Indecency on TV on minds of many

In the minds of many television viewers, the current anti-indecency crusade isn’t just out to make the airwaves safe for families and children. Another likely goal is to punish the networks for their brazen smut-peddling.

Cracking down on TV content is the latest rage in the culture wars. And who wants to be seen as a war resister?

Apparently not Rep. James Sensenbrenner, R-Wisc., who recently advocated criminal prosecution for indecent material aired by broadcasters.

A less draconian proposal would expand the purview of the Federal Communications Commission beyond over-the-air broadcasting to add cable and satellite programming – which would place shows from such networks as MTV, FX and even HBO under the thumb of the feds.

And don’t forget a bill passed by the House that would hike existing indecency fines from $32,500 to as much as $500,000 per infraction.

“There’s a herd mentality when the issue of indecent programming comes up,” says Jeff Chester, executive director of the Center for Digital Democracy.

“You can say, ‘Well, the networks deserve it.’ But underneath it all is the First Amendment, and there are very few champions in Congress to warn us about the dangerous consequences of encouraging censorship.”

At least one legislator, Rep. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., has voiced such warnings.

Striking back against indecency zealots, he has introduced a bill that would clarify the FCC’s authority for policing content as being limited to broadcast television and radio – not cable, satellite or Internet fare. He calls it the Stamp Out Censorship Act.

“We don’t need to have United States government commissars telling the American people what they can watch,” says Sanders.

Spooked broadcasters have begun censoring themselves, Sanders says. He points to the 66 ABC affiliates that opted not to air the patriotic war film “Saving Private Ryan” last November because of fears that the FCC might rule certain swear words in the film to be indecent.

A recent poll released by the Pew Research Center reported broad public support for curbing media indecency. But the survey found something else: By 48 to 41 percent, respondents saw greater danger in the government imposing undue restrictions on the entertainment industry than from harmful material the industry might dispense.

Media scholar and activist Robert W. McChesney has his own theory about the underlying cause of increasingly vulgar programming: fewer and bigger media owners.

“Companies that produce the most vulgar fare,” he says, “are News Corp. (owner of the Fox network), Viacom (owner of MTV and more than 185 Infinity Radio stations, as well as CBS) and Clear Channel (with more than 1,200 radio stations).

“What these companies have found is, once you gobble up a lot of media outlets, the least expensive way to generate an audience is through vulgarity.

“A solution to the problem would be more local ownership and more competition,” McChesney says. “Let the system work through the problem, without having any censorship.”