I wrote about a week ago that entities need to re-evaluate how they measure complaints in the age of the Internet. The FCC is no exception. I also pointed out that I didn’t have enough raw data beyond the Frank Rich article in the Times. Well, today Atrios linked to this Media Week article that claims that 99.8% of the complaints to the FCC in 2003 came from members in one (yes, one) activist group.
This year, 99.9% through October (after excluding the Janet Jackson fiasco in February)… same group.
While this doesn’t make my case any stronger, it does show that one group in one particular situation having an overwhelming impact on this federal watchdog. This group claims 850,000+ members and aims for a million in this year. Pretty significant group. The interesting thing is that they claim that they have little power:
“I wish we had that much power,” said Lara Mahaney, spokeswoman for the Los Angeles-based group. Mahaney said the issue should not be the source of complaints, but whether programming violates federal law prohibiting the broadcast of indecent matter when children are likely to be watching. “Why does it matter how the complaints come?” Mahaney said. “If the networks haven’t done anything illegal, if they haven’t done anything indecent, why do they care what we say?”
The concern I have is that obscenity guidelines aren’t strict. In other words, there is no definition of what is obscene or what isn’t. What might offend one family may not be offensive to another. One family may consider 9PM to be an OK time to begin sort of PG-13 programming. Another family may not want it on the airwaves at all. The FCC is supposed to use community standards when deciding whether to fine a particular show or not. The question then becomes whether the views of a group of people who at least were concerned enough to “join” this group (not sure how they count members, btw…) are representative of the nation as a whole. Sampling generally works well when the sample is random. This seems far from it to me.
The article is pretty interesting. I’ll pass on one more excerpt which I found interesting:
In such a system, even the number of complaints becomes an object of contention. For example, the agency on Oct. 12, in proposing fines of nearly $1.2 million against Fox Broadcasting and its affiliates, said it received 159 complaints against Married by America, which featured strippers partly obscured by pixilation.
But when asked, the FCC’s Enforcement Bureau said it could find only 90 complaints from 23 individuals. (The smaller total was first reported by Internet-based TV writer Jeff Jarvis; Mediaweek independently obtained the Enforcement Bureau’s calculation.)
And Fox, in a filing last Friday, told the FCC that it should rescind the proposed fines, in part because the low number of complaints fell far short of indicating that community standards had been violated.
“All but four of the complaints were identical…and only one complainant professed even to have watched the program,” Fox said. It said the network and its stations had received 34 comments, “a miniscule total for a show that had a national audience of 5.1 million households.”
Perhaps they should create some software that does similarity checks on complaint letters and groups them if they’re greater than 90% similar?






December 7th, 2004 at 10:12 am
Thanks for the update.
I am a parent. My wife and I are very cautious about what our kids watch. Sometimes a little too cautious. There are things we don’t want the kids to see. That’s me. My belief.
So I get annoyed when the FCC takes a stance on issues that have been addressed by rating systems, disclaimers, and our new standard of 7 second delay on live programming. I guess the new standard by which all future fines will levied will be the Janet Jackson Super Bowl incident. And if this is the litmus test for taped, broadcast television; the FCC is dead wrong. There is a large difference between a taped television program and a live event.
The Super Bowl fine (albeit extremely excessive) was the right action to take. It was a live event. And even though the network claims ignorance of the “costume malfunction” and of the halftime production because rehearsals were closed, yada… yada… yada… It was a live production on thier network, tape delays could have been used and ignorance is not a defense.
That said. The problem with groups like the Parents Television Council above is that they forget the one important ability the consumer has… the clicker… CHANGE THE DAMN CHANNEL!
Sorry, I just had to say that, loudly.
TV has a rating system. Parents are warned about content when it might be deemed by some as inappropriate for younger viewers (by the way, that also means, if you are an adult who acts like a child or is insulted at very simple things, CHANGE THE DAMN CHANNEL!).
Just change the channel if you don’t like something and don’t buy it if you believe it is innapropriate for your children. This applies to radio, it applies to movies, it applies to concerts, it applies to CDs, it applies to theater, museums and comedians… etc, etc, etc… If you are offended by something, don’t buy it… don’t go see it… and as far as radio and TV are concerned… CHANGE THE DAMN CHANNEL!
I think a theme is developing.
The simple reality that groups like the PTC has to realize is that media and art are big business. The FCC should enforce the rules. They should act when an incredible error or blunder is made that could have been avoided and wasn’t. The Super Bowl is a prime example, Bono swearing on TV at an awards program is an example. Both had large TV audiences, they were live, and had a tape delay been employed, niether would have been broadcast to the larger public which did have children watching.
BUT… Broadcast TV has a rating system, it has disclaimers, it has designated time slots, and even though the media in every form will try and bend the rules a little (or a lot), media has done an acceptable job of coming to the table when a problem arises and working with the FCC, the government, advertisers, consumers, and everyone else to try and rectify those problems.
When are parents forced to accept responsibility for thier children? I don’t ask the FCC to monitor what my children have access to and what they watch. That is my job! Mine alone! The FCC should enforce a global community standard and the parent(s) should be responsible for enacting standards for inside the home. Not the other way around.
So, to make a long story short…
If you don’t like what is one TV, you have two forms of recourse…
1) Try and boycott the advertisers… this is what they used to do in the old days, you know, like the 80s when they protested all of Fox’s programming. Sometimes it works… sometimes it doesn’t
Or.. wait.. here it comes…
2) CHANGE THE DAMN CHANNEL!!
December 7th, 2004 at 10:16 am
That was me, btw… I had to enter the code three times… I forgot to add my name the last time… sorry…
December 7th, 2004 at 6:46 pm
The time has come for the anticomplaint.
We need to organize a group of people who are outraged at the outrage and will send hundreds of letters says that the other people are totally over reacting.
December 7th, 2004 at 7:05 pm
I was just thinking the same thing this morning… the FCC calls them “comments” anyway, not complaints, I think. So, we should comment in the affirmative. I wonder if that would work… maybe I should set up a simple form here?
December 7th, 2004 at 7:36 pm
I would like the FCC to know that I do not feel that Nicolette Sheridan showed enough skin.
December 7th, 2004 at 7:40 pm
Come on… don’t you know that Monday Night Football (heck, any football broadcast) is a family show? I mean, those ads for beer, erectile disfunction pills, and more beer are ALL targetted for the family. Where is the outrage???
December 8th, 2004 at 12:03 am
I think we should call ourselves “United Council for Changing the Damn Channel”… Just a thought.