Who Does The PTC Hate This Week – August 15, 2008

I have been neglecting my self-appointed duty to tell you what the Parents Television Council finds objectionable. Perhaps that's partly because the PTC hasn't exactly been overly active of late. However a few things have cropped up over the past few days that I thought were worth mentioning. And unfortunately, to tell part of this story with full accuracy I am going to have to use a fleeting obscenity; a word that has appeared in this blog before, usually in connection with the PTC.

The first of these is a PTC press release expressing their outrage about something that happened on the August 5^th episode of Big Brother. According to the PTC, "During last night's broadcast, a woman named Libra was arguing with a man and said: 'Memphis was in the f***ing room!'" I'm shocked to have to say that on this one, the PTC was right – Libra did say "fucking" when she was arguing with Jesse. But here's the other thing though, I watch Big Brother including that particular episode and I don't remember her saying it. And I'm not the only one. In his August 6^th Programming Insider podcast Mark Berman's guest mentions that the PTC was protesting the use of "the word" and Berman was amazed, because he didn't hear it either. So, in an effort to discover whether she did or she didn't I asked the question at Jackie Schnoop's The (TV) Show Must Go On blog (the place to stop for Big Brother discussion). I got a reply from "Clementine" who pointed me to the appropriate clip of the show on YouTube (unfortunately the clip can't be embedded). The incident took place at around the ten minute mark of the clip. And sure enough, Libra does say "fucking." Just one thing though; I had to listen to the clip six or seven times before I could actually tell what she was saying. Now admittedly, I've been having some temporary hearing problems over the past little while, but even so it normally doesn't take me that long to pick out that word (and believe me I hear it often enough). What I think happened is that whoever was handling the editing at CBS simply missed the word – believed it was unintelligable. Why do I think so? Simply because the Big Brother Houseguests use the word "fucking" often and it has always been censored in the past. Indeed it was censored on numerous other occasions, so why let this one through unless the editor in question simply didn't hear the word. In other words, it wasn't even a simple case of human error but rather a case where someone was genuinely unable to determine what was being said.

Of course, that's not the way the PTC sees it. In their press release, which includes a link to a prepared form email that's all ready to be sent to the FCC, PTC President Tim Winter writes the following: "There is absolutely no justification for allowing an 'F-word' like this to air unedited on prime time broadcast television. There can be no question that this was an intentional act on the part of the network; someone actually had to edit the scene with the word into the show. Just this past November, CBS hypocritically entered into yet another consent decree with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) promising not to air indecent material. But apparently, CBS will break its own formal promise – again. Last time it was to air a teen orgy; this time it is for the opportunity to air the 'F-word.' CBS' behavior is a direct result of the 2^nd Circuit Court of Appeals ruling on so-called fleeting profanity – a case that will be heard by the Supreme Court this fall. But let me be clear: Unlike the facts of that legal challenge, this was no live broadcast. It was an intentional airing of pre-packaged program that contained obscene language. The network's reprehensible decision to air it cannot go without consequence."

Well let's look at this in a couple of different ways. First, let's look at why the word aired. As I've said, there is a plausible explanation of how the how the word might have slipped by, namely that the person editing the episode either did not hear the word or misheard the word either as something else or couldn't be sure of the word that Libra said; in other words the word was unintelligible to him. The other aspect to consider though is Mr. Winter's interpretation of the 2^nd Circuit's ruling on fleeting profanity – not "so-called fleeting profanity" but actual fleeting profanity as defined by the FCC itself before the current administration. His interpretation of the ruling was that it only applies to live events. In his majority opinion on the Pacifica case (which the PTC is so fond of quoting), Justice Stevens wrote, "This case does not involve a two-way radio conversation between a cab driver and a dispatcher, or a telecast of an Elizabethan comedy. We have not decided that an occasional expletive in either setting would justify any sanction or, indeed, that this broadcast would justify a criminal prosecution." In the case of an Elizabethan comedy of course one would be dealing with scripted, and one would presume previously recorded, material. Even in 1978, Stevens recognised that not all uses of expletives in pre-recorded programming would be actionable.

Worth noting at this point is a recent Amicus Brief submitted in the FCC appeal of the 2^nd Circuit Court of Appeals ruling to Supreme Court. The brief, was submitted by a number of former officials of the FCC including former chairmen Newton Minnow, Mark Fowler, and former acting chairman and longest serving appointee to the Commission James Quello. Quello was a commissioner at the time of the Pacifica case. In the Amicus Brief, the former FCC officials stated that "... we have been dismayed by a series of recent [FCC] decisions that have transformed a hitherto moderate policy of policing only the most extreme cases of indecent broadcast programming into a campaign of regulatory surveillance that will chill the production of all but the blandest of broadcast programming." Likening the current FCC's enforcement program to "a Victorian crusade" they stated that "To effectuate its new clean-up-the-airwaves policy, the Commission has radically expanded the definition of indecency beyond its original conception; magnified the penalties for even minor, ephemeral images or objectionable language; and targeted respected television programs, movies, and even noncommercial documentaries." While one would hardly describe Big Brother as a "respected television program" there could hardly be a better definition of "minor, ephemeral...objectionable language" than the incident in the episode of Big Brother.

(Actually the former commissioners went further than just calling on the Supreme Court to uphold the 2^nd Circuit Court ruling. According to Broadcast & Cable the Brief calls on the Court to remove the FCC from the business of regulating content. According to the article, "They said the court's work would be incomplete if it simply struck down the 'fleeting expletives' policy, arguing that the FCC's indecency calls in cases of nudity and nonfleeting profanity were inconsistent and that the commission was using 'context' as a 'talisman to ward off serious questions about the extreme subjectivity of the agency's determinations.'" They also argued that the basis of the original Pacifica decision – the uniquely pervasive nature of the broadcast medium – had ceased to exist in the era of the Internet and multi-channel video (by which I assume they mean cable TV). "It is time for the Court to bring its views of the electronic media into alignment with contemporary technological and social reality. As former regulators, we appreciate that the FCC is in an uncomfortable position, buffeted by the turbulent passions of anxious parents and threats from excited congressmen. But that is precisely why the matter must be taken out of the agency's hands entirely." Needless to say, the PTC is not pleased by the Brief.)

Of course you don't actually have to say or be seen to say bad words to arouse the ire of the PTC – not if you're Big Brother anyway. The series was described as "Misrated." This was before the August 5^th incident although that incident (which I still contend was an accident – they do happen you know no matter what the PTC thinks) although it did rate a mention – in boldface type no less – in the article. No, what the PTC objected to was words that you couldn't hear uttered by lips that you couldn't see. They claimed that the episode of July 31^st should have been rated TV-14L and state that there was no rating applied to the episode at all, something that I find extremely hard to believe. Anyway, here's what they have to say: "The episode's opening recap featured a shouting match between Jerry and Memphis. The latter was upset over Jerry attacking his character. 'You calling me a ______ (bleeped, blurred f***ing) womanizer?' Memphis asks. 'You wanna see me get ______ (bleeped, blurred f***ing) real? I'll get really real, old man!' Memphis' outburst was shown several times, each with another f-bomb. 'Are you out of your mind, old man?' Memphis shouts, 'Are you _____ (bleeped, blurred f***ing) out of your mind?' Later in the episode, Jerry strikes back at the four contestants who have ganged up on him. 'You think I'm going to kiss your ass? You guys _____ (bleeped, blurred f***) me, I'm gonna kiss your ass?...You come and jump on me with your friends. Four of you. Four of you on my ass. You want? All four, come on! Let's go and get it on. ____ (bleeped, blurred F***) ya!'" Now remember, you can't hear the word "fuck" and its variants, and a lip-reader couldn't pick up on it either because you can't see the people's lips (and they did a really good job of completely obliterating the lips). And yet here's what the PTC has to say: "Given the frequency and severity of the swearing, the show should have been rated TV-14 L." By the PTC "standards", the show clearly wasn't censored enough even though – as even they state you couldn't hear or see the words in question – so one has to ask, where exactly does it stop?

Swingtown yet again earns the "accolade" of worst show of the week. I won't go into detail on what the PTC states – since I don't watch the show I'm really not in a position to judge or to entirely contradict what the PTC position – however based entirely on what the PTC says and what the series producer has claimed about the show, the episode that the PTC is complaining about is concerned with the consequences of the protagonists' actions. The consequences of these actions include jealousy and the weakening of the familial bonds. And these are consequences that the characters are aware of. The PTC summarizes a scene between a father and his teenage daughter by saying: "Bruce attempts to scold Laurie for being involved with her older teacher, but when Laurie shoots back with 'What about what you two were doing?' Bruce realizes he and Susan have no moral ground to stand on. Bruce muses, 'No wonder our kids are off the rails. The buck stops here. We are taking back control of this family.'" The PTC ignores this business of consequences of course. Instead, in their conclusion they write, "By airing content intended for premium cable channels on network television, CBS has subjected families to topics that only adult couples should be discussing. And like so much of TV today, by suggesting that monogamy is stifling and, therefore, unhealthy, the show fails to promote positive exploration of sexuality within the confines of marriage." And yet surely scenes like the one they themselves quote are indicative that even the characters of the show are coming to realize that the lifestyle they've adopted is the unhealthy one rather than monogamy. But surely the most absurd thing is the assertion that, "by airing content intended for premium cable channels on network television, CBS has subjected families to topics that only adult couples should be discussing." They seem to be taking the truly absurd position that premium channels like Showtime and HBO are only subscribed to by families without children. Premium channels are available to all who are willing to pay for them... including families with children.

The PTC has been running their TV Trends column dutifully each week while I haven't been writing about them, but quite frankly their weekly Jeremiads have been the typical reactionary stuff we've come to expect from the author of these "think pieces." In the July 17^th column, for example, he expressed the opinion that supposedly child-friendly shows were dens of filth and inappropriate language. Proof? Hugh Hefner and his three Girl Next Door girlfriends were on Celebrity Family Feud against some actors from The Sopranos including Vincent Pastore ("Big Pussy" Bonpensiero.) and Hefner said "I think [the girls] are going to do very well against Big Pussy." Smutty double entendre of course – at least in the PTC's view. And there was "Busty Heart" crushing beer cans with her boobs on America's Got Talent (I'd be more upset that kids would try to imitate the sword swallower myself), and a singer supposedly singing "I Kissed A Girl" which supposedly were an "explicit endorsement of drunkenness and promiscuity." You can tell it was bad because they underlined it and put it in italics. If they could have bold-faced it without being to obvious you can bet they'd have done it. In the July 25^th column the writer goes on and on about TV's fixation with breasts. The writer states, "It is pathetic that a medium with the tremendous power which television possesses is willing to objectify one-half of the human race; but increasingly, remarks about breasts, scenes emphasizing breasts and even entire storylines about breasts are becoming commonplace on TV. Such a focus ignores intelligence, personality, charm, integrity and the entire host of human qualities, and essentially reduces women to objects valued only for their anatomy." Of course that doesn't stop the writer from going into exacting prurient detail about every specific incident, making sure to mention "the formerly clean" My Name Is Earl (which was also mentioned in the July 17^th column as the "increasingly raunchy" My Name Is Earl). In the current column, the writer is practically gloating over the failure of Swingtown in the ratings symbolized by the network decision to move the show to the Friday at 10 p.m. timeslot – "a day and time widely regarded within the entertainment industry as the Place Where Series Go To Die" (an assessment that ignores CBS's general success on that night, a success so great that CBS has been able to cancel shows that have won their time slot in the past two seasons: Close To Home and Moonlight) – and trumpets the decisions of major advertisers not to put commercials on the show. But yet again the writer lovingly delineates, in detail more graphic than anything actually seen on screen, the evil sexual misdeeds depicted on the show, and thoroughly doesn't get the nuances of the show, which as one of the writers pointed out included the fact that these people's actions have consequences that they don't foresee; not necessarily punishment but definitely consequences. But of course acknowledging that the show doesn't actually send "the messages Swingtown is sending to young viewers: marriage vows are meaningless; teachers kissing students is acceptable; and any kind of sex, with any number of people, has no consequences whatsoever." Nuance is lost on the PTC.

Finally (well not finally; there's a rather absurd study presented by the PTC on how TV is devaluing marital sex and emphasising premarital sex, extra-marital affairs, and perverted practices – of course being the PTC the methodology is incomprehensible and the study doesn't consider or worry about either context of nuance) we have the return of The Worst Show on Cable. For months, literally, the PTC was stuck calling a particular episode of Nip/Tuck the worst show on cable. Now they've gotten outraged by the latest episode of Saving Grace. Why? Well there's a "bigger picture" thing going on here which we'll get to but to illustrate the "big picture" badness they have to illustrate it with a specific incident. In this case it is a sex play scene in which Grace and her lover play with food. Of course the PTC lovingly describes the scene in explicit detail:

The episode opened with a shot of Ham's naked rear-end as he and Grace wake up on her living room floor, presumably after a night of drunken lovemaking. Grace tries to rouse Ham by smacking his buttocks, to which he mumbles, "Much harder." Grace obliges by licking a dirty fork clean and jabbing him with it. The couple then migrate to the kitchen, where Ham tells Grace that he has left his wife. Clearly upset, the commitment-phobic Grace sprays Ham with ketchup. Not to be outdone, Ham grabs Grace and shoves ice cubes down her panties. Grace responds by emptying a bottle of mustard on his chest. Clearly aroused, Grace straddles Ham, licks the condiments off of his body, and proclaims, "You taste like a corndog." Grace is then seen kneeling in front of Ham, licking the mustard and ketchup mixture off his abdomen. Ham reaches into the refrigerator and dumps milk all over her head. The couple finally collapse to the kitchen floor and began having sex. All of this occurred before the opening credits.

Now here's the big picture, in the words of the PTC itself: "Touted as a redemptive series chronicling a troubled female detective's struggle against her personal demons, the show's underlying positive themes are often undercut by over-the-top depictions of sex and drug use." So basically what the PTC is saying is that the eventual redemption of Grace Hanadarko's character is a "good" thing – a positive theme as they put it – but that theme is hurt by showing her the drug use, the alcohol abuse and the irresponsible sexual activities that are why she needs redemption. The thing is though, that if you simply say that Grace's activities are bad it doesn't have the impact of showing it. It's a standard dramatic maxim "show it, don't say it." But the PTC says "don't show it and don't even go into details in saying it." But of course it is perfectly alright for the PTC to show it – describe scenes in exquisite detail, and at least in the past show video clips of "bad" scenes from cable shows – rather than simply saying it – telling us that the show has explicit sex scenes and scenes of drug use. Anything is acceptable in their cause, the demand for cable choice. Cable choice is something that I agree with in principle but am realistic enough to understand that until every cable user has to use a specialized set-top box like the digital box I have on my TV. But even if you have cable choice available on your cable system, the fact that not every program on the cable channel represents "objectionable content." Do you throw out all of the "good" because of a little bit of the "bad?" (And by the way this description of "good" and "bad" is theirs not mine. Having seen several episodes of Saving Grace, my opinion is that the show is one of the better things on television, showing the complexities of a woman who seeks to escape the traumas in her life in a miasma of sensation – drugs, alcohol, and sex. The major question for me is not why she needs redemption but rather why God, through the mechanism of the angel Earl, has chosen to try to offer Grace the option of redemption. But then again I don't see things from the same obsessed single-minded perspective that the PTC adopts.)

Appeals Court Overturns “Nipplegate” Fine

In a unanimous decision a split panel of the United States Court of Appeal for the Third Circuit has overturned the fine levied against CBS for the incident at the 2004 Super Bowl in which Janet Jackson's right breast and nipple were exposed for "nine sixteenth of one second" before the cameras were able to turn away. In the decision, written by Judge Anthony J. Scirica, with a concurring opinion delivered by Justice Marjorie Rendell, the court found that the FCC acted "arbitrarily and capriciously" in its decision. (The complete decision, which also deals with the matter of whether CBS would have been liable for fines even if the FCC had not acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner, can be found here – this is a .pdf file) While acknowledging the FCC's authority to regulate indecent content, Judge Scirica pointed out that it had long practiced restrain in doing so: "During a span of nearly three decades, the Commission frequently declined to find broadcast programming indecent, its restraint punctuated only by a few occasions where programming contained indecent material so pervasive as to amount to 'shock treatment' for the audience. Throughout this period, the Commission consistently explained that isolated or fleeting material did not fall within the scope of actionable indecency." The decision of the court was that "Like any agency, the FCC may change its policies without judicial second-guessing. But it cannot change a well-established course of action without supplying notice of and a reasoned explanation for its policy departure. Because the FCC failed to satisfy this requirement, we find its new policy arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act as applied to CBS." (italics mine.)

While the FCC claimed that "its restrained policy applied only to fleeting utterances – specifically, fleeting expletives – and did not extend to fleeting images. But a review of the Commission's enforcement history reveals that its policy on fleeting material was never so limited. The FCC's present distinction between words and images for purposes of determining indecency represents a departure from its prior policy." But of course this is also a policy which the current FCC has chosen change in an arbitrary manner in their decision against FOX in the case of the Billboard Music Awards, a decision also overturned on appeal and currently being considered by the US Supreme Court.

For those, like the Parents Television Council which cite the Pacifica decision (when a station owned by the Pacifica Foundation aired a recording of George Carlin's "Filthy Words" monologue), the court pointed out that the FCC itself issued a clarification order covering live broadcasts: "Expressly acknowledging the forfeiture order's potential negative impact on broadcast coverage of live events where 'there is no opportunity for journalistic editing,' the FCC stated its intention to exclude such circumstances from the scope of actionable indecency." This is a point which the concurring decision on Pacifica, by Justices Powell and Blackmun emphasised: "Justices Powell and Blackmun concurred in the judgment, writing separately in part to reiterate the narrowness of the decision and to note the Court's holding did not 'speak to cases involving the isolated use of a potentially offensive word in the course of a radio broadcast, as distinguished from the verbal shock treatment administered by respondent here.'" Judge Scirica's decision points to two cases after Pacifica (in 1983 and 1987) where the FCC ruled on cases where language was used that did not meet the "verbal shock treatment" standard. And while in 1987 the Commission did change its standard to "rely on the broader terms of its generic indecency standard, which defined indecent material as 'language that describes, in terms patently offensive as measured by contemporary community standards for the broadcast medium, sexual or excretory activities or organs, when there is a reasonable risk that children may be in the audience.'" (again, italics mine). But this did not overturn the basic standard as stated in the clarification to Pacifica or the 1983 and 1987 cases (and in the Powell concurrence) related to isolated or fleeting material. In other words a policy had been established. This was reaffirmed in 2001 when the broadcast industry sought clarification of the FCC's policies on broadcast indecency, which the FCC provided in a policy statement. "The policy statement included multiple examples of FCC rulings as 'case comparisons' highlighting the factors that had proved significant in prior indecency determinations. One of the factors noted as leading to prior determinations that a program was not actionably indecent was the "fleeting or isolated" nature of potentially indecent material in the context of the overall broadcast." Indeed this was an even clearer assertion of the standard.

This policy changed just three years later when the Commission overturned a finding of their own enforcement bureau concerning Bono's statement at the 2003 Golden Globes in which he said "this is really, really fucking brilliant." While in its May 2004 decision the FCC "acknowledged the existence of its restrained enforcement policy for isolated or fleeting utterances, it overruled all of its prior cases holding such instances not actionable. ('While prior Commission and staff action have indicated that isolated or fleeting broadcasts of the 'F-Word' such as that here are not indecent or would not be acted upon, consistent with our decision today we conclude that any such interpretation is no longer good law.'). But the Commission made it clear that licensees could not be held liable for broadcasting fleeting or isolated indecent material prior to its Golden Globes decision." That would be three months after the Janet Jackson incident. And that's an important point in the current decision, even setting aside the Second Circuit Courts decision overturning the decision on the Golden Globes case: "Accordingly, we find the Commission's unsubstantiated contentions in this regard contradict the lengthy history of the Commission's restrained enforcement policy. While "an agency's interpretation of its own precedent is entitled to deference," Cassel v. FCC, 154 F.3d 478, 483 (D.C. Cir. 1998), deference is inappropriate where the agency's proffered interpretation is capricious. Until its Golden Globes decision in March of 2004, the FCC's policy was to exempt fleeting or isolated material from the scope of actionable indecency. Because CBS broadcasted the Halftime Show prior to Golden Globes, this was the policy in effect when the incident with Jackson and Timberlake occurred."

The court then went on to address the FCC's contention that the fleeting materials policy was limited to words rather than images, meaning that the Golden Globes decision would be inapplicable in this case. This relates to whether there was an adequate an explanation for changing its policy. The FCC holds that it had no prior policy on fleeting images and therefore did not have to provide an explanation, reasoned or not for their new policy. CBS contended that the FCC's indecency regime treated images and words alike "so the exception for fleeting material applied with equal force to words and images." The Third Circuit Court found that "The Commission's conclusion on the nature and scope of its indecency regime – including its fleeting material policy – is at odds with the history of its actions in regulating indecent broadcasts. In the nearly three decades between the Supreme Court's ruling in Pacifica and CBS's broadcast of the Halftime Show, the FCC had never varied its approach to indecency regulation based on the format of broadcasted content. Instead, the FCC consistently applied identical standards and engaged in identical analyses when reviewing complaints of potential indecency whether the complaints were based on words or images." (again, italics mine.) They mention a 2000 decision rejecting a claim that nudity in the movie Schindler's List was indecent in which they said "the FCC noted 'nudity itself is not per se indecent' and applied the identical indecency test the agency used to review potentially indecent language. The Commission did not treat the nudity complaint differently – factually or legally – from a complaint for indecency based on a spoken utterance.... The Commission even referred in a footnote to its policy towards fleeting material, never suggesting the policy would be inapplicable because the offending broadcast content was an image rather than a word." The Court noted that the FCC policy was also upheld in a decision on the revocation of the license for WGBH Boston for broadcasting indecent material: "Among several 14 broadcasts at issue in WGBH were: (1) 'numerous episodes of Monty Python's Flying Circus, which allegedly consistently relie[d] primarily on scatology, immodesty, vulgarity, nudity, profanity and sacrilege for humor'; (2) 'a program entitled Rock Follies . . . which [the petitioner] describe[d] as vulgar and as containing profanity' including 'obscenities such as shit, bullshit, etc., and action indicating some sexually-oriented content in the program'; and (3) 'other programs which allegedly contained nudity and/or sexually-oriented material.'" In their argument, CBS provided several complaints accompanied by a corresponding reply letter rejecting the complaint. These incidents included "the early-evening broadcast of a female adult dancer at a strip club and alleges the broadcast contained visible scenes of the woman nude from the waist down revealing exposed buttocks and 'complete genital nudity' for approximately five to seven seconds," and "a Sunday-morning television broadcast of the movie Devices and Desires, which included "scenes of a topless woman in bed with her lover, with her breast very clearly exposed, several scenes of a topless woman running on the beach, and several scenes of a nude female corpse, with the breasts clearly exposed." While the FCC contended that these form letters were irrelevant since they "do not even explain the grounds for the staff's conclusions that the broadcasts were not indecent, much less rely on the 'fleeting' nature of any alleged nudity as a reason for rejecting the complaints," the court held that "the rejection letters illustrate that the FCC used the identical form letters and indecency analyses to address complaints of indecent nudity that it had long used to address complaints of indecent language." Accordingly the Court found that "In sum, the balance of the evidence weighs heavily against the FCC's contention that its restrained enforcement policy for fleeting material extended only to fleeting words and not to fleeting images. As detailed, the Commission's entire regulatory scheme treated broadcasted images and words interchangeably for purposes of determining indecency. Therefore, it follows that the Commission's exception for fleeting material under that regulatory scheme likewise treated images and words alike. Three decades of FCC action support this conclusion. Accordingly, we find the FCC's conclusion on this issue, even as an interpretation of its own policies and precedent, "counter to the evidence before the agency" and "so implausible that it could not be ascribed to a difference in view or the product of agency expertise."

One interesting point that the decision recorded was that it was nearly impossible to determine the actual number of complaints receive from "unorganized, individual viewers." According to the FCC, they received "an unprecedented number of complaints." However, in their brief CBS pointed out that "Of the 'over 542,000 complaints concerning the broadcast' the FCC claims to have received, over 85 percent are form complaints generated by single-interest groups. Approximately twenty percent of the complaints are duplicates, with some individual complaints appearing in the record up to 37 times." In other words the sort of thing that the Parents Television Council does all the time when they complain about "indecency.

Needless to say, the Parents Television Council is incensed by this decision. In a press release PTC president Tim Winter claimed that "Once again, a three-judge panel has hijacked the will of the American people – not to mention the intent of the Congress acting on behalf of the public interest – when it comes to indecent content on the public airwaves. While we are not surprised that the legal venue hand-picked by CBS would rule in favor of the network, the court's opinion goes beyond judicial activism; it borders on judicial stupidity. If a striptease during the Super Bowl in front of 90 million people – including millions of children – doesn't fit the parameters of broadcast indecency, then what does? If the Court doesn't think that the event wasn't shocking enough, even though it was the single largest news story for weeks when the nation was at war, then what is shocking enough? By saying that the FCC still retains its power to regulate the public airwaves, this court shows that its ruling was merely to second-guess the FCC's decision to fine CBS. The Third Circuit Court is wrong, and we urge the FCC to appeal this case to the U.S. Supreme Court. We urge the public to speak up on this matter by contacting their congressional representatives and the White House too."

I can't help but wonder at the degree of legal "expertise" that Tim Winter brings to the table on this one. The question here isn't one of a "three-judge panel" hijacking the will of the American people, since it seems to me to be unclear what the "will of the American people" is in this case. The number of independent complaints on this case not generated by single interest groups is significant but would hardly seem to be overwhelming. The questions turns then to the matter of judicial activism. It seems that what the PTC is arguing for is a variant on that – regulatory commission activism if you will. The Court decision seems to be a well reasoned statement of both the facts in the case and the precedents up to the point of FCC clarification related to the Bono statement. There are ample examples provided that prove not only the existence of the FCC's prior policy related to "the 'fleeting or isolated' nature of potentially indecent material in the context of the overall broadcast," but also that policy had not been inclusive of fleeting examples of speech but also to nudity. And indeed far from what is implied by the PTC description of "a striptease during the Super Bowl," this was far more fleeting than previous examples, the duration being precisely "nine sixteenth of one second." The event which according to the PTC was shocking because "it was the single largest news story for weeks when the nation was at war" simply does not equate with the FCC's position at the time – as defined in Powell and Blackmun's concurrence to the original Pacifica Decision – that indecency must represent "verbal shock treatment," or in this case "visual shock treatment." Certainly this is the case given the duration or the nature of previous incidents which the FCC has chosen not to fine in the past. And remember this is even before factoring in the Second Circuit Court's 2007 overturning the FCC's decision on Bono. And of course one must ask to what degree it was groups like the PTC and its fellow travellers such as the American Family Association, and the politicians which they lobbied, that made this the "single largest news story for weeks" (and let's set aside this business of the nation being at war – by the time of the 2004 Super Bowl "major combat operations in Iraq" had been concluded for nine months and President Bush had declared "Mission Accomplished")? No, it seems clear that this doesn't represent "judicial activism" but rather a well thought out evaluation of precedent and policy and the degree to which the FCC itself overstepped its own boundaries.

In the end one is left to wonder how Justice John Paul Stevens would feel about the matter. It was his majority position in Pacifica that is constantly cited by the PTC as the justification for censoring even something so fleeting as this. In Pacifica Stevens wrote that "It is appropriate, in conclusion, to emphasize the narrowness of our holding. This case does not involve a two-way radio conversation between a cab driver and a dispatcher, or a telecast of an Elizabethan comedy. We have not decided that an occasional expletive in either setting would justify any sanction or, indeed, that this broadcast would justify a criminal prosecution." In other words, even at the time Justice Stevens recognised that there were circumstances in which the fleeting use of expletives could be broadcast. What he objected to in Pacifica was what has since come to be called the "verbal shock treatment" effect of something like the Carlin routine, or someone like Howard Stern. But even more interesting is the evolution of his opinion on Freedom of Speech which might have an effect on rulings in the current cases such as the appeal of the Second Circuit's decision on Bono or this case. In his dissent to the 2002 decision in ACLU v Ashcroft related to the Children On-line Protection Act (COPA), Stevens wrote, "As a judge, I must confess to a growing sense of unease when the interest in protecting children from prurient materials is invoked as a justification for using criminal regulation of speech as a substitute for, or a simple backup to, adult oversight of children's viewing." If nothing else is true, it seems obvious to me that what Stevens intended in Pacifica is
neither what the PTC thinks he meant or what the current FCC has used it to justify. In any event, this issue will bear watching.

Who Does The PTC Hate THIS Week – July 2, 2008

That the Parents Television Council is woefully out of touch with anyone except their own members and the assorted right of center (well right of right is probably more accurate) and conservative religious groups that rally around it is pretty much a given in the stuff that I write about them. But let's face it, most of the people who read this blog or most of the other blogs by critics – professional or amateur – weren't offended by Charlotte Ross's bare buttocks on NYPD Blue, enjoy Gordon Ramsay because of the swearing that is perpetually bleeped, have no objection to the movie clips shown on the latest American Film Institute special, and couldn't give a flying "frack" about Bingo America on GSN. It sometimes gets monotonous for me to take on this group every week or so pointing out the restrictive nature of what they want, nominally in the name of protecting "the children" but in reality treating all Americans like children, but my resolve is steeled every time they present an amicus brief to a court or try to get advertisers to boycott a show that they don't like. I mean sure, I'm a Canadian and so far they haven't stretched they octopus-like tentacles north of the border or spawned a Canadian imitator (although the group that pushed the Conservatives to force Bill C-10 through the Commons may be a seed for that – the link is to a search for everything that the estimable Dennis McGrath has written on the subject, which I have rather shamefully not touched) but given how much our private television networks rely on American content, that which affects the United States most assuredly has an effect on what we watch – and maybe even what we find acceptable – in Canada.

Let's start off with the PTC's Amicus Brief to the US Supreme Court in the "Inadvertent Obscenities" case. The basis of this case was a couple of incidents in which the "F-word" and the "S-word" were aired during a live awards show. The FCC ruled that the use of these words were indecent. The networks as a group appealed the decision to split panel of the Second Circuit court of appeals which found that the FCC had acted incorrectly and arbitrarily by overturning nearly fifty years of precedent in the airing of live programming. Of course that's not the way that the PTC sees it. In his press release made at the time of the filing of the Amicus brief PTC president Tim Winter said the following:

Our Amicus brief asks the Supreme Court to address the constitutionality of the FCC's ability to enforce the broadcast decency law. Rather than simply ruling on an administrative aspect of this matter, we hope the Court will fully rebuke last year's Second Circuit Court decision. That decision ran contrary to nearly 80 years of jurisprudence about the publicly-owned airwaves, not to mention running contrary to the overwhelming sense of the nation.

Two federal judges in New York City ostensibly stole the airwaves from the public and handed ownership to the TV networks. They said that broadcasters can use the 'F-word' and 'S-word' in front of children at any time of the day. We urge the Supreme Court to reverse the lower court's decision which clearly defies the public interest, congressional intent, long-established law and common sense.

Actually that's not what the court did or said and anyone with a lick of sense knows it. The court decision stated that the FCC ruling was arbitrary in that it overturned without warning fifty years of precedent which acknowledged that things sometimes are said on live television in the heat of the moment. In their Amicus Brief the PTC cites the Court's decision in the FCC vs. Pacifica case in which the radio broadcast of a recording of George Carlin's Seven Words You Can't Say On TV, during the afternoon was found to be indecent. The PTC claims:

• Broadcast television is still a uniquely pervasive influence in America, it is still uniquely accessible to children, and it still confronts the viewer in the privacy of the home.
  
• The FCC's action under review here is not a ban on broadcasting, only a channeling of certain kinds of language to a time when children are less likely to be watching and listening. The same was true in Pacifica.
  
• Here, as in Pacifica, the order at issue is from an agency with long experience in the area being regulated and it is declaratory, not punitive. The FCC has not levied any penalty against Fox arising out of the 2002 and 2003 broadcasts.
  
• And, of course, here and in Pacifica the broadcast medium is one that traditionally has been afforded less First Amendment protection than others.
  

But, though the PTC and indeed the FCC do not choose to recognise it, there are differences. The biggest of course is that in Pacifica the station aired a recording of George Carlin's routine, he didn't come into the station and do it live. The presumption must be that someone at the station had heard the recording before airing it. Even if he had done it live, it could be argued that unless the routine was entirely new, someone at the radio station would have known the content and been in a position to decide that it was unacceptable. Neither of these circumstances exists with a live awards show. This leads us to the question of "channeling of certain kinds of language to a time when children are less likely to be watching and listening." Again this is more applicable to the Pacifica case than it is to a live event like an awards show or a sporting event. The network can't say "We want this awards show to be held at 10 p.m. Pacific in the event that someone might say the 'F-word'." They can opt not to show it live, but would the event organizers accept that or indeed would the audience watch it when they could just as easily find out the winners by watching a news show or going online? Finally there is the declaration that the FCC order "is from an agency with long experience in the area being regulated." That is indeed true, but it is also true that this is scarcely the first time that a situation like this has come up. In fact, there is fifty years of precedent up to the point of the FCC ruling and in all that time inadvertent obscenities have essentially been treated as accidental events. What the FCC did in their "declaratory, not punitive" order was to arbitrarily overturn the decisions (or no-decisions) of previous commissions.

Next, let's turn to the PTC's reaction to the motion filed by lawyers for ABC to overturn the FCC fine for the episode of NYPD Blue from February 2003. You will recall that this was a scene that it apparently took the FCC five years to decide was "indecent" despite the fact that the show had been showing bare buttocks – male and female – for most of the previous decade without being fined. The PTC states in their commentary on the ABC lawyers' filing that, "After reading their arguments challenging the FCC's indecency fine against NYPD Blue, we believe ABC's attorneys should win an Emmy for 'Best Comedy Writing.' Their primetime comedy writers haven't written anything nearly as funny in years." It's a catchy line, and the bit about the comedy writers is a double edged sword is hilarious given that the ABC comedy writers (setting aside the fallacy of the network having comedy writers) are the people that gave us Cavemen, Carpoolers and According To Jim. But what the PTC thinks is "hilarious" is legitimate argument. Here's some of what the PTC says:

They argue that they are not opposed to indecency rules, yet they don't want the rules to be enforced. That's akin to saying that they're in favor of the speed limit but against any enforcement when people drive too fast.

They show a fully-naked woman from behind; the camera ogling her up and down with saucy music playing in the background. And in denying that a naked woman's buttocks has either a sexual or excretory function, they say it is 'just a muscle.' Why not just show her bicep, then?

ABC has also made the preposterous assertion that no viewers complained to the FCC about the nudity in NYPD Blue when the reality is that thousands of Americans from all over the country exercised their First Amendment rights to contact their government about the misuse of the airwaves that they own. Many of those concerned citizens used the PTC website to file those complaints with the FCC. The law is clear: people have the right through the FCC to complain about the indecent material airing in their communities regardless of how they are informed about the material. For ABC to declare otherwise is like saying that only those who fight in Iraq or Afghanistan can log a formal opinion about the war.

Of course none of that was what the ABC lawyers said according to Broadcast & Cable. On the first point they actually state that, "the current commission's indecency standard as applied was an unjustified break with precedent, arbitrary and capricious, and just plain wrong. 'Indeed, it is the Commission that has broken faith with Pacifica by disregarding the narrowness of Pacifica's holding and rejecting the restrained enforcement policy Pacifica demanded.'" The PTC's statement that the network, "in denying that a naked woman's buttocks has either a sexual or excretory function, they say it is 'just a muscle.' Why not just show her bicep, then," is far more absurd than what the ABC lawyers actually said. The lawyers, "argued that backsides do not meet the FCC's criteria for indecency because they are not 'sexual or excretory organs.' Rather, they are part of the muscular system." Which is entirely accurate of course; the buttocks themselves are neither sexual nor excretory, they are however an erogenous zone. And indeed the ABC lawyers apparently offered examples – including images of the "Coppertone Girl" – which are indicative (according to the lawyers) that the American public is not offended by the depiction of bare buttocks. The whole concept of "why not just show her bicep" is so absurd as to not being worthy even of the PTC. In the context of the scene – a woman interrupted in the process of her normal day because she isn't used to living with someone with a child – "just" showing her bicep is hardly enough. (As far as the whole "saucy music" and the camera "ogling her up and down" this is clearly the PTC's imagination running wild. The music in particular is a clear continuation of the music in the street scene that precedes the bathroom scene.)

The final part of the PTC's argument also has me shaking my head. The Broadcast & Cable article on the ABC filing doesn't mention that the ABC lawyers made this argument. It is stated in an article on the FMBQ website it is stated that the FOX and NBC filings in support of ABC claimed that, "no actual viewers complained about the episode. 'All of the complaints the FCC received in this case were from complaints drafted by the American Family Association,' which is an activist group, the brief said. Therefore, in the absence of complaints from real viewers, the FCC should not act." The implication is of course that the complaints to the FCC were made not by people who actually watched the episode and were offended by it but rather by those who were told by an organization – whether it was the PTC or the American Family Association – that they should be offended by it even if they didn't see the show except perhaps as a clip on the PTC website. The PTC claims that, "the law is clear: people have the right through the FCC to complain about the indecent material airing in their communities regardless of how they are informed about the material." The thing is though that this is far from being clear. In fact complaints have been rejected, and fines have not been levied against individual stations, in the past because it was clear to the FCC that the complainants didn't actually see the show. The PTC's comparison between the supposed right of those who weren't offended by a show that they didn't see to lodge a formal complaint to a government agency, and the ability to comment about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan despite not having been there is one of the most absurd and borderline disgusting thing in this whole statement.

Well maybe it isn't the most absurd. That would probably go to this little gem: "ABC must believe that corporate namesake, Walt Disney himself, would agree that airing the 'F-word' and showing naked women on television are not indecent. Would the same man who brought the world Mickey Mouse really think that? Surely he would agree with the unanimous, bipartisan FCC ruling that the NYPD Blue episode was indecent." Where does this come from? The PTC is not only putting thoughts into the head of a man who has been dead for 40 years but seems clearly unaware that Walt Disney wanted to include topless women – well topless female centaurs – in Fantasia and was only deterred from doing so by the Motion Picture Production Code. I don't know what Walt Disney would have thought about this scene and neither does the PTC.

We now turn to the PTC patting itself on the back. The PTC seems to be of the opinion that they and they alone are responsible for the cancellation of the FX series Dirt. Why? Well according to the article PTC Efforts Cleaned Up TV's "Dirt" the PTC managed to persuade fifty advertisers to make "the responsible decision to remove their financial support for the offensive content of Dirt via their advertising dollars." To which I say, "prove it." And they can't.

According to PTC president Tim Winter, "If advertising dollars won't support a particular television show, then the network must either edit the show in a way that appeases the advertisers, or else the network must cancel the program entirely. We heard from a number of companies who decided to stop sponsoring the show after being contacted by us. We believe that our efforts clearly had an effect on Dirt being cancelled." So by their own president's statement, it was "a number of companies" rather than fifty. And instead of asserting outright – as the title of the press release does – that the PTC's efforts were responsible for getting the show cancelled, Winter is saying that "our efforts clearly had an effect on 'Dirt' being cancelled." And even that they can't prove. What I can argue is that the show was cancelled for the reason most shows are cancelled – the audience went away. The first season of the show debuted with an audience of 3.7 million and averaged 1.9 million for the entire season. According to the Wikipedia entry for the show, the second – and as it turned out the last – season debuted with an audience of 1.7 million in "a competitive timeslot, Sundays at 10 P.M." but the audience slipped to 1.06 million by the finale of the strike shortened seven episode second season. Is it not possible that this, rather than the lobbying by the PTC, is the more likely reason for advertisers to abandon Dirt rather than the pleas/demands/threats of the PTC?

I don't think I'll look too heavily at this week's Worst of the Week because quite frankly even for the PTC it was a weak choice. The show as a one-time only airing of a Canadian show called MVP which will be airing on SoapNet. The show, which ran for eleven episodes on the CBC before being cancelled for being too expensive and not drawing a large audience even by CBC standards, was a Canadianized version of the British hit Footballers Wives. I won't go through what the PTC says about the show because it's the usual litany of supposed horrors that are supposed to be corrupting the children even though the show was seen in the third hour of primetime – yet another example of the PTC treating all of us as though we were children. But the thing that bothers me is that the PTC is that the PTC gets up in arms about this show because of drug use and sexuality but never ever mentions "daytime dramas" and the sort of things that happen in those shows (drug use, sexuality, even worse) which are far more accessible to child and teenaged viewers than this show was. But of course commenting on daytime dramas (and the syndicated court shows that occupy the time slots that years ago were given over to syndicated reruns and shows for kids) doesn't spark the sort of outrage that commenting on prime time shows does.

Let's turn instead to the show that the PTC has decided was "Misrated". This time around the show is the latest American Film Institute's latest Top Ten List, America's 10 Great Films in 10 Classic Genres. Now I missed this AFI list – a rarity for me I admit but somehow I wasn't aware that it was on. The show was rated TV-PG LV, meaning Parental Guidance, with Language and Violence descriptors. According to the PTC "...although kids also love movies, the special chose to highlight many clips featuring content unsuitable for children. With clips from movies in the categories of animation, fantasy, science fiction, sports, westerns, gangster films, mysteries, epics, courtroom dramas, and romantic comedies, this show had the potential to be as clean or as raunchy as its producers chose. Unfortunately, all too often they chose "raunchy"…and parents were not even warned of the inappropriate content, since the show was rated only TV-PG LV." The PTC points out that there are violent images from "R" rated movies being shown at 7 p.m. Central Time! Among the movies listed were Terminator 2: Judgment Day, Blade Runner, and A Clockwork Orange, with clips from Unforgiven, Wild Bunch, Raging Bull, Scarface, Pulp Fiction, The Godfather Part II, Goodfellas, The Godfather Part I, The Usual Suspects, and Blue Velvet being shown at 8 p.m. Central. According to the PTC, "Clips showed people being shot at, beaten savagely, and murdered. Graphic depictions of blood and wounds were shown. The violence in these clips earned the movies an R-rating in theaters – but apparently CBS thinks such violence is only deserving of a PG rating." And that's not all. They also showed "a clip from When Harry Met Sally shows Sally faking an orgasm in the middle of a restaurant. She yells, moans, and pounds on the table during her false sexual interlude." And in a clip from Bull Durham, "the lead character mentions his belief in 'soft-core pornography.'" Oh the horror! The PTC's conclusion of course is that "Due to the number and graphic nature of the violent clips shown, and the sexual content of other clips, this show should have been rated TV-14 LVS."

Well not so fast. Even assuming that the Motion Picture Association of America (the MPAA) didn't give some of these movies and "R" rating because they contained nude scenes – even a flash of female nudity is often enough to get an "R" rating – the fact is that the clips used in these AFI retrospectives are incredibly brief, a fact that the clip provided by the PTC shows. In particular they cite the clip from A Clockwork Orange: "In a clip from A Clockwork Orange, a gang brutally beats an older man with a cane, kicking and punching him, all while giggling with evil delight." That scene, as portrayed in the clip, takes only slightly longer to run than it takes to read the PTC description. To my mind the clips shown seem to have been brief enough, and the warning that there were Language and Violence concerns (and remember that even the PTC couldn't list scenes where the characters were engaged in the sort of thing that would either get an R rating for a movie) and recommended that Parents (real parents not the "national parents" that the PTC wants to be) should offer guidance to the children that they know better than some umbrella organization. But apparently though, the PTC believes that the clips shown, and hey, maybe even the entire list, should have been crafted to be suitable for children; because after all, "kids also love movies."

Finally let's turn to the PTC's TV Trends piece this week, titled, "Summer Brings Little Fun to Prime Time". It's a diatribe against the bad language, sex and violence that the networks are foisting on the poor innocent TV audience. It is in part a case of "round up the usual suspects." Fox subjected children to Moment of Truth (where a woman "was asked such personally invasive questions as whether she would act in a pornographic movie and whether she has shared details of her current sex life with a former boyfriend") which was followed by Hell's Kitchen which "unleashed a blizzard of f-bombs on impressionable youngsters in the audience." The writer chose to illustrate his point by printing a Ramsayan diatribe which stemmed from him burning his hand on a pot, complete with "(bleeped f***)!" inserted at the appropriate points, and added, "Clearly, Ramsay's culinary brilliance does not extend to his vocabulary; but how many children, hearing this (even in its bleeped form) will gain the impression that such vulgar language is the norm?" The writer then briefly turns his attention to CBS, with an obligatory mention of "its sex-and-drug series Swingtown" (which airs in the third hour of prime time of course) and the previously mentioned AFI special. However, the article's real wrath is directed at NBC.

According to the article, "it was NBC which failed children and families the most in past weeks. NBC should be the best network for families, with its heavy slate of original talent-show programming; but while the programs' premises are excellent, what actually airs contains material some parents would find objectionable." The definition of objectionable seems pretty low as far as I'm concerned. First there are two incidents from Nashville Star. In the first, according to the PTC, one of the judges supposedly implies an improper relationship between a contestant and one of the other judges (singer Jewel) saying, "I don't know if you mentored this kid or you made out with him for thirty minutes." In the second incident, "judge Jeffrey Steele mocked contestant Tommy's choice of song with the repeated words, 'You are such a kiss-ass. I gotta say it again, you are such a kiss-ass…He's kissing your ass.'" Turning to the show Celebrity Circus they mention "inappropriate" language ("when did it become mandatory for every program in prime time to use words like 'damn,' 'hell' and 'ass,' anyway?") but direct their real attention to one of the acts in the show in which Christopher Knight (Peter from the Brady Bunch and more recently My Fair Brady which details his marriage to Adrianne Curry) sets himself on fire. According to the PTC he is goaded by a clown to do this. They detail what the clown tells Knight ("I thought what we'd do, we take a stick of dynamite, light it, hand it to you, you stick it down your pants and blow your crotch out.") and then comments, "While fire-eating clowns are a traditional part of a circus, explosives down the pants are a new wrinkle…and one most parents probably wouldn't appreciate their children seeing." Finally they turn to "the most egregious error on the part of NBC" at least according to the PTC. That would be the debut episode of the third season of America's Got Talent. They object – but not overly strenuously to "a veritable burlesque striptease by the 'Slippery Kittens,'" but their real wrath is directed at Derek Barry, a Britney Spears impersonator, and a comment David Hasselhoff made in connection with his act: "I'm questioning my sexuality here. You're hot! But you're the wrong sex." Noting that the episode was rated TV-14 L, the writer adds this comment: "What a sad commentary it is that NBC is incapable of producing even talent shows and circus programs that are suitable for children to watch."

I am truly shocked and amazed at all this. The comments on the Fox shows – "Fox subjected children to Moment of Truth" and "unleashed a blizzard of f-bombs on impressionable youngsters in the audience" – almost creates the image of children being tied to chairs by their parents and forced to watch these evil programs. I've already dealt with the issue of the AFI show, which leaves us with the NBC shows. And here the writer of this article is really reaching to find something to object to. To them of course, any use of the word "ass" is evil even though most of the rest of us find it relatively innocuous. The comments on the Celebrity Circus and the "stick of dynamite" is absurd (and the writer clearly hasn't attended a real circus in some time if ever) but even worse is the complaint about Hasselhoff's statement about Derek Barry (who incidentally did look hot – far hotter than the real Britney Spears. While I wouldn't call the statement entirely innocuous, I can't help but take it in the spirit in which it was meant, namely as an expression of amazement and even praise for Barry's appearance in character, and I for one am unsure what this writer objects to. Or maybe I do know.

When I type I occasionally (well more than occasionally) make typos. One of those typos suddenly put the PTC into perspective for me. I left the "e" off of "prime." It suddenly became clear: the PTC wants to turn "Prime Time" into "Prim Time." And while I don't think they can do it, they do seem to have the deck stacked in their favour. They are organized and vocal, and the structure of the FCC rewards the organized and vocal. They are interested in protests and complaints and there is no structure in place for those who support a show like NYPD Blue to let them know about it. The PTC makes noise. They complain about shows and organize boycotts of those that advertise on those shows. In doing so they try to create a fear among advertisers so that they shows that are edgy and controversial don't get support. In that way television is moved away from the groundbreaking and towards the safe and formulaic, towards the sort of shows that the PTC wants; towards "Prim Time."

The PTC And The “Disappearing” TV Critic

A couple of weeks ago the PTC's TV Trends column began looking at the "disappearing" TV critic. I don't agree with much of what they say in these articles and not because I regard myself as true TV critic. I am not. What I am is a consumer both of television and television criticism.

It never surprises me when the PTC observes a trend and not only puts its own spin on it but does so in such a way that is not just totally illogical but is based on no actual facts beyond what the writer of the piece decides is "the truth." Take for instance this week's TV Trends Column (which is actually the first part of a two parter). I won't give you the title just yet, because it needs some set-up from the original source material. That was a cover article in Broadcast & Cable called The Disappearing TV Critic. Specifically it looks into the recent drop in the number of TV critics including critics from major newspapers. As the article points out, "In the past two years, more than one-dozen longtime critics at major-market dailies -- including the Dallas Morning News, Seattle-Post Intelligencer, New York Newsday, New York Daily News and Houston Chronicle -- have been either let go, shunted to different beats or been forced to take the ubiquitous buyout proffered by bean-counting corporate bosses." The article then goes on to look at the reasons for this trend. They specifically focus on money, and the profitability of media companies and newspapers. As the article points out, arts staffs in major media companies like Tribune, McClatchy, and Gannett arts staffs are deemed expendable if by getting rid of them the corporate bottom line gets fatter. Critics and arts staff can be replaced by wire service copy and features. People around here are well aware of this sort of thing. Few can forget what happened a few days after the dailies in Saskatoon and Regina were sold to Conrad Black; something like 200 employees of the newspapers including some highly respected names in the local arts reporting were told that their services were no longer required. The bottom line – and the amount of debt that Black, and later CanWest went into to buy newspapers – mandated cost cutting measures and the easiest costs to cut are often people. The Broadcast & Cable article discusses the symbiotic relationship between the expanding television industry and critics who are used to build awareness of programs. Critics of course have used the "bully pulpit" of newspapers to promote projects and producers that they regard as being "worthy." With the decline in the number of newspaper critics, bloggers (like me, but in most cases better if only because they have at least a veneer of professionalism) have risen. But, as an unnamed network executive told Broadcast & Cable "There's no accountability. That's the difference between some, not all, bloggers and a seasoned journalist. The blogging community has no rules." The Broadcast & Cable article points out that, "Criticism by community – or the 'triumph of the amateurs,' as one TV critic describes the proliferation of online user reviews – is a function of both the technology that allows anyone to get in on the critic act and a medium where quick bites of information are favored. The popularity of criticism in the form of the episode recap, where brevity and attitude are highly prized, only underscores the trend away from criticism as intellectual deconstruction. And why give an expert assessment when a simple 'A' grade will do?" While I don't think that I'm guilty of "criticism in the form of the episode recap" I readily admit to the rest. The technology makes this blog possible, and it allows this amateur – for I have never claimed to be anything but an enthusiastic amateur (it even says so in the masthead of this blog) – to write about the medium which I enjoy and which alternately fascinates me and infuriates me.

Okay, that's the long preamble to the PTC's TV Trends article, the title of which is Public Tuning Out TV Critics which ran in two parts. They acknowledge the entire point of the Broadcast & Cable in one sentence and then proceeds to throw it out. According to the PTC, "For while it was not mentioned in Broadcasting & Cable's article, one other factor suggests itself as a reason for the rapid erosion of TV critics' prominence: the critics' failure to reflect the sensibility of most Americans who watch TV. When, time after time, viewers and parents follow a critic's advice and turn on a program, only to find it offensive and repugnant, in very short order such viewers will stop listening…and the critics' influence, importance, and value to their employers will correspondingly diminish." In other words, according to the TV Trends writer, TV critics are being let go because by recommending shows that the public finds "repugnant" their influence is reduced. Now before I go further into this, let me just say that I've never heard of anyone who has stopped subscribing to a newspaper because they didn't like the TV critic, and that is the only way that what a TV critic writes might have "value to their employers."

The writer of the article then actually cites one of his own columns which claimed that there is an "overwhelming demand for family-friendly TV programming safe for children." Of course this is an overwhelming demand that was not sufficient to support a family friendly show – Life Is Wild on The CW – which didn't even draw as many viewers in the recently completed season as the PTC claims to have members. Yet according to the TV Trends writer, "Yet those who dare to suggest that television ought to feature more family fare are subjected to endless calumny by TV's supposed critics – 'supposed' because, while the word 'critic' implies critical faculties, these individuals rarely exhibit such, instead heaping praise on the most extreme examples of graphic and gratuitous gore, sex and profanity. Yet these critics, rather than responding to the obvious wishes and desires of their readers, persist in celebrating only the most disturbing programs on TV. And despite the fact that such critics work for outlets across the country, they share a nearly identical mind-set…one which rarely agrees with that of the viewers and readers in their local area." Of course he offers no proof of his assertion that this supposed "identical mind-set" doesn't agree with people in the local area.

The TV Trends writer artfully pulls quotes made by critics for the Broadcast & Cable article – often out of context – and then turns them back on the writer. Dave Walker, critic for the New Orleans Times-Picayune who told the Broadcast & Cable writer, "There is nothing more local than television. I suppose three or four reviewers could handle the critiquing duties for the whole country. But what that surrenders is localizing all of that national [content]." The TV Trends writer responds that, "Yet the same critics who make this argument are generally the first ones to rail against the notion of 'community standards,' which broadcast stations are supposed to take into account when considering whether network programs are appropriate for audiences in their local area. Enraptured by the very programs they are supposed to be analyzing, most TV critics apparently believe that if a program is all the rage in Manhattan, that it therefore must (or should) be one in Toledo, Salt Lake City, Minneapolis and Mobile. They angrily condemn local stations which opt not to air such shows, and condemn all who object to offensive programming as 'Puritans' out to trample 'First Amendment rights' by 'censoring' programming which the critics (and often, only the critics) enjoy." Again, there's no proof of the statement in parentheses. Taking part of a quote from Dianne Werts of Newsday, TelevisionWithoutPity.com and TVWorthWatching.com (the part that the PTC cut out is in square parentheses): "[Just as the television medium mushrooms, newspapers are dispensing with a trained-eye filter to] alert readers to what's fresh, smart, ground-breaking or just plain strange enough to be engaging. And each critic brings a different sensibility, lending the TV Zeitgeist a diversity of cultural perspectives and social values, along with aesthetic appreciation." He then states, "This statement is so ludicrous as to be laughable. Far from representing 'different sensibilities,' or demonstrating a 'diversity of cultural perspectives and social values,' the overwhelming majority of TV critics consistently march in mental lockstep with the very entertainment industry they are supposedly paid to critique. The values of the entertainment industry are those of most TV critics, who rather than informing the public about the threat posed to their children by today's entertainment, and advocating on behalf of their readers' preferences, instead willingly act as shills for Hollywood." In other words critics who don't agree with the PTC's position – which the PTC seems to be claiming is all of them – don't offer a local perspective but are part of some sinister hive mind determined to undermine America's families in service of their Hollywood masters.

As a topping for this mass of opinions is the claim that critics are elitist: "Most likely, this happens because critics enjoy considering themselves superior to the supposedly ignorant masses. Look again at Diane Werts' assessment: according to Werts, TV critics know 'what's fresh, smart, [and] ground-breaking.' Implicit in this is the assumption that the average member of the public does not. That such an assumption is ill-founded – and that professional critics, in their negativity and desire for Hollywood's approval, poorly serve the average Americans who make up their audience – will be demonstrated in the next TV Trends." And I'm sure that he'll support this with material from the same source that back up his claim that TV critics are being let go not because of an economic quest for savings (and profits) but because they are detached from the sense and sensibilities of their readers. Start with the assertion that the public is abandoning TV critics because critics fail to reflect the sensibilities of the public. There's no proof offered. Then there's the statement that critics subject advocates of family fare to "endless calumny" while claiming that the same critics "rather than responding to the obvious wishes and desires of their readers, persist in celebrating only the most disturbing programs on TV."

The second part of the article tries to prove the elitist nature of the professional newspaper critic while at the same time dealing with Broadcast & Cable's assertion that "Many old-school journalists seem to lack the snark gene that has propelled Gawker-level bloggers to high-gloss infamy," which is part of the reason for the disappearance of the newspaper critic. Absurd says the PTC: "Hilariously, the entertainment industry trade publication Broadcasting & Cable claims that TV critics are at a disadvantage when faced with the attitude-laden writing of the Internet's amateur bloggers.... [The above quote from the B&C article is inserted here.] One can only conclude that the author of the B&C article is unfamiliar with the constant sneering arrogance with which family-friendly programs have invariably been described by the nation's TV critics."

They then set out to "prove" this by offering quotes from reviews of Three Wishes. Three Wishes, which was hosted by Christian singer Amy Grant (and which the PTC mistakenly claims ran from "September 2005 to January 2007"; in fact it ran for ten episodes between September 2005 and December 2005), visited a town and granted three wishes. It might be a new baseball field for a town, or it might be a reward (in the form of a new truck) for the adoptive father of a young boy. According to the PTC, "Most Americans applauded so well-meaning a show [this is questionable but typical of the PTC; the show had 8.7 million viewers in its first episode, and usually won its time slot before NBC cancelled it as being "too expensive" – still 8.7 million is scarcely "most Americans"], and enjoyed its heartwarming premise. But America's critics unleashed an unparalleled tidal wave of vitriol against the sweet program; and notably, most condemned not the program's production methods or even the star, but attacked the very premise of the show itself." They then proceed to offer a number of quotes – out of context of course – from various critics. Just as an example of pulling quotes without context, here's what the PTC says that Boston Globe critic Matthew Gilbert said about the show: "Condescension, fraudulence, and manipulation…every single scene is ruthlessly choreographed to put a lump in our throats." And here is the full sentence that Gilbert wrote (courtesy of Metacritic): "It's hard to quibble with such a philanthropic series, even while its motives are, of course, Nielsen-based. But it's easy to quibble with the condescension, fraudulence, and manipulation of ''Three Wishes," as every single scene is ruthlessly choreographed to put a lump in our throats." To my mind at least that isn't the sneering arrogance that one sees from Internet based reviewers. But an even worse example is the quote the pull from Gillian Flynn of Entertainment Weekly. Flynn's example of "constant sneering arrogance" is this: "Will leave your heartstrings over-fondled." Except that this was classified by Metacritic as a generally positive review. So I decided to see what Ms. Flynn actually said. The Entertainment Weekly review is available online for free (which is more than can be said for two other reviews they cite, from the Chicago Tribune and the Miami Herald). Here's the full closing paragraph of Gillian Flynn's review, with the words that the PTC pulled in bold: So, yeah, Three Wishes will leave your heartstrings feeling over-fondled. But if you can get past that (and there are worse crimes), it's also one of the most interactive TV shows around. Maybe I'm going soft, but when's the last time you found yourself bawling and beaming about the basic goodness of humankind? And now I must go help an old lady cross the street." Quite a difference huh.

Then, to prove how out of touch the mainstream professional critics are, they cited Dexter and Nip/Tuck. The writer suggests that his readers might think that the reaction to Three Wishes was simply a dislike of all new programs. If he really thought that of course it would be an example of him treating his readership as children, but I have to say that is not always out of character for a writer from the PTC. This is when he brings up Dexter: "For contrast, consider the critical response to Dexter, a program with a ruthless, psychotic serial killer as its hero. This program featured graphic dismemberment, blood, and torture and showed a brutal murderer evading the law, yet painted that killer as charming and even likeable. Originally shown on premium cable, Dexter was shown in prime time by CBS. Given the vicious verbal flogging they granted the wholesome Three Wishes, one would think that surely the critics – with their allegedly superior sensibilities – would condemn a program which graphically glorified serial murder!" But of course the evil elitist critics liked – even loved – this evil program. As the writer puts it, "Instead, the nation's so-called 'critics' sang unquestioning hosannas to the deranged drama. Apparently thinking identical thoughts, sometimes even using nearly identical wording, the critics united in praising Dexter. I won't go into the details of the quotes that the PTC pulls from the critics they cite. I will however point out that they're not as right as they think. The critics were not as "united in praising Dexter" as the PTC would like. Admittedly, of twenty-seven critics mentioned by Metacritic on their page for the show, twenty-four were rated as positive reviews, there were also quotes from critics who disliked the show or even hated it: "Dexter is too chilly to be chilling, too affected to be affecting." (Robert Abele; LA Weekly); "If brilliant, psychotic lunatics are your bag, by all means, climb aboard." (Brian Lowry; Variety); "The grotesqueries of Dexter are not something that can easily be dismissed with the old 'you don't have to watch' line. We don't have to watch. We do have to live among the viewers who will be desensitized, or aroused, by this show." (Nancy DeWolf Smith; Wall Street Journal).

But naturally there is more why critics like a show like Dexter than what a bunch of quotes culled and edited by a PTC writer wants his readers to know. The professional critics are willing to offer reasons why they like a show, reasons that are more complex than the "it's about a serial killer therefore it is evil and should not be seen" rote that the PTC trots out. Take for instance the reasons why Tim Goodman of the San Francisco Chronicle wrote "What makes the series work so well is twofold. Hall is magnificent; it's another sterling performance from him. But instead of being pent up yet emotionally explosive, like his David Fisher on "Six Feet Under," he's cool and calculated and entirely without compassion as Dexter. That makes him alluring, in a strange way.... The second element is humor. As Dexter's voice narrates the series, his inner world is revealed. He's dryly funny. He has a spot-on representation of himself – he knows he's "a monster." But he clings to Dad's teachings – his retribution killings are the only good way to handle his need for blood." Or this from Maureen Ryan of the Chicago Tribune: "What is a human being? Is it someone who feels a deep need to right wrongs? Dexter does that, often more effectively than the police officers around him or the overwhelmed court system, the failings of which he sees every day. There's plenty of irony in the idea that a serial killer feels more visceral anger in the face of brutal crime than most of the cops around him, who range from competent to infuriatingly self-serving." And maybe this, from Rob Owen of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette: "Hall's performance is remarkable for its controlled nature. As Dexter, he erases memories of his last role – "Six Feet Under's" uptight, gay mortician, David Fisher – playing a character who believes he's so emotionally detached that he must fake all pleasant human interaction. It's a challenging, almost double role, requiring Hall to play to viewers who know Dexter's secret and those around him on screen who do not. Hall handles it with the necessarily subtle aplomb." In short the critics have reasons for liking the show – the irony, the performance of Michael C Hall in the lead role, and so on – that go beyond the simplistic "it makes a hero of a serial killer therefore it is an outrage that it is even on the air let alone on broadcast TV" position that the PTC takes.

And maybe that's the source of the PTC's problems with TV critics – they don't always like the stuff that the PTC likes and don't always hate the stuff the PTC hates. Certainly the PTC is not above quoting a TV critic...when that TV critic says something that they agree with. They quoted Tom Shales of the Washington Post when they were castigating My Name Is Earl. Shales didn't review Dexter, but his colleague at the post who did review the show (John Maynard) liked it. About Three Wishes, Shales wrote, "Each week a trio of do-gooders (a bit too braggy about the good they do) storms an American town and grants three wishes to folk in need.... It's shamelessly crammed with hugs and tears, even in the opening credits, but at least there aren't any monsters in it – unless you count Amy Grant, the sanctimonious singing host." (Yeah, I did some PTC style editing; here's what I left out: "On the premiere, that includes surgery for a little girl injured in a car accident, a new Ford (generously plugged) for a deputy sheriff and a new football field for the local high school.") Needless to say he probably wouldn't have made the PTC's cut for this.

Bizarrely, the second part of the PTC's indictment of newspaper TV critics ends with a quote from the late Jack Valenti on his retirement from the leadership of the Motion Picture Association of America. Valenti wrote: "This small band of Constant Whiners talk to each other, write for each other, opine with each other, and view with lacerating contempt the rubes who live Out There, west of Manhattan and east of the San Andreas Fault…Shouldn't everyone in the country glory in four-letter words ending in "k"? And why not? Since the C[onstant] W[hiner]s know what is right and real, then it is from them that the simpletons in Middle America should take their cues and their culture. In their zeal to brandish the notion that they are the custodians of creative rightness, they commit intellectual nihilism, the smashing of truth and reason, exalting a smallish and relentlessly ill-humored prism through which they all see the same lunacies." I find this to be bizarre because Valenti's statement has nothing at all to do with critics either of TV or the movies. Valenti was speaking about opponents of censorship, particularly those object to the MPAA's ratings system which forces cuts in movies like Kubrick's Eyes Wide Shut lest they be branded with the NC-17 rating which can have a deadly effect in terms of theatrical bookings. There is very little similarity between what Valenti railed against (wrongly in my view but that's another argument) and what the PTC claims that TV critics are supporting. In the latter case I am convinced that the PTC overestimates its support in the United States as a whole.

Even if I am wrong about what the public wants in terms of TV shows, that doesn't make the views articulated by professional TV critics invalid. I am reminded of Edmund Burke's speech to the electors of Bristol: "Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgement; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion." A critic owes his reader his or her judgement and opinion, to attempt to widen the reader-viewer's tastes not to march in lock step to reflect them. Of course the PTC in its own way, by condemning shows which it does not approve of, is trying to do exactly the same thing. And in my opinion their position is probably just as elitist as the PTC claims that critics are; the PTC knows what's good for you even if you don't appreciate it. The difference between the TV critics and the PTC is that the critics are consistently able to articulate the reasons why they like or don't like a show in terms that go beyond "it has a serial killer as a hero so it's a bad show." Criticism needs to be more than "this is good" or "this is bad." There has to be a reason and that reason has to be more than "because we say so" or "because of the subject matter it depicts and the language the characters use." That's why I trust TV critics far more than I do anyone at the PTC.

Who Does The PTC Hate This Week – May 27, 2008

Before I get around to ridiculing the PTC, some of you who read my post on the new HD-PVR might be wondering how I can be so sure that my brother won't know that I opted for the PVR box rather than the ordinary HDTV box. The answer is amazingly simple – in the three years and now 805 posts that I've put up on this Blog, my brother (who is currently living in my home while he waits for his place in BC to sell) has never read one. Zero. Nada. Nothing. If I want to keep something secret from him, all I have to do is write it here and otherwise keep my mouth shut. And my mother's too (she let out some rather broad hints that she might consider buying an HD box but well after we actually had). Now, let's get back to business.

How many of you know the story of a guy who accidentally wandered into a private party in a hotel ballroom. Inside he found a group of guys standing around saying numbers to each other and then laughing uproariously. Our hero couldn't figure out what was going on so eventually he asked one of the waiters in the room. "Well sir, this is a gathering of the Comedians Club. These guys know every joke ever told. For simplicity they have a master list and all of the jokes are numbered. So instead of actually telling the joke they just say the number."

"They've got every joke numbered and memorized?"

"Yes sir they do."

Well our hero can't believe that one but he decides to give it a try. He walks up to a group of the people who are standing around saying numbers and laughing and finally says, "Fourteen." The group falls silent and the silence spreads to the entire room as all eyes fall on our hero. Finally the waiter breaks the silence: "No wonder. You told it wrong."

Annual shareholders meeting are taking place and of course the PTC is using the opportunity to castigate companies for their advertising policies and providing the rest of us with press releases. And it's at this time that I feel like those comedians in the ballroom. Well not quite, but over the years I've discovered that summarizing PTC statements to shareholders meetings are so similar that you can set up a form version and simply insert appropriate names or statements at appropriate points. So, instead of giving an explanation of each individual presentation to the shareholders I can simply do it by the numbers, following the number with the appropriate names. Check it out:

"This is the PTC's presentation to the shareholders of (1 – insert name of company). The PTC began their statement by praising (2 – company and/or company CEO or Chairman of the Board) for (3 – family-friendly reputation or philanthropy). Thus the PTC can't understand why (2) is unaware of the damage that (4 – advertising on unsuitable programs/ads that aren't family friendly) can affect their reputation for (3). The PTC then goes on to explain that (5 – company or subsidiary of company) is advertising on (6 – programs) that the PTC finds to be (7 – evil/bad/not suitable for family viewing regardless of what time it is on OR is on at a time that the PTC feels is inappropriate for that ad). They give proof in the form of examples (8 –of why shows are bad, or why ad are unsuitable for the time). Then they call on (5) to be a responsible corporate citizen and stop the action the PTC finds to be unsuitable. Inevitably the PTC brings up its 1.2 million members as a power block that might be mobilized to boycott (though they never say the word 'boycott') and offers to 'help' the company choose what the good shows are as opposed to the bad shows. There may even be a time limit for an 'answer' the PTC's complaint."

So how would this work? Well, there were three shareholders meetings since the last time that I did one of these pieces. One of them had a bit of a surprise but I'll get to that in a moment. We'll use "The Form" for these:

(A) 1 – Berkshire-Hathaway; 2 – Warren Buffet; 3 – philanthropy; 4 – advertising on unsuitable programming; 5 – GEICO; 6 – Dirt, The Sopranos (on A&E); 7 – evil/bad/unsuitable for family viewing regardless of what time it is on; 8 – (no show specifically named, possibly both) scenes of masturbation, self-mutilation, racism, extreme violence and drug use.

(B) 1 – IHOP; 2 – IHOP Corporation; 3 – social responsibility and charity support; 4 – advertising on unsuitable programming; 5 – IHOP, Applebees; 6 – Two and a Half Men, NCIS 7 – evil/bad/unsuitable for family viewing regardless of what time it is on; 8 – both shows: "consistently contain coarse and inappropriate language, along with gratuitous sex and violence and are in direct opposition to IHOP's family image"; NCIS: "a pimp and a drug dealer fight over a corpse in a morgue while looking for a deceased person who had transported drugs. One character is held at gunpoint while another is forced to search the intestines of a dead body for drugs."

(C) 1 – Limited Brands; 2 – Limited Brands, founder Les Wexner; 3 – support community programs that focus on empowering women, nurturing and mentoring children and improving education; 4 – ads that aren't family friendly; 5 – Victoria's Secret; 6 – "your commercial advertising offers no indication as to where these spots will suddenly appear" 7 – "These ads are creeping into family viewing hours and programs"; 8 – "Parents are feeling powerless and find themselves addressing personal parenting issues at a time and place that seem to be dictated by these revealing ads. Your spots when viewed by children are at least confusing if not upsetting and embarrassing to all family members trying to watch TV together."

Now what made the Limited Brands shareholder meeting a bit of a surprise is that according to the PTC their representative was "sequestered from the other shareholders in a separate room and was not permitted to speak during the meeting." According to their press release, "The PTC is now investigating its options given this blatant – and what appears to be intentional – disregard for shareholder rights." I find this one to be a rather interesting example of restricting speech, and there are a lot of things that don't seem to be answered by the PTC's statement. For example, was the PTC representative the only person "sequestered from the other shareholders" or were there other people there. If there were other people there, were they considered "troublemakers" – the sort of people who ask inane questions some aspect of the company's operations – or was this a general overflow room for the meeting. And in a more general way, how did corporate officials of Limited Brands know that the PTC representative, Director of Corporate Relations Glen Erickson, was in fact a PTC representative who was aiming to take the company to task. As far as the PTC's determination to "investigate its options" related to the "blatant" disregard of shareholder rights, well, I don't know what the legal obligations of a company are in this sort of situation, but I have a suspicion that a company can pretty much do whatever they wish in this sort of situation. I know of a number of examples where a company has cut off the microphone during a shareholder's meeting – indeed it has happened to PTC representatives in the past – and while I know that shareholders have to vote on boards of directors, I am unaware of any legal obligation that a company has to allow any and all shareholders an opportunity to speak during a meeting.

There was one other shareholders meeting report that "The Form" doesn't fit. This was the American Airlines meeting. A PTC representative attended the meeting to talk about the programming offered on the company's in-flight entertainment system – the general monitor variety rather than the seatback monitor type: "Depending on the aircraft, access to adult programming is available to all travelers regardless of age. The 777 has personal entertainment monitors permitting children to watch whatever they wish. On other American Airlines aircraft, the entertainment is offered on a common monitor so even the most vigilant parent is powerless to stop the screening of inappropriate programming." It's an interesting problem although not one that directly relates to TV. The problem for me is the usual one that I run into with the PTC – what constitutes "adult" programming. Obviously American isn't showing porn, even on their individual seatback monitors. And I doubt that they're showing much if any nudity of any sort. So presumably "adult" means language and violence. Now there's this wonderful thing called "the Internet" where you can check to find out all sorts of things, and the thing that I did was to check what movies were on American Airlines flights. This is the list on all their routes for the month of June, together with the MPAA rating (IMDB also provides a parents' guide with explanations for some of the things found in the films):

• College Road Trip (G)
  
• Definitely Maybe
  (PG-13 for "sexual content, including some frank dialogue, language and smoking")
  
• The Spiderwick Chronicles (PG for scary creature action and violence, peril and some thematic elements)
  
• Penelope (PG for thematic elements, some innuendo and language. (foreign cut))
  
• Evan Almighty (PG for mild rude humor and some peril)
  
• 27 Dresses (PG-13 for language, some innuendo and sexuality.)
  
• The Bucket List (PG-13 for language, including a sexual reference)
  
• Second Hand Lions (PG for thematic material, language and action violence)
  
• Astronaut Farmer (PG for thematic material, peril and language)
  

Sorry guys, but I don't see where this constitutes "adult programming." Old, and somewhat boring programming, yes, but to refer to any of this as adult is pushing the line of credulity even for the PTC unless "adult" for them is anything rated higher than PG or maybe G. (and some of those MPAA descriptions sound worse than they undoubtedly are. Just as an example the language in Astronaut Farmer consists of "At least 3 's' words (1 written), 1 slang term for sex ('laid'), 6 asses, 5 hells, 2 damns, 2 S.O.B.s and 1 use each of 'My God' and 'Oh my God' (with a possible use of 'G-damn')." And yes I found it amazing that someone counted.

The Worst of the Week this time around (the PTC seems to have totally given up on the Cable Worst – it literally hasn't changed in months) is FOX's American Dad but the PTC's page for that condemnation of all things Seth MacFarlane came back with an error message and I don't feel like waiting for them to figure out what bit of code they screwed up, so let's move on to the Misrated Show – the late and somewhat lamented Women's Murder Club, specifically the May 6^th episode which was rated TV-PG SDL – Sex, Dialog, and Language. The PTC thinks that the episode should get a V descriptor as well. The episode concerned a young man who was murdered. It turns out that he was accused of raping a fellow college student but the DA's office decided not to pursue the complaint. The PTC cites two scenes as "proof" that the episode deserves the descriptor. First: "The opening scene of the episode featured Collin's dead body, with blood oozing through his shirt and coming out of his mouth. At the medical examiner's office, Collin's dead body was shown on an examination table as coroners discussed his injuries." In the other scene, as the PTC explains it, "Kate's boyfriend, Charlie, shows up at a press conference with a gun and shoots at Jay, but he misses and the bullet hits Cindy Thomas, a reporter. Again, a large blood stain soaks through her shirt." The PTC sees at least three violent acts in the described scenes: "with the depiction of a blood-spattered dead body, a shooting scene, and a seriously injured reporter, a violence descriptor seems an obvious necessity." I don't see that, I see one, the shooting of the reporter complete with the blood stain. I have said it before and I will continue to stress it: the depiction of the aftermath of a violent act is not the equivalent of the depiction of the act itself, and nothing the PTC can say will convince me otherwise.

I've got some more material based on the PTC's current TV Trends article, but the article is just the first of a two-parter. And since the way my response was going it was turning into a two-parter (and that was just my response to the first article) I have decided to try to address the PTC writer's piece in an article of its own that will probably be posted next week.