Bozell Column: So-Called 'Conservatives' For Sleaze TV

Photo of Brent Bozell.

Webster’s defines “conservatism” as meaning “marked by or relating to traditional norms of taste, elegance, style, or manners.” Sadly, today there are those who call themselves “conservative” who have no interest in preserving tradition, who uphold no standards on the question of taste, and who have no appetite for appearing the slightest bit fuddy-duddy on the question of manners.

This kind of conservative has embraced the anarchical libertarian worldview which on matters of traditional manners and tastes throws caution to the winds, embracing the notion that the “market” – society’s lowest common denominator on cultural issues -- should decide. And if this erosion of traditional values leads to the disintegration of the culture, so be it.

This might explain why a managing editor of National Review Online, a brand name synonymous with conservatism, would be arguing that the F-word is not indecent on national broadcast television in prime time; insists that the idea of “community standards” in matters of public morality is out of touch; and perhaps most surprisingly, mocks the idea that “the sanctity of children’s ears” is a defensible moral cause, as if innocent kindergarteners can’t handle full-fledged cussing binges.

That editor, Peter Suderman, wrote an article appropriately titled “Flipping Off the FCC,” which argues that this agency, regulating broadcast television content from its “coastal perch in Washington” (on the coast of which ocean is the District of Columbia?) is simply unnecessary because Hollywood will adhere to market restraints on indecent content.

Suderman wonders “what would really happen if the FCC suddenly decided to take a genuine ‘hands-off’ approach to broadcast indecency? Would it lead the way, as the Parents Television Council recently warned, to television networks allowing ‘the use of the F-word and s-word in front of children at any time of the day?’ Probably not.”

Here’s Suderman’s evidence: “Even on channels like HBO – not exactly known as a bastion of restraint – R-rated and other adult fare is almost always relegated to the evenings. Saturday mornings tend to be filled with kids’ shows, and afternoons typically see programs aimed at teenagers.” He says this alleged schedule shows the “best business model” is to “save the rougher fare for after hours.”

There’s only one problem with this evidence. It’s not true. A casual look at the HBO schedule quickly reveals that “R-rated and other adult fare” are not “relegated to evenings” or “after hours.”

For example, on Wednesday, June 20, at 11 in the morning, HBO aired the movie “Longford” – rated R for adult language and content. On Thursday, June 14, at 9:30 in the morning, HBO aired its movie “Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee,” rated TV-14 for “graphic violence” and “adult language.”

If, like many families, you get multiple HBO channels, “HBO Zone” routinely runs R-movies in the daytime. On Monday, June 18 at 9 in the morning, it was “American Ninja Zone: Blood Hunt.” On Wednesday, June 20, at 11 AM, it was Spike Lee’s “Do The Right Thing.”

As for relegating the “rougher fare” for “after hours,” that’s ludicrous. Was the “Sopranos” finale on after 11? On Monday, June 18, at 8 PM, HBO’s “family hour” began with their show “Entourage,” which HBO rates TV-MA for “adult language, adult content, violence, and nudity.” At 9 PM, it’s the HBO series “Big Love,” the edgy polygamy show, rated TV-MA for adult content and adult language.

Saturday mornings “tend to be filled with kids’ shows”? On Saturday, June 22, at 8 in the morning, HBO viewers could wake up to “You, Me, and Dupree,” complete with its stripper humor, a PG-13 movie. HBO’s daytime schedule is stuffed with PG-13 films with adult content. That may be fine with parents, but you can’t plausibly argue “adult fare” isn’t on during the day.

It is ironic that Suderman chose the HBO model to make his case, because ultimately it makes the opposite point. HBO is a pay-per-view cable network, and therefore outside of the FCC’s regulatory purview. What is viewed on that pay-per-view network is precisely what would appear on broadcast television if Hollywood were left to its own devices. One simply cannot dispute that Hollywood has coarsened the culture with its increasingly offensive programming. So what to do if you’re a “conservative” like Suderman? You yawn your disinterest, and play make-believe in your commentary. Perhaps he’d feel differently if he came off his coastal perch at NRO and visited the real world.


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.

So...we need _more_ FCC regul

So...we need _more_ FCC regulation?

Perhaps it is time to drop th

Perhaps it is time to drop the concept of "free" broadcasting access.  After all, the broadcasters still have to pay for the cost of transmission, so why not make them pay for the bandwidth.  The FCC already does it with other frequency bands, so this would be nothing new.

Television is material, and therefore should not be considered a right.  If people want to watch TV, I have no problem with everyone paying for it in an open market.  If the broadcasters have to start charging, then people can choose if they want their filth of not.

NOTE: This is not the "fairness, or pay" concept promoted by libs against talk radio.  Everyone, liberal or conservative, would pay for access.  Heck, even make the public broadcasters pay for it with their pledge drive money.

Golden...I could not agree mo

Golden...

I could not agree more that is time to get rid of the pretense of Free Broadcasting...

I haven't seen Free Broadcasting since I was able to turn the antenna to get the picture back when the wind blew on the desert....

No such of a thing anymore.

Hasn't been for decades.... although it still bothers me that the have the audacity to call it Free...

Suderman sounds like a real m

Suderman sounds like a real mental midget.

Why? Can you give a specifi

Why? Can you give a specific example, or at least a better critique than just name-calling? (Not that there's anything wrong with occasional name-calling!) To me he sounds like an ally who wants to eliminate another aspect of big government. The fact that this particular aspect of big government (which literally spawns its own class of FCC-specialist-shysters feeding off the taxpayers, it's so-huge) offers a C-Span platform for whiny gasbags isn't convincing evidence that my taxes should continue paying for it. I'd rather make fun of the whiny gasbags, anyway, so yes, I call-names, but at least I also make what I think are logical arguments. Riddle me this: Why as a taxpayer should I believe an even-more-powerful FCC would lead to less "coarsening of culture"? The FCC has been getting more expensive just like movies have been getting more expensive, so how come all the blame for bad cultural crap goes to Hollywood in this case, and none to Washington, DC?? I can, and mostly-do, boycott Hollywood movies, but I can't boycott paying taxes for Brent's C-Span platform the whiny gasbag faction of conservatism wants to preserve here, and yet despite this threat of force being used on me every April 15th so that I'll pay taxes to support a bloated, unConstitutional agency, I'm supposedly the morality-challenged one in this debate. Huh??
JMR

Sarc--Even though I have some

Sarc--Even though I have some sympathies for the libertarian viewpoint, this is an example of why I can't adhere to it completely.  I don't even agree with the 'community standands' concept.  There's objective right and wrong.  I recognize that this government will never even come close to getting there, but I'd rather have that than your alternative.

As far as name calling goes Sarc, I grew up in a neighborhood with 15 other guys which was like swimming among the sharks.  One develops a great sense of sarcasm and for lack of a better descriptive --- b@ll busting (guess using that term makes me a hypocrit) ability just to survive. 

How can you be so sure that

How can you be so sure that my alternative, free markets, would not give you and conservatives like you more of what you want in media? I just advocated killing-off PBS & NPR. Yeah, they're horribly-biased in both their news departments and 99% of NB agrees on that, but that means I also just advocated killing "Nova" and "Car Talk," two excellent programs I like very much, which big government does despite being an evil big government. I have faith that the free marketplace (and lower taxes/spending) will eventually give us something even better than those two shows because in the end an undistorted free marketplace always works best. I'm still not sure why people like you and Brent Bozell think a bloated FCC works well for conservatives, or for anything besides the class of FCC-specialist shysters I already referenced. And when you ask yourself, "but wait, how come sarc's practically the only one here who gripes about all the constant '4 hour boner' commercials?" the only logical answer becomes the following... "It's political money + hypocrites!" Basically, big pharmaceutical companies have purchased enough political cover in the form of Demopublicans & Republicrats that they've literally gotten away with teaching everyone in America an obscure word only a combination Latin-geek/pervert like me knew before, "priapism," and conservatives still bitch solely about Hollywood. I know it's going to be hard (rimshot! ok, enough bad jokes!!) to boycott the boner-drugs, but if you truly object to their commercials (which expose young kids to a hell of a lot of sexual issues, IMO) then that's what to do in a free marketplace.
JMR

I don't think those commerc

I don't think those commercials are so bad. It is a medical condition and it's not like wifey comes into the room and they start "bumpin' uglies" for 2 minutes. Although I don't think I need anybody to tell me to run, not walk, to an emergency room if I have a boner for four hours. And no, ED is not something I suffer from, just don't think the commercials are a big deal. :>)

"Mommy, what's an erection lasting 4 hours or longer?"

"Mommy, what's an erection lasting 4 hours or longer?" is a question parents are hearing a lot more often these days, and it ain't Hollywood that's to blame... And happily, this boycott comes easily for me, too, but note who the industry wisely paid-off first in this decade-long, and ever-randier, commercial fest. Yep, for those with memories, that would be none other than the Senator from Archer Daniels Midland, Bob Dole, right? Hmmmmm.... What a strange coincidence...
JMR

a question parents are hear

a question parents are hearing a lot more often these days

Those of us with 6 year olds have to be fast on the Remote button, when the kids are even allowed to watch . . .

Parents - It's called the "off" button.

So, you think getting rid o

So, you think getting rid of the FCC will get of those commercials? I could do without the FCC,FEC,FDA,EPA, and others, just as you could. All I'm saying is that parents are responsible for what their kids see. I know parents can get caught off guard when a Victoria's secret ad pops in during "Spongebob Squarepants" but then if that happens, I would expect Nickelodeon's phones to be ringing and E-mail boxes to fill up. Kind of got off on a tangent here, and I really don't know why I feel the need to defend these commercials, but I truly don't see a problem with them. I think I'll leave this alone now.

No, getting rid of the FCC

No, getting rid of the FCC would just lower taxes and spending, which would eventually IMO lead to greater individual responsibility and a less-sexually-charged climate. To get rid of the commercials, you'd need to hold certain well-heeled feet to the fire with an actual boycott, as I told you. All conservatives seem to be saying here is that big government shares (if not trumps!!) parental responsibility, and is therefore worth the ever-increasing tax money the FCC costs me and other taxpayers every year. I disagree. The boner commercials aren't just an example of "coarsening" of society, though. In context of the payoff to Bob Dole in the form of a commercial we all saw as well as payoffs to lots of politicians in the form of campaign contributions we don't usually see, the continual 4 hour boner commericials are an example of how hypocritical this issue can be made to sound by opponents like me, who are cursed with a decent memory for obscure TV commercials combined with a propensity to dislike big government. And yes, I know that it sometimes seems that I blame everything on big government, but that's really only almost-true. Hollywood sucks, too, but at least I can choose who my money supports with them.
JMR

Sarc - I would argue that get

Sarc - I would argue that getting rid of the TV is the most responsible thing a parent can do not only for their children's sake but for their own edification.  TV is a waste of time with little to no redeeming value.  Actually I think the opposite is true - TV has a negative effect on those who even spend a minimum of time in front of it.

My guess is that even on a site like this many to most wouldn't even consider the possibility.  Most don't want to be w/o their American Idol, Seinfeld, Sex in the City, Supranos (sp?), or Super Bowl. 

Or just limit kids to an ho

Or just limit kids to an hour they choose a day. It's mandatory for us all, thanks to big government rules, to get sets with a hard to use "V-chip" in them, but it's surprisingly-difficult to use the sets for this simple parental limitation task, I'm told. Hopefully, that's changing, but if it is, it's despite the government rather than because of them. Conservatives who rightly argue that government needs to stay the hell out of the automobile business need to understand that that's why their votes for a "V-chip" were morally dead-wrong, and make them sound very much like hypocrites when they defend free markets and fight car mileage standards. I believe television is in many ways the perfect hypnotist, but most folks don't seem to see it that way.
JMR

And use care not to make TV a

And use care not to make TV a reward (like clean your room then you can watch) as it sets the tone that viewing is special and to be pursued

Supreme Court,  National Security,  Borders,  Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.   

Memories...

Heh. My parents would force me to take a nap and be very quiet (so they could take a nap in peace!) or I couldn't stay up to watch "Get Smart." And "99" (Barbara Feldon) was my first crush, wow what a babe she was & still-is! See how old I am?? Anyway, it worked, and I shut-up and left them alone for their nap even if I didn't always fall asleep myself.
JMR

I am a big advocate for

I am a big advocate for free speech Sarcasmo, but the V- chip is something I totally agree with. This is the best weapon against letting our children see things we do not want them to see. I love watching 24 and Grays Anatomy, but I sure would not want my young child watching it.

The "V-chip" has

The "V-chip" has (and had) nothing to do with free speech! That's a device or feature which, in a free marketplace, you could have demanded in your TV in the store at the time you buy a new one, and the best weapon for helping kids is actual parenting, which takes much more than a coerced "V-chip." Instead, congress -- including congresscritters who will now argue that congress should not get involved in designing automobiles because it's contrary to a free market -- mandated (forced) V-chips in every TV. No choices allowed. One size fits all, you WILL pay for a V-chip even if you're into sex and violence and have 0 kids. That's not free speech, that's government force interfering in a formerly-free marketplace. Free speech would look more like leaving the TV market the hell alone and advocating parents choose TVs that give them content-banning options if that's what they want. If you want the government to parent your kid in any way at all, well, that explains why I get along well with so-few kids these days, I guess...
JMR

Sarcasmo, I agree with that

Sarcasmo, I agree with that the FCC is not needed. As I said above, I think we could do without a vast majority of the governmental agencies and regulatory commissions we have today. And I certainly don't think that big gov. trumps the responsibility of parents. It just seems that there is so much that needs to be done to get rid of them. I think that Unsane's idea of a flat 15-17% on income with no loopholes is intriguing. He says that in addition to this rate, A constitutional ammendment to never raise the rate would be needed. I like this as we could say to Washington that this is all you get. Fund the important thing like the military and border security and get rid of the rest. I also think that we would need to find a way to limit governmental fees and get rik of unfunded mandates, and give the power back to the states. Education would be the sate's responsibility also if I had my way.

(Btw, capital gains, the death tax, marriage penalty, and others would be done away with under Unsane's plan as well, to make sure income is only taxed once, no double taxation, as it is unconstitutional, I believe.)

I'd want a tax rate of less

I'd want a tax rate of less than 10% total, which is a bit more austere than most imagine for government, but I'm secretly "a religious nut." And as I've said before, I'm willing to give up things I truly love -- like Nova and NASA -- so I'm dead-serious about this. NASA also greatly benefits the Brevard County area, and privatizing space exploration would be very risky in many ways for us, but still worth it IMO if we could get truly-small Constitutional government once again in this country. I doubt most folks can imagine how small I'd really want government to be, but it's described in the Constitution pretty well. :) And I agree that the states should have some differences, again.

I don't think the state is capable of doing a good job with education, and by "the state" I mean any government entity at all. Let business educate, and parents will choose what's best for their kids and pay efficient prices much better than taxpayers and bureaucrats, as homeschoolers already prove.
JMR

"The powers not delega

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to
the people." tenth ammendment to the constitution.

This pretty well sums it up for me.

After last November, I took a

After last November, I took a break from visiting most of the websites I relied on for news and commentary.  This included NRO.  Bozell's post led me to read the referenced article and check out the site as it stands now.  It seems like they have adopted the current Bush policy of focusing on two or three issues and leaving the rest to the liberals.

The cover they showed of NR!  We must "accept" global warming?  Honestly, if I ever see a magazine of any leaning promote that, I would ban it from my house.  Also, NRO seems heck-bent on canonizing Rudy, though most Conservatives (and therefore, Americans) do not agree with him on many important issues.

Their current state bothers me greatly.  Time for the "market" to go to work and create another real conservative news source.

A couple of thoughts...

A couple of thoughts...

1) As a Midwesterner, I'd like to point out that here in the Central Time Zone, all those shows you mention are seen an hour "earlier" than they are in the East.  Those 11 pm shows run at 10 pm here, and so on.  Contrary to what some think, we don't all roll up the sidewalks at sundown and rise with the chickens.

2) Hollywood is thumbing its noses at most of the market.  The money it makes on family fare, which traditionally is the most lucrative of its products, allows them to keep pushing the envelope farther and farther.  This is generally what passes for "creative" and "artistic" work.  Much of the marketplace is intimidated into silence because people don't want to be seen as blue-nosed prudes.  Hearing "hell" on TV was shocking when I was a kid (except maybe in the context of a Billy Graham crusade).  Words like "pissed" and "ass" would have been unthinkable.  Now they're considered tame.  If the marketplace is going to control this stuff, it seems to be it should be happening by now.

When you put the clowns in charge, don't be surprised when a circus breaks out.

Brent,I want to start of by

Brent,

I want to start of by saying, I hate what Hillary Clinton"per her converstation with Barbara Boxer" is doing right now. She is attacking people like Rush. I'm not a big Rush fan, but I have said before I will crawl on broken glass for his right to be on the air. She wants to limit free speech on the radio and it is a despicable act. It is just sour grapes that the Liberals like Randi Rhodes and Al Franken cannot command the audience that Hannity or Bill O' Reilly has.

That being said I believe it is up to the parent to monitor what the kids watch on TV these days. IMO the PTC is at least partially responsible for the huge indecency fines that were written into law by congress. Republican ideals are less government more freedom right? Why does the government need to be involved.?

What kind of freedom is it, to limit ones choices on regular tv, let alone a channel you pay for like HBO. I know you and the PTC mean well Brent, but your belief in your caus is taking away our free speech.

That being said I believe it

That being said I believe it is up to the parent to monitor what the kids watch on TV these days.

Yup. It's not the TV's job to raise people's kids.

Which means it's not big go

Which means it's not big government's job. This is one of those areas where "traditional" conservatives really hate me. Why? Because I tell the truth, and the truth is that in the case of the FCC's existence, they're obviously "FOR" big government and I'm just as obviously against it. Sometimes, the truth isn't fun to hear, but as I said below, this truth is why I'm here.
JMR

What I love about critiques

What I love about critiques of libertarians is when we're called "anarchical." As if any reduction in the immense level of big government we have right now -- like s#!tcanning the FCC -- is somehow anything resembling "anarchy." Needless to say, Brent has and therefore he presents 0 evidence for his laughable allegation that: "[w]hat is viewed on that pay-per-view network is precisely what would appear on broadcast television if Hollywood were left to its own devices." The truth is, Brent Bozell and the rest of us have no idea what would happen if Hollywood were left-alone in a free broadcast marketplace, because it's never been tried and therefore never happened in any of our lifetimes. Maybe, in a free marketplace where my taxes aren't used for his agenda, I'd be "for" boycotts by Brent's PTC, and maybe, in an actual free marketplace, such boycotts would actually matter. One simply cannot dispute that culture has coarsened as taxpayers have spent more and more on a bloated FCC, which seems like more of a C-SPan platform for various whiny busybodies like Brent Bozell than anything resembling a legitimate, Constitutional government function. But I find it easy to dispute Bozell articles defending the FCC, since it's exactly what I came here to do.
JMR

Sarc, you are beating up on B

Sarc, you are beating up on Brent pretty hard here. So you believe that Hollywood, "left to its own devices" would be responsible? Get real. A Hollywood freed of FCC constraints would produce a tidal wave of decadently amoral, anti-conservative, anti-Christian, violent slime the likes of which only they can imagine.

If that's true, and we have

If that's true, and we have no evidence one way or the other since the advent of an ever-growing FCC, I'd be on the boycotters' side. Why do you think big government is all that moral, anyway? I find it distinctly immoral, and I further think that the art of Hollywood merely reflects that immorality all-too-accurately. And yes, I hate the FCC a lot, but while getting rid of it, I'd get rid of PBS/NPR entirely, as well. It's all bad, in principle, to me, but what I dislike is this idea that I can somehow be painted as immoral for disliking it. Hell, I'm the one who's FINANCING it.
JMR

"If that's true" ??? Come o

"If that's true" ??? Come on.. don't glaze over it with this "we have no evidence" business. We're talking about human beings here. We love to sin! It would be an orgy!
Now, I have to admit, getting rid of all these agencies (very unlikely) sounds pretty nice. Believe it or not, I don't like big government either. I'm FINANCING it too. I'm worried about the chaos that would IMO ensue in a world suddenly freed up of all these constraints. That isn't an unwarranted fear.

Human beings do sin, but fr

Human beings do sin, but free markets and limited government lead to individual responsibility, which tends to lead to less sin. Has the world and the media gotten more or less sinful since the FCC was born and started growing so damn big? I'm with "more sinful," which means to me that we need to do "less spending." Even when it hurts, whether it's "my" CarTalk & Nova, or a conservative gasbag's C-Span platform for expressing righteous outrage. It's all got to go, IMO.
JMR

It's all got to go, IMO.So

It's all got to go, IMO.

So should the rural electrification bill.

And this state tax for an event long past.

I could go on. The country is loaded with this stuff.

D


Go here and here to let your reps know what you think about the shamnesty bill!

It wouldn't be an "orgy" beca

It wouldn't be an "orgy" because advertisers would yank their money.

There's MY kind of lefty, n

There's MY kind of lefty, none of this "V-chip" crapola. (Look everyone!! I've actually got him arguing for free speech from a free-market economics perspective! I like Bal more & more every day!!)
JMR

I both agree and disagree with you.

On one hand TV has demonstrated over the years that it will stoop as low as it can get away with. Without any restraints at all, I have no doubt that there will be a rush to see how low it can really go. On the other hand most people have the ability (with cable or satellite) to block out channels entirely or for certain periods of the day. There is always the off switch too.

The day that "politician" became a career choice is the day we started losing the Republic

Maybe taking some of the teet

Maybe taking some of the teeth from the FCC might be OK. I am a big sports fan, I would hate to see them all go the way Boxing has. I can envision this happening several ways with out "free TV". Boxing promoters feel they make more money selling to 500K viewers then selling advertising. I can easily see the others following this option and giving up their anti trust agreements. I am not sure, maybe some one knows, but once" free TV" is gone seems to me that will nullify the antitrust agreements.