Graphic By: Zoe Brown

The FCC: Allowing Everyone, Except Me, to Control the Content I Intake Since 1955
| Published 04/30/04

About a year ago, the FCC lifted regulations on broadcast companies that prevented monopolies. These regulations were very much like anti-trust laws. The purpose behind them was to prevent a First Ammendment problem, which is the kind of thing that would lead to a Second Ammendment problem if the right people are in power.

I've always viewed those old archaic regulations as a good thing. It gives me the freedom to choose in an area that is important. Now, I'm not talking about which garbage I watch for entertainment. I'm talking about news perspectives. By lifting these regulations, the FCC has left a very dangerous situation wide open in regards to the news.

Let's say that a plurality of the ratings go towards FOX programming for everything but news, and let's say that a plurality of the ratings go towards NBC for the news. Eventually because of the way that the system works, FOX would be able to legally purchase NBC, and eliminate one less news source. Overtime, this could happen; it could happen to all news sources. It is unlikely but is a possibility. News is what people base their votes on. I view watching it part of my civic duty. I would not be able to go to the polls in November with a clear conscience if there were only one news network giving me information.

Shortly thereafter, the FCC cracks down on morality on TV. One stupid pop star exposes another stupid pop star's breast, and all of the whiney parents' leagues come out and put pressure for more restrictions. What is their reasoning? What if a child hears or sees something their parents don't want them to, like with what happened at the Superbowl?

Now, I don't think what happened at the Superbowl halftime show was a good thing. Not because of the mechanics of what happened, but because of the context and because of the audience. This wasn't done for art or for exposatory information. It was done in a very agressive and violent manner. Ultimately, people are right; kids don't need to see that sort of thing in that context.

However, what kids are we trying to control here? I mean, when I was younger, I didn't really care much about women's breasts or swear words. I knew about them. I knew where dad's stash of Playboy's were hidden, and my parents had used up all the swear words they could have possibly hidden from me by the time I was three years old. In the end that didn't affect my standard of what I considered entertaining, which at that age was based on the number of robots there was in a program. This didn't change until I was about 11 or 12. Even then, it was a slope and not a sudden shift. Breasts didn't start beating out robots for my attention until I was about 14 or 15 (and even then, it was a 50/50 split in actual viewing time). So really, what we're doing is trying to control teenagers.  Now, I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but I have to say it. Parents, by the age of 13 or 14, your child gains predominant control of their own destiny. This is why the Jewish faith has Bahmitzfas. At this point, they are closer to adults than they are children. They aren't fully adult yet, but they're not children by any means.

Even before the advent of the internet, I cannot think of a male my age who had not seen a photo or a movie featuring female nudity. I did not know one kid who didn't at least laugh at dirty jokes in the locker room. Teenagers shouldn't be viewed as sophisticated children; they should be viewed as unsophisticated adults, because they have about that much power over their lives. They don't see Mom and Dad for the majority of their waking hours. Parents quickly lose the center status of a teen's attention when compared to their peers. While older adults still maintain certain time-related controls over their children, the reality is they're in control of where their eyes wander.

Limiting the content of what is available in television is moot, because kids really don't care, and teenagers will do what they want. However, creating a situation where sources for factual data are controlled is down right dangerous. If you have the time, please take it to write the FCC and echo these sentiments.