Study Ties Indecency to Consolidation of Media

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

Irvine511

Blue Crack Supplier
Joined
Dec 4, 2003
Messages
34,518
Location
the West Coast
from the LA Times:

Copyright 2005 Los Angeles Times
All Rights Reserved

Los Angeles Times

September 8, 2005 Thursday
Home Edition

SECTION: BUSINESS; Business Desk; Part C; Pg. 1

LENGTH: 621 words


HEADLINE: Study Ties Indecency to Consolidation of Media;
Report says that as big broadcasters buy more stations, shock-jock programming often replaces local content.

BYLINE: Sallie Hofmeister, Times Staff Writer

BODY:

The consolidation of the broadcast industry over the last decade may have increased indecent programming on the nation's airwaves, according to a new report by the Center for Creative Voices in Media and Fordham University.

According to the report, as leading broadcasters such as Clear Channel Communications and Viacom Inc.'s Infinity Broadcasting have bought more stations, they have frequently replaced local programming with shock jocks such as Howard Stern and Bubba the Love Sponge, who are prone to vulgarity.

Those programming decisions may have lured more young listeners, the ones that advertisers most covet, while also saving the companies money. But that may have led to an increase in indecency complaints, according to the report, which is to be released today.

From 2000 to 2003, the report found, the nation's four largest radio companies racked up 96% of the fines handed out by the Federal Communications Commission, while their stations accounted for only about half of the country's listening audience.

The study suggests that instead of relying on stiffer fines, regulators seeking to rein in indecency would be better off breaking up large broadcast groups.

"Rather than raising the fines, Washington should think about reinstating the ties that stations have to their local communities," said Jonathan Rintels, executive director of the Center for Creative Voices, a Washington-based group that represents Hollywood writers and producers, and a co-author of the study.

The study points out that some of the politicians who are now trying to crack down on indecency by raising fines on broadcasters are the same ones who voted in 1996 to relax ownership rules that contributed to concentration.

"One of the unintended consequences of their support of deregulation is an increase in indecency," Rintels said.

Congress is slated in the coming year to revise the 1996 Telecommunications Act that deregulated the media and spurred consolidation.

The correlation between media consolidation and indecency will also be an issue as the Federal Communications Commission begins its revisions of media ownership rules.

In reaching its conclusions, the report cited the case of a station in Port Charlotte, Fla., that was bought by Clear Channel in 1996. The station, never previously fined for indecency, incurred penalties of $110,000 in 2004 because of crude remarks made on the air by Bubba the Love Sponge.

The report quotes from segments of Bubba's show in which the voices of purported cartoon characters talked about drugs and graphic sexual acts.

In one expletive-laced skit, for example, Shaggy tells Scooby Doo that he could perform sexual favors to raise money to buy crack.

Bubba the Love Sponge has since been dropped by Clear Channel. Some might see that as proof that indecency fines accomplish their goal, but the report pointed out that an overreliance on such punishments could have a chilling effect on broadcasters that would be detrimental to consumers.

"A lot of political speech is being repressed because of the self-censoring by broadcasters," said Rintels, who noted that the threat of higher fines had led an Ohio station to bump Stern off the air last month after the FCC said it was investigating a consumer complaint.

Already, consent decrees signed in 2004 by three of the nation's four largest radio groups to resolve outstanding indecency complaints have led to self censorship, Rintels said.

Clear Channel Communications, the nation's largest radio station owner, has terminated Stern, who is moving to Sirius Satellite Radio to escape restrictions.

"While Howard Stern is often indecent, he is also political and to pull him off the air is to deprive listeners of that commentary," Rintels said.

LOAD-DATE: September 8, 2005





tell me, where is the moral outrage at big business?
 
This is a stretch for a cause and effect relationship (not that one is needed in politics).

The local jock is replaced by the syndicated NY jock. All that means is more people hear the crap from the NY jock.

The problem isn't syndication, it is the people spewing the crap in the first place.
 
The problem is that we're defining "indecency" by our most prudish members of society. "Indecent programming" exists, because the public wants it.

Melon
 
melon said:
The problem is that we're defining "indecency" by our most prudish members of society. "Indecent programming" exists, because the public wants it.

Melon

That's great circular reasoning. People only find something "indecent" if they are "prudish".

The FCC responds to whatever complaints they receive.
 
It's not "circular reasoning." That's how it works. That's how all the laws are written. The fact is that if no one listened to Howard Stern, he would not be on the air.

Instead, we have extremely conservative people who wish that television was nothing but "The 700 Club" 24/7. Maybe I should file an indecency complaint on that show.

Melon
 
melon said:
Maybe I should file an indecency complaint on that show.

Melon

That is how the law is written. You find something offensive on the air, you file a report. Nothing to stop you from filing your own complaint. I wouldn't call you prudish.
 
MaxFisher said:



In your opinion, how should "indecency" be defined?

The problem is...is that you can't. You can't define "indecency" for the whole. Why is it we need to define "indecency" is such terms? Can we not change the channel?

There are such standards we hold as a society such as young children shouldn't hear such words or be exposed to nudity, etc. So why are we paying attention to the prudish few who want to go beyond these standards, but are ignoring those that write in and complain about narrow hateful religious beliefs being spewed on TV?
 
BonoVoxSupastar said:
The problem is...is that you can't. You can't define "indecency" for the whole. Why is it we need to define "indecency" is such terms? Can we not change the channel?

There are such standards we hold as a society such as young children shouldn't hear such words or be exposed to nudity, etc. So why are we paying attention to the prudish few who want to go beyond these standards, but are ignoring those that write in and complain about narrow hateful religious beliefs being spewed on TV?

:up:. Thank you.

Angela
 
I guess when you have children, and leap for the remote after some objectionable image appears on a Saturday morning, you may re-think the issue.
 
nbcrusader said:
I guess when you have children, and leap for the remote after some objectionable image appears on a Saturday morning, you may re-think the issue.



i think that's a valid point.

i simply don't care what's on my TV screen -- if i don't like it (it's usually violence that offends me ... or potty humor, for some reason) i change the channel. and i feel as if the R-rated television one can find on premium cable is easily the most artistically valid, challenging, boundary-pushing storytelling we have today, in all of television or film (see The Sopranos, 6 Feet Under, The Wire, Weeds, The Comeback, etc.)

however, these are not shows for children, and i imagine it can be difficult to shield them from this when they are young (or even not so young).

however, i'd rather my kids hear "cocksucker" a million-and-one times on Deadwood than hear any of the far more offensive bile that comes out of Pat Robertson's mouth.
 
Usually ads for prime time or late night programming. Fox is the worst, but all the major networks have joined the shock value promotion method.

The problem with images is that once you see them, you can't simply erase them from your memory.
 
Irvine511 said:
however, i'd rather my kids hear "cocksucker" a million-and-one times on Deadwood than hear any of the far more offensive bile that comes out of Pat Robertson's mouth.

We don't let them watch the 700 Club either (well, we've never thought of turning it on). I once saw a couple minutes of TBN. It was like a trainwreck - more scary images.
 
nbcrusader said:
Usually ads for prime time or late night programming. Fox is the worst, but all the major networks have joined the shock value promotion method.

But what specifically are the images you object to? I mean is it bad language? Violence? Sexual images? People dressed in a way you dislike?
 
nbcrusader said:


We don't let them watch the 700 Club either (well, we've never thought of turning it on). I once saw a couple minutes of TBN. It was like a trainwreck - more scary images.



believe it or not, this is an area where i do get a bit what might be called "conservative."

i think it is important to protect children (especially young children, 6 and under) from certain kinds of media, and sometimes all kinds of media. kids today are going to grow up innondated with all kinds of images, so i think it's very important for parents to provide spaces where children are free from outside influences and can self-direct their own self-discovery.

in my opinion, the most harmful things out there are commercials. i can't think of anything more sinister than a company that hires a clown with red hair and a yellow suit encouraging children to beg their parents to let them eat the poison that McDonald's fries up with a big dollop of "fun."

i also don't like how we can get so desensitized to the worst thing in the world, violence, for the sake of shock; and i don't like how the most wonderful thing in the world, consensual (and hopefully loving) sex, can be cheapened into a ratings stunt. again, i defend the right for violent movies to exist; i think there's such a thing as responsible consumption of erotica and pornography; but i don't want my 8 year old exposed to either, and it saddens me, as someone who believes in the artistic integrity of judicious useage of sex and violence in adult entertainment, that such powerful images lose their impact the more we are exposed, causing producers and network executives to dig even deeper, push the envelope more and more and more.

it's like drugs, in a way.

but the other thing is, if we didn't want it, the networks wouldn't give it to us.

we have ourselves to blame.
 
FizzingWhizzbees said:


But what specifically are the images you object to? I mean is it bad language? Violence? Sexual images? People dressed in a way you dislike?

Are you looking for sample images?
 
Last edited:
nbcrusader said:
Are you looking for sample images?



actually, i'm curious too.

what do you see on a Saturday morning? that is designated "kid time" and should be sanitized.
 
nbcrusader said:
Are you looking for sample images?

lol, no, it's just that "objectionable image" could mean a lot of things and i'm curious about what you mean. i watched plenty of tv during the time i spent in the us and i don't recall seeing anything terribly shocking, especially not during saturday morning tv shows. so i'm curious about what images it is that you find so objectionable you want to prevent your children seeing them.

i guess what i'm trying to say is that it may well be that you wouldn't want your child to see, for example, a commercial showing a girl wearing a short skirt (i'm not saying this is the case, just using it as an example) whereas many other parents have no problem with their child seeing that image. in that case, why should you be able to object to that image being shown on tv when it's simply a case of personal preference.

another question -- you complain about the "objectionable images" shown on tv, but what would you like to see done about those images? do you want tv companies to stop showing them? should that happen because tv companies choose to of their own free will, or should they be compelled to by some form of government intervention?
 
Irvine511 said:
actually, i'm curious too.

what do you see on a Saturday morning? that is designated "kid time" and should be sanitized.

The majority would be TV show promos with violence or erotic aspects of a relationship. Also, I would add horror to the list - not Scooby Doo horror, but far more frightening stuff for a kid.
 
nbcrusader said:


The majority would be TV show promos with violence or erotic aspects of a relationship. Also, I would add horror to the list - not Scooby Doo horror, but far more frightening stuff for a kid.



interesting ... haven't been up early enough on a saturday to catch the cartoons, but maybe i'll flip around a bit and see if it's changed all that much since the early-to-mid-80s when i was a lad.
 
Irvine511 said:
kids today are going to grow up innondated with all kinds of images, so i think it's very important for parents to provide spaces where children are free from outside influences and can self-direct their own self-discovery.

in my opinion, the most harmful things out there are commercials. i can't think of anything more sinister than a company that hires a clown with red hair and a yellow suit encouraging children to beg their parents to let them eat the poison that McDonald's fries up with a big dollop of "fun."

At the same time, though, just because some show or commercial promotes something, it doesn't automatically mean that people are going to blindly follow it. Maybe I'm just being really naive here, but I'd like to think that people can think for themselves.

And I also think that so long as parents, from the time their children are born, raise them to be good, caring citizens of society, it shouldn't matter what images the children see, because they'll already know right from wrong, fiction from reality, etc., etc. And besides that, if some person goes out and does something because a person on TV suggested it, then it's their fault for not bothering to think for themselves and take personal responsiblity for their own actions.

Course, all this being said, however, if a parent wants to shield their own child(ren) from images and words they deem inappropriate, that is entirely their right as a parent, entirely their choice. It's their household, they can raise their kids their own way.

I just start having issues when those same people try and tell other people outside of their own families what they can and can't see or hear. That's all. They don't know me, how can they possibly think they know what I can and can't handle seeing or hearing, what's "best" for me?

Originally posted by Irvine511
and it saddens me, as someone who believes in the artistic integrity of judicious useage of sex and violence in adult entertainment, that such powerful images lose their impact the more we are exposed, causing producers and network executives to dig even deeper, push the envelope more and more and more.

I actually think it's not so much the exposure of these images that cause people to push the envelope further as it is the outcry. After all, the more forbidden or horrid or sinful or evil or whatever that something is made out to be, the more curious people are to see said bad thing for themselves. If there wasn't such a thing as these parents' groups or the FCC or things like that, I wonder if you'd see nearly as much "gratuitious" sex and violence on TV.

And besides that, while, granted, my experiences are likely not those of some other people, I would say that even after viewing violence on TV throughout my lifetime, for instance, there are still violent images that come across in a very powerful way to me. I think an image or a word only has as much impact as the person viewing or hearing it lets it have.

Originally posted by Irvine511
but the other thing is, if we didn't want it, the networks wouldn't give it to us.

Exactly. :up: to FizzingWhizzbees' posts, too.

Also, I do think children's shows nowadays are scary...but not because I think they're too violent or anything like that.

No, I just think they're scary merely because I swear those shows are being created by people who are under the influence of some serious drugs, LOL :p. Such bizarre stuff...

Angela
 
Back
Top Bottom