Kay McFadden / Times staff columnist
CBS fine fires up desires for strict federal nanny

DAVID PHILLIP / AP Janet Jackson covers her breast after her outfit came undone in February during the halftime performance with Justin Timberlake, right, at the Super Bowl in Houston.

E-mail this article Print this article Search archive Most read articles Most e-mailed articles

Other links Search event listings

Well, smack my chest and call me Janet: It seems parents are worried about what their kids see on TV.

Last weekend, the media was atwitter over a new Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation survey that found a majority of parents say they are "very" concerned over inappropriate television content. About 60 percent singled out sex; 53 percent cited violence.*

As news, this is up there with dog bites man and Britney Spears' wedding plans.

Kaiser got a publicity boost because its release coincided with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) decision to fine CBS $550,000 for the Super Bowl number that exposed Janet Jackson's breast. The fee is derived from levying $27,500 each — the current top fine — on CBS affiliates.

But as a guide to anyone other than politicians, the survey ranges from useless to parochial. While it presents the big picture to grab attention, it fails to thoughtfully analyze its results or highlight contradictory findings. Scariest of all, the questionnaire implies the only government solution is more restriction of free speech and individual choice.

Small wonder 63 percent of respondents, asked if they would favor new regulations to limit offensive material during the early evening hours, answered yes.

On the phone, Vicky Rideout, director of Kaiser's Program for the Study of Entertainment Media and Health, said the survey was intended to be quantitative, not qualitative. She described it as "a broad tool that can lead to suggested legislation or policy."

That might explain why Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan., sponsor of a bill increasing FCC fines, was on hand for the press conference in Washington.

Kaiser's "broad tool" is exactly what citizens should fear. A general survey translated into general law could just as easily punish the evening news for images of abused Abu Ghraib prisoners as shield youngsters from brutal, shoot-'em-up cartoons.

And make no mistake — the cartload of legislation designed to eliminate naughty words and booty-shaking halftime shows carries some curious ideological baggage.

In March, Sen. Zell Miller, D-Ga., introduced a bill proposing in part that the proceeds from heavier fines be used to help sponsor grants to faith-based programs selected by the Faith-Based Initiative Office of the White House.

Friday, L. Brent Bozell, president of the powerful conservative watchdog group Parents Television Council (PTC), began an editorial regarding the FCC's Super Bowl fine by first taking CBS to the woodshed for bad journalism (www.ptc.org).

"CBS has been suffering from an East Coast meltdown based upon an incredibly sleazy forgery scandal," reads the opening paragraph, "and just as it attempted to jump-start the damage-control machine with an independent outside investigation, the other shoe dropped on the West Coast."

The subtext isn't difficult to grasp here. Media organizations need to be punished for their transgressions by whatever means possible. The PTC also filed a complaint on Thursday against CBS' "Big Brother" for "an audible obscenity."

Jonathan Rintels heads the Center for Creative Voices in Media, an advocacy group aimed at diversifying sources of information and entertainment (www.creativevoices.us).

Rintels doesn't defend sex and violence on TV. But he is upset about the chilling effects of an ill-defined outcry. "Unfortunately, Congress and the FCC have taken what ought to be the last resort — government regulation of speech — and made it the first resort," said Rintels in a telephone interview.

"What we're saying is: Let's look at all the other alternatives to dealing with sex and violence on TV first instead of making the government a national nanny."

Among the alternatives is getting the FCC to update and re-issue a clear list of prohibited words, terms and deeds. So far, the agency has declined to do so.

Another is offering viewers so-called a la carte cable, which lets them choose individual channels and reduce the risk of getting racier options packaged with family fare. The a la carte option is opposed by the U.S. cable industry and would require government intercession.

No one, except perhaps media executives, would argue that taste levels in network television have sunk. Nevertheless, defining what is universally objectionable is complicated. The Kaiser survey, for instance, didn't ask respondents to define sex and violence.

Nor did it ask why, if so many are concerned about the contagion of nasty TV, only 15 percent use the V-chip. In objecting to "Big Brother," do we really want Big Brother?

*A random, digit-dial telephone interview of 1,001 parents of children ages 2-17 from July 12 to Aug. 3, 2004. Margin of error is plus or minus 3.6 percent. Visit www.kff.org

Kay McFadden: kmcfadden@seattletimes.com

Copyright © 2004 The Seattle Times Company

E-mail this article

Print this article

Search archive

More Entertainment & the Arts headlines...