52 ABC TV stations fined $27,500 each

[Ace Purple]

Much like 2004, 2008 is an election year.

-----
FCC Fines ABC for Indecency
By AMY SCHATZ
January 26, 2008 8:19 a.m.

WASHINGTON -- After a brief lull, the Federal Communications Commission recommenced its battle against provocative television shows late Friday, proposing a $1.43 million fine against the ABC and its affiliates for a February 2003 episode of "NYPD Blue."

The agency proposed the highest fine possible for the broadcast, which briefly showed the side and back of a naked woman getting into a shower.

"Although ABC argues, without citing any authority, that the buttocks are not a sexual organ, we reject this argument, which runs counter to both case law and common sense," the FCC said in its complaint.

Some 52 ABC stations in the Central Standard Time and Mountain Standard Time zones were assessed a $27,500 fine for broadcasting the show. ABC's East and West coast affiliates were not charged fines because they aired the broadcast at 10 p.m., which falls outside the 6 a.m to 10 p.m. period in which the FCC can fine stations for broadcasting nudity, overly suggestive scenes and obscene words.

Although almost five years in the making, the FCC fine is notable for its size and because it could signal the beginning of a new round of indecency fines that may soon emanate from the agency. Complaints have been piling up at the FCC in recent years, as the agency has paused from issuing new fines while defending previous decisions in federal appeals courts.

In some ways, the ABC stations may have gotten off relatively easy, since the FCC under Republican chairman Kevin Martin has taken a hard line on broadcast nudity and profane words, often socking stations with the highest possible fine allowed under federal law, as it has in this instance.

In 2005, Congress raised the maximum indecency fine to $325,000. If the NYPD Blue episode had aired after Congress raised the limit, the stations could have been facing a combined $16.9 million fine for the scenes briefing showing the woman's bare buttocks.

Indeed, FCC commissioner Deborah Taylor Tate suggested in a prepared statement released with the proposed fine that the commission would have assessed a higher fine, if possible. "Our action today should serve as a reminder to all broadcasters that Congress and American families continue to be concerned about protecting children from harmful material and that the FCC will enforce the laws of the land vigilantly," Ms. Tate said.

Concerned about the FCC's hard-line approach to indecency regulation, the big four networks (including Fox Television, which is owned by News Corp., publisher of The Wall Street Journal) and local station owners have joined together to challenge the agency's actions in federal court. They've been concerned about the financial ramifications of the commission's decision to frequently propose multi-million dollar fines for risqué television broadcasts and its new policy of punishing stations for broadcasting even unscripted, inadvertent profanities on live radio or television broadcasts.

A federal appeals court tossed the FCC's no-tolerance policy on the fleeting use of profanities on news and live broadcasts but the agency has appealed that decision to the Supreme Court, which has not yet decided whether to accept the case. A better known FCC decision -- to fine CBS and its affiliates $550,000 for showing Janet Jackson's infamous breast-baring Super Bowl half-time performance in 2004 -- is currently being challenged in a federal appeals court.

Court challenges by the broadcasters have had something on an impact on the agency, mostly halting the FCC's efforts to impose new indecency fines as it waits for the court's decision. But complaints have been piling up. Indeed, complaints have already begun pouring into the agency for actress Diane Keaton's recent use of a profanity on a live interview on ABC's "Good Morning America."

Since the NYPD Blue episode involved nudity and not dirty words, the agency clearly felt more confident in assessing a fine.

In a statement, ABC defended its program and said that it had not violated federal indecency laws. "ABC feels strongly that the FCC's finding is inconsistent with prior precedent from the Commission, the indecency statute, and the First Amendment, and we intend to oppose the proposed fine," the network said in a prepared statement.

The Parents Television Council, a public interest group which has been behind many of the complaints filed about broadcast television and radio shows that have resulted in fines, said in a statement that it was happy the FCC had finally taken action. "We are thankful that the FCC has finally taken a stand for children and families with this unanimous order," PTC president Tim Winter said.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1201353 ... lenews_wsj

[fearpeddler]

This is why we as a country need to stop jumping to help "enpower" every whining uptight person that gets "offended" at the smallest shot of butt crack or whatever...

[Lee]

I get offended every damn time I see a commercial for feminine hygiene products during my cartoons or a re-run of Punky Brewster, but I don't go write to someone, even though I should.

Nothing makes your Rice Krispie Treats cereal taste better than watching a commercial for a vagina air freshener.

[Lester]

I love the scene they're discussing. It should be used as a commercial for Gillette Venus razors.

Meaning, it's not side boob and ass that gets your attention.

[AmpedNow]

First of all, this speaks volumes about the efficiency of our government...

Second, while I never seen the episode in question, NYPDB was notorious for violent scenes, of which I could reasonably guess they were contained in the show in question.

Does anyone besides me see the irony of certain people being so offended by a woman's bare ass, but yet not give a rip about people getting cut down in a halo of bullets, blood and all?

If I had children, I would much, much rather them see a woman's ass than people being cruel and violent towards each other.

A federal appeals court tossed the FCC's no-tolerance policy on the fleeting use of profanities on news and live broadcasts but the agency has appealed that decision to the Supreme Court, which has not yet decided whether to accept the case. A better known FCC decision -- to fine CBS and its affiliates $550,000 for showing Janet Jackson's infamous breast-baring Super Bowl half-time performance in 2004 -- is currently being challenged in a federal appeals court.

These cases, particularly the first one, should be watched closely. Some of these indecency rules are finally making their way to the supreme court. If they accept the case, how they rule on this will have serious implications for the broadcast industry, and will also predict how well the other cases will stand. It will also answer how much true authority the FCC has in content regulation.

Conversely, should they refuse to hear it, then that will also speak loudly.

[Tom Taggart]

On another note, you would all be advised to look at the "localism" NPRM, which, if completely implemented, would probably cause some stations to shut down, while the rest would be loaded up with BS public affairs programming, and endless hours of work for the PD's to document everything.

Then again, there is "form 355" which you TV folks like Genlock will soon grown to hate. Requires that EVERY program be categorized and lists posted on the station's website. The lists must include notations of the percentages of programing devoted to:

o High Definition programming
o National news
o Local news produced by the station
o Local news produced by some other entity (who must be identified)
o Programming devoted to "local civic affairs," defined as programming designed to provide the public with information about local issues, including statements or interviews with local officials, discussions of local issues, and coverage of local legislative meetings. This programming must be subtracted from the "news" programming reported above.
o Coverage of local electoral affairs - basically coverage of local elections - which must also be subtracted from the news coverage numbers reported above
o Independently produced programming, i.e programming not produced by a national network (presumably each local station will have to determine if a network has as little as a one-third interest in all programming that is being aired)
o "Other" local programming - which is not defined but presumably would include sports, religious, and entertainment programming produced within the station's service area
o Public service announcements
o Paid public service announcements (a PSA-type announcement for which the station or any group that the station is affiliated with - presumably including state broadcast associations - receives something of value)
o Closed captioned programming
* A list of each national news story that includes significant treatment of community issues, listing for each such program:
o title, length and date and time of airing
o whether it was aired on the primary channel of the station
o whether it was locally produced
o whether it previously aired on this station or any other station (how is a station supposed to figure out what other stations a national news program aired on?)
o if it was part of a regularly scheduled news program
o whether any consideration was received for the broadcast of the segment
* A list of all local news program segments dealing with community issues, providing the same information for each such segment as listed above for national news segments
* A list of all local civic affairs program segments that provides significant treatment of a community issue, with all the same details as listed above for news segments
* A list of all electoral affairs programs that includes significant treatment of community issues, with the same details as provided for news segments
* The title, length and date and time of the airing of all independently produced programming
* A list of all local programming not otherwise listed above, with title, length,and date and time of airing, and whether the station received consideration for airing the program
* For each PSA, the name of the sponsoring organization, the number of times the PSA ran, the length, and the percentage of times that were during prime time hours
* For each paid PSA, the same information as for unpaid PSAs
* Details of programming directed to "undeserved communities," defined as demographic segments of the community to which little or no programming is directed (query - if no programming is directed to a particular demographic segment, how can a station have anything to report in this category?)
* Details of religious services or other local religious broadcasts aired at no change
* A description of how the station determined that its programming met community needs
* Details on the amount of closed captioned programming broadcast by the station, and a list of exempt programs that were aired, with details as to the exemptions
* Whether the station voluntarily provided video description of any of its programs and, if so, how much
* Information about broadcasts about community emergencies, including a statement as to whether or not the station complied with the rules that require such programs to be accessible to the disabled
* Whether or not more than 3 hours per day of programming is provided pursuant to an LMA or JSA.

Complete story at:

http://www.broadcastlawblog.com/archive ... -interest-
obligationslocalism-fcc-releases-rules-for-enhanced-tv-disclosure-
requirements.html


And for those of you wise enough to read this far, the Localism proceeding proposes to impose the same requirements on radio stations.

[genlock]

All this is a worthless exercise in clerking.

I say, if there is a violation at a station, imprison the program director for a year. That will stop violations.

[Bob Campbell]

As a program director, I agree completely. Except change it to the general manager.

[Arp2]

Assemble a list of what would make a basket of broadcast stocks.
Keep list handy.
Watch for implementation of the above.
Short every stock on your list.
Cover your shorts for a couple of pennies on the dollar.
Sleazily make Soros-like money.
____________________________

What would be the purpose of the above?
Now, take your answer to that and realize that's not the answer.
Ask the question again, this time about your answer.
Realize that pleading the Fifth Amendment could probably somehow apply to your second answer.
Ask the question again and realize that some gubmint-types probably either want the license back for their very own or some gimongous sum of money for it.

[Bar Rat]

At a CCHuntington-sized cluster, that could be 3 peoples' jobs.

Oh, wait, each station uses the same news. Guess that means a lot of work for the copy and paste functions.

[Big Media]

Oh, wait, each station uses the same news.

What's scary... I heard Bill Cornwell on WKEE this morning doing his daily reading of the Herald-Dispatch. I flipped over to the Planet and heard Jason Toy reading the same articles.