Are We Responsible For Our Audience?

When you say:

“It’s all-too-easy for us to look backwards and condemn the writers before us who penned the minstrel shows, the homophobic characters, the light-hearted jokes about domestic violence, and the love scenes that started as rapes until the female character realized that she really did want it after all.”

And then you say:

“What concerns me is that our culture has coarsened noticeably over the last fifty years, and we have been writing it.”

I think our culture has improved noticeably over the last fifty year (given your first quote) and we have writers (and other cultural vanguards) to thank for it.

I simply must shudder at the definition you quote from the WGA:

Basic cable is basic cable.

This, from an organization of writers? The shame of it.

I don’t know. It might be different if I had children. It might not. I was watching Trial By Jury the other night, the pilot, and Bebe had just found out who the defense lawyer was, she said, and I quote, “Fuck.” I rewound it three times to verify that she said this.

Now TBJ is NOT on basic cable, it’s on Network TV. And I thought it was funny as hell that Standards missed it. But, maybe that’s just me.

However, that said. The thing that worries me these days, is what people must think of themselves since they’re not willing to let their children experience the same things they did. A lot of my friends are parents, and I see them sheltering their children. Now, again, I don’t have children, so, this may color my point of view.

I don’t know how old you guys are, but I take issue with this: “What concerns me is that our culture has coarsened noticeably over the last fifty years, and we have been writing it.”

I was born and grew up during this time period. I think that I (others may disagree) turned out just fine. I was around when MTV aired its first video. I watched Luke and Laura get married, and then continued to watch GH. (I was like 9, an impressionable age).

People talk about this being the MTV generation. Bullshit. Those of you who are my age (32), we’re the MTV generation. And as far as I can tell, most of us turned out just fine.

I guess what I’m trying to say is, I don’t like the idea that I’m responsible for other people’s children. I’d like the freedom to write what I want to write, and not have to worry if it’s going to ruin some kid’s life. Because, I don’t think it will, to be honest.

Again, this is all very easy to say as one who is not a parent. But, I’d like to think that when I do become a parent, my core values remain the same. And, to me, that’s what this comes down to.

However, if the FCC are really that worried about it, perhaps the FCC should provide classes for parents on how to use the “off” button on the remote.

The moral values of a society are what people decide them to be. I do believe regulatory measures can influence how the collective “conscience” evolves or stagnates, though. The controversy comes in from lobbying puritanism or conservatism dogmas or their liberal opposites; namely - violence, personal liberties and rights… repressed or censored by autority or otherwise.

It’s just like we now have an alternate reality where “some things” are allowed but wouldn’t, by any decisions, in any other mediums since it has restrictions on the expression.

Society makes choices. It deliberately controls what is publicly acceptable by, key here i guess to my reasoning, the most. Which is constantly changing by simple mutations or even, education of the masses.

One small group can actually enforce its values to the many. (You should realize what’s currently happening with the definition of marriage by law, for example.)

Smoking banned in public? We don’t hear that industrial polluters have been attacked for environmental damages, do we? The chimney stacks are still proudly spitting poison in the atmosphere, cars stuck in traffic jams - exhausting chemicals by the pipes.

Metaphor? Okay… it is. I agree.

Same with cultural products and “principles”. We determine limits. R or G ratings. From a moral sense — generally admitted by, once again, the most!

And yet, when I thought about why I started smoking, it seemed to me it was because I wanted to look cool. Of course, me smoking wasn’t cool at all. Why did I think smoking looked cool? I admit it. It was the movies.

I don’t have a lot of sympathy for people who do stupid things because the movies suggest it’s cool. I never fell for that, and while I might be smarter than average, I’m hardly Einstein. The point is that I am responsible for my choices, and if I had children I would be responsible for their choices. Because THAT IS WHAT PARENTING IS ABOUT. If some idiot shoots himself in the face because he thinks Judas Priest told him to, that’s not Judas Priest’s fault, man, that’s natural selection.

A-fucking-men, Denise.

I started smoking because my mom smoked. Because my friends smoked. Because I thought my mom was cool. Because I thought my friends were cool.

Does that mean we should ban mothers and friends?

Louise:

I think you have to blame that one on the AMPTP lawyers. :)

Wil:

You make a good point. Here’s how I’d put it. In some areas of political and cultural sensitivity, we’ve made major strides. In other areas, we’ve completely fallen apart. No one would dare write a scene in which a woman kept saying “no” but really meant “yes.”

It’s common, however, to turn on the radio and hear women casually called bitches and whores.

Priya:

We’re about the same age. We are the MTV generation, but MTV isn’t what it was. Ahh, maybe I’m just a fogey. :)

“It’s common, however, to turn on the radio and hear women casually called bitches and whores.”

Growing up, I listened to Ice-T, Too Short, NWA (of course, I also listened to 7 seconds, Social Distortion, The Cramps, etc). This was before Ms. Gore went on her “Parental Advisory” kick, which as a 15 year old or whatever? That pissed me off, since I could no longer buy my favorite music by myself, I had to ask my mom to buy them for me. As a 32 Y O, it still pisses me off (yes, I realize I can buy them myself now).

If my future teenagers want to buy music like NWA or Eminem or whatev, I’d want them to be able to do so without the embarassment of having to ask mom to buy them a CD called “Bitches and Ho’s.” I would hope that I would feel secure in enough in my parenting skills that my future boys would respect women regardless of the music they listened to.

Craig,

You’re not a fogey (or perhaps we both are?), MTV was way cool back then. Remember? They used to play videos, like, ALL THE TIME?

Sigh.

Priya:

It’s not about protecting your 15 year-olds. It’s about protecting your 8 year-olds. Or your five year olds.

I don’t like the idea of a country where an 8 year-old can freely purchase an Eminem album. Sorry. I just don’t.

Craig,

Believe it or not, I agree with you.

But, then, I don’t remember ever going to some place like a mall without my parents, or a friend’s parents at the age of 8. I think, around that age if we went anywhere by ourselves, it wasn’t truly by ourselves. We were dropped off at movies (parents would walk us in, buy our tickets) we were then picked up at the moment it ended. Even as I type this, I think we were older before we were allowed to do the movie thing on our own. Maybe 10?

So, again, we’re back to the parent’s responsibility. I can’t imagine any parent not accompanying their 8 Y O to the mall, or their 5 Y O…

Priya:

You’re absolutely correct about the mall thing. However, you stated that Tipper and the PMRC “pissed you off”.

I applaud Tipper Gore and the PMRC. How else is a clueless parent supposed to know whether or not their kid can buy a particular album? They work all day. They simply aren’t as plugged into the culture-of-the-moment as their children. And let’s not forget…

Kids are liars. And we alllll know it. :)

If I take my children to the mall, I can help judge what they may or may not purchase based on Ms. Gore’s work. Prior to her…I was at the mercy of my childrens’ honesty.

Heh.

Still, Frank Zappa et al. villainized the PMRC as “censors,” which is absurd. Happily, he lost. I don’t have to spend three hours a night listening to every new CD, because the culture industry decided to be considerate and let me know when a particular album might not be suitable for kids.

That’s what ratings do. That’s what V-Chips do. And still, we fight them and fight them…

Here’s a thought. Writers should let the Supreme Court protect the First Amendment. That’s their job, and if all we ever do is say “no” to any suggestions, then no court will ever take us seriously anyway.

We ought to embrace reasonable and considerate stances (like Parental Advisory stickers on albums) towards our livelihoods and our audiences.

Craig -

If I’m understanding the heart behind this article lives in a dark and mysterious place called personal responsibilty. And I have to say I’m with you 100%. It’s tempting to put on the blinders and say parents need to parent, but to that I say, the only person I have control over is me. As a human. Ahusband. A parent. A writer.

Collectively, writers are telling the story of our culture - our words are our legacy. When you sit back and look at it in that light, what the world swirls around us trying to do seems trivial. Our purpose is far greater than making sure the “F” word doesn’t come out in prime time. Like you said, “the very purpose of Our Thing is to affect an audience. We want them to cry, to laugh, to question their values and their lives.” If we do our job well, umong other things, the parents will parent and V-chip won’t matter.

Amen to you stepping out into the stream of artist rhetoric and asking the blissful salmon to consider where there headed.

I have a seven-week old boy (who’s crying as I write this - cute as hell, but help!), so I have to check in on this one. I want the boy protected from everything; I want labels out the ying-yang; I want movies to espouse only terrific ideals. The problem is, it’s hard to find even two people who agree on those ideals or even what ideals a particular piece of work is espousing.

When it comes to a no-brainer like parental advisory stickers, it’s one thing. They didn’t dampen sales or have any real chilling effect on artists. They just give us the RIAA’s classification of content. But how about when it comes to editing movie content to remove all sex, violence, and foul language? (E.G. The Family Movie Act.) What about portraying real-life violence? (E.G. Government prohibition on showing flag-draped coffins from Iraq, media refusal to show any real violence in war coverage – leaving the impression that war has all the consequence of Gameboy.) What about new ideas that offend the moral status quo? (E.G. early Jazz, early rock, early punk, and for that matter, Strauss.) Maybe there’s something in foul rap lyrics we just don’t get? (At a minimum, it should be a cry for us to examine and address the conditions that generate these values we find repugnant, not just stifle the many voices that speak them.)

In a time when 99.8% of FCC indecency complaints come from one ultra-conservative group (the Parental Television Counsel), whose values are we deciding to protect?

I don’t pretend to have an answer to this real and difficult problem, but I do know I don’t want my child’s morals shaped by groups whose values are mostly antithetical to my own. I also don’t want their children’s values shaped by me. I’d prefer on open dialogue of competing values by committed people who care.

Ceding the issue to the Supreme Court is no answer, either. The issues that come before the high court are largely shaped by special interests pushing their agendas hard. If we aren’t involved in protecting our values, we may find ourselves writing for a market that’s limited to ideas we can’t stand. Even in the absence of eroding freedom through court action, the real limits of free speech are often set by the practices of those who control distribution, and those practices are controlled by many factors, including who yells the loudest about what content should or should not be aired.

And when was media content ever properly controlled? In the fifties, when married couples slept in separate beds? In the sixties when guns solved every problem? In the seventies, eighties, nineties?

We need to look at every content control measure carefully, think about who we are trying to protect, whether it really protects them, and what the cost of that protection might be. Maybe there’s a better approach to combating the growing loss of control over what our children are exposed to. Maybe education is a better answer than regulation. I don’t know.

I fully agree that writers must take responsibility for the social implications of the values implicit in our work. I’m just not ready to decide that joining the forces seeking to control our content is a good thing.

Craig writes:

“And I think that we, the creators of so much of our culture, are making a mistake by repeatedly villainizing the people and motivations behind such initiatives.”

Agreed. And to amplify this insight, there seems to be a story form the ‘writer set’ loves to tell, but seems unable to fathom as self-reflection. Namely, the naive scientist who denies responsiblity for how his discoveries are used. Storytellers seem to love to share this modern parable to place culpability on those who taught us how to split the atom to pending advances in bio-tech. The moral is painfully simple and clear: with power comes responsiblity.

Now why is it so hard for writers - as Craig cleanly points out - “creators of so much of our culture” to see the parallel?

There was an amusing quip offered in another forum where a noted writer responded to ‘Hollywood’s’ anit-Christian bias by saying (I paraphrase):

Hollywood isn’t anti-Christian, they just throw in lots of violence, sex, and T&A before the redemption.

I found the intended insight of this humor perfect, and it drives home an important point: if you continue to produce the same product, you’re a fool if you don’t expect a backlash. Again, it seems many can understand backlash in any number of societal contexts (from our current global conflict to more provincial views on feminism), but become blind when examining one’s own work. In other words, heeding a call for self-responsiblity is an act of regulatory premption.

Yes, there self-censorship risks and other freedom of expression issues which must be addressed. But asserting such rights does not forego the personal responsiblity each writer owns to reflect a world they would want to live in; it is inherent in the role one plays in creating contemporary culture.

Lee:

Funny, that stock “My God, what have I wrought?” scientist character never occurred to me, but boy…you really hit the nail on the head with that.

Maybe you’ve figured out what irks me so much: so many of our stories are about people who abuse power, and yet, we expect total impunity for our art.

Back when I had my former position, a gentleman in a suit, in a very very high position at the network came to speak to the new writers. He said, “write what you want. Write your opinions. Write it violent. Write “fuck, shit, cunt.” Write fucking. Write it all. Then give it to me and I’ll tell you what you’ll keep and what you’ll take out.” I loved this guy, and, basically, he said: You do your job, I’ll do mine.

Craig,

I’ll concede [to a certain extent] the point about the parental advisory stickers. The only reason I still bristle is because, one day (as a teenager) I was allowed to buy my music, and the next I wasn’t. Who knows, when I have teenagers, I might be grateful for those stickers. Of course, I wouldn’t be able to stop them from downloading them from the internet…

As you mentioned, for TV there’s the V-Chip. For Films, there are ratings. For music, there are the stickers. Since we already have all these things in place, no way for our children to lie to us, why then would you feel the need to be responsible for your audience, when the suits are doing it for you?

Priya writes:

“I loved this guy, and, basically, he said: You do your job, I’ll do mine.”

Your argument presupposes the following:

a) This guy actually knew what his job was (in such a way that added value to the stakeholders of Disney — an organization renown for managerial incompetence).

b) That even if he knew what his job was, that you - Priya - would share his values; the very values that a writer owns when they offer a story to an audience.

If you can address these two rebuttals coherently, then there is another level of the debate: what of the personal integrity of the writer? Does a writer’s personal choices foreshadow their contribution to the cultural fabric, and if so, are these values ones that a society would like to see celebrated?

And so my fundamental presupposition is clearly stated: an artful writer advances a moral position in the world. Thus, while I normally eschew such argumentation, the very domain of this forum invites it.

Lee

Lee,

Your argument presupposes that I can be coherent!

A. I watch the shows on ABC: LOST, DESPERATE HOUSEWIVES, ALIAS, BOSTON LEGAL. He’s responsible for those shows, and I’ve yet to be offended by any of the material aired. Though Disney may be known for the managerial incompetence, it’s my assertion that he’s not a party to that incompetence, based on the current programming.

B. After speaking with him at length, on a number of occasions, yes, I believe I share his values. But, that’s not really the issue. I just happened to like the guy. I’m sure there are others, at other networks, that I might not get on with. The true issue for B. Is really more, I made the choice to sign the contract. I made the choice to be employed there. By doing so, I was agreeing to adhere to ABC’s standards, not my own.

By choosing me, they were saying that my standards as a writer were suited to them. Which, to me, was actually counter-intuitive, since my script was about a skinhead who goes missing from prison (chock full of gang rape) and is found in the meatloaf, after having been put through a meat grinder. This does not scream Disney to me. But, apparently they liked it.

“Does a writer’s personal choices foreshadow their contribution to the cultural fabric…” Based on the subject of my script, does this foreshadow my contribution? This topic pushed me to my mental and emotional limits. The research was awful. But, I believed in my story enough, that I had to write. It was a personal story: I spent much of my youth marching against skinheads. Rallying against skinheads. Hating skinheads. However, there was always a part of me that wondered what made them tick, how they came to be that way. Anyway, when it came time to write this script, I knew it had to be about Aryans.

However, you’re saying that you can look at my end product and see it foreshadowing my contribution, and you can determine what my values are because of that script? Because, seriously, dude, with all due respect, that’s pretty short-sighted of someone implying they’re so enlightened.

What’s always difficult in these cyber-exchanges is to communicate tone (without those stupid emoticons). So please accept what follows is not an personal attack, slight, or other ‘moral value’ tirade (for there is little which could be more boring).

First, I will never assert that I am “enlightened” (whatever the hell that means :-). However, when one brings up values and/or morals they often can be perceived as pretentious or worse. Which is sad, for that is not my intent. So please know my confession of what I see an ‘artful writer’ to be is an attempt at full disclosure which - of course - is open to counter-point. In fact, I value such exchanges, for they help me understand my own position.

Second, I’ve never read any of your work, nor know of your subject matter, or any other “end product” which would enable me to assess your values. Therefore, I have nothing rational to say along those lines. I will assert, however, in general ends do not justify means, and on that score, one may make value observations based upon personal behavior. Now, that’s not to say there is not a moral to be had from such an experience.

Now you state: “By doing so, I was agreeing to adhere to ABC’s standards, not my own.” and I am curious: are these two mutually incompatable? Please know I’m not picking on you - per se - but I find your experience illustrative of how one might find themselves in a situation of compromise; a situation which starts to take on shades of Craig’s topic.

Personally, I see deep conflict between the ethical structure of a studio ‘suit’ and a creator of contemporary culture (a.k.a. a writer). Specifically, the suit has an obligation to maximize shareholder return within the confines of that industry’s regulatory standards; as long as they act within that envelope, they are hardly doing anyting immoral. Therefore, there is nothing wrong with pushing a heavy portfolio of exploitation fare if it meets his constraints better than the alternatives.

But does the writer want to conform to this paradigm?

Of course, that is an individual choice. Sadly, however, few really explore this area, instead choosing to dismiss it with a conceit that the market is the proper arbriter of values. But in so doing, they have made a critical mistake:

Market mechanisms which have proven efficent in the allocation of goods and services are human value independent. To the extent values do enter the picture, they are assigned a price, which leads to the following absurdity:

Do we want to live in a society which only values things that have a price attached?

Of course not.

And guess what: the key cultural force to push back on this economic force are the writers of contemporary culture.

Lee

Lee:

Well put. The market mechanisms that provide capital will never be concerned with non-economic valuation. Or, put another way, if a movie with someone who has splooge in his hair makes $100 million, you can be sure more splooge-in-hair films will follow.

At the very least, shouldn’t we writers agree to help audiences know which entertainment will be splooge-in-hair, and which won’t? Yes, Senator Stevens is proposing an illegal power grab when he suggests the FCC should regulate basic cable.

And yes…basic cable should be regulating themselves without the state insisting on it. And yes…we should support that self-regulation.

We ought to care about our audiences.

Craig,

Perhaps I’m confused. Could you point out some examples of how we’ll help audiences know which entertainment will be splooge-in-hair? Is this a new S-I-H rating? ;)

Perhaps I’m selfish, I write things that would interest me. I don’t really think too much about what other people will think about my subjects.

That said, back to the being confused part, Craig, could you list some examples of television shows or films that you thought were responsible to the audience? And then can you list some examples of movies or television shows that weren’t?

In terms of basic cable, do you think that shows like The Shield and nip/tuck should be aired on premium channels? Or is it that f/x should tone down these shows?

I guess I’m unclear what the true point of this topic is. I think if you could give me some clear examples of these shows or movies, it might help me understand where you’re coming from?

If you could do this, I’ll get you something pretty…

;)

Craig:

“The market mechanisms that provide capital will never be concerned with non-economic valuation.”

Nor, necessarily should they (which I am inferring you agree with). Typically, markets - amoral mechanisms - are villified on moral terms, which always strikes me as anywhere from silly to counterproductive in debates such as this.

I would interpret the Stevens’ broadside as a warning shot. Decending into the tawdry realities of partisan politics, the Republican party as it exists today will never back such intrusive regulation on a private distribution enterprise; such would be an anathema to the Goldwater/pro-business set. But there is (sadly, from my view) a growing culture faction within the party - neocons and the religious right - which want to get the state involved in market matters based on moral outrage. And as you all know, Hollywood is their low hanging fruit.

Which - from my outside view - raises the issue: does this town want to allow itself to be plucked?

Priya,

I hope you can appreciate how difficult your request for Craig to name what is “good” entertainment and what is “substandard”; he is a leader of a diverse union, and it is foolish create division within the writer ranks. So if I may be so foward, I’d like to suggest the following image:

Picture you huddled around a fire several millennia ago. You are blessed with solid food stocks, adequate shelter, relatively benign neighboring tribes, and now have some idle time to ponder what all this toil amounts to. After gaining some perspective you decide to share your insights with your fellow tribespeople in the form of a story. If you are good at creating such stories, you begin to notice that they use such stories to interpret the world around them. They say things like: ‘Well, Achillies did this…’ or ‘Priam was a wimp…’ or….

In so doing, you are creating culture: the lense through which your fellow person will begin to see the world.

Lee

Craig —

” The market mechanisms that provide capital will never be concerned with non-economic valuation.

They should.

It’s called probing for potential rather than holding it for granted and self-replicating on reknown to be risk-free values.

Where’s the daring pioneer? And the prophet of “better” things to come? The visionary and the challenger of ideas? Progress?

Cultural revolutions happened in the past for a reason: populations needed it. Society built up for a change, sure enough, it occured. By developping into a sharp deviation from the conventional or the irrelevant.

Think “Renaissance era” here for a minute and try picturing an European continent without its scientific and artistic achievements.

Modern marketing is leaps behind the human mind. As much as the virtual world (media, internet, instant communications…) is getting a firm hold of collective consciences, it carries through a force of rationalization about what constitutes global issues. Freedoms, for one. Decentralization of power, another.

Writing for versatility is one thing, locking it under financial modeling is different. If the medium can serve as a device to promote moral values, who’s to say it isn’t exploited already as an indirect profit engine rather than educate or inform.

So, down to the infamous drawing board? They should - in a hurry. Before propaganda takes over.

Priya asked:

could you list some examples of television shows or films that you thought were responsible to the audience? And then can you list some examples of movies or television shows that weren’t?

No, I can’t. I mean, I could, but I won’t. :) Ultimately, the content isn’t so much a pressing concern as access to content, based on the audience in question.

If Nip/Tuck is on television, it should be accompanied first by some indication of its content, so that parents (aka “customers”) can easily make informed choices about whether or not to let their children access it.

Lee:

That’s right. I don’t think markets should be held morally accountable, since they aren’t designed to make moral judgments. It’s the state’s responsibility to regulate the markets to conform them to a minimum basic standard of morality (e.g. the FDA’s oversight of food preparation so that cost-cutting measures don’t lead to mass death).

As a paleocon in the Goldwater/McCain mold, I also agree that Stevens isn’t acting like a Republican at all, but rather like a Democrat. Funny how the lines warp depending on the issue. Still, I sure do wish cablecasters would do what theatrical distributors did so many years ago: self-police.

They’re all owned by the same people. You’d think it would be obvious. It doesn’t help that les artistes will shrilly defend these corporations’ right to profit without any restraint.

The knee-jerk response is misguided and in the end, doesn’t actually help us in the slightest.

Craig,

Seems we’re in violent agreement — which is always kinda boring; it’s far more interesting to passionatelly disagree.

As for our wayward party, I do recommend “The Right Nation”, by Micklethwait and Wooldridge. It’s an astute assessment of a disturbing dynamic within the Republican party. If you have not read it, I could not recommend it more highly.

Best,

Lee

Craig, Lee,

I can see that might pose a problem.

Craig,

“If Nip/Tuck is on television, it should be accompanied first by some indication of its content, so that parents (aka “customers”) can easily make informed choices about whether or not to let their children access it.”

But it is accompanied by some indication of its content: That “TVMA” in the upper corner of your television indicates, just as the stickers do for music, and the ratings do for Movies, that it is a show that is for Mature Audiences.

So, again, I’m confused. All the things that should be in place to protect the children from these things are actually in place. So, then what additional measures should writers take?

Honestly, I’m not trying to be argumentative, I am just not getting the core issue here.

Sorry, I must have woken up on the stupid side of the bed.

Priya:

Alas, the indication is not there when the customer purchases the content. Indeed, when a parent purchases an entire tier of channels, they don’t even get to entirely choose the content.

It’s packaged for them. As such, if you want to get Nickelodeon for your kids, you’re probably also going to get Viacom’s other channels…like MTV and Comedy Central. And you might not want your kid watching those channels.

Tough.

Now, granted, the rating will appear at the start of each show. However, wouldn’t it be nice if the cable companies voluntarily did exactly what Senator Stevens is trying to (illegally) accomplish…and offer parents/customers the chance to purchase groupings of basic cable channels by, say, suitability?

The children’s tier, the educational tier, the old movies tier, the young adult tier, the mature tier…?

Again, though, it’s not the specifics with which we ought to be concerned…but the posture we take. When we writers look at the concerned parent/customers who want more ability to control the content that enters their home, should we view them as the enemy?

Or as our patrons?

Okay. Yeah. I woke up on the same side of the bed, the stupid one. Sorry, Craig. I’m still not getting it. As far as I know ALL shows are rated. And you can set your v-chip to exclude shows that have TVMA, TV14, TVSIH ratings. So, your children are protected.

I agree, to some extent, that it would be nice to choose what one gets with “basic” cable. Like, you know, I’d probably not get the Disney Channel or ABC family (more for personal reasons, than anything). ;)

But here’s what I’m not understanding, what is the writer’s responsibility in all of this?

On network TV, let’s take Veronica Mars (imo, a hugely underrated show). In its pilot, it has date rape, her friend gets murdered, her father (the former sherriff of Neptune) is shunned by the community. None of these things get resolved in a nice neat package. In fact, they’re sort of the core runners for the entire season. Apparently the pilot was way darker than that, but the network made them tone it down.

Now, the rabid 7th Heaven fans have had HUGE issues with this show. The violence, the date rape, etc. I thought the pilot was an excellent hour of TV. It portrayed High School in a less than stellar light, imo, way more realistic than shows like 7th Heaven. Perhaps it’s personal taste.

However, I’m wondering what the moral responsibility is: should Rob Thomas not have included the date rape or the murder (from the script’s inception) in a what appears to be a teenage show?

Okay, sorry, I’m back to real examples. Let’s try a fake one.

Let’s say I’ve pitched a show to f/x: a bunch of Juvenile criminals are employed by the government to solve crimes, pretend I get the greenlight within hours of pitching it. Let’s say that what I’ve pitched is a pilot where their first case is: A bunch of high school kids are OD’ing on homemade crank. It’s 21 Jump Street with a Shield edge. It’s rating is totally going to be TVMA. So, much like the Soundgarden song, it’s looking totally teenager but feeling more adult.

So, I’m sitting there, pen in hand, getting ready to write [what’s sure to be the next hit show on f/x]. I know that the the people who get basic cable can’t choose whether they get f/x or not. Let’s forget that parents can program the v-chip. I’ve got all the power right now, with that pen in my hand (forget for a moment that the network will probably make me change every single thing). And I know I’m about to create this world, there will probably be some teenage sex, there will probably be some underage drinking, there will definitely be the stoners out back getting high. And, clearly, there will be some AP chemistry nerds who are cranking out the crank from the school lab. (all of which happened in my highschool, slightly embellished, of course).

Now we’re back to my stupidity. I can see that you have a point, and it sounds really cool that a writer has a responsibility to his/her audience. To me, that responsibility is to tell a great story. It seems that to you, it means something else.

“What role does responsibility play for those of us who manufacture culture not just for the United States, but the entire world?”

Assuming, somehow, we know that my show is going to be a smash hit, we know it’ll be over in the UK within the year. It’s going to be reaching maximum audience…

When I sit down with my pen and paper, tell me what my responsibility as a writer is supposed to be?

Priya wrote:

Sorry, Craig. I’m still not getting it. As far as I know ALL shows are rated. And you can set your v-chip to exclude shows that have TVMA, TV14, TVSIH ratings. So, your children are protected.

You mean, rated with the ratings that writers protested and called censorship. And that V-Chip…would that be the thing that writers railed against as Big Brother and other such specious analogies?

Of course, not all television sets in homes have the V-Chip. Nor does every parent or care-giver understand how to use them. Perhaps, however, we writers could help author a guide on how to use it. That would be nice. Something to show that we care.

Instead, we tend to file amicus briefs trying to block the existence of TV ratings through court actions. It’s ugly, IMO.

So, what’s your responsibility as a writer? Write anything you’d like to entertain your audience…but advocate for them as well. If you’ve written material not suitable for all audiences, help your viewers make choices.

That’s all I’m saying.

Priya and Craig, thank you for continuing to debate this issue. Until your 3/15/05 09:08 AM post, Craig, I was as confused as Priya about what your stance was.

If all you’re saying is that we shouldn’t stand in the way of things like ratings (and technologically related things like V-chips), I won’t argue with that. I do think it’s fair enough that we have some sort system of checks and balances, and while I don’t have children I have friends and relatives who do, and I would be the first to admit that the stuff I write is not appropriate for them.

That said, I do think that parents who are concerned about these issues have a responsibility to acquire and familiarize themselves with the technology that exists to keep unsuitable material away from their kids. “I don’t have a TV with a V-chip” or “I can’t figure out how to use the V-chip” is not an acceptable attitude for parents and care-givers any more than “I’d rather party all night than stay home with my sick child.”

So, yes, I would certainly support ratings, maybe even cable tiers (though maybe not…I kinda like getting the Disney channel alongside F/X :)), that would help parents make informed decisions, but I would not support a movement that would expect me to assume responsibility for young children who might read or see my work because their parents can’t be bothered to look at ratings or learn to program a V-chip.

Denise:

Well, you know, there’s a difference between primary responsibilities (which include not neglecting your sick child) and secondary and tertiary responsibilities (which include purchasing a new television and learning how to use its advanced functions).

We still have plenty of poor folks in this country who can’t afford new TV’s. And, of course, we have tons of techno-idiots as well.

Consider, if you will, the emails you and I would get for new member registration at WA. :)

Now, ask yourself…should the children of the techno-idiots have to pay for their parents’ non-functionality? Listen, if there were a really easy way for this to be done, I’d hope the industry would just do it. At the very least, we writes shouldn’t be making it any harder than it need be.

I’m coming late to the party (apologies, Craig). This thread was partly inspired, I think, by a position I’ve been taking on WriterAction which is pretty similar to everything Craig has been saying here.

I want to add a new thought, which is that the way we “fight censorship” sometimes ends up having the reverse effect of what we intend. That is, when we act on our own — e.g. the MPAA feature codes — we tend to get left alone. Because labels like “R” and “PG-13” and “NC-17” are clear, user-friendly and self-enforced, you never hear politicians complaining about movies.

But because TV steadfastly refuses to take any responsibility for what it pumps out there, and for who has access to it, we do periodically hear angry threats by the pols to do something about it.

I think that the best chance for Priva’s JumpStreet/Shield hybrid to survive on fX would be for the industry to help parents keep their young kids away from fX, should they so desire.

I’m coming late to the party (apologies, Craig). This thread was partly inspired, I think, by a position I’ve been taking on WriterAction which is pretty similar to everything Craig has been saying here.

I want to add a new thought, which is that the way we “fight censorship” sometimes ends up having the reverse effect of what we intend. That is, when we act on our own — e.g. the MPAA feature codes — we tend to get left alone. Because labels like “R” and “PG-13” and “NC-17” are clear, user-friendly and self-enforced, you never hear politicians complaining about movies.

But because TV steadfastly refuses to take any responsibility for what it pumps out there, and for who has access to it, we do periodically hear threats by the pols to do something about it.

I think that the best chance for Priva’s JumpStreet/Shield hybrid to survive on fX would be for the industry to help parents keep their young kids away from fX, if they so desire.

Sorry for the double post — my computer said it didn’t go through the first time.

Craig, you had me for a minute, then you lost me again.

Look, I sympathize with parents trying to raise moral children in what is essentially an immoral world. That is one of the reasons (not the only one, certainly!) I have no desire to be a parent.

I also sympathize with parents who can’t afford the latest technology. But you know what? If these parents insist on paying for basic cable even knowing that there are channels that they can’t opt out of and can’t block, then they are choosing to put their children at risk of exposure. Because they could simply not get cable TV—heck, they could get rid of the TV altogether. Again, I think there is a point at which personal responsibility has to be acknowledged and cannot be avoided.

Let’s forget the non-parents vs. parents angle for a minute and try something else. I would wager that while you might not want your kids to see graphic sex or violence, you probably wouldn’t have a problem with, say, a PBS show about a child who had two daddies. (And if you would have a problem with that, that’s fine, but for the sake of argument let’s say you don’t.) But my guess is there are lots and lots of parents out there who would find such a show appalling, appalling enough that they would protest it and would pass laws against such vulgarity if they could. So where do you draw the line? Would you want to live in a world where people like that are deciding what you and your children have access to?

So, look, if all you and HoMi are looking for is a cable package of kid-friendly channels or the ability to cherry-pick a cable package over and above the programming access allowed by the V-chip, by all means, go for it. I don’t have any objection to that whatsoever.

In addition, I am happy, willing and able to take responsibility for my creative choices. If I were hired to write a PG film or a family show I would absolutely be very careful about what I included and I’d certainly consider my audience (independently of censorship concerns). On the other hand, if I write a show for F/X, I’m not going to apologize to or for the parents who pay for access to the station but can’t be bothered to prevent their kids from accessing it.

Would I support a system that would allow parents to easily opt out of receiving the F/X network? Yes. Would I support a movement to force F/X to conform to the standards of network TV? Absofuckinglutely not.

Maybe I still don’t see your point. Or maybe I just have less patience for technoidiots. :)

Denise P. Meyer: “Would I support a system that would allow parents to easily opt out of receiving the F/X network? Yes. Would I support a movement to force F/X to conform to the standards of network TV? Absofuckinglutely not.”

I can’t speak for Craig, but this has been my position as well.

But the rest of what I’ve been saying is that — and go back and read the WA thread if you don’t believe me — many writers, if not most, automatically object to even this position. Ten years ago they were loudly opposed to V-chips and even to those innocuous TV ratings. And they think that we should now oppose a system which allows families to easily opt out of receiving fX, or to cherry-pick which channels they get — for fear that this will indirectly influence content. And they believe that we as writers should collectively and institutionally oppose these things.

I think that’s terribly irresponsible.

HoMi:

Thanks for clarifying. I do believe we’ve reached agreement…again. :)

I will go back and read the WA thread…you got me there, I didn’t get access to the discussion until it had gotten pretty unwieldy, so I just jumped in here, where I was able to get in at ground level…

Short Answer: No.

Long Answer: We are responsible to our audience, we are not responsible for our audience.

We are screenwriters. We are not cultural Svengalis able to mold the young and fragile minds of our audience with impunity. We have nothing on Jim Jones and his ilk.

We are screenwriters. We are not the only, or the most important, or even in the top ten cultural influence on any given generation. Pop stars, Directors, Politicians, Novelists, Actors, Sports stars and (hopefully) Parents and Peers rank significantly higher than we do.

We are screenwriters. We can not change people’s innate natures. Bad people remain bad. Good people remain good. Heterosexual people remain Heterosexual. Gay people reemain Gay. Will and Grace has not lead to an outbreak of homosexuality. Passion of the Christ has not lead to an outbreak of floggings.

If Star Wars has lead to some people putting down “The Force” as their religon on cenus forms—that is their wacked out nerd brain, not George Lucas’ fault.

Most importantly, we are screenwriters, we are not parents (except to our own children and our screenplays). If parents are not monitoring their children’s viewing habits, that is their fault and their problem, not ours.

It is not our duty to “think of the children” unless we’re writing a G-rated movie for children.

So when’s the next topic going up?

Craig Mazin: You mean, rated with the ratings that writers protested and called censorship. And that V-Chip — would that be the thing that writers railed against as Big Brother and other such specious analogies?

The WGA did not protest ratings as censorship and/or rail against the v-chip as Big Brother.

It was the 1996 Telecommunications Act, Section 551 that was protested as censorship and railed against as Big Brother — and that analogy was not specious.

Subsections (b) and (c) are the ones that refer to ratings and v-chip technology (sorry, “so-called” v-chip tecnology, as the lawyers lingo-ize it), and both of these subsections begin with this language:

(1) AMENDMENT- Section 303 (47 U.S.C. 303) is amended by adding at the end the following: Prescribe:

47 U.S.C 303 defines the powers and duties of the Federal Communications Commission; in other words, everything that follows “prescribe” is a federal regulation, administered and enforced by the FCC.

Subsection (b) then goes on to establish guidelines and procedures for rating video programming, and requires all “distributors of video programming” to transmit “such rating” so as to permit blocking of that programming.

Subsection (c) goes on to require manufacturers of television sets 13” or larger for sale in the U.S. to include technology capable of receiving the rating signal and blocking of programming.

So the 1996 Telecommunications Act grants the FCC the power and duty to establish guidelines for rating programs, makes it illegal for “distributors of video programming” — that is, broadcasters AND cable operators AND satellite operators AND internet download providers AND etc. — not to use and transmit those ratings, and makes it illegal for manufacturers not to include v-chip technology in their television sets.

Or does it?

Section 551 concludes with this little beauty:

(e) APPLICABILITY AND EFFECTIVE DATES- (1) APPLICABILITY OF RATING PROVISION- The amendment made by subsection (b) of this section shall take effect 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, but only if the Commission determines, in consultation with appropriate public interest groups and interested individuals from the private sector, that distributors of video programming have not, by such date— (A) established voluntary rules for rating video programming that contains sexual, violent, or other indecent material about which parents should be informed before it is displayed to children, and such rules are acceptable to the Commission; and (B) agreed voluntarily to broadcast signals that contain ratings of such programming.

Get it? Huh? Get it?

The law requires distributors of video programming to create a voluntary ratings system and voluntarily follow it — or else, in accordance with the law already passed by Congress, the government will.

A government agency regulating content transmitted by privately-owned cable companies, satellite operators, internet provides — that’s censorship.

“You are legally required to volunteer” sure smacks of “Slavery is Freedom,” doesn’t it? And that’s the entirely non-specious analogy to Big Brother.

The MPAA content ratings system was actually developed voluntarily by private industry, in response to market forces — including the possibility of government intervention.

The television content ratings system was developed under guarantee of government intervention, and is a clear case of the government legislating morality (ie, making distributors of video programming more responsible).

That should offend both liberal and conservative sensibilities — and the WGA was right and writers were acting responsibly to lobby against the passage of the Act.

Didn’t do much good, though.

1996 Telecommunications Act

-

Well, maybe it should offend both liberal and conservative sensibilities… but it doesn’t offend my moderate sensibilities.

Because it’s still one step away from the true issue to get caught up in the question of whether we were right to protest because “You are legally required to volunteer” is wrong. Whether “Clean up your own house or we will clean it up for you” is wrong.

The real issue remains, Why do we refuse to clean up our own house ourselves? Why does it take a government threat to get us to do it?

Re the comparison to the MPAA feature codes… I don’t know the history, but were these really put in place without any fear of government action if the MPAA didn’t do something on its own? Ted, you probably know more of the history than I do, but I’d be very surprised if that were the case.

Ted:

I fail to see how requiring a rating of content is the same as regulating content.

It’s not. The content isn’t changed one iota. Nor do the ratings legislate morality.

The ratings stifle content no more than FDA-mandated nutrition labels prevent certain foods from being bought and consumed.

Requiring additional information for the audience is not censorship, and I think protesting such requirements makes us look a bit paranoid.

Salon’s War Room has an interesting blurb on Bush’s new head of the FCC. Here’s the part that frightened me (the most):

“As for the issue of indecency, which popped to the forefront following Janet Jackson’s 2004 Super Bowl halftime performance, Martin has been to the right of Powell. Although the FCC ended up fining CBS’ parent Viacom $550,000 for airing the fleeting moment, Martin wanted to go further and have the commission investigate the entire gyrating halftime program, which he felt was too crude. Additionally, last month while speaking at a telecommunications summit, Martin embraced the notion that cable television and satellite radio, which will soon play home to Howard Stern, should be policed the same way over-the-air radio and television broadcasts are.”

Lovely. Adults won’t be able to pay to hear someone say naughty words. I’m sorry, society is gettting coarser? Where?

Craig Mazin: I fail to see how requiring a rating of content is the same as regulating content.

Hey, if all the TeleCom Act did was grant the FCC the authority to rate programs before broadcast or transmission that were voluntarily submitted by video distributors, then it would not be regulation.

However, that’s not what it did. What it did was grant the FCC the authority to do:

• Establish a system for rating the content of all programming broadcast or transmitted by any means anywhere in the United States as to its appropriateness for viewers

• Compel television manufacturers to include signal-blocking technology, designed to enact FCC-determined requirements, that responds to a rating signal imbedded in the programming

• Compel video distributors to submit all programming to an FCC-appointed and -administered committee for rating of content prior to broadcast/transmission

• Compel video distributors to imbed all programs with FCC-determined rating prior to broadcast/transmit that can be read by the signal-blocking

What the TeleCom Act did not do:

• It did not prohibit the FCC from creating a ratings system that included the rating “Inappropriate for viewers of any age” that would automatically trigger signal-blocking technology if broadcast/transmitted

• It did not prohibit the FCC from refusing to assign a rating to a program — a program that was required by law to be submitted for rating, and that could not be legally broadcast/transmitted without a rating.

The TeleCom Act empowered the FCC to act as a censor, and that is why the WGA correctly protested the Act as censorship.

And here’s the thing: the TeleCom Act is still in place. The FCC has already been granted the above authority by Congress, and the FCC can assume that authority at any time — if it is determined that the “voluntary” ratings system and “voluntary” compliance with it have failed to achieve the purpose of Section 551: to give parents the ability to prevent children from viewing programming they deem inappropriate.

Determined by who? The Act is vague on that point. That means that if the appointed committee, the FCC, Congress or the President of the United States determines that voluntary ratings have failed, the amendments could be enacted — and it would be up to opponents of the amendment to prove that the Act was not intended to be interpreted that way.

I don’t think its paranoid to suggest that the goal of the self-titled Parents Television Council is to manufacture evidence that the voluntary ratings system has failed, and that it is time for the government to take on it already-legislated role as National Censor.

In short, the 1996 Telecommunications Act is, as you called the primary/secondary market clause in the MBA … the plans for the Death Star.

The greatest danger of a democracy is that the people will vote away their freedoms — and the greatest responsibility of the people is to remain vigilant, and do everything they can to prevent that from happening.

-

The history of the MPAA ratings system is really interesting. However, relevant to this discussion: although the possibility of government regulation of motion picture content always existed, the MPAA code was not created in response to imminent threat — let alone absolute guarantee — of government regulation if a “voluntary” code was not adopted.

Far more critical to its creation were television, and (believe it or not) Vatican II (which mandated a more ecumenical approach to cultural issues, leading to the disbanding of the activist League of Decency — no longer was it possible for it advertise a move as “Banned in Boston!”).

-

Requiring televisions to have blocking technology triggered by ratings is not censorship. The control of the blocking technology is not the hands of the government. It’s in the hands of the parent who owns the television set.

I think the state is well within its bounds to provide consumers with the means to easily self-censor by rating.

I agree that the goal of the PTC is to insist that the voluntary ratings system has failed. Nonetheless, I don’t see evidence that is has failed. My presumption is that the law’s “failsafes” are in place if the transmitters chose to attempt to circumvent the spirit of the ratings (by, say, flashing them on the screen for 2 frames). If the transmitters are clearly fulfilling their responsibilities (and I believe they are), then I don’t see any rational argument to be made that the ratings aren’t fulfilling their intended purpose.

The FCC doesn’t even censor programs broadcast through public airwaves. They have no signal interceptor. They create legal regulations, and they enforce such regulations after the fact of infraction with fines.

Furthermore, the FCC will never have the ability to censor content on privately-owned lines of transmission. There will be no National Censor. Requiring ratings is constitutional. The TeleCom act is constitutional. Requiring technology to enable consumers to self-regulate is constitutional.

Government censorship of privately-transmitted content is not constitutional. I have enough faith in our system of checks and balances to believe something as outrageous as a National Censor will never take place.

If it does, I’m grabbing my guns and heading for the hills, ‘cuz not being able to hear the word “asshole” on NYPD Blue will be the least of our problems.

Ted:

That’s not exactly right. The Hayes Code of the 30’s was definitely implemented under threat of federal regulation.

Since the MPAA ratings system was designed, in part, to replace the Hayes Code, one could argue that it’s part of a natural evolution of industry self-regulation born of a very clear governmental threat.

Craig:

I’m not sure what the basis is to say Government censorship of privately transmitted content is not constitutional. Privately distributed content is regulated all the time. Two prime examples are obscenity and child pornography. Obscenity is determined, in part, by “community standards” as interpreted by the courts. Laws regulate both these areas even though they are disseminated privately. I know of no absolute constitutional protection from regulating other private content. It is very much subject to the point of view of the Supreme Court. We can assume that the view of the Court will change substantially over the next four to eight years. They are very likely to change the boundaries of what privately distributed content can be regulated and prevented.

While creating a means to allow parents to regulate content for their children is a good thing, the problem is, that’s not the real agenda of the groups seeking such regulation. Their real agenda is preventing a broad range of content from existing at all. If professional writers are not vigilant on these issues, who will be?

Jon:

Hmmph. You’ve got a point. Let me amend my comment.

Any audiovisual content that is considered legal to create or possess must also be considered legal to transmit through private channels. Forget about broadcasting child porn…you’re not even allowed to own it or produce it in the first place.

The fact of obscenity statutes is not new. Ratings or no ratings, one has never been able to transmit such material. If you’re suggesting that the Court would expand the definition of obscenity (which is traditionally defined in a very narrow manner) to include “Deadwood,” then my answer, once again, is to get the guns and head for the hills, because the Supremes have gone loco.

Remember, in U.S. vs. Extreme Associates, a federal judge recently ruled that federal obscenity laws are essentially unconstitutional.

It’s hard to see how we get from a judiciary decision that legalizes porn in which women are literally beaten (I sadly kid you not) to “the Government will use obscenity statues to censor basic cable.”

I’m not runnin’ fer the hills just yet. :)

Craig —

What I’m pointing out is that, because Section 551 of the TeleCom Act gives the FCC legal authority to act as a censoring body, Section 551, in-and-of-itself, is unconstitutional — and that is why the WGA joined those who lobbied against its passage.

Your argument seems to be that the FCC could never use the unconstitutional authority granted it by Section 551, because that would be unconstitutional and, besides, even though Congress has the passed an unconstitutional law, its never been enacted and it will never be enacted in the future.

Well, we can all hope that’s true — but I personally think the very best hope of an unconstitutional law never being enacted in the future is for Congress not to pass unconstitutional laws in the first place.

Re: The MPAA Code. The Hayes Office was shuttered in 1964; the MPAA Code was instituted in late 1968. The real impetus for the code was the the 1968 Supreme Court decision that states and cities had the right to prevent the exposure of children to books and movies that could not be denied to adults — the “community standards” law.

The MPAA Ratings were primarily intended to give information about the content of movies to exhibitors — who theoretically were familiar with the prevalent standards of the communities in which they operated theaters, and so best suited to determine which movies they should book.

-

Craig:

I should have used better examples. You’re right with respect to obscenity. However, you still may want to head for the hills. Without beating the point to death, since it’s a little beside your main point, the Supreme Court has already extended the right to regulate content well beyond obscenity, all the way to “indecent” content (whatever that is?) based upon the fact that it may be “easily accessible to children.” FCC v. Pacifica Foundation. I think it is a real open question where the Court will draw the line on FCC regulation of cable content.

(BTW, this is one of the reasons I love this website. Very intelligent discussion of real and important issues. Great post.)

If the 551 of the Telecom Act were unconstitutional, it would have been struck down as such…regardless of whether or not it’s a contingency statute. There’s no shortage of litigation and constitutional challenges to federal legislation.

If no one’s tried yet…or if they have tried and failed…then my presumption is that 551 is, in fact, constitutional (per the Supreme Court).

Jon:

I’ll have to look into that one after I finish this damned treatment. :)

Thanks for the props. Someone who I didn’t know was a reader mentioned to me yesterday that they like the site because it’s “about screenwriting…but the people on it aren’t morons.”

So give yourself a pat on the back too. :)

C.

551 is an amendment to existing federal regulations that has already been passed, but has never been enacted. Since it’s never been enacted, there has been no grounds to challenge it.

-

Ted:

You sure about that? You can pass a law that contains an patently unconstitutional clause, but as long as you don’t trigger the clause, no one can challenge it in court?

That doesn’t sound right. At least, it doesn’t jibe with my understanding of how judicial review works.

Craig —

551 contains two subsections, each of which are amendments to the law that defines the powers and duties of the FCC.

One gives the FCC the authority to create a system of ratings that would be imbedded in all programming distributed by any means (broadcast or transmission), and enforce it. Not unconstitutional; no question, it would be stupid and irresponsible for the WGA to protest this.

The other gives the FCC the authority to specify the requirements of signal-blocking technology that must be included in all television sets 13” or larger manufactured for sale in the U.S. Also not unconstitutional, also stupid to protest.

However, these powers, together with the powers the FCC already has, grant it the authority create a ratings system; require all programming content, both publicly broadcast and privately transmitted, to by rated; specify signal-blocking technology that refuses to accept any programming content that does not carry a rating; and levy penalties against any company that broadcasts or transmits a program which does not carry a rating, up to and including revoking its operating license.

A single government agency that has legislative and and enforcement powers that by-bass any judicial process whatsoever, with no checks and balances on those powers, is the very essence of “unconstitutional” — even if the individual laws that grant it those powers are not unconstitutional in-and-of-themselves.

As I said in my first post: it was not a ratings system per se that the WGA protested as censorship; it was not v-chip technology per se the WGA characterized as Big Brother-style government, and at no point have I said that either of those things are unconstitutional. It was Section 551 that the WGA lobbied against passing, because it gave the FCC unconstitutional, Big Brother authority — or, to be more accurate, authority not in keeping with all constitutional precedent and more in keeping with totalitarianism’s control of media — to censor content, unless a “voluntary” rating system was adopted within a year and as long as the “voluntary” rating system is never determined by the FCC or Congress or the President — anyone of ‘em has the authority to make the call — to have failed to prevent children from viewing programming their parents deem inappropriate.

I don’t see the fact that the WGA right to protest passage of Section 551 of the Telecom Act as negating your overall point that writers must accept responsibility for the values they communicate to their audiences and society-at-large.

In fact, I would argue that is an example of your point.

-

Ted wrote:

A single government agency that has legislative and and enforcement powers that by-bass any judicial process whatsoever, with no checks and balances on those powers, is the very essence of “unconstitutional” — even if the individual laws that grant it those powers are not unconstitutional in-and-of-themselves.

The FCC does not meet this definition. Their enforcement powers are absolutely subject to judicial review, as is the law itself. Like I said, if the letter or application of the law is clearly unconstitutional, then the Supreme Court will strike it down.

As it so happens, I think the plan laid out in the TeleCom Act is actually a very good one, therefore I don’t think fighting it is a particularly good value to promulgate (although I see your point that if you do think this is censorship, then fighting it is taking a kind of responsibility for the audience).

On a personal level, I read a great piece in the opinion section of the LA Times today, written by a former writer of Buffy The Vampire Slayer.

My opinion on this topic has done a complete 180.

Quoting from Jane Espenson’s piece: “I can’t make real-life workplaces safer and more fair for women just by shoing them with briefcases or crossbows. But I can try to grant my characters the quirky gift of humanity — whether they’re adjucating torts or dishing tortes or saving the world. And hope that the little girls watching do the rest.”

What I couldn’t see through all of this topic is where I was responsible. I figured the ratings system would take care of the profanity, the violence. I didn’t see the whole picture. Now, granted, my sensibilities lean toward the procedural. Not the type of show that impressionable young folks would be watching.

But, taking my examples from above, Veronica Mars, my fictional pilot. In those, there is a responsibility. Veronica Mars does it well, Buffy The Vampire Slayer did it well. It empowered young females across the land. They don’t depict High School as this perfect place, where you have to be one of the cool kids. In fact, they kind of show that it’s pretty cool to not be cool.

They deal with topics that every teen goes through. Or will go through. Or will hear about. And they do it tastefully, not in a “very special episode of Blossom” way.

So, while I now believe we are responsible for our audience in these instances. I believe it largely depends on who our audience is.

Apologies for putting typos into the quote. They weren’t there when she wrote it.

The FCC is disobeying the First Amendment of the Constitution. If you don't want your kids watching a certain channel, change the channel. If you don't want them to watch TV, turn OFF the TV and sned them OUTSIDE to play. Our future generation is getting to obese anyways so unplug the tube and get them some exercise!!!!

Gunnex:

I don’t know what they’re teaching you over there at Baltimore County Community College, but the FCC has clear power over any private use of public airspace, and public airspace only.

The FCC being the proxy of the public.

You may not like the way the FCC is doing their job, but it’s patently false to suggest that they are violating the First Amendment. There are no shortage of lawyers in the country willing to argue such a thing if it were true, and none do, because the FCC exists to regulate the public airwaves.