[AP] Fox Disagrees With FCC Indecency Finding Fox Disagrees With FCC Indecency Finding Oct 13, 9:38 AM (ET) WASHINGTON (AP) - Fox Broadcasting Co. disagrees with a finding by federal regulators that an episode of "Married by America" was indecent, but isn't saying whether it will appeal a nearly $1.2 million fine. The Federal Communications Commission said Tuesday that some of the material in the reality series, which featured male and female Las Vegas strippers in a variety of sexual situations, was indecent and patently offensive. The agency said it was designed to "pander to and titillate the audience." FCC commissioners voted unanimously to fine each of the 169 Fox TV stations that aired the program $7,000. Fox has 30 days to appeal the fines, which total $1,183,000. The fine is the heaviest ever levied against a television broadcaster. The previous record of $550,000 was levied against CBS last month for the Super Bowl halftime show last February that included a racy duet in which singer Janet Jackson's breast was briefly exposed. It's also the first indecency fine against a reality television show, though other complaints are being investigated, the FCC said. A spokesman for Fox Broadcasting Co., Joe Earley, would not say whether the network planned to appeal. "We disagree with the FCC's decision and believe the content is not indecent," he said. The six-episode "Married by America," which got dismal ratings, introduced a cast of single men and women and allowed viewers to match them up by popular vote. Five matched couples then went through some of the rituals of dating. None actually got married. The episode in question, which aired April 7, 2003, featured explicitly sexual scenes from their bachelor and bachelorette parties. "Even with Fox's editing, the episode includes scenes in which partygoers lick whipped cream from strippers' bodies in a sexually suggestive manner," the FCC said. "Another scene features a man on all fours in his underwear as two female strippers spank him. Although the episode electronically obscures any nudity, the sexual nature of the scenes is inescapable." Following the broadcast, the commission received 159 complaints. "Although the nudity was pixilated, even a child would have known that the strippers were topless and that sexual activity was being shown," the FCC said. Federal law bars radio and non-cable television stations from airing references to sexual and excretory functions between 6 a.m. and 10 p.m., the hours when children are more likely to be watching television. The Fox show aired at 8 p.m. or 9 p.m., depending on the city. The FCC has stepped up enforcement of the statute in recent years as complaints mounted about a coarsening of public airwaves. Critics, notably radio host Howard Stern, claim the FCC is seeking to stifle free speech. Stern has been repeatedly fined by the FCC. He announced last week that in 2006 he would move his show to satellite radio, which is not subject to federal indecency rules. The Jackson incident prompted Congress to consider raising the maximum indecency fine from $32,500 to as much as $500,000 per incident. The House and Senate passed different versions of an indecency measure but negotiators couldn't reach agreement on a final plan. Supporters have vowed to try again.
Hey, it offended me that Friends was on at 7pm., when I had young children at home, wanting to watch TV. The show's comedy premise was based on sex, and sexual innuendo. And, you know what? We just didn't watch it. I think it is the parents who should decide what they, and their children, should and shouldn't watch. I don't want the government deciding for us.
come on, deckard. there has to be some level or standard. there has to be. innuendo is there for sure. i can work around that. but when i turn on a regular tv station...not a cable channel...i don't expect to have someone licking whipped cream off a stripper. i just don't. you have to give folks some sort of heads up. if you're buying a pay channel, you know the content. so if you're going to show strippers and modified sex acts on a channel, give me a heads up, at least. otherwise...i would say these guys knew what the rules were and unabashedly crossed the line.
why the distinction for cable unless it's a 'specialty' cable channel for which the subscriber has to specifically opt in? Does your youngster know the difference between 'network' and 'cable' channels when they're all accessed by the same remote and the same buttons? How many of you have TV, yet no cable?
The legal theory is that, if you own a TV set, broadcast television comes into your home regardless via the public resource known as the radio spectrum and is theoretically "pervasive" -- present whether you want it or not Regular cable, meanwhile, requires an affirmative choice of the consumer to use a private resource (coaxial/fiber optics).
I would agree with the theory if the majority of people watched network tv. But that's not been my experience. Given the pervasiveness of cable tv, i don't think that distinction is valid any more. (again -- excluding specific channels that cater to the strippers and modified sex act programming of which Max wants advance notice). The ironic thing is....we haven't had cable in our house for years...but will likely get it pretty soon --- because of certain channels we want for the kids!
Max, I think that the networks should have a moment... enough seconds for a parent to react and change a channel, at the beginning of a program, that tell the viewer what kind of material is in the program. My wife and I watch far more programming on HBO than on any network. At the time an HBO program is set to begin, they tell you, straight out, if it has adult material, violence, adult "content" (read... sex), nudity, adult language (read... 4, 5 and 6 letter words), in short, the whole ball of wax. No one told them to do that, "or else." They do it because it is good policy, their viewers appreciate it, and I'm sure any governmental agency wanting to poke their nose in their programming figures that things "are covered." I would hope so. Why don't the networks all hold to the same, voluntary standard? They are more concerned with their ratings. And if that concerns you, then you certainly have the right to stop watching their material. From what I've seen of the ratings, a lot of people, for differing reasons, are choosing to do just that. See? I've figured it out. edit: The Super Bowl "fiasco" could have been prevented using the same 7 second delay that radio broadcasters use to "filter" out "objectionable" words during live material. I think they've figured it out. Keep D&D Civil!!
Right, and if you don't want it for whatever reason, don't buy it, or use your TV/cable box to put parental locks on channels -- etc. And the rest of us will happily watch our T's & A's in peace.
Deckard sounds surprisingly libertarian. In any case, the rule is on the books, and Fox seems by the description to be in violation. With the poor ratings and the fine, how bad did Fox come out with deciding to air this show, do you think?
Interesting where this thread has gone ... This thread is as of yet, not D&D worhtly. I had thought that the juxtaposition of amoral "hollywood" morality displayed by Fox in broadcasting this show and morally upright Fox News would have been where this thread headed.
There is a heads up, it's the rating at the start of the show. Though, I think Deckard is right about instituting what HBO does. That is definately a good idea, instead of just telling you it's for mature audiences, they should why as well. Of course, there's also that nifty little gadget known as the V-Chip.
