NYT/Reuters: Senate Democrats Urge Tighter Broadcast Guidelines: Want programming requirements

[DeepModem Mom]

Senate Democrats Urge Tighter Broadcast Guidelines
By REUTERS
Published: February 1, 2007

WASHINGTON (Hollywood Reporter) - Senate Democrats on Thursday pressured the five FCC commissioners to set programming requirements for broadcasters as part of the industry's mandate to operate in the public interest.

In the Federal Communications Commission's first appearance before the Senate Commerce Committee since the Democrats took control of Congress, the lawmakers weren't shy about voicing their objections to what appears on TV.

Sen. John Rockefeller, D-W.Va., called television a menu filled with "junk, sex and scandals.'' Rockefeller and other Democrats -- most notably Sens. Byron Dorgan of North Dakota and Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey -- complained that the FCC was abdicating its obligation to police the airwaves.

"I think TV is in the worst state it's ever been in,'' Rockefeller said. "I'm convinced the FCC has abandoned its core responsibility.''

The lawmakers pushed FCC chairman Kevin Martin, a Republican, to commence a rule that would precisely define programming that serves the "public interest.''...

http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/washington/politics-media-fcc.html

[More Than A Feeling]

1. Um, how about requiring pundits to 1. know what they are talking about

2. Tell the truth and 3. be able to understand what is important and what is superficial nonsense.

Or is that too much to ask?

[Jesterstear]

2. Hey, how about....

How about instead of acting like Republicans and trying to dictate what we can and can't watch, why not make the FCC give out actual guidelines instead?

I'm tired of stations having to wonder if they'll get fined for airing Saving Private Ryan, and when they try to ask the FCC all they get is "we don't know unless someone complains."

I'm tired of double standards, like Oprah being allowed to have a show about teenage sexual practices and slangs (with explicit discussion) and it's OK... but if Howard Stern simply plays a clip of Oprah's show, he'll get fined for indecency.

[Double T]

3. Democrats are starting to sound and act like a bunch of rethugs......

leave our junk, sex and scandalous television programs alone, DAMN IT!!!! The food police are bad enough; don't need the television police TOO!

[bdamomma]

8. hey if you don't like what you see, change the channel or put

on the Child lock.

[1932]

9. and make the private companies pay a license fee for public airwaves, if they're not

going to do anything to provide public services and merely serve private interests?

[toopers]

10. I believe they have to pay to use the

EOM

[ima_sinnic]

4. why should we expect *'s incompetent friends in the FCC to be any more

competent and caring than his friends in FEMA?
Until the entire *co rat's nest is exterminated FOR GOOD there will always be incompetency, ineffectiveness, and criminal activity by "govt. officials."

[ryanmuegge]

5. It's definitely good to hear people in power taking this issue seriously again.

During the Reagan years, they said television was just a toaster with pictures and stopped enforcing the equal time provision. Since then, years of consolidation (to keep campaign money coming, of course) and "market-based" content has destroyed public interest programming. Of course, Republicans love to use the occasional black woman's tit as a political football and would prefer that television was all Jessica Simpson all of the time to lull everyone to sleep while they steal elections, kill civillians in Iraq, and take your tax money away and give it to the economic elite.

The importance of public interest programming that is readily accessible and prevalent to democracy cannot be overestimated.

[toopers]

11. Public interest programming will not accomplish anything . . .

You can put out all the information you want, but you cannot force someone to watch it, yet.

[ryanmuegge]

13. Sure. Let's just give up and dedicate all programming to Paris Hilton.

Let's just replace all television news with Friends.

Who needs participatory democracy with an adversarial media-government relationship?

[Dogmudgeon]

6. It's all about Janet's boob and Howard's penis

The FCC under Bush has reverted to a pack of pecksniffs dedicated to infantilizing public discourse, not keeping it open.

At least we don't need a license to speak on-air. Yet.

--p!

[Dover]

7. It's all bluster. All a show. Nothing significant will change at the FCC.

There is no real will for change.

[Toots]

12. It's called seeking accountability...something that has been sadly lacking

The FCC needs to explain it's position and defend it if necessary as does every other agency in government. What we asked for was some accountability and we are seeing is Democrats actually seeking it...:thumbsup: