troubling of all, this brand of regulation is yet another substitute for uninvolved parenting.

There are many examples of the FCC’s vagueness over what exactly constitutes indecency. When Bono used the F-word as an adverb at the 2003 Golden Globe Awards, the commission ruled he was not being indecent because he was not referring to sexual or excretory functions. The FCC changed their minds a year later, deciding that the F-word is totally off limits.

The status of other words or content is notoriously nebulous. It is generally accepted that using the S-word is acceptable (as famously demonstrated in the South Park episode “It Hits the Fan”), but in early 2006 the FCC declared that the same word with the prefix “bull” was “grossly offensive”. Oh, and you can’t say “dickhead”.

You might reasonably point out that our culture has already become so coarse, so it’s good that we take a stand. One problem with that is that the FCC enforces unwritten indecency rules. That’s right, TV networks don’t know what infractions they are supposed to avoid; it’s up to the FCC to decide. The FCC claims that they don’t publish specific rules because that would constitute censorship; rather, they only react when someone complains.

Of course, with extremist organizations like the innocuously named American Family Association around, someone always complains. (The AFA, by the way, sought to boycott the animated movie Shark Tale because it supposedly promoted gay values.) For some reason these busybodies actually get taken seriously as representative of the general public. Family Guy’s Peter said it best in the Emmy-nominated episode “PTV”, explaining that to the FCC, “one complaint equals one billion people.”

Thus, we have situations like the one last year where ABC affiliates refused to air the movie Saving Private Ryan for fear of drawing complaints. Complaints can be very expensive. Under current FCC rules, CBS affiliates would have been fined a whopping $32,500,000 for a single racy scene in an episode of Without a Trace last year. That’s more money than it costs to produce all episodes of the series for an entire season. Given that kind of climate, it’s no wonder Fox Entertainment head Peter Liguori recently described the “chilling effect” the FCC’s recent rulings have had on creative freedom.

I’m not going to deny that there are some clear-cut instances of content that is inappropriate for airing over network TV. But the FCC doesn’t just police the obvious violations and leave the rest to the good judgment of viewers. In fact, in a report issued Tuesday, the FCC announced efforts to broaden its regulatory scope and even start patrolling the cable channels that viewers intentionally pay to bring into their homes.

The sad fact is that all this is being done in the name of protecting children. Of course, the easiest way to protect children is for parents to do their job. If parents monitored their kids’ TV habits and/or used the V-chip, we wouldn’t have this problem of government intervention. Seriously, if they start messing with Eric Cartman and Tony Soprano, I’ll get really pissed.

Couch Potato Humanitarian

From my D'back column today:

Most college students, myself included, often think that we as individuals can't do much when it comes to tackling a big problem such as world poverty. It's the kind of issue where creating Facebook groups, wearing colored wristbands, attending rallies on McKeldin Mall and yes, writing in The Diamondback don't have much of a real-world impact.

Time and money are generally what it takes to make a difference, and college students are short on both. Bill Gates and Warren Buffet don't have to worry about paying for tuition, housing and drinks at Cornerstone. And students don't have much time to think about changing the world in between classes, internships, homework, parties, the gym and so forth.

That's why it was with great interest that I read New York Times writer Nick Kristof's recent column, "You, Too, Can Be a Banker to the Poor." He wrote about a website called Kiva (www.kiva.org), which allows anyone to make direct loans through PayPal to specific entrepreneurs in Third World countries.

...

My first loan went to an Azerbaijani man named Ilham Abdulov, who owns a small butcher shop in a bazaar in the city of Agsu. He's a young, portly, jovial-looking guy who has run his shop for four years. Ilham needs money to buy more animals so that he can expand his business. He has agreed to pay me and the other lenders (several from across the U.S., but also one from Spain and another from Japan) back in 12 to 16 months.

...

If a lack of time and money aren't an excuse, then what are you waiting for?

Click to read the entire column.

Put the "Nappy" Controversy to Rest

One of the major headlines of the past week is the controversy surrounding a remark by radio host Don Imus, who described the African-American women of Rutgers' basketball team as "nappy-headed hos." Initially, Imus brushed off criticism of his remark by calling it just an "idiot comment" he made. The furor has grown though, with Al Sharpton and others calling for his firing, and Imus has been suspended for two weeks. He is now in full-blown apology mode--the familiar I'm-not-a-racist, I didn't mean to be offensive routine.

I don't have any personal feelings regarding Imus; I've rarely listened to his show, and I doubt we would agree on very much. (Though he doesn't seem like a bad person, and much less reprehensible than, say, Rush Limbaugh.) But I am annoyed by the huge flareup over this comment. That isn't because I agree with his distasteful remark, but because I think his critics are misguided.

Yes, Imus made an off-color comment to a group that didn't deserve it--the Lady Scarlet Knights, who had a remarkable run to the NCAA finals after overcoming several early season losses. But I don't see how his comment is that big a deal. Those great women basketball players shouldn't care what he has to say about them. They just made it to the NCAA Finals. Should it matter at all to them what some cranky old radio host whom they've never heard of makes fun of them? Not at all.

What Imus thinks of the Rutgers team is completely irrelevant and in no way diminishes their accomplishment. His words should have no effect on them. And they wouldn't, were it not for this whole conflagration which is giving such power to Imus's comments. The Lady Knights had never heard of and didn't care about Don Imus a week ago--now it seems like everyone is expecting them to be the anguished, suffering victims of his words. Imus shouldn't have that power, and those players shouldn't be told to be victims--they're so much better than that!

Meanwhile, let Imus continue to make edgy comments and lame jokes. Unless he or anyone else is saying stuff that actually causes harm to their target, we should be very careful in declaring anything too "sensitive" for discussion or humor. While the intent may be to protect people, we instead wind up making a big deal out of things that aren't so.

UPDATE 4/14
I'm terribly disappointed that Imus has been fired from his radio show. I'm disappointed because of how much people read into and extrapolate from what was just a bad joke. That joke was conflated to be an example of the depth of Imus's shocking racist views, something I don't believe. Anyone with any familiarity with comedy, especially the commonplace edgy comedy of our times, knows that joke ≠ personal belief.

But nonetheless, since Imus's joke was viewed as his actual belief, I'm more disappointed at what this episode demonstrates about our tolerance for letting people air their opinions. Free speech isn't just an esoteric concept you can defend only at cherry-picked times or from cherry-picked voices. Let people make up their own minds and ignore/counter disagreeable or detestable speech on its own merits. That is much preferable to using censorship and making a sacred cow of some topic.

Pat Buchanan, of all people, had an interesting column on this subject where he raised a couple of salient points about the hypocrisy involved in this situation:

While the remarks of Imus and Bernie about the Rutgers women were indefensible, they were more unthinking and stupid than vicious and malicious. But malice is the right word to describe the howls for their show to be canceled and them to be driven from the airwaves – by phonies who endlessly prattle about the First Amendment.

...

If the word "hos" is a filthy insult to decent black women, and it is, why are hip-hop artists and rap singers who use it incessantly not pariahs in the black community? Why would black politicians hobnob with them? Why are there no boycotts of the advertisers of the radio stations that play their degrading music?

I think even people who generally agree that this incident has been blown out of proportion are reluctant to defend Don Imus because of his forked tongue and checkered history of verbal offenses. But that's precisely the problem.

Pretty or not, we have to refrain from taking the easy solution (in this case mass condemnation, censorship). Confront the problem in a constructive manner (rational refutation of his remarks, and then moving on)--that's what's in the best interest of all parties involved.

Final words
A former head of Martin Luther King's SCLC asks us to "Drop the Race Card."