The FCC, Super Bowl, Howard Stern and Thee

By Lisa Sarrach

 

Shakespeare famously wrote in Henry VI, �First thing we do, let�s kill all the lawyers,� which at the time meant something entirely different than it does today, as a modern day poke at attorney�s everywhere.�

 

But there is some symmetry to be had in its original context as the common man rebellion sought to rid the world of the literate and educated in order to take the crown from Henry VI.� Today, it is the common everyday American who seeks to overthrow the �educated� elitists in the guise of pundits, lobbyists and executives who continue to dumb down America with their desire for salacious and vapid programming geared only for their bottom line and at our kids� expense.

�

But as Shakespeare also wrote in Henry VIII, �Be just and fear not.�

 

Arguments over tough subjects like Social Security, Medicare, and the FCC would have a far better chance of reform if not for the now ubiquitous presence of lobbyists in our lives and their influence on our elected officials. ��Add to that, the Left�s crying McCarthy at every turn and we have a perfect storm that will do little to settle the issue.�

 

The bone I choose to pick today is the increasingly tedious and malevolent rants of the likes of Frank Rich in the pages of the NY Times and Howard Stern�s continual manic ranting over the moral values issue, the FCC and their contention that we are returning to the days of McCarthyism censorship.� Please, someone take a breath.

 

It�s now a year after the Janet Jackson debacle on the Super Bowl halftime show that the media has decided was the death knoll for free speech in this country.�

 

There are days when I truly wonder why people make things so much more difficult then they have to be.� The current argument out in cyberspace, on editorial pages and with the president himself, is who to appoint to succeed Michael Powell at the FCC, how far should the government go in becoming the moral police, so on, and so on.

 

Free speech is not dead; it�s not even on life support.� Whomever the president chooses to head up the FCC, he or she is not going to be Joe McCarthy incarnate, and we will all live to see another episode of �Desperate Housewives.��

 

As is typical with a social argument being waged on all shores, both sides are exhibiting the nauseating tendency to swing the pendulum way over to one side and forgetting the comfortable middle that could actually placate all sides and get something accomplished.� Because we all know, that if a problem is ever solved in Washington; too many people would lose their cushy lobbying or P.R. contract.�

 

President Bush had it absolutely right when he said on a C-span interview, �As a free speech advocate, I often told parents who were complaining about content, you're the first line of responsibility; they put an off button on the TV for a reason. Turn it off.�

 

He went on to say, much to the chagrin of some conservatives, �I do think, though, that there can be a -- that government can, at times, not censor, but call to account programming that gets over the line. The problem, of course, is the definition �over the line.��

 

Conservatives and liberals alike jumped all over that statement, claiming that would be censorship and an unnecessary use of government resources, blah, blah, blah.

 

Sorry to disappoint some of my fellow conservatives but government does have a role to play in protecting our public airwaves from blatant indecency. The FCC�s role is to monitor the public�s airwaves, and it should play a vital role in protecting those airwaves from those who seek to continually move that line more and more toward adult cable-like programming.

 

At the same time, we thankfully live in a free market society, and that free market should dictate what does and what does not, survive on our public airwaves within reasonable limits of decency as ruled by our nation�s Supreme Court.

 

The big question remains, who should be the arbiter of where the line should be - the answer lies in moderation and common sense.� Today that is something both sides of the argument are lacking.

 

Well, here�s a novel idea, how about we appoint someone to the FCC who is capable of such moderation and common sense?� Someone who can serve as advocate for both the parent and the network alike.� We need common sense guidelines that will protect our kids, but not censor the producer.� Rules that will give parents useful information that will allow them to properly traverse this increasingly blurry line of what�s acceptable for broadcast on our public airwaves and how best to protect their children from what they find objectionable for them to watch.

 

There are some guidelines that should be no brainers for those at the FCC and the public at large alike:

 

• No four letter words on public broadcasts � If a rocker lets loose on an awards show with sh�or the F-word, and the broadcaster doesn�t catch it � they get a fine, and a big one.

 

• No commercials for �adult� programming during an airing of �The Wizard of Oz�.� Parents should be able to feel safe that when they are sitting down to watch a family movie with their kids on NBC, they don�t have to have the remote in their hand to avoid their kids seeing a Cialis commercial or a promotion for �Queer Eye for the Straight Guy.�� I mean, really, is that so difficult?

 

• Nudity � I, for one, won�t feel deprived if I never see the likes of Dennis Franz�s left cheek again, as NYPD Blue did years ago in their attempt to push the envelope.� Most Americans, I believe, can agree that there is plenty of opportunity to see a naked body on cable and that we don�t need to use our public airwaves for porn-lite programming.

 

The FCC is getting a bad rap because the president is a Republican and the Left views him as a puritan zealot.� The reality is the FCC rules haven�t changed much at all since the president was elected in 2000.� The networks, who are increasingly losing market share to cable, are trying to sex up their product in the hopes of stopping the bleeding of their collective market share and ,therefore, are solely the ones to blame for the increase in complaints to the FCC.

 

If the networks continue to believe that in order to compete with cable, they have to continue to push the envelope, the least they can do, and I mean the VERY least, is to properly package the programming into adult vs. family fare and to accurately portray which one is which and when they will be aired.

 

Now, is that so difficult?� Also, how about a return to the family hour of the eighties?� Would it kill the networks to refrain from sexually explicit and or violent programming for one hour a day, for advertisers to refrain during �Family Hour� from Cialis commercials and the networks to refrain from �Queer Eye� promos?

 

The bottom line with all the craziness going on right now is that the solution is staring all the participants right in the face.� Now, if we could just leap over all the lobbyists and PR firms clamoring for the next big contract, we might actually accomplish something for the kids and parents of America, without infringing on free speech rights of the creative community and protect our right to watch �24� and Desperate Housewives after the kiddies are in bed.

 

Just give us a fair shake to protect the children and we�ll all be happy, ok?� We just need to move the egos out of the way and get it done.� Be just and fear not.

 

 

 

###

 

Lisa Sarrach is president of Hollywood-Hero (www.hollywood-hero.us), GOPUSA.COM (www.gopusa.com) national columnist and a freelance writer focusing on cultural and domestic policy issues. You can contact her at lsarrach@hollywood-hero.us