Is a mere fine enough?

In Cheryl Howard's article Airwaves echo sounds of indecency, he states his opinion that fines for broadcast indecency is “merely a slap on the wrist” and that certain broadcasts are violating the privacies of the American people. He feels that more strict penalties are needed in order to bring an end to broadcast indecency, as he says, “Yes, the first amendment was written to ensure that no governmental body shall pass any law abridging freedom of speech, forbidding censorship. But there should be some limitations to freedom of speech. Limitations should be mandated when such freedoms impose and invade the rights and privacies of the public….. Broadcasters are to be held accountable for what they air. When licensing renewal time comes around, the FCC has the authority to renew or suspend a broadcasters license…. We, the people, have a right to turn on our radios and not be subjected to deliberate violations of public decency.”

I was somewhat surprised to find that there were not many opinion articles on broadcast indecency. I did come across one though where the opinion it encompasses is somewhat similar to my own. I felt that this was a good article to review because the author seems well informed on the topic, his opinion is not too radical and he observes both sides of the broadcast indecency controversy.

Fewer Complaints

In 2005 the number of complaints for indecency on television decreased substantially from the first quarter of the year to the next. In the first quarter of the year the FCC received 157,016 complaints. In the second quarter, the Commission received a mere 6,161. It is not known exactly why the numbers were so few in the second quarter than in the first, but something changed from one quarter to the next.

By Andrew Raff on September 30, 2005

Some steps are being taken.

On May 18^th, 2006, the Senate unanimously approved a bill that would increase the maximum fine that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) could impose for violating its standards for decency from $32,500 to $325,000. This unified congressional push came as major networks began suing the government's authority to police the airwaves. From 6 a.m. to 10 p.m, when children are most likely to be in the audience, the FCC does not allow broadcast of sexual material, excretory nature or material known as, "patently offensive" to air on radio and or television, such as ABC and Fox television and AM and FM radio stations. The agency though does not regulate cable, satellite radio and television programming, such as shows on XM Satellite Radio, MTV, ESPN and HBO. After the incident where Janet Jackson’s breast was reveiled in the 2004 Super Bowl, the FCC moved swiftly to fine 20 CBS stations the then-maximum fine of $27,500; a total of $550,000 was fined. ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox and more than 800 affiliated television stations sued in federal court to overturn several FCC indecency rulings proposed in March, 2006.

I was happy to discover that there is some sort of consequence for indecent broadcasting. I do no think that it is necessarily a good thing to censor what is on the TV, but perhaps if the content was just not present than maybe this world would or could be a better place. I feel that it is a good thing the FCC is trying to keep as many inappropriate shows off of the air while children may be watching. They cannot terminate the shows but they can regulate them and try to make the best out of bad content. I thought it was a large indication that something is going wrong with American broadcast when the Senate unanimously approved a bill that would increase the maximum fine for broadcast indecency. Senators are some of the most influential people in this country, in truth it is people like them whose opinions have much significance in this country. Increasing the fine for broadcast indecency was an act that needed to be committed. A thirty thousand dollar fine for multi billion dollar industries is just not enough to compel them to change their ways. They have too much to loose. They get fined 30,000 and make 3,000,000, what do you think they will choose? Though they can afford the fines, it is evident that they do not want to get charged any money. Like most people do, the broadcasters filed a law suit. In my opinion why even file a law suit? Is it really worth the trouble?

Poem

Sex as if it is not private,
violence as if it is right.
Just because we have grown immune to it,
does not mean it is alright.

We watch willingly in horror;
actions most would never think to act.
But they are becoming more like a mirror,
and to them we are beginning to react.

Why do we surround ourselves
with what we know in our hearts is wrong?
To me works of the devil seem,
so prominent, so strong.

By Melissa Nelson

Survey

I conducted a survey that asked if media had an influence on America and American individuals. I also asked whether or not they felt that the amount of violence in media was too excessive. Without surprise eight out of ten agreed that media influence is prominent here in America, and many thought that the violence in this influential media was too excessive, but one concept revealed itself more than once. Some thought that though the violence in the media was frequent, it was used only when needed and in a controlled manor.
The results I got for this survey are what I thought they would be. I knew that some people wouldn’t feel the same way that I do about this topic, but that can only be expected.

Debate On Media influence

Everyone can agree that there is violence in the media, there is no way to deny it. But is that violence influential to the viewers? This is the question that has many people in contemplation.

Some people, such as I, strongly believe that the content in the media influences human behavior. Hundreds of studies of the effects of TV violence on children and teenagers have found that children may become "immune" or numb to the horror of violence, gradually accept violence as a way to solve problems, imitate the violence they observe on television and identify with certain characters, victims and/or victimizers. (source: www. aacap.org) As children we observe our surroundings, this is how we grow. If the fertilizer is poison, then what will the plant look like when it is all grown?

While some believe that violence in the media influences violent behavior, others feel that it does not. Looking at video games in particular, some think that there is not a correlation between game violence and real violence. They feel that the research that has been conducted for this subject is insufficient. (www.videogamevoters.org) In truth they do not want to see what is truly happening. The thought of humans being violent, greedy, possessive, conniving, jealous prideful, hateful, beings is unconceivable.

Getting hard evidence that there is correlation between media violence and real violence is hard to accomplish. But if one had any common sense they would realize that the things we associate ourselves with have an effect on our being.

If you do not think that media influences human behavior, put two and two together, use your brain. Just as your voice sounds like your siblings, your behavior mimics your surroundings; this form of copy cat is how we have learned to survive.

Children's Media

Recently there has been much concern for the violence, the sexual content and the bad language that is incorporated into adolescent TV programs and media in general. Today, each and every piece of media available to the public is created with the interest of making money. Coincidentally for some unknown and twisted reason, everything that we would like to ride this world of is what most of us are attracted to. With undiscovered shame, the genre the American people want to see most is that of reality TV shows. Shows with the harsh reality we must face such as sex, violence, and crime. People get wrapped up in television lives where in real reality they cease to live their own.

Our past daily influences are what shaped us into the people we are today. We get our ascents form the language we speak, what would make s think that we would not get some sort of ascent from all of the media influence we get? One might find it disturbing to think about the influences that is reaching our youth, our future. All sorts of explicate content fills our media. How much and to what extent is our youth being exposed to?

The youth in America, ages 2 through 18, participate in six to eight hours of media a day. In one day they watch more TV, listen to more music and read more magazines than they sleep. Think about it. We are most usually always listening to music, on the computer, reading a magazine etc, we are almost always completely immersed in media. There is no way that one can have so much exposure to an outside influence and think that there will be no side effects. That is like staying out in the sun and expecting not to get sun burned. There is always an opposite and equal reaction for everything that happens in this world. One would have to wonder what the reaction is when such a heavy supply of harsh content is weighing on our pliable youth.

One topic in particular that is disturbing scientists and has concerned parents is the amount of violence that is publicized. The National Television Violence Study evaluated almost 10,000 hours of broadcast programming from 1995 through 1997. Nearly 417 days of television programs, more than a full year of material, was studied. The NTV found that 61% of the programs examined portrayed interpersonal violence, much of it in an entertaining or glamorized manner.

Frequently American media portrays violence as a necessary means to succeed; often “heroes” are portrayed using violence as a justified means of resolving conflict and prevailing over others. They observed that television, movies, and music videos depicted weapons as a source of personal power and in turn makes them wanted and accepted in the media.

Alarmingly the highest proportion of violence found in TV programming was in children's shows. Of all animated feature films produced in the United States between 1937 and 1999, 100% portrayed violence. How often is anything 100%? Watching adolescent programs as an older viewer, mush fo the content surprised me.

Just because we are immune to the things that we are watching does not make them ok/acceptable. We are allowing harmful influential content to reach our children. If we are not allowed to go around killing people, then why is it allowed on our TV? It seems to me that we in a way are telling our children to go out I in the rain but not to get wet. Material that is being provided for is affecting; it is cluttering, hazing and creating a thought pattern that would not be found in the mind unless we put it there. It is the lack of processed knowledge that keeps people blissfully unaware of the harsh and soon to be bitter matters of this world. Violence we are expected never to commit is deemed ok in media, People are concerned for the content in children’s media because there is reason to be.