The FCC last March fined more than 100 CBS affiliates $3.6 million for airing a repeat episode of Without a Trace that included a group sex scene. Was the FCC wrong to single out that show?
EXECUTIVE 2 When the Trace repeat aired on New Year's Eve [2004], CBS heard nothing for two weeks. [Anti-smut watchdog group] the Parents Television Council put a clip out of context up on their website and urged people to complain to the FCC that it was indecent. These complaints are not spontaneous.
EXECUTIVE 4 I think it's important to point out that indecency fines used to be rare. [Now] there's a political agenda at work. You have the Parents Television Council generating tens of thousands of e-mails, all counted as individual complaints. And they're the primary driver, along with a certain agenda in Washington, in terms of indecency as an issue now.
EXECUTIVE 2 Ironically, [the Without a Trace episode] had a fair amount of redeeming social value. Yes, it was the ''teen orgy'' episode, but the whole message of the show was for parents, saying, ''Do you know what your kids are doing after school?''
EXECUTIVE 1 Which we do look at a lot. If there is smoking, drinking, something like that, a standards exec will allow it if there's some socially redemptive qualities or a message at the end.
The FCC considers obscene material to be, among other things, lacking serious literary or scientific value. It defines indecency as language or material that depicts or describes sexual or excretory organs or activities. Is the FCC clear enough for you?
EXECUTIVE 4 No, they're not clear. They're absolutely arbitrary and capricious.
EXECUTIVE 2 The rules are very clear at the extremes. You know, Leave It to Beaver is over here, and Debbie Does Dallas is over here. Most of our work is in that wonderfully gray middle.
EXECUTIVE 1 A viewer called the other day about a new show and said the dog in it had an erection. The dog happened to be having a biological function that has nothing to do with the show or the episode. I called our folks in Washington and said, ''Talk to me about obscenity with respect to dog parts.'' And they said, ''You've got to be kidding.'' That borders on the absurd, but if we get flagged for that for whatever reason...we don't know if it was something to be concerned with. If you ask the average viewer, they'd say, ''Yeah, they shouldn't put anything indecent on the air.'' But if you say, ''What do you consider indecent or vulgar? Is 'You suck' vulgar?'' then you're going to get varying responses.
EXECUTIVE 2 You can be very critical of our content and say that it's not in good taste or it violates your taste. It may be coarse. It may be crude. That doesn't make it indecent. The Super Bowl broadcast was awful, but it wasn't indecent.
EXECUTIVE 3 It was inappropriate. I think it showed a huge lack of judgment with respect to the expectation of the audience. If that happened in a music video on MTV, I don't think anybody would have cared because the people who would be offended would never have seen it. It goes to the issue of expectation. You just have to make sure the audience understands what the nature of the show is and its sensibility. You sort of have a contract with the viewer. As long as you don't violate that contract, you are fine.
The FCC just released a report about violent programming. Is it inevitable that the FCC will want to begin regulating TV violence?
EXECUTIVE 1 I strongly believe they will. My understanding is that they would like this umbrella of indecency to incorporate violence. But they haven't adequately defined indecency or obscenity! I guess it's just easier to roll in more ambiguity into ambiguity. Because if they write regulations about violence in particular, they might actually have to be specific about it.
EXECUTIVE 2 How can ''objectionable'' violence be defined and still respect the First Amendment? The FCC has ruled that coarse language in Saving Private Ryanwas not indecent, but what about the violence? If violence is harmful to children and younger teens, then how is Washington going to make a distinction between ''good'' or ''responsible'' portrayals, as in Private Ryan, versus The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, or even the evening news, wrestling, or The Three Stooges?
Would I Love Lucy raise a red flag for standards and practices execs today? Click here for more of this discussion.
