Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub

OCBS

51 WEST 52 STREET

NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10019-6188

(212) 975-4321

February 9, 2004

The Honorable John D. Dingell

Ranking Member

Committee on Energy and Commerce
United States House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515-6115

Dear Mr. Dingell:

I am writing on behalf of the CBS Television Network in response to your letter of January 27, 2004 regarding indecency on broadcast network television. As part of my responsibilities at CBS, I oversee the Network's Program Practices Department.

CBS knows it is a guest in viewers' living rooms. Thus, aside from any legal and regulatory requirements that govern our content, we strongly believe that we have an obligation to remain attuned to our audience.

With respect to the first question in your letter, regarding the acceptability of transmitting programming that contains the "f-word" or similar language, it is our policy that the "f-word" and other expletives like those contained in the George Carlin monologue "Filthy Words" and which led to the Supreme Court's Pacifica decision should not be broadcast at any time of the day, including "safe harbor" periods except in the rare instance where deleting such language would undermine classic creative content delivered in context. Several years ago, for example, CBS aired a live production of "On Golden Pond,” in which we allowed language we would not have otherwise permitted. We also note that other networks have taken the same approach when airing movies such as "Schindler's List" and "Saving Private Ryan." When such exceptions are used, however, warnings to viewers about language are frequently interspersed within the programming. To enforce this policy, we take appropriate action, up to and including termination, against any CBS employee who violates this policy.

As to the second question of your letter, that relating to CBS's preventive mechanisms, we continue to maintain an extensive Program Practices Department that screens all scripted and reality programming, movies and commercial messages before they air. For live programming, CBS for years has employed delay equipment

February 9, 2004
Page 2

to make possible the deletion of unanticipated language. But this system is designed to catch only audio. With respect to video, the first line of defense for our network, as always at live entertainment and sporting events, has been the cut-away camera, which moves the camera away from inappropriate graphic subjects. Given the history of broadcast television up until this last Super Bowl, deleting troublesome video has never been a concern, except, perhaps, for the occasional streaker dashing across a sports field. As you are aware, the cut-away camera regrettably did not work to eliminate completely the Janet Jackson-Justin Timberlake stunt, but it did render the scene truly fleeting. The cut-away camera also, a few moments later, managed to protect completely the home audience from viewing a streaker who eluded heavy police security and darted across Reliant Stadium's field in front of 70,000 fans. But with the Jackson-Timberlake incident, we now understand that celebrities pushing the limits have outdated our first line of defense.

For the live Grammy Awards show on Sunday, February 8, 2004, CBS implemented an enhanced delay system for deletion of any inappropriate audio and video footage, had it been needed. Under this system, the broadcast of the live Grammy Awards event was delayed by a full five minutes. Developed by CBS engineers on short notice, at great cost, and under tremendous pressure, the system is groundbreaking

no other network has ever undertaken the task of creating a system that gives the capability to eliminate video from a live program. In fact, the system we used for the Grammys truly is an invention in process, and I caution that we are at the mercy of the technology and of our personnel on the scene. While we would like to commit to using this enhanced technology for all potentially problematic live network events, we are still studying how it works. However, CBS will use it or something better whenever appropriate.

We also will do everything technically and humanly possible to eliminate inappropriate language and behavior, but we do worry that anything more drastic could mean eliminating all live television. We do not think that is a good outcome for viewers of broadcast television. One further concern we have is that, with an enhanced delay system in place, some celebrities in fact may lower the bar in a belief that they now have license to say and do anything by assuming the network will catch it before it airs.

Finally, with respect to the final three questions of your letter regarding enforcement of indecency laws, we trust that the ultimate goal of any law or rule is to keep indecency from being broadcast to American listeners and viewers. Fines have a deterrent effect, for sure, and, if assessed judiciously, can also motivate broadcasters to take more precautions, which, in turn will lead to fewer indecent incidents. But it is also important that as the FCC levies fines it exercise its discretion to adjust the amounts downward for behavior that is clearly not deliberate, that is, where the broadcaster has taken all reasonable precautions to comply with the indecency rules.

February 9, 2004
Page 3

It is also important to note that vagueness is a chronic problem that is not cured by any of the proposed changes to the enforcement scheme. Before the FCC levies any fine or revokes any license, it must determine that a broadcaster has violated a rule. In the case of indecency, the rules are neither clear nor static. The precedent constantly changes and the standard is not clearly articulated to broadcasters. This concern about vagueness also extends to fines for each "utterance," as well as to license revocation, where broadcasters would be subjected to the harshest of penalties under standards that are inherently unclear.

In short, broadcasters need a much better roadmap. To that end, the FCC should undertake a full rule making proceeding in which all interested parties can participate so that the constitutional parameters of indecency enforcement can be made as intelligible as possible. The Commission has never held such a proceeding relating to indecency, nor has the FCC ever tried to establish a mechanism by which it can reliably ascertain the required contemporary community standard for the broadcast medium. Given the fast-paced nature of change in our society, such an updated standard is critically needed. Then the courts can decide whether the lines have been drawn in proper deference to the First Amendment.

Of course we will abide by whatever rules and enforcement scheme that the FCC, Congress and the courts mandate, but we also feel obliged to share with you some of the challenges faced by broadcasters in this difficult area.

In conclusion, we appreciate the opportunity to provide you with information as to how CBS endeavors daily to provide its viewers high quality news, information, sports and entertainment that we are proud to deliver.

We would be happy to provide you with any additional information.

Sincerely,

Wanti Banks

Martin D. Franks

Executive Vice President

CBS Television

[blocks in formation]

NBC appreciates the opportunity to respond to your letter of January 27th and to clarify the record regarding NBC's position on a number of matters dealing with broadcast indecency.

First, NBC takes seriously its responsibilities to its viewers to air programming that is not indecent, profane or obscene. NBC unequivocally does not believe that it is appropriate to transmit network entertainment programming -- live or otherwise --which includes the "f-word" or similarly objectionable language, except in the extraordinarily rare case of serious and critically acclaimed theatrical or similar presentations, such as Schlinder's List or Saving Private Ryan, each of which has aired to great public acclaim on network television in recent years. As a broadcast network, our goal is to reach a large, heterogeneous viewing audience with network entertainment programming that is appropriate, acceptable, and consistent with all Congressional and FCC requirements. There is absolutely no question that objectionable language in our network entertainment programming would be antithetical to this objective.

Furthermore, NBC agrees that we are responsible for any content that is broadcast or transmitted over the NBC Television Network. NBC remains willing and prepared to uphold that obligation. For instance, NBC maintains a fully staffed team of 17 highly experienced professionals whose fundamental mission is to ensure that NBC network entertainment programming and advertising is consistent with NBC's own internal standards, which often are more restrictive than any governmental requirement. Our Standards & Practices group reviews all manner of NBC network entertainment programming, ranging from NBC scripted programming to NBC reality shows and Saturday Night Live. We assist in the placement of the appropriate voluntary rating on programming, and we have substantial oversight in place to ensure that NBC's entertainment programming does not involve inappropriate language. But it is not just our Standards team that ensures the quality of NBC network entertainment programming. All NBC network personnel understand the critical importance of transmitting suitable entertainment content.

Second, Bono's spontaneous and unfortunate choice of word at the Golden Globes in 2003 stands in stark contrast to NBC's history in this area and, specifically, our history with the Golden Globes broadcast. NBC broadcasts hundreds of thousands of minutes of network audio annually. Prior to Bono's remark, NBC had broadcast the Golden Globes live and without incident since 1996. The program is produced by Dick Clark Productions, which has a long-standing reputation for professionalism and programming quality. Before the 2003 Golden Globes, the producer, as it had in years past, instructed every participant in the event that appropriate broadcast decorum was to be observed. That Bono uttered the “f-word" despite such instructions was completely unexpected by everyone involved. Of course, NBC immediately edited the tape for the subsequent broadcast to all NBC affiliated stations in the Mountain and Pacific time zones. Unfortunately, at that moment, there was no way for NBC to prevent the inappropriate word from being transmitted to those stations that carried the show live

Such an occurrence is a rare and regrettable exception in NBC's long history with live entertainment programming. For example, Saturday Night Live has been broadcast live for 27 years and, to our recollection, has had only one serious incident - and that occurred over 20 years ago. The cast and guests who appear on SNL tend to be younger and less experienced than those performers who traditionally appear on the Golden Globes. Yet, our long experience is that they are able to adhere to the rules of network television regarding appropriate behavior and language. To us, it is ironic that the Bono incident was part of an awards program that featured a cast of more experienced performers who would have been reasonably expected to conduct themselves both professionally and appropriately, as they had each of the prior years in which NBC aired the programming.

Third, and in light of the Bono incident, NBC instituted the practice of running all live award shows on a ten second delay beginning with our broadcast of the Radio Music Awards in November 2003. Going forward, all live awards shows will be broadcast with the delay in effect. Although the delay process is challenging to implement in the course of the live event programming that U.S. households have come to expect to be available on free television, NBC professionals are among the most practiced in the industry. In addition, we want to assure you that we continue to impress upon the producers and the talent of these programs that the institution of the delay in no way absolves them from their responsibility to provide programming which is consistent with the Network's standards and that includes no objectionable language or behavior. As a further precaution, NBC also has upped the voluntary rating NBC assigns to such live entertainment programming in an effort to remind parents that such programming may include a live, spontaneous and unpredictable broadcast.

Pursuant to your remaining questions regarding current proposals to strengthen Commission indecency enforcement, NBC agrees that the last three decades have seen, in addition to thousands of upstanding broadcast licensees, some bad actors who regularly air programming that is seriously indecent under any reasonable interpretation of established indecency precedent. NBC shares Congressional and Commission concern regarding such bad actors, while remaining fully cognizant of the many legal difficulties

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »