Bozell: McCain, Obama Both Soft on TV Smut

Photo of Tim Graham.
  • Bookmark and Share

In his latest culture column, Brent Bozell notes that federal judges have declared that they don't believe in "judicial second-guessing," but they're going to completely prevent the FCC from doing anything to punish the networks for ripping bras off at Super Bowl halftime shows and all kinds of other fleeting moments of televised sleaze. There may be no Washington pushback against indecency from whichever candidate wins the White House in November:

Disturbing signs are now emerging that the next administration – no matter which party – will be bowing before Hollywood and its fat-cat lobbyists and waving the white flag of surrender on policing nudity and profanity on television. At a recent forum in Washington, representatives of both Barack Obama and John McCain insisted their candidates would step away from FCC Chairman Kevin Martin’s attempts to draw attention to the problem of broadcast indecency.

Speaking for Obama, former Clinton FCC chairman Bill Kennard claimed “We have a lot of headlines about the Janet Jackson case, but it really doesn't address the key issue, which is how we can protect our families and our kids from harmful content.” Wouldn’t fines discourage broadcasters from allowing profane “mistakes”? But Kennard, like every slick telecom lobbyist in Washington, insisted on the absurd line that the V-chip and other technological frauds can help parents protect their children. No V-chip would have – could have -- stopped millions of children from being flashed by Janet Jackson. Kennard knows that, of course. But lobbying means never having to say you’re being honest.

Kennard also unfurled the other line every libertine uses, arguing that since profanity and explicit sex are spreading across every other media platform, from cable and satellite TV to the Internet to cell phones, it’s now outmoded to try and regulate the indecency on broadcast television. Blow up every dam, and the let the flood begin.

Sadly, the representative for John McCain was equally useless. John Kneuer completely agreed with Kennard. The legal framework for indecency enforcement was “overdue for examination.” The framework is outdated, created long before cable and satellite TV. He proclaimed the need for a new framework that “all parties and consumers can understand.”

We are currently headed toward a framework that all consumers should understand. It’s very simple: “You’re on your own.”

—Tim Graham is Director of Media Analysis at the Media Research Center.


Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

eh

As much as I hate to disagree with Brent, I'm actually going with Shawn on this, to some degree. Janet Jackson, Justin Timberlake, and the producers of the halftime show should be fined a crapload of money because I'm convinced that was planned in advance. But the show was done live and it's feasible CBS didn't know all the details. Unless the FCC can prove CBS was in on it they shouldn't take the blame. Yes it was disgusting and yes the guilty should be punished. By blaming CBS sounds too much like shooting the messenger. Fox News and CNN do live feeds 24/7 and sometimes people say or do vulgar things. These networks can't always prevent it. Thus I say we punish the actual offenders and only punish the network if they were in on it.

Gotta disagree C. Heavy

Gotta disagree C.

Heavy fine for CBS. In on it or not, this was a planned show, different from news in the field which isn't always pre-planned.

The FCC has no hold over the people in the half-time show, but they can go after the broadcaster whom they have regulatory authority over.

why on earth not?

The FCC has no hold over the people in the half-time show

Why can't they just be charged with public indecency? That's what it all boils to whether they do it on the street or on a stage.

I think the broadcaster is

I think the broadcaster is responsible to the FCC, and the local police would have to charge the singers with public indecency. Which they didn't, unfortunately.

 

"They're both doofuses!" --Mark Levin (speaking of Obama and McCain)

well there you go

CBS has to pay a big fine while Justin and Janet get off scot free? How is that fair?

C - I agree. It's not fair.

I agree. It's not fair.

I just don't see how the FCC can fine someone not under their "control".

 

We don't want government agencies exceeding their authority, do we?

okay

I understand where you're coming from that the FCC can't hit Janet. Then why can't we pressure the right people do their jobs? It just seems that everyone's anger is bearing down on CBS and pushing the FCC to make an example of them, while Janet sneaks out the back door.

And I understand that there's a difference between a planned concert and a truly live show, but that doesn't automatically mean CBS should answer for everything. The NFL maybe, because they're the ones who booked the music for the halftime show - but I don't think CBS was responsible.

What exactly was the reason the courts ruled in favor of CBS? Was it because of technical things, contract things, etc or was it them just not caring about nudity? That's the real meat of the issue here.

IIRC, the court thought this

IIRC, the court thought this was a sudden change form the existing FCC policy and therefore wasn't fair to CBS to suddenly start enforcing the rules more strictly.

hmmmm

*frowns and rubs forehead*

I shall have to investigate this further.

C

Which means

Which means exactly what I stated below.  In essence"

Why start enforcing the law now?

  • LYDSEXICS UNTIE

Right Free

It would be like ICE and Border Patrol suddenly deciding to fulfill their lawful duties.

  • LYDSEXICS UNTIE

That's right. Make like

That's right. Make like I'm defending the court's decision. As if.

 

"They're both doofuses!" --Mark Levin (speaking of Obama and McCain)

No Free

I wasn't making any such assumption.

Didn't mean for you to take it that way.  I was alluding to the lack of necessity for any government agency that refuses tofulfill its charter.  Don't see how you could take it any other way.

Nor will I internally fret your reason for arriving at such a conclusion.

"What exactly was the

"What exactly was the reason the courts ruled in favor of CBS?"

Bottom line, the courts(correctly) ruled in favor of CBS because the FCC overreacted, most likely due to pressure put on them by a lobbying group, which is ironic considering the article makes it quite clear that Mr. Bozell isn't fond of lobbyists.

There's indecent, and then there's less than half a second of a woman's areola that most people never even saw until they went to the internet to get a better view. I don't think the big 3 networks are going to be over run with boobs galore simply because this judgement was overturned, though, since I've seen Dennis Franz butt, it would be nice to even the score with a nice boob. :)

In this case

Mr. Bozell's PTC group is the one that does the astroturf lobbying to fine networks like CBS for showing 1/2 second of a saggy old tit. And "you're on your own" means something more like: "that 'off' button still exists, Brent." Try it, you'll like it, and unlike the FCC's ever-more-expensive albeit totally ineffective censorship arm, that 'off' button or a boycott costs taxpayers like me $0.
JMR

The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.

Sarc, you know I'm not

Sarc, you know I'm not always devout in my libertarianism, but this is one issue where I am right there with you. The FCC, like the MPAA, is a waste of money and an affront to the freedoms of viewers and producers alike.

A noticeable pattern in Mr. Bozell's columns has been the conviction that agencies such as the FCC should exist in order to protect "the children" or the culture from some insidious element. In geopolitics, such things might be necessary. This should never be the case in cultural issues. God forbid parents should exert authority and assert what their children can and cannot watch, and then enforce that decision. I can't believe that I might actually find myself having to defend this position on a conservative site.

The Jackson/Timberlake debacle was, for me, one of the most infuriating occurences of the last ten years; not because of some fleeting glimpse of something that any child who cares to can look at hundreds of online (unless, again, the parents have bothered to restrict such images) and that I didn't even know I'd seen until the agents of moral hysteria informed me I had. It was infuriating because of the utterly hypocritical, let's-all-shit-ourselves-in-moralistic-outrage-while-we-continue-to-replay-it-every-five-minutes reaction that metastasized throughout American culture. It was winter of 2004, the Iraq War was at its chaotic height, the real national embarassment of Abu Ghraib had just broken, and the idiotically banal consequence of a Super Bowl Halftime Show was what captured our collective national attention. What a sad display.

The FCC leveling fines for "indecency" is an obvious first step toward fascistic control of what can be broadcast. I'm not such an hysteric, like those who claim Obama's election will undoubtedly destroy America, as to say that it will lead inevitably to state-run broadcasting, but it is an ominous first step, the further steps of which I have no interest in.

God forbid the same parents that shriek their moralistic political demands in the name of "The Children!!!!!!" get off their asses and do some parenting.

"Issue-driven politics in red-and-blue America is like a man whose
appetite for steak is greatly enhanced by his contempt for vegetarians."

"indecency"

Is the other side of the "fairness" doctrine censorship coin. And "'protect the children' is the root passphrase to the US Constitution these days (HT Tim May of cypherpunks). The only cure, and the only way to keep power-mad censors of the left AND right permanently at bay, is to totally defund the FCC, permanently disband it, and let the cops & the courts sort out frequency disputes.
JMR

The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.

Public Airways are the same as Public Streets we need policing

Someone flashing me on public airways should be treated the same way as a pervert on the street.
Jackson should be in jail.

 


John McCain 2008 Protect Traditional Marriage

Traditional Marriage is not "Divisive" Obama.

Nonsense. Even if I

Nonsense. Even if I accepted your premise, which I do not, Timberlake pulled down Jackson's top. If anything, he should be locked up for sexual assault AND for facilitating your eyes' exposure to Jackson's offending aureola. Let's not blame the victim!

Furthermore, it is impossible to prove anybody's intent in this incident.  If a woman on the street bent over to tie her shoelaces in such a way that you could see her decolletage, would you call the police?

And finally, all of this aside, I just found it so tremendously depressing that, in the winter 2004, THIS is what occupied our attention and energy.

"Issue-driven politics in red-and-blue America is like a man whose
appetite for steak is greatly enhanced by his contempt for vegetarians."

The best part of all that saggy tit hysteria

Was that it coincided with a massive increase in warnings over my TV at all hours regarding the dreaded 4 hour boner, with not a peep from the political types (IMO because big pharma funds too many of their favorite political campaigns). Hysterical hypocrites, in every sense of the words.
JMR

The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.

Sarcasmo against prescriptions? Want Everything OTC?

You are a hypocrite for your drug war talk if you don't

 


John McCain 2008 Protect Traditional Marriage

Traditional Marriage is not "Divisive" Obama.

Yea, sarc is a funny guy :

Yea, sarc is a funny guy : ] 

 

"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg

Another deep, intellectual response.

It's funny when hypocrites try to call me a hypocrite, I agree, especially when they repeatedly fail intellectually, as in Daniel's case. :)
JMR

The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.

Yup, no hypocrite here

I don't think the prescription system's working very well, but nice try at changing the subject!! That's not what we're discussing here.

Let's face it, for you to be a non-hypocrite you have to be either against having an FCC or against having a First Amendment. No other choices, and fines are political censorship, like it or not and admit it or not.
JMR

The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.

THe Premise is someone holding a TV playing pornography in the

Public Park is the same as someone broadcasting it over public airways. Both are public property that should be policed.

 


John McCain 2008 Protect Traditional Marriage

Traditional Marriage is not "Divisive" Obama.

But let me guess...

WITHOUT the "Fairness Doctrine," and only with "indecency" standards which change constantly? Yeah, right. Real solid intellectual basis for argument there, as usual...

One standard, or else the mockery only continues (and I was mocking the left and right on this particular issue long before you ever got to NB, so don't expect it to stop anytime soon). Defunding, meaning "spending less for once on government," is the ONLY solution that'll stop it.
JMR

The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.

Thx Candance

"I'm actually going with Shawn on this,"

You read my mind even before I posted :-)

I sometimes have mixed feelings about Brent Bozell. Sometimes I feel he is such a stick in the mud and being against free speech, but at the same time, he lets me express my free speech as much as I want on NB, which he owns.Which I am very grateful

I understand his POV, on wanting to protect children from smut and I can understand where he is coming from, but CBS took the camera away as soon as the less than half second of aerola was shown, and now most shows have a 30 second delay did not exist before and CBS along with other networks have put up many safeguards to make sure it does not happen again.

Real life video games are cool 

Ugh!

Again, I must point out that you seem positively enraged that anyone would DARE give an opinion which contradicts your anything-goes attitude - even if a call for censorship is nowhere to be found.

Can anyone opine on movies and television, or does this have to meet with your approval first?  Not that you are one to impose your morality on others or anything. 

Sure, I guess we could allow hard-core smut and pornography on prime-time network TV, but you are going to have to allow for the critics of such as well.  If you are as big a free speech guy as you claim to be. 

Whoever casts a vote for Barack Obama is nothing more than a common thief.  Whoever fails to vote against him is nothing more than a moral coward.

What is with you lately?

I was not disrespectful of Mr. Bozell at all in my post. I have a right to post my opinion. I can't seem to post anything lately without a snipe from you, do you have a problem with me lately for some reason?

Real life video games are cool

Unsane:

You wrote "Whoever casts a vote for Barack Obama is nothing more than a common thief. "

Half our nation is comprised of common thieves?  That doesn't make sense.  You do prove the point that half the people in the United States are of below average intelligence.  However, to say you've lost it would suggest you once had it.

It works!

Thanks, j. frank!  It always feels good to hit a Leftist's nerve!

Game, set, match.

And once again you prove yourself incapable of civil discussion.  I take it you will never, ever whine about insults or name-calling ever again on NB?  Hmmmm?   

And if you truly believe half the country will vote for Obama, I suggest you are politically blind.  If you said a quarter, that would have been more accurate.  I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if 100-110 million people voted in the election PERIOD, and even THAT total is roughly one-third of the population.  Nice try. 

Whoever casts a vote for Barack Obama is nothing more than a common thief.  Whoever fails to vote against him is nothing more than a moral coward.

Unsane, is your love for

Unsane, is your love for free market capitalism beginning to sour? This is solely a market issue. Sure, we could ALLOW hardcore pornography on primetime network TV, but to do so requires financial backers (ie advertisers). What company, at this point in history, is going to be willing to finance something that will so obviously enrage people? We don't need a bloated, lobbied-to-death agency to tell us what we can and cannot be exposed to, because we get what we demand. And yes, those who find it offensive can turn it off or change the channel.

I don't mean to put words in Shawn's mouth, and he can surely correct me if I mischaracterize his position, but I don't see this as an issue of telling Bozell he CAN'T have an opinion on the matter. Everyone has a threshold for offensive material, and he's welcome to express his. Our disagreement that a government agency, rather than the market and people's ability to choose what they watch, ought to ensure "decency" is a simple and legitimate point of argument.

My second argument, which I'm not sure Shawn mentioned, is simply the ever-escalating use (on both sides of the ideological spectrum) of invoking "The Children" as some sort of catch-all excuse for pushing one's preferred political agenda. The Left does it concerning health care and poverty, and the right does it concerning gay rights and artistic freedom (a reductive schematization, I know, but generally accuate) and it has become culturally acceptable and even encouraged. I find it a cheap and cynical political ploy.

"Issue-driven politics in red-and-blue America is like a man whose
appetite for steak is greatly enhanced by his contempt for vegetarians."

Exactly Jason

It is my opinion that that people should be able to watch what they want on tv within the law,  and I am stating my opinion, for some reason lately Unsane is trying to interpret that as me trying to tell people they don't have a right to b*tch.

 

Real life video games are cool

Clarification

Shawn, I say that because whenever one of these posts come up, you show up seemingly insensed that anyone would write anything critical about said movie/television program or whatever.  "WAAAAHHHHH!!!!  Just change the channel!!!!!!!" 

Which, as I point out, I have never seen Mr. Bozell or anyone who makes one of these posts come out and demand government censorship.  They are just b%#!hing about the program in question.  Surely, that is permissible, is it not?

That's all I'm sayin'.   

Whoever casts a vote for Barack Obama is nothing more than a common thief.  Whoever fails to vote against him is nothing more than a moral coward.

But a position to take

But a position to take agaisnt Bozell's and others' is not that they shouldn't complain or be offended, but that their pushing for the involvement of the FCC means propping up a federal entity to regulate broadcast media and keep its content within the standards of impressionable children and the most easily-offended adults. Why not allow the market to take care of this? You have invoked the "nanny-state" epithet at commenters who have so much suggested that "gee whiz, it seems like maybe healthcare ought to be subsidized for people of lower income" yet here you seem more than happy to allow a big-government organ to butt into what ought to be a matter of consumer-choice and demand. Put up or shut up.

Finally, I suppose "if you don't like it change the channel" could be seen as the libertarian equivalent of that conservative gem: "If you don't like America, why don't you move to Iran?".

"Issue-driven politics in red-and-blue America is like a man whose
appetite for steak is greatly enhanced by his contempt for vegetarians."

Not only that...

Apparently, hours of testimony in favor of high (albeit political & arbitrary) FCC fines doesn't count as advocating censorship in some folks' worlds. Not mine, though...
JMR

The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.

Okay Unsane

The thing is, this thread talks about both Presidential candidate being soft on smut, which from my POV means Mr Bozell and Mr. Graham are not very happy with it. Does not seem like they are just being critical of a tv program to me.

I disagree with a President getting invovled with tv smut, which is just a opinion i'm stating. I'm allowed to do that without your nitpicking right?

Real life video games are cool

I guess I'm soft on smut

We are currently headed toward a framework that all consumers should understand. It’s very simple: “You’re on your own.

If only the Government felt this way about our use of fossil fuels, smoking, what we eat and what we do with our money. Wouldn't it be sweet? This really does not move the dial on my concern meter at all though.

Early in this game

one of the players took a solid shot to the nose.  There were plenty of screen images of this gentleman with blood streaming out of his nose.  I have yet to read one single objection to this.

The FCC and the network have probably wasted millions of dollars on this non-issue.  I watched the halftime show with my son - we saw nothing.  Actually, during the performance for some reason I remembered Tina Turner and Mick Jagger at LiveAid.  But we missed the "show."

How about entire idea of showing football games on television at all?  Is this really a sport?  Not a word about that topic, but Janet Jackson's breast is national news.

It says a tremendous amount about our priorities...

"We are currently headed

"We are currently headed toward a framework that all consumers should understand. It’s very simple: “You’re on your own.”"

And isn't this something that conservatives tell liberals all the time?

Liberals consider health care to be a constitutionally provided, divine right.  And conservatives consider TV to be the same?

Why not just not have TV in the house?  Or maybe TURN IT OFF?  Why do we need government to closely monitor and regulate every split-second (literally)?

Your correct Killgrave

Small government and let freedom reign, except for social issues, then its okay to nanny state it.

Real life video games are cool

Shawn, that is the issue in

Shawn, that is the issue in a nutshell. This board is utterly surreal in the way that some of the most staunch anti-big-government types are calling for increased power for a federal entity. Say what you want about Sarc, at least he is doggedly consistent.

"Issue-driven politics in red-and-blue America is like a man whose
appetite for steak is greatly enhanced by his contempt for vegetarians."

Your Wrong Killgrave this is a law enforcement issue

Public Airways and Public Streets are the same please dont flash me. Health care is forcing someone else to take care of you. Forcing someone and stopping someone from performing an action is different

 


John McCain 2008 Protect Traditional Marriage

Traditional Marriage is not "Divisive" Obama.

You can't help it if some

You can't help it if some freak is causing problems on a street.  But you can control what is coming into your house.  As I've said, either turn your TV off, or (like me) just cut off the damned thing to the outside world.

Parents have a thousand tools in regulating what their kids watch.  And the best tool is to actually be in the same room with the kids as they watch.  We don't need the FCC to help us with that.

Can you at least tolerate criticism?

Hey, I don't even watch TV because it sucks, and I still reserve the right to say it sucks, even though you seem insensed that I would dare even do THAT. 

Again, I don't see a lot of conservatives calling for censorship around here.  Seems to me that you and shawn228 simply don't want to hear ANY criticism at all, even if the criticism of said program/movie comes from those who are not in the least interested in censoring it.  

Whoever casts a vote for Barack Obama is nothing more than a common thief.  Whoever fails to vote against him is nothing more than a moral coward.

I agree with Bozell's fight against indecency

Regulations should be heavy for free broadcasts. People get important emergency information from broadcasts, so you can't just tell them to turn it off.
Olympics are coming up I wonder how many profanities will get through for children to hear.

Fairness Doctrine for PBS NPR
English Doctrine for Foreign language stations
Indecency Fines for all stations.

 


John McCain 2008 Protect Traditional Marriage

Traditional Marriage is not "Divisive" Obama.