These standards are particularly difficult to apply to television programming which is produced, for economic reasons, to cross all such regional and social boundaries. In part as a result of these divisions, however, special interest or advocacy groups began to confront the networks about representations and content that had not been present before For some social groups which had had very little, if any, visibility during the first twenty years of American broadcast television, the expanding parameters of programming content were a mixed blessing.
The inclusion of Hispanics, African-Americans, and gays and lesbians in programming was preferable to their near invisibility during the previous two decades, but advocacy groups often took issue with the framing and stereotyping of the new images. From the contrasting perspective, conservative groups began to oppose the incorporation of topics within content which did not align easily with traditional American values or beliefs.
In particular, the American Family Association decried the increasing presentation of non-traditional sexual behavior as acceptable in broadcast programming. Other groups rallied against the increased use of violence in broadcast content. As a result, attempts to define the boundaries of appropriate content has become an ongoing struggle as the networks negotiate their own interests against those of advertisers and various social groups.
Whereas censorship in the s and s was based on the presumed standards and tastes of the white middle-class nuclear family, censorship in the s became a process of balancing the often conflicting values of marginal social groups. The proliferation of cable in the s and the s has only exacerbated the conflicts over programming and censorship. Because of a different mode of distribution and exhibition--often referred to as "narrowcasting--cable television has been able to offer more explicit sexual and violent programming than broadcast television.
To compete for the viewing audience that increasing turns to cable television channels, the broadcast networks have loosened restrictions on programming content enabling them to include partial nudity, somewhat more graphic violence and the use of coarse language.
This strategy seems to have been partially successful in attracting viewers as evidenced by the popularity of adult dramas such as NYPD Blue. However, this programming approach has opened the networks to further attacks from conservative advocacy groups who have increased the pressure for government regulation, i. As these issues and problems indicate, most Americans, because of cherished First Amendment rights, are extremely sensitive to any forms of censorship. Relative to other countries, however, the United States enjoys remarkable freedom from official monitoring of program content.
Negative reactions are often expressed toward imported or foreign programs when they do not reflect indigenous norms and values. And Americans may find it interesting to note that even European countries consider exposure to nudity and sex to be less objectionable than abusive language or violence. Head et al. They identify four types of governmental philosophy related to the issue of censorship; authoritarian, paternalistic, pluralistic and permissive.
Of the four types, the first two are more inclined to exercise censorship because they assume they know what is best for citizens. Anything that challenges this exclusive view must be banned or excluded. Since most broadcasting in such countries is state funded, control is relatively easy to impose. Exclusionary methods include governmental control of broadcast stations' licenses, jamming external broadcasts, promoting indigenous programming, imposing restrictions on imported programs, excluding newspaper articles, cutting scenes from films, shutting down printing presses, etc.
Pluralistic and permissive governments allow for varying degrees of private ownership of broadcasting stations. Such governments assume that citizens will choose what they consider best in a free market where competing media companies offer their products. Such an ideal can only be effective, of course, if the competitors are roughly equal and operate in the interests of the public. To maintain this "balance of ideas" in the United States, the Federal Communications Commission FCC established rules which control the formation of media monopolies and require stations to demonstrate they operate in the interests of their audiences' good.
Despite such intentions, recent deregulation has disturbed the balance, allowing powerful media conglomerates to dominate the market place and reduce the number of voices heard. Pluralistic and permissive governments also assume that competing companies will regulate themselves. Perhaps the most well known attempt at self regulation is conducted by the Motion Picture Association of America MPAA , which rates motion pictures for particular audiences.
For example, the contents of "G" rated movies are considered suitable for all audiences, "GP" requires parental guidance, "R," "X," and NC17 are considered appropriate for adults.
These standards are offered as a guide to audiences and have never been strictly enforced. Parents may take children to see X-rated movies if they so desire. In the past one of the arguments against censorship has been freedom of choice.
Parents who object to offensive television programs can always switch the channel or choose another show. Unfortunately, parental supervision is lacking in many households.
In the s this problem, coupled with political and interest group outrage against media producers has opened the possibility of a self imposed television rating system similar to that of the MPAA. To counter conservative criticism and government censorship, producers and the networks have agreed to begin a ratings system which could be electronically monitored and blocked in the home. Thus, parents could effectively censor programming which they found unsuitable for their children while still allowing the networks to air adult-oriented programming.
In the s an early attempt at a similar sort of regulation came when the FCC encouraged the television industry to introduce a "family viewing concept," according to which television networks would agree to delay the showing of adult programs until children were, presumably, no longer among the audience. The National Association of Broadcasters willingly complied with this pressure but in a court ruled that the NAB's action was a violation of the First Amendment.
In the late s, as networks relaxed corporate restrictions on content in their competition with cable and satellite programming, the early evening hours once again took on special importance. In mid more than 75 members of the U. Congress placed an open letter to the entertainment industry in Daily Variety. The letter called on the creative community and the programmers to provide an hour of programming each evening that was free from sexual innuendo, violence, or otherwise troublesome material.
Clearly, the question of censorship in television continues to vex programmers, producers, government officials, and viewers. No immediate solution to the problems involved is apparent. However, the debate and struggle over censorship of programming will more than likely continue into the next century, as social groups with diverse values vie for increased influence over program content. Brown, Les. Cowan, Geoffrey. New York: Simon and Schuster, Cripps, Thomas. New York: Frederick Ungar, Boston: Houghton Mifflin, Marin, Rick.
Montgomery, Kathryn C. Skip to main content. College Television Summit. In Memoriam In Memoriam Videos. Latest in Photos. Emmys Golf Classic. Latest in Videos. The FCC also receives complaints that some broadcast statements criticize, ridicule, "stereotype" or demean individuals or groups because of the religion, race, nationality, gender, gender identification, or sexual orientation, or other characteristics of the group or individual.
Finally, many consumers complain that television or radio broadcasts are obscene, indecent, profane or otherwise offensive.
The FCC is barred by law from trying to prevent the broadcast of any point of view. The Communications Act prohibits the FCC from censoring broadcast material, in most cases, and from making any regulation that would interfere with freedom of speech.
Expressions of views that do not involve a "clear and present danger of serious, substantive evil" come under the protection of the Constitution, which guarantees freedom of speech and freedom of the press and prevents suppression of these expressions by the FCC. According to an FCC opinion on this subject, "the public interest is best served by permitting free expression of views.
As television began reaching into nearly very living room in America, it brought questions about its content -- should it be regulated, and how? Both are or were, before cable "broadcast" over the airwaves, and both are regulated by the federal government. Legal scholar Marc Sophos describes the argument for regulation:.
Like radio broadcasters, television broadcasters operated under the authority of the FCC, the Federal Communications Commission. The FCC was established by Franklin Roosevelt with the assumption that the airwaves, the broadcast "bandwidth," belonged to the people, much in the same way as, for example, federal forest land belongs to the people.
Broadcasters applied for a license to use a section of that public property, a specific frequency. In return, broadcasters had:. The FCC had the right to restrict content -- to censor obscene material, to require balanceand "fairness" in political programming, and to insist that a certain percentage of each broadcast week be devoted to what it termed "public use.
The fairness doctrine was eventually dropped in the s. In the s, as today, the FCC also prohibited "obscene and indecent" material. Programming is considered obscene if "the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the material appeals to the prurient interest; that the material describes or depicts sexual conduct in a patently offensive manner; or taken as whole, the material lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value.
Actively scan device characteristics for identification. Use precise geolocation data. Select personalised content. Create a personalised content profile. Measure ad performance. Select basic ads. Create a personalised ads profile. Select personalised ads. Apply market research to generate audience insights. Measure content performance. Develop and improve products. List of Partners vendors. Share Flipboard Email. Government U. Foreign Policy U. Liberal Politics U.
0コメント