Lou Pickney's Online Commentary
Rattlers
Friday
January 30, 2004
With all of the new merchandise we've been pumping out at BubbaArmy.com, the last few days have been busy. Good, but busy. It's a surefire test of my sometimes suspect organizational skills, but it's been a fun process. Hard work I don't mind.
Let's open the mailbag now, shall we? (As if you get a choice) My former WTSP co-worker Brian Kargus, currently a producer at Bay News 9, wrote me late last night. Brian and I have a bond, much like fraternity pledges who were hazed together, since we both worked under the hellish regime of the Executive Meddler for the first six months of that reign, until Brian finally was given his parole (and as awful as she was to me, she was downright evil to him).
Unfortunately, an e-mail I sent last year that was intended for Brian went to his wife instead, since they share an e-mail address (ironically enough, it was on the same topic of FCC indecency enforcement). That didn't go over so well, and I said in my reply back that I'd never write back to that address again. And I haven't.
So, instead, I'll use this forum to handle the feedback, especially since it ties into yesterday's column.
From: Brian & Amy Kargus
Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2004 11:25 PM
To: "Lou Pickney"
Subject: Bubba and the FCC
Hello, Lou!
I've been waiting for your Commentary on the Bubba situation. I think it's a fascinating case study and wanted to hear what an insider had to say.
However, I have to disagree with part of you argument. You wrote: "Here's a little secret for those of you who aren't up to speed with the rules of the Federal Communications Commission: there are NO RULES OR GUIDELINES in place to demonstrate what does and doesn't constitute indecent broadcasts. It's a crapshoot, and one that gives the FCC to essentially write a blank check to itself by means of whatever station (or stations) it chooses to fine."
Actually, the FCC spelled out it's indecency rules on April 6th, 2001. In part, the rules state: "material is considered indecent if it describes or depicts sexual or excretory organs or activities and is patently offensive measured by contemporary standards for the broadcast medium."
It said significant factors in its indecency decisions are "the explicitness or graphic nature of the material; whether the material dwells on or repeats at length the indecent content, and whether the material apparently is presented for pandering or titillating purposes or for shock value."
The FCC says these are some of the factors it considers when reviewing indecency complaints, but the agency did not institute any new policies in the guidelines.
While the FCC does not monitor the airwaves for indecency, it does respond to public complaints. If the commission decides that certain material meets the definition of indecency, it can impose a warning, a fine or revoke a station's license.
The guidelines began after Chicago radio station WLUP refused to pay an indecency fine. The station's owner, Evergreen Media Corp., which has since been taken over by Clear Channel Communications, brought a lawsuit against the FCC saying it did not have the legal authority to enforce indecency standards. In February 1994 the two sides avoided a federal trial when Evergreen Media dropped its lawsuit and the FCC promised to issue the indecency guidelines for broadcasters.
-Brian Kargus
Now Brian makes a well-stated argument, but the problem with the FCC's policy is that there are no specific guidelines for what constitutes something being "patently offensive measured by contemporary standards for the broadcast medium." Patently offensive as measured by whom? An overzealous man in Jacksonvile? A pandering politician in Washington DC?
Moreover, who's to say what words describe or depict sexual/excretory organs? There are some that are obvious, but what if I carny it up and say: "Slide my gimmick into her deal." Is that describing sexual organs in a patently offensive manner?
What scares me now even more than the FCC is the ranting from Capitol Hill from both Republicans and Democrats alike who want to see bigger fines being levied by the FCC and harsher punishments, etc. Did we get time-warped into 1952 and I didn't realize it? To hear that the Bush administration actually supports this horrid line of thinking disgusts me. And with both parties spewing that kind of self-grandizing, holier-than-thou mentality... it's a frightening situation.
Apparently that emode IQ test that I talked about on here last year is pretty accurate. I received this random e-mail today regarding it:
From: Lyn Richards
Sent: Friday, January 30, 2004 2:45 PM
To: LouPickney@hotmail.com
Subject: IQ test
I took the EMODE IQ test and scored a 129. I have taken other IQ tests and scored in the high 120’s as well
Lyn
Well Lyn, I don't know you, but thanks for confirming the validity of the test.
Thanks to the magic of my DVR (Digital Video Recorder), I've been on a movie watching spree as of late (with what little free time I've had). Recently I watched 8 Mile (good movie), National Lampoon's Van Wilder (a bit forced, some funny moments but the lead character seemed to be trying too hard to act like Chevy Chase), and Austin Powers: Goldmember (which was funny, as you might expect). My talk about the DVR over at the office has convinced two of my co-workers to give it a try. I should be getting kickbacks from Bright House Cable for this.
|
