It depends on what you mean by ‘indecency’

As recently as a few days ago, the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals has been considering an appeal from CBS over a $550,000 fine with from the Federal Communications Commission after Janet Jackson’s “wardrobe malfunction” during the Super Bowl a couple of years ago. CBS has a relatively compelling argument: that the FCC has generally held that “fleeting, isolated, or unintended” images aren’t punishable by excessive fines and that the on-air incident wasn’t CBS’s fault — the network didn’t know what Jackson and Justin Timberlake were going to do.

The FCC, obviously, disagrees with the arguments, and time will tell if the 3rd Circuit is persuaded, but in the meantime, TNR’s Michelle Cottle raises a very persuasive point: if the FCC is really concerned about “indecency,” they should care less about a momentary glimpse of Jackson’s breast and more about “O.J. Simpson regaling Americans with a detailed tick-tock of how he would have killed his ex-wife and her lover.”

Talk about televised obscenity. How can a half-second glimpse of even the most heaving bosom possibly compare to a lengthy sit-down with a man who, criminal acquittal notwithstanding, is widely believed to have committed the brutal murders he (hypothetically) describes in both his filthy little book If I Did It and the related, now-defunct Fox infomercial/interview? Glamorizing fake violence is one thing. Inviting some ostracized, attention-starved freakshow of a former football star not simply to get a cheap thrill but also to substantially profit (rumor has it that the Juice was paid $3.5 million for the whole shebang) from publicly wallowing in the details of a shockingly vicious crime that he may or may not have committed is beyond obscene. It is grotesque. […]

What’s more, unlike CBS’s boob problem, it’s not as though O.J.’s (hypothetical) confession were an accidental or inadvertent obscenity. The interview was pretaped, not live, and based on an equally vile manuscript that had been floating around for longer still. Fox execs knew precisely what sort of filth they would be serving up to viewers, and they obviously did not care — at least, not until the widespread public backlash made it clear that this wouldn’t be the juicy ratings bonanza the network had banked on.

That’s a good point.

Cottle doesn’t really believe the FCC should crack down on the O.J. interview or the Super Bowl halftime show, and neither do I. But the point is, if the government is really going to regulate broadcasts in search of offensive conduct, isn’t the for-profit description of a heinous, real-life murder by the man accused of committing the crime far less decent than a fleeting shot of a woman’s left breast?

Indeed, let’s reconsider CBS’s defense in the Jackson case and apply it to Fox’s consideration of the O.J. interview for sweeps. The Jackson incident was “fleeting, isolated, and unintended”; the O.J. program was an intentional, nauseating, and hour-long offense. CBS didn’t know in advance that the Jackson image was part of the Super Bowl act; Fox knew exactly what it was buying with If I Did It.

Ideally, the FCC would leave both alone, but if the agency is going to tackle one, it’s picked the wrong one.

For all its hyperventilating over the occasional dirty word or bare boob that sneaks its way onto our television sets, the FCC is in no position to tackle some of the truly objectionable fare that, like this O.J. interview, could land them in an ugly free-speech squabble. As repulsive as I find Fox’s actions, the network — and HarperCollins, which published the book, and perhaps even O.J. — have a constitutional right to peddle this sort of filth. Consumers, in turn, have a right to completely freak out and make Rupert Murdoch’s media empire very sorry for this particular breach of common decency. (Now how about we do something about “Trading Spouses: Meet Your New Mommy”?) Not every public affront must be dealt with by the government. In this case, the public proved capable of handling the situation itself.

If only the FCC had the sense to take a similarly hands-off attitude toward Jackson’s boobs.

Agreed.

Not just “Trading Spouses.” How about the gag-me-with-a-spoon inanity of “The Real Housewives of Orange County”? “The Bachelor/Bachelorette”? The real -gag-me-with-your-hand-down-my-throat “Fear Factor”? The current season of all three “Law and Order” shows? Talk about “the vast wasteland”…

Actually, I should thank television for being so awful other than Six Feet Under re-runs on Monday night and Sci-fi Friday (Best “Dr. Who” season since Tom Baker!). With the advent of the internet, my reading time had been reduced, but now I have plenty of reading time.

  • Sorry, I’m not ready to take a hands-off policy on Janet Jackson’s boobs.

    The FCC is already negligent in looking at the obscenity that is Fox News itself. (Fox is a network, treat it at least as badly as the big three are treated.)

  • The people who squealed the loudest about the effect of a body part on their precious spawn’s fragile psyches expose their children to far worse in the form of Fundie ministers.

    People who think an hour with a raging dick once a week is better for a kid than .5 seconds of a tit once in a lifetime really aren’t the sort the government should listen to when deciding to levy fines.

  • Um, maybe I should just keep quiet, since I did everything I could to avoid and ignore the circus that was Simpson case ten years ago, but “a detailed tick-tock of how he would have killed his ex-wife and her lover”?

    When was it established that Goldman was her lover? Did I miss something? I thought it was nothing more than the ravings of a controlling, abusive ex-husband, and the smarmy insinuations of his PR team.

    Even it there was more to the story, I’d think the decent thing to do would be to refuse to validate the murderer one little bit by putting any credence to it.

  • We should all remind the idiots on the right at every opportunity that Fox paid OJ $3.5 million for his trashy story. Fox needs to die, and they just handed us a huge box of ammo, to go with all the other crap they peddle like soft core porn (which I could care less about, but makes a handy bludgeon for pounding Fox with during discussions with wingnuts)

    Their wingnut base won’t like this one bit, even if Fox did yank the episode, they paid a murderer millions of dollars to talk about murdering people. I would hope that trying to profit from murder would be enough to get people to stop watching, but I’m sure it won’t in many cases.

  • Comments are closed.