Consumer Guide for Today's Media

A revision of the FCC’s indecency rule is long overdue. The rule, which stemmed from a 1978 radio act, is now 30 years old. How many things have changed in that time? Let’s take a look back. For starters, 1978 saw the introduction of the Sony Walkman. Most people, whether they owned one or not, remember the brand and what it meant. It was the first portable radio ever made available to the public --the iPod of the late 1970’s. It was also in 1978 that the Washington Bullets won the NBA championship. Since then they have changed their name to the Wizards, and a second title has eluded them quite effectively.

Perhaps a better way to put into perspective how the times have changed is to look at the average median income in the US. According to infoplease.com, the median income for US households was $15,064. A recent study from the US Census Bureau showed that the average annual income is now $48,200. All this change, and yet the FCC’s rule on indecency has essentially remained the same. There have been minor changes to address things such as “fleeting expletives,” but other than minor tweaking the rule has weathered the last several decades.

The rule the FCC lives by when it comes to indecency seems purposefully vague. The Web site for the FCC describes the term indecency as “language or material that, in context, depicts or describes, in terms patently offensive as measured by contemporary community standards for the broadcast medium, sexual or excretory organs or activities.” This definition leaves too much room for interpretation. The most recent example of this is in the case of the “NYPD Blue” episode featuring mild female nudity. The portion of the episode in question can be viewed on YouTube -- viewer discretion advised. The complaint was that the scene depicts indecent behavior and portrays the woman in a sexual manner. You can decide for yourself on that one. The decision was made by the FCC to fine ABC for the episode.

In viewing the episode, it’s hard to believe that such a fuss was made in the media. The segment of the episode simply shows a scene from early life that children all over the world unwittingly experience. Most people can relate to it, and it does not show anything unnecessarily personal. I also disagree with the statement that the FCC made in regards to the scene.

Investigations into issues such as this make a clear case for the need of full-on revamping of the indecency rule in regards to television broadcasts. Either the rule needs to change, or people need to lighten up and stop complaining about every on-the-fence scene. The rule ended up costing the ABC network over $1 million ($27,500 per station) and affected 45 of their affiliates. To their credit though, the FCC did decide not to fine seven other stations.

In a day and age when “sex sells” is a commonly spoken phrase, it is time for the FCC to jump on the NOW train and let the indecency rule, and hopefully the viewing audience (at 9 p.m.) grow up.

Here’s something you probably don’t think about when it comes to the FCC: CB radio and walkie-talkie restrictions. When I first found out that CB radios fall under the FCC’s jurisdiction, I immediately thought of the 2001 movie “Joy Ride.” I kept imagining the FCC coming to Paul Walker and company after the end of the movie and laying some hefty fines on them for their use of expletives and conversations more than five minutes long.

The restrictions in place regarding the use of CB radios is too similar to those of broadcast radio. To my knowledge, CB (Citizen’s band) radios are aimed more for personal use. I realize they are also used by members of law enforcement, but the fact that CBs are sold publicly seems to suggest they shouldn’t be on the same level as broadcast radio. I mean, does the FCC regulate the walkie-talkie I used when I was five?

The scary answer is yes.

Even walkie-talkies are covered by the FCC. The rules for use are the same for walkie-talkies and CB radios. Here are a few of the more interesting rules:

1. No whistling is allowed
2. No playing of music or anything that may serve as entertainment
3. No swearing or using other obscene words
4. No attention-getting sound effects
5. No advertising of products or political candidates

These seem a little bit ridiculous considering the intended use for most of these devices. Obscenities surface in everyday speech now more than ever. Are people supposed to censor themselves while talking to family and friends? Apparently so. The fines for violating the FCC rules in regards to these devices can total up to $5,000, as stated in Rule 21. That’s a pretty steep price to pay if your kid decides to use his new toy to vent about life.

Now, I had never in my life even considered that the FCC might be monitoring devices such as the ones listed above. The more I thought about it, the more absurd I thought it was. I decided to go to Best Buy and see if any of the packing said anything about the FCC. To my surprise, the notices were right there: “FCC license required.” The requirement refers only to the use of the General Mobile Radio Service channels (GMRS) channels. According to the FCC Web site, the cost for a 5-year license is $85. Most mobile radio devices have this option, though it is not required to use the device. This is one way to avoid FCC regulation: Don’t use GMRS channels. However, these channels are stronger and clearer, so for serious users it is almost essential. Over.

The FCC thought it had a brilliant idea when it introduced the V-chip to TV buyers. Little did it know it would be so ineffective. The question is why? The only thing that comes to me is that parents are simply too lazy to figure it out. Usually there aren’t big instructions for how to block programming on your TV. However, since 1999 all TVs more than 13 inches have had the device installed in them. I looked up instructions for how to use the V-chip, and was surprised to find that it was actually quite simple to do, despite being on the frequently asked questions list. A simple press of the button brings you right to the parental lock option.

It’s simple…too simple.

Kids are notorious for figuring electronics out before their older, dinosaur parents do. This causes somewhat of a problem when using the V-chip. Kids are going to figure it out. To combat this problem, there is a simple solution. A four-digit password is required to access and change the V-chip settings. So how hard is that for a parent to do?

Not very.

So why are so many parents not using this simple tool?

They’re lazy. The truth is that there are 10,000 possible choices for a password. How are kids figuring them out? Well, parents are usually older right? They think don’t have time to memorize more numbers than they have already taken in in their lives. Because of this, most people choose numbers that they already know…numbers that have some sort of meaning. That's if they choose to use the V-chip at all. Well kids aren’t stupid, they know the numbers parents know too. In my own experience, birthdays, anniversaries and parts of phone numbers usually work pretty well. An article on Slate.com talked about a study done in 2004 in which 110 families got new TVs with V-chips. After a year, only 8% reported using the device.

The FCC and TV networks have tried to focus on this even more recently. They are constantly reminding consumers of their TV’s capability through the use of new commercials. The newest ones are actually quite entertaining. But maybe that’s part of the problem, the ads aimed at using the V-chip make the shows being blocked seem cool or funny. How is that effective?

The FCC also made it necessary for TV programs to post a TV rating in the first 15 seconds of the show. But who actually knows what they all are? Or what they all mean? You would pretty much have to look them up to find out for sure. Plus, despite parents’ and the FCC’s efforts, there are always going to be times when parents aren’t home. When one TV might not have the V-chip activated. Then, inevitably, kids will be watching those taboo shows. Simple solution. Don’t care so much. If you want to ensure kids won’t watch “bad” shows, don’t buy a TV. Otherwise don’t complain if you can’t come up with a good enough password. I would bet that complaints to the FCC would drop considerably if parents were forced to use the chip instead of having it be optional. (See indecency post)

The FCC doesn’t seem to garner much favor in the media. I find myself wondering, although I already know the answer, why that might be. It’s clear that people, especially free-thinking school type people, are not fans of the Commission. I would bet that most of these individuals have no idea what the FCC really does, and many probably don’t even know what the letters stand for.

But the bad reputation is most often associated with the Enforcement Bureau, which happens to be just one of seven bureaus in the FCC. Can anyone name the others?

If you couldn’t list off the other six:

-Consumer and Governmental Affairs
-International
-Media
-Public Safety and Homeland Security
-Wireless Telecommunications
-Wireline Competition

Maybe it’s time for people to educate themselves on what all the FCC is responsible for exactly. It’s too often that shows like Family Guy (Freakin FCC) portray the FCC in a negative light, especially to the younger demographic. Though I’m sure many networks would rejoice at not having to worry about what they say on the air, where would that leave TV? Reality shows would turn into Jerry Springer meets Laguna Beach meets Temptation Island. I already have a great deal of trouble watching at least two of those. Sometimes I don’t mind watching a show and not hearing a F-bomb drop every other sentence.

The FCC is more than a pain in TV writers’ necks. It is a necessary regulatory committee. Without the FCC, where would the independent stations be? Bought out by the larger ones. Without the FCC you would probably be getting ads on your smart phone as you read this, whether you want them or not. Do you like not being bothered by telemarketers while you go about your everyday life? You can thank the FCC for that. Do you find comfort in being able to call 9-1-1 from any phone, anywhere and have local authorities help you? Again, the FCC.

So while it may be easier to sit back and laugh at shows on cable and trash-talk the FCC, maybe we all just need to take a moment to look at the bigger picture.

One major issue currently making its rounds at the FCC is the switch to Digital television (DTV) that is scheduled for February 17 of next year. Various problems have arisen on the road to the changeover. There have been lawsuits and complaints all over the place. Actual progress is finally being made however, as one US city will be tested in advance later this year.

On September 8, Wilmington, North Carolina will become the first market to test the DTV transition in advance. What this means is that the country will get a preview of the problems it may face on a much grander scale come next year. The information that this testing could provide may be truly invaluable.

But what is the real point?

The entire transition to digital is ridiculous. It serves no real purpose. No one should need to go buy a new TV just so that the government can convert to digital signals in broadcasting. How many grandparents is this going to upset? How many older individuals are going to be calling help lines asking what to do? I know that there is plenty of educational information about the switch. I get reminders in my snail mail box and online a few times each year. I see television commercials maybe once every week (once while doing this blog in fact). Is everyone really going to understand what they read on those things anyway?

Probably not.

So here’s the deal. The switch will be made mandatory next February. If you have a TV that you purchased recently you are fine. If you have cable or satellite you are fine. If your television set sports rabbit ears…not so much. The FCC, which is heavily involved in the transition, is doing its part to help educate people on the changes that must be made. For those stuck with a dinosaur-like TV, there are only a few options.

1. Buy a new TV
2. Purchase a converter box

The second option is probably going to be the most logical. It won’t be free though. At a time when the national average for a gallon of gas is nearing $4, who wants to pay more to watch the TV they already have? My guess is that no one is going to agree with that. That’s not to say people won’t buy converter boxes, but no one is going to be real happy about it. So what is the FCC in conjunction with the government planning to do about that? The answer, at least from their end, is a $40 voucher that people can redeem when purchasing the digital boxes. It seems generous, but really it’s more of a hassle than it’s worth. The fact that you have even to apply just to receive the coupon takes away from its appeal. The cost of the box has not yet been disclosed either, which makes me wonder if $40 off is really going to make that much of a difference for those needing one.

The thing that gets me thinking is what the difference is really going to be. Do I care? No. Should I? Probably not. The fuss that is being made over the whole transition is ridiculous. Why change something that has worked so well for so many years? Does everything need to be digital? Are people going to “ooh” and “ahh” because their signal is digital? No. The picture is going to essentially be the same. The content is going to be the same. Everything that we watch on TV is essentially going to be the same. The whole fuss over DTV is sad. Let’s focus our energies and worries on worthwhile causes and issues.

Starting now.

What is news? What is legitimate news? According to a recent FCC ruling, it’s probably nothing truly important.

That’s right. Just recently, the FCC ruled that shows like TMZ and 700 Club were actual news. In their words, the two shows are “bone fide newscasts.”

So let’s take a look at that statement.

TMZ describes itself as “your official site for entertainment news, celebrity gossip, Hollywood rumors…” etc.

I don’t know about you, but the last time I checked, celebrity gossip and things that may or may not be true (like rumors), do not count as legitimate journalistic material. While they may be entertaining, they are not truly news. They are nothing more than special interest pieces. The fact that so much attention is given to the personal lives of famous figures makes me sad. I know that may be taken as a derogatory or negative comment by those who obsess about celebrities, the truth, as far as I’m concerned, is that they are no more special than anyone else. They just have more money.

When newscasts turn to celebrity lives to fill time, I frown.

I am not going to school to become a reporter on celebrity lives. I don’t want to talk about drug addictions brought on by a general lack of the ability to entertain one’s self. I don’t want to write a pity story about someone who has had everything handed to them. Where is the future of the profession I love heading?

Down the tubes if this FCC ruling is for real.

Entertainment has come to dominate news. People grab newspapers to read the sports section, the comics and other such novelty items. That’s not journalism. The fact that you get more than 22 million hits when you search “TMZ” on Google is a bad sign. It shows the popularity of celebrity, but it also perhaps hints at the decline and eventual extinction of traditional media. If newscasts with this content are deemed “bona fide,” what will be left for those of us that have a true passion for accurate reporting?

Let’s look at 700 Club and hope for the best.

The 700 Club, for those that don’t know, is a religious show, featuring Pat Robertson. On the site, topics such as demons and psychics are discussed. It’s a program on the Christian Broadcast Network…I don’t have anything against it, but that seems a little biased.

Anyway, the point of this is to show that traditional journalism, the accurate reporting, the important things like government and laws and everything that the average Joe might find boring, are on the way out. Something needs to be done to combat this trend. Reality TV needs to show something a little more true to life (since when is “The Real World” even close to real?). The FCC’s support of this kind of journalistic garbage sheds a saddened light on the entire profession.

Is it really a surprise that Rupert Murdoch is behind TMZ?

Last time I checked Fox News was the most credible and unbiased news station in the country.

And last time I checked white men can jump.