All Blog Posts from Public Eye

War is heck.

Sound familiar? No?

Sure, it's an exaggeration to make the point, but there are some PBS stations gunshy about airing World War II footage featuring salty language, and opting instead for a cleansed version.

Bowing to worries about indecency fines, PBS is editing combat footage in an upcoming documentary “The War” for verbal content. Yes, years after Janet Jackson inadvertently/conveniently/nanosecond-ly exposed her nipple during the Super Bowl halftime show and cost stations enormous indecency fines, broadcast networks apparently are still timid about incurring the wrath of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC).

According to Reuters:

Ken Burns' documentary about World War II will come in two flavors, one with curse words and one without in the hopes that the PBS stations can avoid government fines for indecency...

A "clean" version of the film has those words silently wiped out on one feed, while another feed transmits a version that allows viewers to hear the words in the clear.

(If for no other reason, the Reuters story is an amusing example of a wire service implying cursewords.)

It’s true that given the option of edited or unedited versions, many stations have already opted for the unedited footage. But one PBS affiliate here in Washington, DC is going to show the clean version, and you know it’s not going to be the only one.

Read full post…

The Federal Communications Commission is looking to start regulating violence on television, according to Reuters. At the moment, broadcasters are limited in showing “indecent” material, and regulators say the need to impose similar restrictions on TV violence, which they link to “short-term aggressive behavior'' in children.

It’s unclear, at this early stage, how this all may play out. But if it goes forward it won’t be without controversy. Violence can be hard to define, after all – would a boxing match, for example, need to be regulated? And what about the news? If a report from Iraq includes images of dead bodies, could the broadcaster be fined – or worse – for showing them? Critics say parents need to take responsibility over what their kids see on television, but that argument has done little to curtail “indecency” regulations. They also worry about the free speech implications of federally regulating TV violence. “What this is is government control of creative content, and we have a real problem with that,'' Jonathan Rintels, executive director of the Center for Creative Voices in Media, told Reuters.

Swoosh: Those of you who saw the "60 Minutes" story on mixed martial arts may remember seeing correspondent Scott Pelley hitting the mat for some training. Pelley donned a sweat suit for the experience, one that featured a Nike logo on in the middle of his chest area. Producers tried to hide the logo by blacking it out with a pen, but it was still visible in one shot in the piece.

The incident has the Poughkeepsie Journal asking questions about the ethics of the logo's appearance. It wasn't product placement, however – just a bit of free, inadvertent advertising for Nike – and media critics don't seem too worked up. “You would have a different ethics issue if they had just fixed it by blacking it out in post-production,” The Poynter Institute's Al Tompkins told the Journal. “That would have been altering reality. But inking over it in the field is a great fix to a problem. The camera recorded what was actually there and it aired as the camera saw it.”

The Bleeping Irony: The hearing at which television networks are challenging the Federal Communications Commission’s indecency rules is taking place today, and C-SPAN is broadcasting it live. As the Wall Street Journal's Washington Wire notes, the station is not bleeping anything out, which means that C-SPAN viewers have been treated to Supreme Court specialist Carter Phillips uttering such bon mots as “motherf—–,” “eat s—” and “f— the USA” in their full, uncensored glory. The FCC is being a suprisingly good sport. Notes the Journal: "'The commission has emphasized it will use great restraint' and would not fine stations for airing the hearing as part of a news program, responded Eric Miller, a media attorney representing the FCC."

An Unwanted Record: 2006 is the deadliest year for the press ever recorded by the Committee to Protect Journalists in a single country, with 32 journalists killed in Iraq so far. At least 55 journalists were killed worldwide this year in connection with their work. “When this conflict began more than three and half years ago, most journalists died in combat-related incidents," said CPJ Executive Director Joel Simon. "Now, insurgents routinely target journalists for perceived affiliations—political, sectarian, or Western."

Read full post…

The Katie Chronicles: Connie Chung wants commentators to cut "Evening News" anchor Katie Couric some slack. "All this takes an enormous amount of time. TV viewing rarely changes dramatically, whereas programmers do. I think Katie's holding her own nicely," she tells the Philadelphia Inquirer. "I just wish everyone would stop analyzing her. It's not quite fair to constantly pass judgment on her and the 'Evening News.' She's a pioneer in this arena, so it's the nature of the beast today."

Marketwatch's Jon Friedman argues we might want to blame Americans for not watching the show in greater numbers. "I wouldn't rule out another possibility: America wasn't truly ready for the first solo woman evening-news anchor, let alone someone smart and attractive with pretensions to sounding puckish and hip," he writes. (We'll let you decide if that qualifies as a backhanded compliment.)

Who's Down With FCC?: More ironic than a black fly in your chardonnay: As Broadcasting & Cable notes, "[t]he oral arguments in broadcasters challenge to the FCC's March profanity rulings against Fox Billboard Awards broadcasts will be allowed to be televised." Each side is scheduled for 12 minutes of arguments, and, perhaps, a whole lot of bleeps.

Catch It While You Can: Congratulations, "To Catch A Predator!" You've made the front page of the New York Times! The ethical questions raised by your methods are the subject of yet another story in the media! And most importantly, you were the inspiration for perhaps the only funny sketch ever to appear on "Studio 60!" You better watch your step this Dec. 25th, Santa: Chris Hansen is on the case. Now why don't you tell us what's in that bag, huh?

Read full post…

So, “The Daily Show” basically has as much substance about politics as the network newscasts, a good portion of the kiddos are getting their political news from Jon Stewart and “Saturday Night Live” cast members and, apparently, the “Tonight Show with Jay Leno” is considered a news program. No, really.

California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger appeared on “The Tonight Show” last night and his opponent in the gubernatorial election, California State Treasurer Phil Angelides -- who wasn't invited to appear on the program --argues that’s a violation of the Communications Act of 1959, a provision of which includes the “equal-time rule.” The Angelides campaign fired off letters to NBC affiliates, urging them not to air the program or to provide Angelides with equal time. Under the rule, the FCC requires that broadcasters give an equal amount of air time to political candidates running for office. There are exemptions, however, for news programs, interviews or documentaries. And that’s why NBC says the network is not required to provide equal time to Angelides. The Washington Post notes NBC’s statement:

"Consistent with 'The Tonight Show With Jay Leno's' previous practice, NBC is following the news guidelines for interviewing a political candidate," the network said yesterday in a statement. "Under the news guidelines, the scheduled appearance of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger on the Oct. 11 broadcast is not subject to the FCC's equal-time provisions."

On behalf of Angelides, Rep. Xavier Becerra, (D-Los Angeles) wrote a letter of complaint to the president of the FCC. It appears, however, that NBC’s position is not necessarily without precedent. According to the Museum of Broadcast Communications Web site, “The FCC has also labeled shows such as “The Phil Donahue Show” and “Good Morning America” news interview programs,” and therefore exempt from the equal time rule.

In other news, the count of film and television stars not running for president has reached three.

Read full post…

In case you hadn’t heard, several outlets have reported over the last few days on a recent decision by the four broadcast networks (NBC, ABC, CBS and Fox) and Hearst-Argyle Television to appeal in court FCC indecency rulings on programs that aired on ABC, CBS and Fox. We thought it worthy to note since one of the segments at issue was from a 2004 edition of CBS News’ “The Early Show.”

From The New York Times today:

Late last week, the networks filed lawsuits in federal appeals courts in Washington and New York to challenge indecency rulings against CBS, ABC and Fox involving coarse language. The rulings they are seeking to overturn involve obscenities that were used on the CBS news program "The Early Show," "Billboard Music Awards" on Fox and "N.Y.P.D. Blue" on ABC. The networks maintained that many of the remarks that were found to have violated the indecency rules were blurted out spontaneously, although the ones at issue in "N.Y.P.D. Blue" had been scripted.

NBC is party to the suits, even though "they do not challenge sanctions against any of its programs." The Times writes that “with no allies among either the Democrats or the Republicans on the [FCC] nor any significant ones in Congress,” the networks are turning to the courts, where they “are hoping to find a solid majority — perhaps ultimately on the Supreme Court — of liberal and libertarian judges who are more sympathetic to their First Amendment arguments.” The Los Angeles Times described the move as one “that seems certain to force a showdown over what constitutes indecency on the airwaves….”

If you’re interested, the segment in question from “The Early Show” was a live interview with a “Survivor: Vanuatu” contestant, who uttered “a variant of the ‘S-word’” on the program. You can read the FCC’s full ruling on the matter here.

Read full post…

"The Federal Communications Commission," reports the New York Times, "leveled a record $3.6 million fine yesterday against 111 television stations that broadcast an episode of 'Without a Trace' in December 2004, with the agency saying the CBS show suggested that its teenage characters were participating in a sexual orgy."

If you want to watch the $3.6 million scene, the Parents Television Council has kindly made the video available. They're not, presumably, doing so for your enjoyment: The PTC, a subsidiary of the Media Research Center (SEE UPDATE), is trying to get shows and scenes that its members consider objectionable off the air. "The Parents Television Council was founded in 1995 to ensure that children are not constantly assaulted by sex, violence and profanity on television and in other media," according to the PTC Web site. The organization produces a list of the best and worst shows on television, and according to Sourcewatch, a December 2004 report in Mediaweek noted that "99.8% of 240,000 complaints made to the FCC complaining about indecency in 2003 originated from the Parents Television Council."

It's somewhat amusing, of course, that the PTC makes available the scenes they object to on their Web site, though it does make sense for them to show the scenes so people can see why the PTC is objecting. Still, the whole thing is a bit uncomfortable, which is perhaps why they include a disclaimer before the objectionable videos: "WARNING: Graphic Content!!! Do NOT push play if you don't want to see the explicit video!!!" (Jokes Steve Safran in the comments section of Lost Remote: "Yeah. That will keep teenagers from watching it." Writes another commenter: "I want to thank them for putting it all together in one place. Saved me a lot of time.")

Read full post…