regulation – Page 4 – Media Matters

June 25, 2012

Broadcast v Cable Indecency

What is indecent when it comes to television programming, and does it matter whether it is delivered over-the-air or via cable or satellite or computer? Those are just some of the questions facing TV network executives today. In an 8-0 decision, the Supreme Court last week said that ABC and FOX will not have to pay fines imposed by the FCC after episodes of fleeting indecency. The ABC TV network had been fined for airing an episode of NYPD Blue that contained seven seconds of a woman’s backside while FOX had been fined for airing awards shows in which speakers used expletives in their unscripted remarks. According to the Court, the FCC policies were too vague and therefore violated the broadcasters’ rights to due process according to the Fifth Amendment.

However, despite the unanimous ruling (Justice Sonia Sotomayor recused herself), the Court left in place the FCC’s right to regulate the airwaves. This right was established by the 1978 decision FCC vs. Pacifica. The now famous case was in response to a radio station airing George Carlin’s monologue about dirty words. According to the ruling the government has a right to regulate indecent speech–which would otherwise be protected by the First Amendment–at times when children are likely to be present in the audience. This has resulted in a policy that makes the hours between 10pm and 6am a “safe harbor” for indecent (but not obscene) speech since children are not expected to be viewing TV or listening to the radio during these hours.

The real confusion for many people is that broadcast TV is indiscernible from cable TV, and neither look much different from TV programming streaming on their computer or tablet. However the FCC, and its regulatory process, only applies to over-the-air broadcast TV. When NBC TV network is only two clicks away on the remote control from ESPN, History Channel, or MTV, the fact that NBC is prohibited from showing indecent content from 6am till 10pm while the others are free to do so seems, well, odd. Historically the distinction between public airwaves and private cable networks made sense, but today is appears to be unfair or inconsistent.

According to Edward Wyatt, writing in the NY Times,

All of which leaves broadcasters with little real grasp of what is allowed and what is not. Similarly, the public has no idea what to expect; the next time Cher appears on a live awards show, should adult viewers cover the ears of their 8-year-olds, or can they depend on the broadcasters to censor indecent content?

The National Association of Broadcasters, the trade group that represents the broadcasting industry, has asked for relaxed governmental regulation and a move towards self-regulation…a model that is used, for example, by the motion picture industry.

April 22, 2012

Disturbing Photos Create a Moral Dilemma

A few days ago the LA Times created a stir by publishing photos of U.S. soldiers posing with Afghan corpses. The two photos, published in the paper and online versions of the news publication, were taken in 2010 by a soldier in the 82nd Airborne Division and given to a Times reporter. According to the Poynter website, military officials asked the Times to not publish the photos, but the newspaper went ahead and offered this rational in defense:

After careful consideration, we decided that publishing a small but representative selection of the photos would fulfill our obligation to readers to report vigorously and impartially on all aspects of the American mission in Afghanistan, including the allegation that the images reflect a breakdown in unit discipline that was endangering U.S. troops.

This incident touches on several issues related to the textbook chapters currently being discussed in class. There are concerns over the legality of images that compromise personal privacy. There are also ethical issues related to images of a graphic nature. And there are concerns over journalistic ethics when national security is at stake. Another factor at play is the embarrassment of military and government leaders who would like to have miss-deeds go unnoticed. While military and government leaders have called the behavior captured in the photos “reprehensible” and “morally repugnant,” journalists have an obligation to shine a light on misbehavior whenever and wherever they find it. The question here is how to do so without compromising other important and cherished values. As the LA Times website noted, “the taboo against desecration of the dead is strong in this religiously conservative country.”

There are, unfortunately, plenty of other examples in recent history of visual imagery that posed ethical dilemmas. The Abu Ghraib photos in 2004 of U.S. military personnel posing with inmates in compromising positions comes quickly to mind. Graphic photos of slain Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi were carried by some news outlets while others decided to opt for photos of rebels celebrating his death. The White House refused to release photos of a dead Osama bin Laden thus relieving journalists of the pressure of having to make that decision. And just a few months ago a video surfaced of U.S. troops urinating on dead Taliban fighters.

Images are powerful. Perhaps cameras should come with a warning label: CAUTION, do not use without first considering consequences.

January 18, 2012

Think Twice about SOPA and PIPA

If you plan to work in the media industries as a professional content creator, you need to pay close attention to the current debate over SOPA and PIPA. The two bills being debated in congress are designed, with substantial input from lobbyists representing “old media” interests, to shut down global websites that profit from the illegal distribution of copyrighted material: music, films and TV shows primarily. The issue is being framed by internet and new media companies (largely located in Silicon Valley) as a battle for internet freedom of expression and the rights of end users. Several major internet sites have gone black today or have modified their home page to express solidarity with the protest movement. But what about the rights of individuals and companies (largely located in NY & LA) that create media content?

Much of the early discussion that I’ve seen on Facebook and Twitter has bought into the new media companies’ arguments that this attempt to curtail copyright infringement will stifle creativity and growth on the internet. Others argue that the regulatory oversight will amount to censorship of creative expression. This is completely understandable from the perspective of those who are end users of content rather than creators. For the average consumer, more access to free content seems like a good thing. However, if you’re thinking that you’d like to work in the media industry as a content creator, you might want to consider what the future holds for you if creativity is not rewarded and protected.

Copyright laws exist to protect intellectual property and to reward the creative community for their investment of time and resources in the creative development process. Music, video and film content does not create itself, and those responsible for its creation and distribution deserve legal protection from those who would like to acquire, redistribute, or aggregate that content for their own personal or corporate benefit.

Now, while it may be clear that I am in favor of reasonable protection for copyright holders, I am not convinced that SOPA and PIPA are well-designed legislative tools to accomplish that goal. The video below points out some of the weaknesses of these bills and raises serious questions about their practical application.

[vimeo http://www.vimeo.com/31100268 w=398&h=224]

So, what do you think about SOPA and PIPA? Bad idea? Good idea? Good idea poorly executed?

January 15, 2012

Supreme Court Hears Arguments on Broadcast Indecency

Broadcast radio and TV have long been the most heavily regulated media when it comes to sex, violence, coarse language, and assorted unsavory behavior. Between the hours of 6am and 10pm, when children are most likely to be in the audience, broadcasters have had to be careful to not step over the fine, and sometimes shifting, line that separates decent from indecent expression. Unlike cable TV and satellite radio, broadcast programming has had to toe the line to avoid letter-writing campaigns and FCC fines. The difference has been explained by the fact that broadcasters use public airwaves to distribute their programs to every home and receiver in a given broadcast region. Listeners and viewers don’t have to subscribe to broadcast radio and TV, it just appears when they turn on their radio or TV.

But that distinction is, according to critics, becoming irrelevant as more and more of us rely on alternative technologies to receive our audio and video programming. Cable TV and satellite and web radio and TV now reach millions of homes and viewers often don’t know, or don’t care, if the channel they have selected originated over-the-air or came by way of some other distribution technology. And increasingly broadcasters feel like they are unable to compete when customers can choose from unregulated content channels just a click away. Nearly everyone recognizes that time have changed. Even Justice Samuel Alito Jr. was quoted this week as saying, “Broadcast TV is living on borrowed time. It is not going to be long before it goes the way of vinyl records and eight-track tapes.”

However, those in favor of maintaining stricter standards for broadcast programming argue that media consumers need a safe haven and a place where they can find some relief from nudity, profanity, and graphic violence. The past decade has seen some push-back. The Jackson-Timberlake Superbowl halftime debacle, partial nudity on NYPD Blue, and fleeting profanity in awards ceremony acceptance speeches resulted in a public outcry that was soon followed by stepped-up FCC enforcement. Millions of dollars in fines were levied and have been working through the courts as broadcasters appeal lower court decisions.

Now the US Supreme Court is trying to settle the question–does the FCC have the right to enforce laws that prohibit indecent content between 6am and 10pm on broadcast media? Before they can answer that question they may have to agree on a definition of indecent content, and that won’t be easy. George Carlin’s infamous monologue “Seven Dirty Words” is a start, but not exhaustive. And of course context is important. Dropping an F-bomb in the middle of a sitcom is one thing…hearing it from the mouth of a marine in the film Saving Private Ryan is another matter.

In a few months we’ll know what the Supreme Court has decided. In the mean time, go ahead and Google “broadcast indecency” and read a few articles and essays on both sides of the issue before you make up your mind.

November 11, 2011

Indecency on trial

How do you define indecency? Do you know it when you see it? Or hear it? Are fleeting expletives indecent? Or does it depend on the context? And most importantly, with hundreds of thousands of dollars of fines at stake, who gets to decide what is and what isn’t indecent? The National Association of Broadcasters recently filed an amicus brief to the Supreme Court arguing that the FCC’s enforcement of indecency rules is too vague and subjective, making it impossible for broadcasters to know what content might be subject to fines.

Some are wondering whether this brief is part of a larger effort to relax indecency regulations for broadcasters. Broadcasters, who have historically been much more restricted than cable networks when it comes to language, sex and violence, have felt that this differential treatment puts them at a disadvantage in an increasingly competitive environment. However, according to a quote published in Broadcasting & Cable, NAB spokesman Dennis Wharton said, “We do agree with the networks and the Second Circuit that the FCC’s indecency policies are unconstitutionally vague and chill broadcasters’ protected speech. However, we do not call for the overturning of Pacifica or Red Lion.” Wharton’s references to “Pacifica” and “Red Lion” refer to Supreme Court cases that are foundational to broadcast regulation.

The debate has heated up in recent years after several incidents of offensive language on live awards shows and scripted nudity on NYPD Blues attracted the attention of Parents Television Council. The recent overturning of the $550,000 fine against CBS for the now infamous wardrobe malfunction in the 2004 Superbowl halftime show suggests that the courts are less inclined to side with the FCC. What do you think? Has indecency enforcement been too aggressive, too lax, or too uneven?

July 14, 2011

Thank You & Goodbye

Last Sunday Rupert Murdoch’s tabloid News of the World was laid to rest after 168 years of operation. A scandal in which private individuals’ cell phones were hacked led to the public outrage that forced the closure. While politicians and celebrities, including Hugh Grant, have long complained of phone hacking by tabloid reporters, it was the hacking of the phones of private citizens that brought strong criticism and investigations by law enforcement. Among those hacked: 13-year-old missing person Milly Dowler, relatives of victims of the London terrorist attacks and the families of fallen military.

Throughout history journalists have been rewarded for “scooping” the competition. The paper or news organization that got the story first was rewarded with the largest audience and the accolades of their peers. The challenge, of course, is knowing when to stop before aggressive journalism crosses the fine line that separates ethical from unethical practices. While this case appears to have focused attention on an unusually egregious lapse of ethics, the truth is that journalists push the envelope daily and often escape scrutiny. Sometimes the risk pays off in a big way. Other times it leads to someone getting fired–or an entire news operation being shuttered and hundreds of people loosing their jobs.

December 1, 2010

The End of Secrecy?

Julian Assange, the Australian founder (and some might say diabolical mastermind) of WikiLeaks, would like to put an end to secrets. And now, modern internet technology is bringing us closer to that reality. For as long as there have been secrets, people have been revealing them. A few months ago a college student outed his gay roommate by using a strategically placed webcam connected to the internet. The same global internet technology is now being used to anonymously distribute state secrets and classified military documents to a global audience.

I’ll briefly summarize recent events in the news. A 22-year-old Army PFC by the name of Bradley Manning is alleged to have downloaded hundreds of thousands of classified military and diplomatic documents while on assignment in Bagdad. Manning then allegedly gave the documents to Julian Assange and WikiLeaks – an organization of volunteer hackers devoted to, depending on whom you believe, “opening governments” or destabilizing the US and other world powers.* Because of the structure of WikiLeaks, the identity of leakers is protected by destroying any link between documents and their source. The reason Manning is a suspect is because he bragged online that he downloaded the docs and copied them onto his home-made Lady Gaga CD to make it easier to get them past security. WikiLeaks has made several “dumps” of these documents over recent months, the most recent being this weekend’s release of approximately 250,000 documents related to world diplomatic efforts. One world leader called it the “9/11 of diplomacy.”

It should be noted that WikiLeaks is not acting alone. First, WikiLeaks’ technical infrastructure is supported by servers rented from Pirate Bay and ~~Amazon~~ (Update: according to the NYT, Amazon has booted WikiLeaks from its servers). Additional server resources have been necessary as WikiLeak servers have suffered DOS attacks at the hands of a self-described “hacktivist for good” who goes by the name of the Jester. Second, WikiLeaks depends on disgruntled insiders to feed it with information. And third, and perhaps most importantly, it needs the cooperation of the world press to make its actions visible to society. In this most recent case WikiLeaks has the cooperation of the New York Times in the US, and the Guardian in the UK. Once leading mainstream media report on document releases the story is out and the effect is fully realized.

This the not the first time the NYT has been involved in a leak of US government secrets. Perhaps the most famous example is Daniel Ellsberg and the Pentagon Papers. In late 1969, Ellsberg used an earlier technology (photocopying) to leak classified military papers to the NYT and other newspapers. Convinced that the US government was misleading congress and the American public, Ellsberg acted hoping that the revelations revealed by the documents would force the government to change course. Many believe that the release of the Pentagon Papers was a significant turning point in our commitment to the war in Vietnam. Time will tell if Pfc. Bradley Manning’s actions will have a similar effect on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. In the mean time, those who believe that his actions are those of a patriot, and not a traitor, can join the Bradley Manning Support Network here.

The recent actions of WikiLeaks remind us of the challenge of balancing first amendment freedom and national security in a modern world where technology allows us to set in motion significant actions with a few clicks of a mouse. And while the ends sometimes justify the means, it is also true that actions taken for what may appear to be a noble cause may have far-reaching implications that demand and deserve careful consideration.

P.S. It’s not easy being a rogue leaker. US Senators are calling for Julian Assange to be tried under the Espionage Act of 1917. Assange, who is already on-the-run, is now listed on INTERPOLs Most Wanted List for an alleged crime of rape and molestation that took place in Sweden. Not surprisingly, the timing of these allegations is questioned by WikiLeak supporters.

*There is an interesting interview on TED Talks that will give you some additional background on Assange.

October 6, 2010

Supreme Court Wrestles with Despicable Speech

We all know that most speech is protected by the First Amendment of the Constitution. There are a few exception, e.g., obscenity, defamation (libel and slander), and incitement to imminent lawless action. But the general consensus is that the First Amendment also protects crazy and hateful ideas like those espoused by Fred Phelps, who, with his small group of followers, pickets military funerals and spews hateful rhetoric about military deaths being divine retribution for America’s tolerance of gays.

In Snyder v. Phelps, the father of a slain soldier is asking the Supreme Court to rule against Phelps and speech that includes the waving signs outside the funerals of a fallen serviceman that proclaim, “God Hates America” and “God Hates Fags” and “Thank God for Dead Soldiers.”

The road to the Supreme Court involved decisions both for and against Phelps.
Snyder sued Phelps and his followers for “defamation, invasion of privacy, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.” Snyder was awarded nearly $11M in damages in the original court case. Phelps appealed and the damages were reduced to $5M. Then a federal appellate court overturned the decision, thus setting up the battle in the Supreme Court.

Support for the families of fallen soldiers is widespread among veterans groups. Also, politicians from both the right and the left have spoken out in favor of a ruling that would restrict this sort of speech. However, there are plenty of folks, e.g., the ACLU and most media companies, on the other side of the issue who are holding their noses while voicing support for a decision that would allow Phelps and his followers to continue their antics.

Whose side are YOU on?

September 14, 2010

Misogynistic Hip-Hop Lyrics: What’s the Big Deal?

In class today we discussed the prevalence of misogynistic lyrics in rap and hip-hop music. Unfortunately we didn’t have enough time to hear from more than a few of you, and I’m curious about what others think about this issue. To rephrase the issue, is it okay for popular rap and hip-hop artists to denigrate women? If so, are women paying a price for accepting attitudes and images that reduce them to sex objects and second-class citizens? And if not, why do people defend the music and the musicians that perpetrate these images? Before you weigh in, watch this five minute video on YouTube:

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WjxjZe3RhIo]

Before posting a reply remember that this is not a forum to attack a culture, subculture, ethnic group or individuals belonging to any group. Keep your comments civil and attack the issues…not other posters.