Sunday, October 26, 2008



News Corp. Lashes Out at FCC for Its 'Over-Regulation': Government Must Stop 'Censoring' Speech

We read:
"It is time for the government to get out of the business of regulating indecent speech. That was the message from News Corp. president and COO Peter Chernin to media executives and others gathered in Washington for The Media Institute's annual awards dinner. Chernin argues that it is not too many steps from censoring unpopular entertainment to doing the same to unpopular political content, Broadcasting & Cable reports.

Chernin weighed in on the issue in a speech accepting the Freedom of Speech award from the institute, whose trustees include major media companies. Chernin was teeing up Fox's arguments before the Supreme Court, which is hearing the FCC's challenge to a lower-court smackdown of the FCC's fleeting profanity ruling against Fox's Billboard awards broadcast. That hearing will be Nov. 4, Election Day, reports B&C writer John Eggerton.

Chernin said the coincidence of the two events was appropriate. "The Fox case, if successful, is an affirmation of the First Amendment. The election is an affirmation of our democratic process. And the two are inextricably intertwined. The First Amendment is central to our democratic process because it ensures a full and open dialogue about the candidates for office. Without the First Amendment, our democracy could not be sustained," he said.

"While a case with Cher and Nicole Richie at its center is probably not one we would have chosen to argue before the Supreme Court," said Chernin, "we don't get to pick our cases. In fact, if anyone had told me that my company would be before the U.S. Supreme Court defending inane comments by Cher and Nicole Ritchie, I would have said, 'You're crazy.' But I would contend that the nature of this speech, and who said it, makes absolutely no difference."

That's because Chernin called the heart of the case "an absolute threat to the First Amendment. It hinges on utterances that were unscripted on live television. If we are found in violation, just think about the radical ramifications for live programming - from news, to politics, to sports. In fact, to every live broadcast television event. The effect would be appalling."

"As a media company," said Chernin, "we have not just a right but a responsibility to stand up to the government when it crosses that First Amendment line in the sand - even if the content we are defending is in bad taste. And in the indecency context, that line has not only been crossed, it has been obliterated," he said.

Chernin said controlling TV content is the province of parents in concert with technology like the V chip and ratings. Chernin pointed out that indecency laws do not apply to cable or satellite or DVD's or VOD or pay-per-view or "the mother of all content providers: the Internet....Does it really make sense to continue government censorship of the occasional bad word, brief nudity, or sexual innuendo on a handful of broadcast channels when we live in an environment of infinitely unregulated choices?," he asked.

Source

Apparently, it is the f-word that is at issue.

7 comments:

Anonymous said...

Ben Franklin didn't call our government a democracy he called it a republic.


superman the student architect

Anonymous said...

"The First Amendment is central to our democratic process because it ensures a full and open dialogue about the candidates for office. Without the First Amendment, our democracy could not be sustained," Chernin said.

No Mr. Chernin, what is central to our democratic process is the truth, not the constant lies and spinning perpetrated by your media! I wonder if he feels our "democracy" could be sustained if the media were fair, thruthful, and unbiased?

Anonymous said...

Chernin said controlling TV content is the province of parents in concert with technology like the V chip and ratings.

Chernin is right in this assessment. The problem comes when a parent is allowing their child to watch what is a "G" rated program (like the Super Bowl) and someone comes out and performs an R rated strip tease show.

The networks agree to the ratings as part of using the airways. If they do not abide by the ratings they set, they have only themselves to blame for any fines that result.

It is not censorship. It is living up to the terms of a contract.

Anonymous said...

Don't worry, when our lord and savior Obama gets elected and Demo-crybabies take over all branches of government and the "Fairness Doctrine” is passed this will all go away.

And by go away I mean any content that doesn't agree with them. Remember folks, TV/Movies and “entertainment” comes from Holly-weird and every one of these loons is backing Obama so which way do you think the Democrats are going to go on this issue? The first amendment allows anyone to say anything but when it goes to far on live TV what can anyone do? You can’t turn it off, to late, the cats out of the bag by then, the damage is done.

For me, I just simply stopped watching TV altogether. Holly-weird makes nothing but crap anyway, and everything that comes out of the mouths of these so-called “roll models” makes me sick.

The first amendment is a right but there are consequences, so the next time one of these “entertainers” decides to mouth off on live TV they should consider that. Fine the person who says it not the TV station unless they KNEW what was coming.

Bottom line is, today everyone has a “right,” but no one has a responsibility!

Anonymous said...

"Apparently, it is the f-word that is at issue."

To cite Soupy Sales:

What's wrong with the word FireTruck?

Anonymous said...

Sorry, but we don't need any more government regulation. We need parents to be responsible and accountable for their children. We need executives to be accountable to their customers. We need politicians to be accountable to their constituents. It's all about integrity, and current society has absolutely no clue what it means.

Anonymous said...

Well Mr. Chernin, if you're so concerned about a "full and open dialogue", maybe you can help with this.

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/28/la-times-refuses-release-tape-obama-praising-controversial-activist/