Who Does The PTC Hate Now

It's been a while since I've written one of these PTC pieces, and there's a reason. They make me ill. Oh, I don't mean that I want to vomit when writing one or anything like that (most of the time at least), but I usually end up spending too much time on them - because there's only a short length of time that I can look at their site - and feeling that my time could have been spent in so many more productive pursuits...like having a nap or picking lint out of my navel. At times like this it's even worse because while I clearly don't agree with the PTC, their methods, or their views on what is and isn't acceptable on television today, I have to confess that there are times when I sort of agree with what they're saying; there are shows out there with content that I find objectionable, and that I think would be better if they were in a later time slot. The difference is that if there's something that I don't like or find objectionable, I say that I don't like it and find it objectionable; I make no effort to impose my views on you or anyone else. The PTC in their neverending, and increasingly irrelevant and unsuccessful efforts to become America's national nanny not only tells you that they don't like something and find it objectionable but claim to speak for you. So let me make it clear, right now, that I don't like the PTC and I find them objectionable.

The big thing of course – and the reason why I'm writing this – is that the PTC has fired up the "big complaint machine" to go after one of the organization's favourite targets, Seth McFarland and Family Guy and the March 8^th episode of the show in particular. A piece headlined Fox's Family Guy Spreads Filth on YOUR Airwaves on the PTC website leads directly to their pre-written email complaint set up. All you have to do is fill in your name, address and email and click the "Sign & Submit FCC Complaint" button. You don't even have to inconvenience yourself by watching the episode, or even reading the content that "you," through the medium of the PTC, are complaining about. There is a link to an article (which is filled with the usual level of invective from the PTC, and includes words such as "showered audiences in filth," "pump their sewage into YOUR living room," and "shows that corrupt YOUR kids and YOUR culture") and documentation in the letter that "you" are sending to the FCC, but the way the letter is laid out, the documentation is hidden unless you deliberately scroll down on that part of the page. In other words you don't actually have to know what you're complaining about in order to complain about it. And it is entirely possible that a lot of them don't.

So what is the PTC complaining about? Well here's the text of the documentation part of the PTC article:

In one scene, husband Peter lies in bed, his naked rear exposed. A horse enters and licks Peter's rear, as Peter moans in pleasure. "Mmm, what made you come around, Lois? I love you so much. I love you so much, Lois," Peter groans. The FCC has the DUTY to enforce the law and fine Fox for this gross violation of broadcast decency standards.

Among other atrocities in the episode, Peter warns his family that "some of the milk in the fridge is not milk, it's horse sperm," whereupon Baby Stewie eats cereal covered with the "milk"; Peter's gay lover greets him with news that he has arranged a gay "eleven-way" orgy; and Peter helps his son Chris with math homework:

"One trick I used to use is turning things into a word problem. For example, if there are three glory holes in the bathroom at the club and 28 guys at the circuit party. How many rotations of guys will it take before everybody's had a turn? Nine, with a remainder of Brent…Brent can't fit in the glory hole, and that's why we all like Brent."

Okay, so the PTC wants the FCC to fine or sanction FOX for this show. The question is what do they find to be actionable in the scenes cited in their complaint? As far as I can tell the answer is that there is nothing. According to their website the FCC is, by law, charged with preventing the broadcast of obscene material and enforcing the prohibition against indecent or profane material between 6 a.m. and 10 p.m. Material that would be described as obscene according to the FCC definition. The FCC regulates "obscene, indecent, or profane" material and based on the FCC definitions it seems to me that the material cited by the Council does not meet the measure that the FCC has set for obscenity or indecency. Of course that's never stopped the PTC from filing complaints with the FCC in the past, and indeed the FCC has in the recent past – particularly during Kevin Martin's term as chairman – upheld complaints filed by the PTC and fined stations for material which previous commissions had either not found obscene or on which the commission had decided not to rule; nudity on NYPD Blue comes to mind immediately.

That isn't to say that the show isn't offensive to a lot of people. If I were Gay I probably wouldn't appreciate homosexuality being depicted as a lifestyle of anonymous sexual encounters – the reference to "glory holes" – or to promiscuous sexual behaviour – the "eleven way orgy." (I personally am offended that people named "Brent" are depicted as Gay men who are too large to fit through a "glory hole." I for one am not Gay. ;-) ) I'm not even going to touch on the question of the possibility that Stewie was eating cereal with horse semen beyond saying that based on consistency, not to mention taste, only a total moron would not know the difference between the two. However being offended by a show isn't justification for levying a fine on the show; it is justification for not watching the show.

Tied with their FCC complaint is a post in the PTC's TV Trends column called PTC To News Media: "Why Are You Not?" The title comes from a quote by Thoreau and refers to his conversation with Emerson when Thoreau was jailed over his refusal to pay his taxes in opposition to the Mexican War – Emerson: "Henry, why are you here?" Thoreau: "Why are you not?" It is more than a little incongruous for them to use that quote from Thoreau to attack the media in a battle to get government to issue a punitive fine on an issue of censorship, but then the PTC has shown any real understanding of irony. The gist of the column is that the news that the PTC was filing a complaint against FOX and The Family Guy episode was not reported "fairly." This seems to mean in a manner that was supportive of the PTC's aims and goals or failing that, neutral. According to the PTC there were a few news sources that "reported the PTC's request for enforcement of existing broadcast decency laws in a straightforward manner," including Broadcast & Cable, TVNewsday, and Communications Daily. It's worth noting that the outlets cited are all sites that report the news without commentary. And the PTC's complaint qualifies as news. But just because it is news does not mean that people don't have opinions on the subject and should not express them.

The PTC doesn't see it that way of course: "In fact, the much [sic] of the media's coverage was squarely in favor of Family Guy's harmful and offensive content – and took the opportunity to attack the PTC." But the PTC only cites five websites that were, "squarely in favor" and who taking "the opportunity to attack the PTC." The first is "The Hollywood Reporter's James Hibberd." One might assume means that Hibberd writes news articles for the trade paper, but in fact he does a blog for the Reporter website where he not only reports the news but often states his own opinion. Hibberd's article is not long but is ever so slightly mocking of the PTC, which is not unusual for him. (He most recently wrote an article on the PTC's outrage at the self-mastectomy scene in Nip/Tuck which is a cogent dismissal of the PTC and deserves to be read.) In this particular case Hibberd's sins are mocking PTC president Tim Winter – "there's nothing hotter than PTC president Tim Winter talking about graphic TV content" – then sneering (apparently one can sneer in print) "I know. I can't believe I missed Family Guy last week either" after running the PTC's own description of the episode objectionable content in the episode. Worst of all he quotes an interview from The Advocate in which Seth MacFarlane expresses his opinion of the PTC:

Oh, yeah. That's like getting hate mail from Hitler. They're literally terrible human beings. I've read their newsletter, I've visited their website, and they're just rotten to the core. For an organization that prides itself on Christian values – I mean, I'm an atheist, so what do I know? – they spend their entire day hating people. They can all suck my dick as far as I'm concerned.

They also object to Bob Sassone of TV Squad. For those who don't know, Bob has been a TV Squad blogger practically from the beginning of the site. He reviews TV shows and comments on news items. In short he is paid to express his opinions. In this particular article he wrote, "Actually, I was kinda shocked by the episode myself, but I'm always shocked by episodes of Family Guy. That's what makes it funny." That was enough to get him mentioned by the PTC. Celebrity gossip blogger and "self-proclaimed 'queen of all media'" Perez Hilton, who is in the business of expressing opinions, was also mentioned. The PTC said that in his article Hilton, "shrugged off the episode's content in his first sentence: 'Bestiality, orgies and babies eating sperm, oh my!'" and "went on to call the PTC's efforts "a waste of energy." Like Hibberd, Hilton uses the MacFarlane quote and repeats it (using the royal "we"), "The Parents Television Council can suck our dick!!!!"

Then there's what the PTC calls the "infinitely ignorable LA Rag Mag;" not really a "mag" or a "rag," just a website. According to the PTC the site "vomited forth the most vitriol" when describing the PTC as "some crazy Christian organization" with "1.3 million freedom hating members." They also objected to the opinion, expressed by the site, that, "We saw this episode and thought it was one of the funniest episodes we had ever seen. Yes, we did gasp at the sperm bottle consumption and the gay orgy scene." While the LA Rag Mag was factually incorrect in describing the PTC as "some crazy Christian organization" – the PTC is socially conservative but non-denominational – they do have every right to express their opinion that the PTC is "freedom hating." The LA Rag Mag also uses the MacFarlane's "objectionable" quote from The Advocate.

Perhaps the most puzzling reaction is to The Advocate because its article is perhaps the most balanced that the PTC cites. It is not given to opinion, supposedly what the PTC wants, with the PTC's complaint reported "in a straightforward manner." However they did offer MacFarlane's quote as a comment from the other side, which was enough – in the PTC's mind – to put The Advocate in the enemy camp, "implicitly defending Family Guy's offensive depictions of bestiality and babies eating sperm as 'off-the-wall animated comedy.'" But after declaring The Advocate to be the enemy they spend an entire paragraph being bewildered as to why they don't side with the PTC: "The Advocate's opposition to the PTC is odd, given that the Parents Television Council is not an anti-gay organization....The PTC's concern is solely that of protecting children from all graphic sexual content on TV, regardless of the genders or orientations of the individuals involved. Surely, gay parents and families are just as concerned about their children being exposed to graphic and gratuitous sexual content as are heterosexual parents."

Having "proven" that their FCC complaint against The Family Guy was not properly reported because a few outlets whose work frequently involves opinions said that they didn't see anything actionable about the episode, and dared to quote an interview by Seth MacFarlane in which he expressed an opinion of the PTC, the group turns to motive. And here is where they really seem to go off the deep end. Citing a pair of articles where the TV Trends writer "proved" that America's TV critics were "completely out of touch with the beliefs of average Americans" (articles which I examined and attempted to debunk in an earlier post) the writer then attempts to explain why members of the news media don't "properly" report on the PTC's complaint against The Family Guy. The media, they say, suffer from the "same defect" – they are totally out of touch with the beliefs of "average Americans." Their full explanation has to be read to be believed (the use of boldface here is mine; if I'm reading this right, the PTC is accusing the defenders of Seth MacFarlane of somehow benefitting financially as a result of defending him):

But what is truly of concern is this: those in the media are so invested emotionally (and perhaps financially) in defending Seth MacFarlane that none of them shows even the slightest concern about – or even interest in discussing -- the content of Family Guy itself.

The question must be asked: where are the reflective and intellectual qualities with which the nation's journalists are supposedly invested? Where is the news media willing to "speak truth to power," when the "power" is a multi-million-dollar Seth MacFarlane franchise? Is it truly the case that not a single one of these reporters believed that there is anything offensive in showing babies eating horse sperm on a Sunday night cartoon? Do none of America's media commentators believe there is anything indecent about describing "a gay eleven-way" in a show on at 8:00 p.m.? Are there no mainstream bloggers who think that mocking deaf children as "signing frantically" as they die is at all problematic? Is there nothing in this episode which any journalist, critic, or blogger found even mildly offensive or worthy of concern? Family Guy's doesn't content bother any of them? Really?

I am not a fan of The Family Guy. I don't watch the show and frankly some of the things that are described by both mainstream critics and bloggers were enough to persuade me that this show isn't for me. And yet I still defend it. In this case I defend it because even though the material may be offensive to some, it doesn't seem to me to meet any of the standards set by the FCC for censure, just as the episode of Las Vegas that they complained about to the FCC didn't seem to me to meet those standards. Mostly I defend it because this is a case of a small minority trying to decide what all other Americans should be allowed to watch. If every one of the PTC's alleged 1.3 million members were to sign a complaint form they would still be less than one-fifth of the 7.17 million people who watched that episode of Family Guy and quite clearly were not offended by the show, but of course there is no medium for them to make their case.

More and more I have come to regard the PTC as the schoolyard bully who when challenged complains that he is being bullied. There is no doubt that the PTC does try to bully producers, advertisers, networks, TV critics, the media, and in a way even the public it claims to serve. In the case of critics and the media, the organization makes the claim that they are out of touch with the beliefs of "average Americans" which is why the TV critic is a disappearing breed, while those in the media who don't cover the PTC and their actions (specifically their FCC complaints) in a manner that the PTC wants them to then it is the media who "refuses to speak truth to power" that does the work of the evil Seth MacFarlane and presumably (by logicl extension) other producers and shows that the PTC finds objectionable in silencing or ridiculing the PTC before the public. And yet surely if the PTC really did represent the views of "average Americans" they would have more members and the audiences for shows that the PTC finds objectionable, like Family Guy, would decline rather than staying stable or growing. If the PTC is really representing the views of "average Americans" then why isn't their membership larger than the viewership of Family Guy? My conclusion is that they represent only themselves and that while average Americans may be concerned with sex and violence on TV their definitions of what is objectionable are radically different from the puritanical views of the PTC leadership and their members and that real average Americans are dealing with the situation on their own without the "help" of the PTC and without using the organizations "big complaint machine." But what do I know – I'm just a not particularly average Canadian.

PTC Officially Nuts

I mean we already knew that right? But if we needed any more confirmation it comes from Billboard, and just about every newspaper in North America.

The Parents Television Council is demanding that radio stations not play Britney Spears's new single If U Seek Amy. It seems that the PTC has determined that if you say the words fast (and you've got a smut focused mind like the PTC does) it sounds as you are spelling out a naughty word:

If U See Kay Me

The PTC is telling radio stations not to broadcast the song between the hours of 6 a.m. and 10 p.m. because the Council believes it would violate the Broadcast Decency Act. In the words of PTC president Tim Winter, "There is no misinterpreting the lyrics to this song, and it's certainly not about a girl named Amy. It's one thing for a song with these lyrics to be included on a CD so that fans who wish to hear it can do so, but it's an entirely different matter when this song is played over the publicly-owned airwaves, especially at a time when children are likely to be in the listening audience."

There's been no comment from Jive, the label that is releasing Britney's new CD Circus on which If U Seek Amy can be found, or from Spears's "people," but think they're grateful to the PTC for playing their part in publicizing the CD and the downloads of the song. According to the Billboard report published on Wednesday, If U Seek Amy, the track is 92 on the Billboard Pop 100 and had entered rotation on six top 40 radio stations, and had sold 107,000 copies digitally according to Nielsen SoundScan.

Note to Julius Genachowski: When you're confirmed as head of the FCC, treat any PTC complaints on this song with the respect they deserve. Remember, "sanity not censorship."

Who Does The PTC Hate THIS Week – November 13, 2008

What I thought was going to be a short one this time around for a couple of reasons. First, I spent Friday and Saturday getting my brother mostly moved out of my house and into his new (to him) home. And in typical Greg fashion, this meant loading and unloading a trailer late into the evening (the last load on Friday went out of here at 10 at night – you try loading a trailer from a garage with no lights into a trailer which obviously had no internal lights at that time of night). And also typically, in Greg's view I am totally incapable of doing even the simplest chores correctly. Oh well, at least I can reclaim the use of the HDTV and the PVR on a more regular basis than I could when he was around and watching what he wanted – usually whatever sports were in season.

The second reason why this is short – well okay, shorter – is because there seems to be something wrong with the links at the PTC's website, which affects one article and the video clips. Clicking on the link to the article CBS Breaks Its Decency Pledge: Part 2 of 2 gets an error message: "Microsoft VBScript compilation error '800a0409'." Clicking on the video links in the articles on Gossip Girl and Skins gets this message: "Directory Listing Denied This Virtual Directory does not allow contents to be listed." Clearly someone at the PTC isn't doing their coding properly. Now admittedly I think I can probably guess why the PTC thinks that CBS has broken its "Decency Pledge" – the words "F-word" on Big Brother, "fleeting penis" on Survivor, "lap dance" on Two And A Half Men, "consent decree" and probably "Supreme Court" will be prominent – but not actually being able to see this article to be able to ridicule it is probably the biggest loss in this. The video clips are a lesser loss – particularly the Gossip Girl clip, since this is American broadcast network TV after all – but at least in the case of Skins I'd like to see just how much there is that anyone outside the PTC would object to. Oh well, as the song says, "We'll have to muddle through somehow." Meanwhile, to the unpaid PTC intern who reads blogs for mentions of the organization a message: will you please tell your IT guys to be more careful in coding from now on!

Taking a slightly different approach than I have in most of these PTC posts I'm going to start with the Worst Broadcast Show Of The Week. It's Gossip Girl again, and for a reason that I inevitably find a bit perplexing. They start off by looking at the show's self-promotion as a risqué (or is it risky) show: "In its advertising for the program, the network has proudly flaunted legitimate criticism of the show, placing phrases like 'Very Bad for You,' 'Every Parent's Nightmare' and (the PTC's contribution) 'Mind-blowingly Inappropriate' on websites, magazine pages, buses and billboards everywhere." Of course the only quote that the PTC is willing to give a source for is their own, so we aren't even sure where those phrases come from. It could be organizations like the PTC, it could be a TV critic, or it could be The CW's own publicity machine. We don't know.

But then that's not the point of the PTC's piece, it is the November 3^rd episode, which the organization claims, "lived down to its billing." In the episode Blair, a high school senior with ambitions of going to Yale is serving as a chaperone for fifteen year-old Emma who is the daughter of "an elite Yale donor." Emma wants to lose her virginity – that night! It seems that Emma is as competitive with a girl named Muffy as Blair is with Serena (?) and Muffy has arranged to lose her virginity the same night, to the captain of her school's lacrosse team: "'They call him the De-Virginator!' Emma squeals." The article quotes Emma as saying, "I want Bacardi and a boy. This body's open for business!" It's cheesy dialogue but what I find difficult to swallow is the Council's interpretation of Blair's response: "Emma attempts to enlist Blair's help, but Blair is rightly concerned – about her own future: 'She determined to become a woman on my watch. And if I don't help pimp her out, she's going to character assassinate me to the dean.'" So in other words for Blair to be able to have Emma on her side, all she has to do is find a guy for Emma to have sex with, and make sure that no one finds out. This doesn't seem to me to be too difficult a thing to accomplish. And yet as the PTC points out, Blair doesn't help Emma lose her virginity but manages to persuade the younger girl that the "first time" needs to be about more than just being in a competition with Muffy: "Having sex for the first time shouldn't be part of a competition to beat Muffy the Lacrosstitute."

One would think that the PTC would be happy about this – a character on the show talks someone else out of having casual sex, a victory for chastity or at least some version of virtue. Ah, but that would blunt the PTC's righteous indignation over this show – not to mention their efforts to promote a Rand Corporation study on the effects of "frequent exposure to TV sexual content." Instead, the PTC describes Blair's efforts to keep Emma a virgin as "the rankest hypocrisy on the part of the program"! Why? Because "Blair herself, though only a high school senior, has been shown to have had sex with multiple men in past episodes." Setting aside the fact that as a high school senior Blair is above the age of consent in most of the United States (17 is the age of consent in New York where the series is set – there are only about twelve states where the age of consent is 18, while in thirty states and Canada the age of consent is 16), the PTC is saying that Blair's admonitions to Emma about giving up her virginity is invalid because Blair herself is deemed by the PTC to be promiscuous. Of course, we don't know the circumstances of Blair's first sexual encounter; whether her admonitions were because her first time was a "special" romantic event (to her if not for the boy), or because she was in the equivalent of "a competition to beat Muffy the Lacrosstitute" and she has come to regret it since. No, Blair is a slut, and therefore using this character to warn Emma away from a too young first sexual experience (while at the same time protecting her potential entry to Yale) is "the rankest hypocrisy on the part of the program." And I for one find that attitude on the part of the PTC to be the rankest hypocrisy – it's not enough to offer a message against sexual activity at the age of 15, that message has to come from someone that the PTC deems to be "worthy."

When it comes to the Cable Worst Of The Week – another dip into BBC America's Skins – I suppose that the PTC has slightly more to be upset with. Now remember I haven't seen this series. In fact it airs on one of the premium movie channels (Super Channel) up here that I don't subscribe to. The episode in question, the fourth of the second season, deals with the relationship between Tony and Michelle. Tony was hit by a bus at the end of the first season while he was trying to regain his cell phone signal – he was talking to Michelle and trying to tell her he loved her. In this episode Michelle is trying to reignite the sexual part of their relationship, although Tony's memory has been hampered by the accident and he has developed erectile dysfunction. She also has to deal with Scarlett, her new step-sister, to whom she takes an immediate dislike. On a camping trip (onto which Scarlett has invited herself), Michelle has sex with Sid, Tony's best friend who has had a secret crush on her. They have sex which leads to an orgasm for Michelle – her first with a partner – in part because he's both grieving for Tony and has broken up with his long time girlfriend Cassie, who is in Scotland now (or so he thinks).

This is all pretty mature stuff of course, and the show is rated by BBC America as TV-MA, which means that parents who use the V-Chip shouldn't have any difficulty keeping their kids away from it while those who don't should at least know that with that rating it isn't something that their teenagers should be watching. The 10 p.m. Eastern time slot should also be a clue that this show isn't intended for most teenagers. Ah, but none of this matters to the PTC. To them the logical steps seem to be: TV show is about teenagers therefore the target audience must be made up entirely of teenagers. Thus they make sure to paint, in the most horrified of clarity – even if they have to make up some of the motives for the actions of the characters entirely out of their own filthy minds (and since they see the worst in every action on TV those minds are obviously filthy) – the depravity of the characters, and the writers and directors responsible for them. Thus we have this description of Michelle's desire to have sex with Tony: "Tony has recently been hit by a bus and suffered a head injury which affected his memory and bodily responses; but rather than being sympathetic and helpful, teenager Michelle's greatest concern is Tony's inability to have sex with her." They then go into some of the dialog, making sure to titillate by inserting the words that were covered up by the people at BBC America:

Michelle: "You used to say one (muted t**) was bigger than the other. Look at me, for (muted f***'s) sake!"

The topless Michelle straddles Tony, reaching inside his underwear. Her hand is seen moving about inside his shorts as she fondles him. Tony is unable to have an erection, causing Michelle to erupt in rage and slap him:

Michelle: "It's all (muted f*****) up forever… You bastard! What the (muted f***) were you doing in the road? You idiot! You (muted f******) idiot!"

One obvious interpretation of how this scene is written is that Michelle's "rage" at Tony has less to do with Tony's inability to perform than it does with Michelle's own inability to cope with Tony's sudden disability (and the fact that he is not able to act in the one area where their relationship seems to function best) and the unfairness of it all. Onto which is added her mother's new marriage and Michelle's new step-sister Scarlet. The PTC has something to say about this of course: "Michelle is graphically presented with evidence of her mother's sex life, as a workman drops a box containing her mother's vibrators and other sex toys (including a mechanical hand which "walks" about on its fingers). Michelle also watches as her new step-father gropes his own daughter Scarlet's rear, then gets into a hot tub with her, both of them naked." The latter description is probably the most genuinely shocking part of this as it implies an incestuous relationship between Scarlet and her father that apparently isn't dealt with in much more depth. Michelle having sex with Sid is dealt with by the PTC in a typical fashion: "Ultimately, Michelle does manage to quench her desires, though it is with Tony's best friend Sid: Michelle: 'Wasn't that the best night ever?...You made me come, Sid. Nobody's ever done that before!'" The PTC's interpretation of Michelle is that that she is obsessed with sex and is using Sid to satisfy her selfish desires. A different interpretation is that Sid and Michelle – the two people in the group closest to Tony – enter into this event emotionally overwrought by the changes in their friend, and their inability to cope with the changes that the accident has brought. But of course that's too deep for the PTC, or maybe just not tawdry enough.

Here is the PTC's conclusion on Skins. After again citing the Rand Corporation study on the effects of "frequent exposure to TV sexual content" they bring this up: "Skins is aimed directly at teen viewers; and BBC America is doing everything it can to promote the sex-filled program: 'Forget all the predictable controversy of Gossip Girl -- the cool kids have moved onto Skins!' blares one of the network's ads for the show. Given the scientifically documented influence that such programming has on teens, BBC America's continued enthusiasm for the program moves from economic self-interest into willful [sic] negligence." The claim that the show is "is aimed directly at teen viewers" would seem to be contradicted by the network's decision to give it a TV-MA rating which, as Wikipedia notes, means that "This program is not intended for children and therefore may not be suitable for children under the age of 17.... The program may contain extreme graphic violence, strong profanity, overt explicit sexual dialogue, nudity and/or strong sexual content." As for the ad for the show, it is troubling to an extent if it is indeed marketing the show to the teenage viewer. However, what isn't clear (at least not to me, since the only reference I have is to what the PTC says the ad says, and not to the visual imagery) is exactly who "the cool kids" refers to; is it – as the PTC claims – the teenaged viewing audience, or are they the characters on the show?

Since the PTC is making so much of it, it might be appropriate to look at the Rand Corporation study. Or rather what we're able to find out about the study. It was done for journal Pediatrics and published in the November 2008 edition. According to the study's fact sheet (which is where the link above goes to) the study used "data from a national longitudinal sample of youth 12–17 years old at initial sampling. The youth were interviewed first in the spring of 2001 and then reinterviewed one year and three years later. Researchers focused on 23 popular programs that were widely available on broadcast and cable television and contained high levels of sexual content (both depictions of sex as well as dialogue or discussion about sex). The shows included drama, comedy, reality, and animated programs." It was also stated that the study adjusted for other contributing factors, "including living in a single-parent household and engaging in problem behaviors such as skipping school." The researchers claimed that, "the proportion of teens who are likely to become pregnant or be responsible for a pregnancy in their teen years is two times greater among those who view high levels of televised sexual content (those in the 90th percentile) than among those who view low levels (those in the 10th percentile)." A graph provided with the fact sheet showed that the percentage of teens expected to become pregnant or be responsible for a pregnancy at the time of the final interview at age 16 was 5% at the low level and approximately 12% at the high levels. At age 20 at the time of the final interview the percentage for the low percentile group was 10% and for the high percentile group 25%. For the medium exposure group (the 50^th percentile) the figures were 7.5% at age 16 up to approximately 15% at age 20. One interesting aspect of the study is that the percentages for each group listed were roughly parallel throughout the age groups.

The study offered four recommendations:

• TV industry leaders should examine how programming can include messages to teens about the consequences of sexual activity.
  
• Media literacy instruction in middle and high schools can help teens think more critically about the relative absence of negative consequences of sex in TV portrayals and encourage thinking about alternative outcomes to those seen on TV.
  
• Training for pediatricians should include intensified efforts to teach about the effects of media exposure on children's health.
  
• Parents need to monitor their teens' TV viewing and provide education about the consequences of sex. Tools that can help them review television content may be helpful.
  

I can't imagine the PTC being overly enthusiastic about any of these recommendations, particularly the first, which seems to indicate that there is a way to present content that deals with sex and sexuality that goes beyond banning such programming regardless of when the show airs. Certainly they aren't particularly sympathetic to the existing tools that can help parents review and monitor teens TV viewing (the V-Chip being the prominent one), and one can scarcely expect them to embrace the idea of "media literacy instruction in middle and high schools" as a way to get teens to think critically about the depictions of sex in TV portrayals.

While there are aspects of this study that I would like to see more information on – specifically regarding sample size, socio-economic groupings (since teen pregnancy seems to be more common in poorer economic groups), availability or willingness to use contraceptives, and most notably the identities of the programs defined by the study as having high levels of sexual content – there seems to be some validity to the study, particularly when you consider a 2004 study by the Rand Corporation entitled Does Watching Sex on Television Influence Teens' Sexual Activity?
According to that study, there was a correlation between teens watching a lot of shows that contained sexual content – both depictions of sexual activity and sexual talk – and whether they have their first sexual activity in the next year. However there was also evidence of a correlation between shows that offered information about the risks of sexual activity. The study was based on the reactions of teenage viewers to an episode of Friends in which the efficacy of condoms is discussed (the episode is The One Where Rachel Tells...). The researchers drew an interesting conclusion: "The study did not find dramatic changes in teens' sexual knowledge or belief. However, it looked at only a single episode of television, and one that included the somewhat complicated message that condoms almost always work, but sometimes fail, and with huge consequences. The researchers concluded that entertainment shows that include portrayals of sexual risks and consequences can potentially have two beneficial effects on teen sexual awareness: They can teach accurate messages about sexual risks, and they can stimulate a conversation with adults that can reinforce those messages." Needless to say, it is likely that the PTC would condemn this episode of Friends for discussing sex at all.

Moving from sex to language, the PTC has released a new study that claims that the broadcast networks are airing an increasing amount of "harsh profanity." They certainly make this study sound scientific. According to the press release, "This Parents Television Council analysis of foul language on television is based on a comprehensive and exhaustive look at all primetime entertainment programming (sports and news programs excluded) on the major broadcast networks (ABC, CBS, Fox, NBC, CW, MyNetworkTV, UPN and WB) between 1998 and 2007. Every instance of unbleeped or partially-bleeped foul language selected for this analysis was recorded in and retrieved from the PTC's custom-designed Entertainment Tracking System (ETS) database and sorted by word, year, network and timeslot." It certainly sounds impressive and scientific, and the results sound shocking:

• In total, nearly 11,000 expletives (hell, damn, ass, piss, screw, bitch, bastard, suck, crap, shit, and fuck) were aired during primetime on broadcast TV in 2007 – nearly twice as many as in 1998.
  
• Milder expletives like hell, damn, crap, etc., are starting to take a back seat to harsher words. In 1998, 92% of the foul language on TV was comprised of milder expletives. In 2007, 74% of the foul language could be categorized as mild, however, more than a quarter of the expletives a child will hear on TV today will be some form of the f-word, s-word, or the b-word.
  
• The f-word aired only one time on primetime broadcast TV in all of 1998 – yet it appeared 1,147 times on primetime broadcast TV in 2007 on 184 different programs.
  
• The s-word, which appeared only two times in 1998, aired 364 times in 2007 on 133 different programs.
  
• Usage of the b-word on primetime television has increased 196% from 1998 to 2007 (431 to 1277). The number of programs using the b-word likewise increased from 103 in 1998 to 685 in 2007.
  
• The f-word first aired on a UPN show in 1998 at 8:00 p.m. In 1999, the number of times the f-word aired on broadcast television during primetime increased to 11.
  
• In 2007, 52% of the programs that contained the f-word and 55% of the programs that contained the s-word aired during the 8:00 p.m. Family Hour.
  
• In 2007, the f-word aired in 96 shows during the 8:00 p.m. hour. CBS and Fox accounted for almost 60% of all shows airing this expletive.
  
• In 1998, no shows on broadcast television aired the s-word at 8:00 p.m. or 9:00 p.m. By 2007, the s-word appeared in 73 shows at 8:00 p.m. and 52 shows at 9:00 p.m. Fox and ABC accounted for 77% of the shows airing the word during the 9:00 p.m. hour (46% and 31% respectively).
  
• Nearly a quarter (24%) of the programs that aired the f-word and 25% of the programs that aired the s-word in 2007 did not carry the L-descriptor, which would have triggered the mechanism in the V-chip to allow families who do not wish to be exposed to such content to block the programs from coming into their homes.
  
• In 2007, 29% of programs aired the b-word without an L-descriptor, which was more frequent than the f-word and s-word. This may indicate a growing comfort with the word in the networks' standards and practices departments and their failure to even recognize the word as offensive.
  

Okay what to say about this one. I mean besides "what the H-E-Double Hockey Sticks is the 'B-word?" Okay, how about this one; the PTC is full of 'S-word" on this one. For the most part we aren't hearing these words thanks in no small part to the actions of the networks and their standards and practices divisions in bleeping the most offensive words. Which they've been doing since even before the PTC was a gleam in Brent Bozell's eye by the way. But here's the big thing. The PTC notes an increase in the use of the "f-word" and the "s-word" between 1998 and 2007. Now what has happened in this time period? Well of course it's the rise of the reality shows. The degree to which these shows are "reality" is and has been debated from the time that Richard Hatch hit the beach in Pulau for that first episode of Survivor but the one thing that is obvious is that the people's words are their own, expletives and all. Given that these are real people the stark truth would seem to be that this is how people actually talk. And with one notable exception – which I'm certain was a result of the muffled nature of the word – those words are bleeped. With rare exceptions, such as Dr. Mark Greene saying "shit" on an episode of ER (at a time when that word is probably the only appropriate response – the man realises that he's going to die very soon), scripted programming doesn't even try to use the "harsh profanity" like the "s-word" and the "f-word" (not to mention the two "c-words") – I don't know about the "b-word."

But here's the big thing: the PTC complains that "nearly a quarter (24%) of the programs that aired the f-word and 25% of the programs that aired the s-word in 2007 did not carry the L-descriptor, which would have triggered the mechanism in the V-chip to allow families who do not wish to be exposed to such content to block the programs from coming into their homes." But remember that we still aren't actually hearing the words in question. We're hearing a bleep, or nothing at all as the word is edited out. Often we aren't even able to read the lips of person saying the words because their mouths have been blurred or pixellated. So why should there be an L-descriptor added to a show where the offensive words can't be heard or seen but only inferred? To my mind the broadcast networks – while they are increasingly airing shows that include profanities of various strengths including some like "crap" and "suck" that I don't consider to be expletives – are acting responsibly in this matter. The people who aren't acting responsibly are the PTC. This particular press release is designed to inflame their base with a mixture of scare tactics and misinformation.

And just to prove that people on live TV occasionally let a word slip out that they don't intend to, I present this clip from MSNBC's Morning Joe in which Joe Scarborough says "fuck you" and doesn't seem to realise that he has said it even though the other people in the interview react. This particular incident is of some importance because Scarborough has been a strong and vocal advocate of the FCC fines following the Janet Jackson incident, increased FCC fines for indecency, and just about any use of "the f-word." Indeed Glenn Greenwald of Salon.com goes into great detail about Scarborough's activism on this issue, concluding (erroneously as it turns out since MSNBC is a cable network and not subject to FCC fines) with the following: "Using Scarborough's outraged crusades from the past, one would have to conclude that it insufficient that he merely apologize for what he said, and instead, MSNBC must be severely fined for what Scarborough said – especially since it was heard during the morning when many of America's children could be watching. After all – as he so eloquently put it – 'what does it say about our FCC that we've come this far or you could say gone this far backward that somebody could say the "F" word on TV and get the federal government's approval?'" (In fact, although under no legal obligation to do so, MSNBC has imposed a seven second delay on the Morning Joe show.)

Update: The PTC reacted predictably to Scarborough's misstep, subsequent apology and the most importantly MSNBC's decision to put Morning Joe on a seven second delay. In a press release dated November 11 - but which didn't actually appear on the organization's website until November 13, Tim Winter of the PTC writes, "We applaud MSNBC for taking the necessary steps to prevent other mishaps like this in the future. Although this is a cable network that is not subject to the same decency standards as broadcast networks, millions of families are grateful for MSNBC’s decision to try to prevent inappropriate language from airing. Scarborough’s outburst apparently caught him by surprise as much as it did viewers and his co-hosts, as he offered a profuse and sincere apology as soon as he realized what he had done. He set a great example by immediately taking responsibility for his actions, and we applaud him for that. His example is rare. And that is what is so concerning: His example is so rare." And then the added a demand - sorry, a "call" for all networks to institue a several second delay on all their live programming: "If a several second tape delay is good enough for MSNBC, then NBC should follow suit with the Today show and its other live programming. In addition, we call on every cable and broadcast network to follow MSNBC’s example. Inappropriate and offensive language is wholly unnecessary and has no place on these programs. We are thankful that MSNBC is going to lead by example." Personally, I was both unimpressed and unsurprised by MSNBC's unforced decision to put Morning Joe on a seven second delay. I think that this sets a dangerous precedent that the PTC has already decided to exploit. Coming as it does while the Supreme Court is deliberating FOX v. FCC, it sends a dangerous message to those who would hand out fines for every occurance of the f-word, s-word or b-word (whatever that may be) and anything else that these pressure groups is "indecent" or "inappropriate and offensive" and that message is that we're willing to surrender our standards to placate you.

Who Does The PTC Hate This Week – October 26, 2008

I confess that sometimes I get complacent about the PTC. Like I did this past month or so. It's the little things that drive you towards this. The vague hope that maybe they are sated, for lack of a better term. Alternately the sense that maybe they're losing steam. Certainly the continuing failure to update the "Misrated" column gives a hint of that. Of course they just might not be able to find interns to slave for them, what with the election and all that. And of course there's the repetitive nature of the thing. I mean how many times can you write about their vendettas against South Park and Rescue Men and Two And A Half Men and My Name Is Earl and just about everything that Seth McFarlane has created. And of course there's always the sense that they've gone about as far as they can go in the stupidity sweepstakes.

And just when you think that can't go any dumber, they get a little bit stupider.

I'm not sure how they're going to top their latest descent into the moronic. In a press release dated October 22^nd the PTC announced to the world – and more importantly to their 1.3 million members and assorted hangers-on – that they were filing an obscenity complaint against one of their perpetual targets, Two And A Half Men. According to the press release, the October 20^th episode "crossed the indecency line." In his statement announcing the complaint PTC President Tim Winter stated, "The shocking episode included a strip club scene that lasts three full minutes and features up close shots of a leading character being 'serviced' by a stripper complete with moaning and other sexual references. The scene was in no way 'fleeting' or accidental; rather, it was specifically written into this scripted program."

At this point gentle (and not so gentle) readers I would refer you to the PTC's "Worst of the Week" page for that very episode. Why? Well the PTC has supplied a clip of the very scene that they are claiming is so indecent that it is worthy of a complaint to the FCC by the PTC and its 1.3 million easily offended members (and assorted hangers on). For those of you using Internet Explorer or Google Chrome, just click the "Play" button on the Player; those of you using Firefox and Safari click the link that says download the clip. Go ahead and do that, I'll wait.

Doh de Doh de Doh Doh Dooooh.

Okay, are we all back? Have we taken care of any uh, side effects, that this scene might have provoked in we poor easily corrupted human males? Good. That is what the PTC currently thinks is indecent! I'm not sure how they get there to be honest with you. The setting is the world's most chaste strip club. The "stripper" in question is wearing more clothes than many women wear on the beach. She is not "Charlotte Ross nude" – the subject of the infamous FCC NYPD Blue decision which is currently under appeal. We are not seeing the "curve of her naked breasts" which was the cause of a PTC complaint about an episode of Las Vegas. No one in the scene is using any of the seven words you can't use on TV including the ones that you've been able to use for a while now. All of the participants in the scene are above the age of consent, which seems to have been the basis for the FCC fine in the Without A Trace "teen orgy" case, nor is it a simulation of a "sexual act" as most of us would be inclined to define it and as the FCC seems to have defined it in that same decision. It is certainly not of the standard of the bachelor party scene from the reality series Married By America which earned FOX an FCC fine. No, to quote the description from the "Worst of the Week" page (because it has the most comprehensive description of the scene that supposedly crossed the indecency line): "The episode begins with Charlie running into teenager Jake's former 5^th grade teacher, Dolores Pasternak. Dolores suffered a nervous breakdown and lost her teaching job after Charlie dumped her, and now works as an exotic dancer known as Desiree Bush. She chews out Charlie for ruining her life. In a rare moment of guilt, Charlie feels responsible for Ms. Paternak's misfortunes and decides to help her. Charlie visits the strip club where she works, bringing his brother Alan along. Once at the strip club, Charlie asks a dancer onstage, 'When does Ms. Bush come out?' The dancer replies, 'Whenever Ben Franklin comes out.' Charlie clarifies, 'I mean Desiree Bush.' He turns and recognizes Dolores' rear waving in front of his face. Dolores/Desiree refuses to talk to Charlie unless he pays for a private dance, whereupon Charlie offers to buy one for Alan. Once in the private room, Dolores bumps and grinds on top of Alan, who moans in pleasure: 'Whoo, doggies!' As she straddles Alan he stops her: 'Excuse me, I've got to readjust. I'm playing ring toss with my car keys.' She mounts him again, tosses her head back and sticks her chest out while Charlie offers to hire her as Jake's tutor. When she asks if Alan agrees with the proposal he squeaks, 'Oh…yes. Yes. YES!'" According to the PTC, "This scene was not just sexually suggestive -- it actually depicted a borderline sexual act. The graphic lap dance crosses the line into indecency." Oh puh-lease! Borderline sexual act? Graphic lap dance?! Maybe to an Islamic mullah, but for the rest of us it's hardly the stuff of arousal to sexual excitement. To be sure the script is full of double entendres, and even single entendres but that's pretty much expected of Two And A Half Men, and besides while it may be done in a way that offends good taste it is most assuredly not done in a way that offends the legal definitions of indecency.

Not surprisingly the mainstream media has not picked up on this story, and to be honest with you I'm not sure that they should if only because they can't give it the sort of ridicule that it truly deserves. I've only found two news items about the complaint. One is from OneNewsNow.com, "a division of the American Family News Network" and a website that has stories about whether Obama "supports the radical homosexual agenda espoused by one of his fundraising co-chairs," or how "there would be no mention of resurrecting the 'Fairness Doctrine' if talk radio were dominated by liberals." (The latter is one of those things that makes anyone with a bit of knowledge burst out laughing; the old and now discontinued "Fairness Doctrine" was established in law with the "Red Lion Decision" before the Supreme Court which essentially allowed regulation of the airwaves by the FCC because of the "scarcity of frequencies." Decry the basis of the Fairness Doctrine and weaken Red Lion and incidentally the case of people like the PTC. Click this link to read about Red Lion.) Obviously they drank buckets full of the cheap Kool-Aid substitute. The other news report is from TVNewsday which essentially reprints the PTC press release without comment. However broadening my search a bit further I came upon this from Tom Jicha, TV critic for the South Florida Sun-Sentinal and fellow PTC hater: "The Parents Television Council, which has been having trouble getting its name in the paper because of all the political news, announced it is filing a complaint with the FCC over Monday's episode of Two and a Half Men. The scene in dispute involved Jon Cryer's character getting a fairly explicit strip club lap dance. As it played out, I thought to myself, the Moral Mafia is going to get all worked up--no pun intended--over this. They never disappoint. They are still bringing up Janet Jackson's Super Bowl wardrobe malfunction, largely because it was the last time anyone paid them serious attention. The Super Bowl, they had a point. That was an ambush. But anyone who doesn't know by now that Two and a Half Men is the raciest (and funniest) show on TV shouldn't be allowed near a remote control. This complaint, like almost all the other thousands the PTC and their fellow travelers file, will get nowhere but it will win them some attention that will help in fund-raising, which is what this is all about." He's right of course (except that I didn't find the scene all that racy but then I'm a Canadian and we're made of and used to stronger stuff) but really, the very fact that they even think they have grounds to complain makes it noteworthy in the annals of PTC intolerance.

I'm only going to give brief mention to the PTC's current Worst on Cable. It's another attack on the BBC America presentation of Skins which originally aired on Britain's E4, a satellite station owned by Channel 4, a broadcast network that is known for its cutting edge dramas. The series subsequently aired on the broadcast channel. The particular episode that the PTC found objectionable was a second season episode called Sketch, in which a teenage girl develops a major infatuation of Maxxie – an openly gay male character that goes to the point of stalking. When Maxxie gives her slight encouragement – he asks if she's "single" intending to set her up with his friend Anwar her obsession takes off, to the point where she sneaks into his room and masturbates on his bed upt to the time when he comes home at which point she hides under his bed and apparently stays there all night. Later, when she does surrender her virginity to Anwar, it is apparent from the way the scene is shot (as seen in the clip that accompanies the article) that the only enjoyment she gets out of the act comes from looking at a picture of Anwar and Maxxie, and presumably imagining that it is Maxxie who is making love to her rather than Anwar copulating with her. Having described the situation in explicit detail, the PTC doesn't seem to have many placed to take it. They don't even enter into their usual diatribe demanding Cable Choice and asking why the public is "forced to subsidize" programming such as this. Instead they latch onto something in an "inside look" type commentary that aired during the episode: "Incredibly, during an "inside look" at the show that aired during a commercial break, one of the actors made the audacious claim that '[Skins] is a very true-to-life program.' Only on TV are stalking, hiding in other people's rooms watching them undress, and masturbating in other people's beds considered 'true-to-life.'" But of course the character of Sketch is emotionally damaged – something that the PTC writer admits in his piece – and if there's one thing that we know from "real life" it is that stalkers exist and they are people who are emotionally damaged, and that they do things that go far beyond "hiding in other people's rooms watching them undress, and masturbating in other people's beds." But of course the PTC expects Sketch to be portrayed as though she were emotionally stable even after admitting that she isn't emotionally stable. And this is used as evidence that "Increasingly, on shows like Gossip Girl and Skins, sex is treated as a weapon, a tool girls must use to manipulate men at the expense of their own body. In this toxic media environment, sexual deviance is routinely pawned off as normal." But of course in Skins at least, that isn't the case; Sketch's activities, her "sexual deviance" as the PTC puts it, is most assuredly not portrayed as normal but rather the acts of a disturbed person.

Finally we turn to the PTC's TV Trends column. This time around the Council takes another run at demonizing anyone who dares to appeal an FCC decision that the PTC agrees with. The target this time around is NewsCorp President Peter Chernin. Chernin was recently given the Media Institute's Freedom of Speech Award – or as the PTC puts it, "the Media Institute's so-called 'Freedom of Speech' award." I want to start this part of this post with the conclusion that the writer of this latest screed offers: "Peter Chernin and his fellow media oligarchs claim that their 'First Amendment rights' are in jeopardy. Given the use to which they are already putting their freedoms – and the public's airwaves -- one may legitimately ask: if the Supreme Court rules in favor of Fox and allows it to air whatever offensive and harmful material it wishes, can America's cultural suicide be far behind?" Beyond the fact that I love how the writer puts the words "First Amendment rights" in quotes, as if such rights are an illusion or somehow non-existent for Chernin or the "media oligarchs" or maybe just the broadcast media in general, I have to wonder at a culture so fragile that someone saying "fuck" or "shit" on TV in the heat of the moment will lead to "America's cultural suicide." Because that of course is the issue that the PTC writer is so incensed about, the upcoming Supreme Court appeal of the "fleeting obscenities" ruling by the Second Circuit Court.

But let's go back to the beginning of the article. Chernin had made a speech after accepting the Media Institute Freedom of Speech award which was reported in Broadcast & Cable. The PTC claims that in that speech Chernins said that "the regulation of indecent and obscene entertainment programming on broadcast TV will somehow automatically lead to the overthrow of the democratic process in American politics." As usual this is a case of the PTC deliberately misinterpreting someone's words because what was actually said does not aid their cause. Here is the relevant portion of what Chernin said, as reported by Broadcast & Cable. He begins by noting the coincidence that the FOX case and the US elections are being held on the same day:

Chernin said the coincidence of the two events was appropriate. "The Fox case, if successful, is an affirmation of the First Amendment. The election is an affirmation of our democratic process. And the two are inextricably intertwined. The First Amendment is central to our democratic process because it ensures a full and open dialogue about the candidates for office. Without the First Amendment, our democracy could not be sustained," he said.

"While a case with Cher and Nicole Richie at its center is probably not one we would have chosen to argue before the Supreme Court," said Chernin, "we don't get to pick our cases. In fact, if anyone had told me that my company would be before the U.S. Supreme Court defending inane comments by Cher and Nicole Ritchie, I would have said, 'You're crazy.' But I would contend that the nature of this speech, and who said it, makes absolutely no difference."

That's because Chernin called the heart of the case "an absolute threat to the First Amendment. It hinges on utterances that were unscripted on live television. If we are found in violation, just think about the radical ramifications for live programming – from news, to politics, to sports. In fact, to every live broadcast television event. The effect would be appalling."

"As a media company," said Chernin, "we have not just a right but a responsibility to stand up to the government when it crosses that First Amendment line in the sand – even if the content we are defending is in bad taste. And in the indecency context, that line has not only been crossed, it has been obliterated," he said.

Now I may be blind, but I don't see anything like what the PTC claimed was in his speech in this article. You know, the part about "the regulation of indecent and obscene entertainment programming on broadcast TV will somehow automatically lead to the overthrow of the democratic process in American politics."

Of course for the PTC what a finding for FOX in this case will mean is a blanket permission to "allow any kind of language on TV, in any amount and at any time of day." But Chernin is clear in his statement that this is not what this case is about: "It hinges on utterances that were unscripted on live television. If we are found in violation, just think about the radical ramifications for live programming – from news, to politics, to sports. In fact, to every live broadcast television event." And in fact that is the context of the case. The court is dealing with a sudden and arbitrary change in a policy that had been in place essentially since the beginning of the FCC's ability to deal with "indecent" content – the understanding that from time to time people on a live broadcast might forget themselves and say a word that under most circumstances would not be allowed, or that such a word might inadvertently be picked up on a microphone.

Then again, to the PTC, FOX is a veritable cess pool of unacceptable content, worse even than the other broadcast networks. The PTC says of this, "Clearly, Peter Chernin has an extremely high opinion of the programming that his networks currently air. In such a context, it is fair to ask: if Fox is demanding the 'right' to air anything it wants, any time it wants, what are the contributions the network currently makes to American culture and civil discourse?" They give as an example – inevitably given the PTC's attitude toward Seth MacFarlane – a couple of scenes from recent episodes of American Dad and Family Guy. I won't go into details except to mention a comment in parentheses at the end of the excerpts: "Of course, if Fox gets its way, "f******" – and every other profanity -- will never be bleeped again." Not true, as we've seen from Chernin's previous statement. However I will counter with what Peter Chernin said in his speech:

Chernin conceded some of the content Fox was defending in this and other cases "is not particularly tasteful," citing "expletives, the brief nudity, carefully placed whipped cream, and, of course, the pixels." He said he would not have allowed his kids when they were younger to watch some of those shows. But he also said Fox would "fight to the end for our ability to put occasionally controversial, offensive, and even tasteless content on the air."

That doesn't mean Fox doesn't make mistakes, he said, but the alternative is a media "ruled by fear of crossing an ambiguous line. Then, he says, the product becomes "less vital and more homogenous," viewers will have less choice, programming that is "provocative and accurately reflects our society will be compromised," and the First Amendment would be chipped away "until it becomes toothless."

The writer of this piece goes to great lengths to attack Chernin's position as being not just ill-formed but elitist and therefore invalid. Part of this is pointing out that the Media Institutes Board of Trustees are "oligarchs" by thoughtfully providing a link to the Institute web page that lists the members of the Board, most of whom are executives at various media companies ranging from Time Warner and NBC Universal to Belo Corporation and Clear Channel. They don't distinguish between the political viewpoints of the various companies or their executives – which I suspect is far more diverse than the political viewpoints of the leaders of the PTC – but that omission is most likely an attempt to make it seem that they all hold a unitary view. The use of the term Oligarchy – rule by a self determined elite who decides what is and isn't good for you – is a keystone for the PTC's argument on this issue since it allows them to paint it as "The People", as defined and given voice by the PTC, versus the evil elite. In fact they come right out and say it:

The entertainment industry often claims that the Parents Television Council is a tiny minority unrepresentative of most Americans, and that therefore our actions in advocating modest limits on indecency should be ignored. But considering that approximately 90% of everything Americans see, hear or read in the media is ultimately controlled by a few dozen network presidents and corporate chairmen, and possibly a few hundred more writers and producers, such a claim rings false. The PTC would willingly wager that our more than 1.3 million members are more in tune with the thoughts and feelings of average Americans than are a tiny clique of media bosses and their so-called 'creative' lackeys.

Obviously the matter of the PTC's so-called "modest limits on indecency" is questionable given the subjects of the their most recent campaigns (The Today Show "obscenity", the Survivor penis, and the Two And A Half Men lap dance) but I have serious doubts that the PTC's 1.3 million members is truly in tune with the majority of the 305.1 million people in the United States.

The PTC takes a very definite leap in logic in "proving" that the American public supports the action of the FCC in levying the fine against FOX on the "fleeting obscenity" issue. See if you can follow this (Emphasis is theirs):

The position held by Peter Chernin and his media cronies is that the U.S. government, following mandates from a Congress elected by the American people, should not enforce the common-sense standards of decency that the overwhelming majority of Americans want. That the overwhelming majority of Americans do want such common-sense standards of decency in entertainment is undeniable; in 2006, the people's elected representatives in the United States Congress passed the Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act, increasing FCC fines for indecent content on broadcast TV. The House of Representatives voted in favor of this measure by a 10-1 margin; the Senate passed it unanimously.

But, because such measures do not meet with the approval of Peter Chernin and his fellow multi-millionaire moguls who control broadcast, cable and satellite television, radio networks, film studios, music companies, newspapers, magazines, and book publishing firms, these bosses demand that the law be overturned. The desires of average Americans be damned, say the Overlords of Media; anything that would limit the entertainment industry's "freedom" to make more obscene profits by deluging Americans with indecent and offensive content must not be allowed.

The logic is so faulty that it is laughable. Setting aside the fact that the Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act of 2005 (not 2006) does not deal with the definition of indecent or obscene content but rather with increasing fines for content defined by the FCC as being obscene or indecent, we are supposed to believe that that the "overwhelming majority of Americans" want this because their elected representatives voted for it en masse. This is, of course because the Representatives and Senators all asked everyone in their states whether or not they should vote for this measure. This is at best fallacious logic on the PTC's part. Let's set aside the dangers that the increased fines pose in terms of creating a chill in terms of what can be broadcast, as described in an article by Garrison Keillor in Salon in September 2005. Let's even set aside the views of the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights (yeah I'm shocked that I'm citing them but it's a worthwhile quote) which wrote:

The Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act, which increases the fines for the broadcast of "obscene, indecent, and profane language," is itself an indecent obscenity.

The FCC's power to regulate any speech is a violation of the right to free speech. The First Amendment clearly states: "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press." Such freedom requires that the airwaves, like the printing press, be used in complete freedom – any way their owners wish (short of libel, fraud and the like). Just as each individual should determine what he sees or hears, so each media company should determine what it broadcasts.

Parents – not media professionals or government bureaucrats – are the ones who have the responsibility for supervising what their children see and hear in the media. If people find a program objectionable, they are free to turn it off. It is as simple as that.

Instead, let's get back to the facts of the case that the Supreme Court will be hearing on November 4^th. The focus of the case is on the actions of the FCC in rewriting a policy that had been in place for over 50 years. In doing so, and not adequately explaining why it had abandoned this policy, the FCC was acting in violation of the Administrative Procedures which prohibits "arbitrary and capricious" behaviour by government agencies. In other words the FCC, an agency of the U.S. Government acted contrary to the laws of the United States. That this is a First Amendment question is obvious, but it is first and foremost a question of abuse of power.

It is actually my opinion that the position supported by the PTC is losing rather than gaining strength. Certainly that's the case amongst powerful people. Congressman John Dingel of Michigan of the House Commerce Committee wrote in a December 2007 letter to Kevin Martin FCC, that "given several events and proceedings over the past year, I am rapidly losing confidence that the commission has been conducting its affairs in an appropriate manner." In August of this year former FCC Chairmen Newton Minnow and Mark Fowler along with five other former officials of the Commission wrote in an amicus brief for the Supreme Court, "The indecency controls that began as a limited tool for reining in a small number of provocative broadcast personalities and irresponsible licensees have become a rallying cry for a revival of Nineteenth Century Comstockery," and they added that "Broadcasting is no longer unique and it is time for the Court to bring its views of the electronic media into alignment with contemporary technological and social reality." In September former FCC Chairman Michael Powell stated at a National Press Club Event that he had been wrong in approving the policy change: "It was a terrible mistake and I voted for it." He also said at the same event that the agency's regulation of broadcast decency had "gone way too far—we are dancing with the limits of the Constitution." But perhaps the most interesting position on this comes from Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stephens, who wrote the majority decision in FCC v Pacifica and is still a member of the court. In 2002, in a concurrent opinion on ACLU v Ashcroft Stephens 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."

I don't pretend to know how the Supreme Court will rule on the "Fleeting Obscenities" case, although I obviously know how I would like them to rule (and I also know that this would not have been an issue in Canada). I do know that I found the PTC's rhetoric in this piece to be typically self-important and sneering and in a very real way dangerous. It's not something to be looked at complacently.

Who Does The PTC Hate This Month – October 2008

It's been a while since I've done one of these pieces. Part of the problem – or my lack of motivation, I'm not sure which – was that there wasn't much that I considered new and exciting. The PTC files an Amicus Brief on a case even as they criticize others for filing an Amicus Brief that they disagree with? Yawn. The PTC takes credit for something that they had little – no I take that back, nothing – to do with. Same old same old. The PTC gives out one of its awards to a company that it likes and announces the selection of a new board member. Okay, whatever. The PTC tries to use its supposed one million members "who hold a variety of political positions" (and wasn't that written poorly; that suggests that all 1.3 million hold some sort of political office rather than holding political opinions – and I still think the vast majority are Republicans) calling for a focus on TV decency and cable choice. Ho-hum, BORING!

No, for me the big thing has been the absence of really new stuff. The shows that they have been taking a rip over the past couple of months, for the most part, have been reruns. Sometimes in fact they are shows that were previously ripped by the PTC for pretty much the same thing that they're being ripped for this time around. Probably the most blatant example is part of the PTC's vendetta against Seth MacFarlane's Family Guy. Last week the PTC did one of their Worst Shows on TV pieces on the Star Wars satire episode of Family Guy. The interesting thing here was that the PTC stated in their article, "When Fox originally aired the Family Guy's parody episode of Star Wars entitled, "Blue Harvest," it managed to avoid being named Worst TV Show of the Week only by topping our Misrated column. The September 21^st rerun at 9:00 p.m. ET, however, did not escape the PTC's scrutiny and has been named Worst TV Show of the Week for being just as raunchy the second time around." They go further than this; from what I can recall of the original Misrated piece (and as usual with the PTC there are no links unless it's something they want to link to) a considerable amount the new review wsa cut and pasted from the original PTC piece. Summer is an off time everyone, including I presume, the PTC.

I've got a couple of good stories on the PTC's efforts to get the FCC to fine networks for perceived violations of decency regulations. I was going to start with the more recent incident first and deal with the event that I am going to talk about now only parenthetically but there are a couple of rather interesting developments on this front that I really want to delve into. According to an article from Ars Technica, "On September 11, host Matt Lauer asked daredevil Hans Lange what his reaction was to crash-parachuting into a mountain wall from thousands of feet in the air. 'I was pretty angry with myself,' Lange replied. 'I was like... wahhhh! Holy shit!'" The offending word was removed from tape delayed versions of the episode that aired outside the Eastern Time Zone. Despite this fact the PTC was predictably incensed. In a press release dated the same day as the incident, PTC president Tim Winter slammed NBC for "its arrogance in choosing not to bleep this profanity, and for its arrogance in choosing not to apologize to its viewers, many of whom included children. NBC continues to show a clear pattern of contempt for the broadcast decency law by airing yet another unbleeped profanity on its morning show. The PTC is filing an indecency complaint and is urging its members to speak out about NBC's utter disregard for decency over the public airwaves." They further said, "NBC could have prevented the 's-word' from being aired by using a 5-second delay, but it clearly didn't want to. NBC obviously thought that the 's-word' was inappropriate to air since it scrubbed the word from broadcasts to the Central, Mountain and Pacific Time zones. So why then does NBC believe they can sweep this under the rug for those families in the Eastern Time zone?" They concluded by saying, "The public is entitled to the expectation that television is not going to assault their families during certain times of day and NBC violated that expectation again. We hope viewers speak out about this and we hope the network is held accountable." There was then the usual link to an email form letter for people in the Eastern Time Zone to use to protest the obscenity – without actually requiring the people who were "offended" to have been watching the offensive incident. It was standard PTC stuff right down to rousing the masses to arms regardless of whether or not they had a right to feel offended because they didn't see the actual event, although it was enough for Ars Technica to email "a representative of the PTC asking whether it was appropriate to encourage people who may not have viewed the program to file complaints about it. We also asked how this Today Show episode harms TV watchers, especially those who did not see the interview." Needless to say they received no reply.

The Ars Technica article did include some interesting tidbits which to my mind casts a pall on the whole decision-making process at the FCC. And no, it was not the New York Times editorial board coming out in favour of the Second Circuit Court decision that is under review by the Supreme Court, saying that the FCC policy, "...seriously infringes on free speech." No, the most interesting aspect is a statement for Michael Powell who was one of the commission members who voted for the new policy! Powell, the son of General Colin Powell, and currently John McCain's top technology adviser was an and FCC Commissioner from November 1997 until January 2001 and Chairman of the FCC from January, 2001 until January, 2005. According to a second Ars Technica story, in a wide ranging criticism of the FCC at the National Press Club event that was part of George Mason University's Information Economy Project on September 16^th, Powell stated that the decision on the event that provoked the current wave of indecency prosecutions – Bono's appearance at the Golden Globes – was "a terrible mistake and I voted for it." Going beyond that Powell, who generally holds libertarian views with regards to censorship, stated that the FCC's regulation of broadcast decency has "gone way too far—we are dancing with the limits of the Constitution." According to the Ars Technica article, "If Bono's exclamation was 'indecent,' Powell opined, then the agency had in effect adopted a strict-liability rule, leaving 'no rational principle' for distinguishing 'indecent' from innocent expletives, with the result that enforcement 'becomes terribly political.'" Part of the problem lies with the lack of court opinions on the matter of broadcast decency since the Pacifica Case, despite significant changes in technogy. For Powell however the major point was theso-called "pervasive" nature of broadcast TV. According to Powell, "My kids have no idea what a 'broadcast channel' is. The idea that the First Amendment changes as you go up the dial is silly." He further stated that "the outrage and pressure the FCC faced in the Bono case, and later in the wake of Janet Jackson's Super Bowl 'wardrobe malfunction,' proved that parents themselves were more than capable of penalizing broadcasters who aired inappropriate content during family programming."

Also present at the event was Powell's immediate predecessor as FCC Chairman William Kennard, who served from 1997 to 2001. Although he didn't speak directly to the question of the case before the Supreme Court, he did offer some sense as to at least some of the reasons behind it. According to Kennard a great deal of the problems the FCC faces today stem from the politicization of appointments to the agency dating from a deal that President Clinton made with Senator Trent Lott to allow Republicans to make appointments to boards. According to Kennard, the result is that the agency is becoming demoralized, with political appointees treating the agency's career staff as, "'cannon fodder'—servants to be worked to the bone at best, and at worst, potential troublemakers with their own agendas." It was the professional staff of the FCC who pushed to maintain the status quo (no action on isolated use of profanities – the so-called "fleeting expletive"), and the appointed board members who caved in to pressure who created the current situation, previously described by former FCC heads Newton Minnow and Mark Fowler as "a rallying cry for a revival of Nineteenth Century Comstockery." Ars Technica summed up Kennard's position on the current direction of the FCC by noting that, "Decision-making has become more predictable...as the views of commissioners now tend to reflect those of their patrons on Capitol Hill. As a result, policy-making had also become more contentious and partisan."

I suppose we should turn now to the absurd. On September 30^th, the PTC released a press release demanding that their 1.3 million members inundate the FCC with complaints about nudity on the CBS series Survivor. In typically hysterical PTC rhetoric the organization claimed that it was all part of a nefarious plot on the part of CBS: "Unsatisfied with the growing volume of indecent material on live broadcasts, CBS has once again decided to violate the public trust, this time by including an unedited shot of a penis on Survivor. Although this instance was brief, it was nonetheless shocking and purposeful. Unfortunately, with the number of people inside the network reviewing every frame of video, CBS knew full well of this nudity and elected to include it anyway." The event occurred on the show's second episode which was broadcast as part of the two hour Survivor premiere event on September 25^th. The first reports of the reports of the appearance of the portion of the portion of the male anatomy in question surfaced a day or two after the episode, around September 27^th. It wasn't much of an appearance in either sense of the word – we aren't talking Ron Jeremy or Milton Berle here kiddies – since the penis popped in and out of the boxer shorts of contestant Marcus Lehman for less time than Janet Jackson's nipple was exposed, and it wasn't as immediately obvious that it was the head of a penis as it was that we were seeing Janet Jackson's nipple.

Now here's the sort of interesting (but not very) part. I didn't see it. I watched the show and I didn't see it. Jackie Schnoop, who recaps Survivor for TVSquad as well as her own blog watched the show a lot closer than I did and didn't see it. Hal Boedeker, TV critic of the Orlando Sun watched the episode pretty closely and he didn't see it. More to the point, if we are to believe a CBS statement that is included in Boedeker's article, the editors at CBS and Mark Burnett's production company didn't see it either. Here's the CBS statement: "This was a completely unintentional, inadvertent and fleeting incident that was virtually undetectable when viewed in real time. In the first 24 hours after the broadcast, before freeze-frame images were widely posted online, we received one viewer comment from the 13 million who watched the telecast."

And you know what? I don't think that anyone at the PTC saw it either! Yeah, that's right I think that they missed it too. Look at the time line. The episode aired on September 25^th. If the image of Lehman's wee-wee was so offensive and blatant you would expected them to launch an immediate demand for CBS's license the way they did over the Hans Lange incident, but it was all quiet on the PTC front. After Googling "Survivor + penis" the first reference (NSFW) I was able to find was dated September 27^th. That reference included both still photos and a slow motion (in other words not real time) video clip of the incident (and as I said, NSFW) in a continuous loop. So in other words it took the PTC five days to get outraged by this incident which was supposedly irreparably scarring to every young person who saw the show. Nevertheless the PTC feels empowered to demand an apology from CBS and "as outlined in the FCC consent decree, to take immediate steps to identify who edited the scene into the broadcast and hold that person or those people accountable." Ah well, at least this penis – uh – flap delivered a memorable quote: "CBS's decision to hide behind excuses that the incident was 'fleeting' and didn't generate an immediate flood of complaints is the epitome of irresponsibly [sic]. The number of 'fleeting' penises we expect to see on broadcast television is zero."

Turning from the ridiculous to the merely moronic, it's time to look at the PTC's Worst Show of The Week. The current one is the FOX series Bones. According to the PTC, the October 1^st episode of the show is the worst of the week because of "excessive gore and implied violence." The scene (one scene!) that earned the show this accolade was described in detail more graphic than you'd actually see on the episode by the PTC as follows: "The October 1^st episode began with office workers riding an elevator up a metropolitan high rise. As the elevator car rattles violently, a dismembered, decomposed leg wearing fashionable black pumps falls from overhead. Later, forensic anthropologist, Dr. Temperance 'Bones' Brennan, and her colleague, Dr. Camille Saroyan, inspect the elevator shaft. The camera lingers on hunks of tissue plastered on the wall. 'I'm gonna need a spatula to scrape off all the flesh and the organs,' Dr. Saroyan announces dryly. Dr. Brennan replies, 'The bones are in hundreds of pieces. I want them bagged.' Putrid blood and liquid fester around a severed hand resting on top of the car. The doctors turn their flashlights upward and illuminate the dead woman's remains smeared along the length of the elevator shaft." Having watched the episode (I confess that I'm a confirmed fan of Bones – and many of the other forensic series, but like NCIS, Bones has a personality and a sense of humour that the CSI franchise shows lack – at least intentionally), I have to tell you that that is written in a way that makes it sound a lot worse than it was. And even the PTC admits, "Admittedly, the rest of the show is relatively tame, but it should be noted that the series' goriest material consistently airs at the beginning of the (nonexistent – BM) Family Hour." In other words the PTC objects to the discovery of the bodies. And as the PTC points out, "Unfortunately, parents have little recourse if they wish their children to avoid such scenes while channel surfing." Well except for, you know, changing the channel, turning the TV off, knowing enough not to turn to FOX if the object to the program, setting up the V-Chip to block shows like that. Yeah, parents have virtually no recourse at all in this situation.

But of course the PTC uses this to promote the "bigger issue" – violence on TV. According to the PTC, "Over the years, crime procedurals have contributed to the nearly 100,000 acts of violence that children watch before the age of 18. The consensus within the scientific community affirms that there is a relationship between children who watch violent programming and their aggressive behavior in later life. There is also evidence that watching such programming leads to desensitization towards violence and fear of becoming a victim among child viewers. This past spring, the FCC urged lawmakers to consider regulations that would restrict violent programs to late-evening hours, when fewer children watch television." Of course they don't bother to tell us over how many years the phrase "over the years" means, or whether all of those "100,000 acts of violence that children watch before the age of 18" occurred during the times when children are most likely to be watching TV – the first two hours of prime time. Unsurprisingly (since it is the favoured bastion of the Social Conservative) they echo the current leadership of the FCC in demanding more restrict when violent acts can be seen and the power to levy fines – and of course what constitutes a finable "event" will be left up to the FCC to define. Because that has worked so well with language and nudity.

The PTC doesn't offer a way to check previous Worst Show on Cable in the same way that they do with the worst show on Broadcast TV. Currently the worst show on Cable is an episode of South Park although the current link on the PTC website says that the show is It's Always Sunny In Philadelphia. Neither of these is a surprise of course but a couple of weeks ago the show was the BBC America series Skins which originally appeared on the British network Channel 4. The description on the IMDB page for the shows says, "The story of a group of British teens who are trying to grow up and find love and happiness despite questionable parenting and teachers who more want to be friends (and lovers) rather than authority figures." And that of course is exactly what the PTC objected too. I'm not going to go into their points item by item – mainly because I can't find them. Rather I bring this up because it illustrates the "throw out the baby with the bathwater" problem that is central to the PTC's demands for "cable choice." The PTC would have their members demand that they "not be forced to subsidize" shows that they object to and be able to cancel their subscription to channels that show them. But here is a show that is on a channel which the PTC doesn't ordinarily object to and by most objective standards airs a lot more good material than objectionable. More to the point they air a great many shows that are of high quality by any measure. Are cable subscribers supposed to forego the good programming On BBC America and other networks because they object to the (PTC defined) "bad shows?" Or perhaps the PTC would like to extend cable choice to its ultimate end point where viewers can pick and choose which individual programs they will "subsidize." And here I thought that this is hwy we have advertisers and ratings.

Okay, a quick visit to PTC's Misrated column, even though it's been left unchanged for a few weeks. The show – predictably enough – is Gossip Girl and the PTC article contains a couple of absurd bits of supposition and one outright fabrication in its demand that the show, which was rated TV-14 DL, have an "S" descriptor attached. Here's what the PTC objects to (with my snarky comments in parentheses). "The show opened with Serena and Dan waking up on the beach, apparently having "hooked up" the previous night, with Serena clad only in a bra. (Prove it. Short of seeing Serena bottomless – which would provoke other demands from the PTC – they can't.) Later, on a bus back from the Hamptons to Manhattan, Serena pulls Dan into the bus bathroom, kissing him passionately and presumably proceeding to other sexual activities. (Again, prove it. Oh wait, they said "presumably" which means that they aren't dealing with fact – or even what passes for it among the PTC and their acolytes – but with innuendo and smutty minds.)" But here's the real clanger: "The end of the episode, however, brings the truly appalling scene: Blair looks for her new boyfriend's stepmother Catherine. Blair finds Catherine and teenager Nate on the floor, among discarded items of clothing. Catherine's legs are wrapped around Nate's body and they move against one anther [sic] as they kiss. As Catherine is about 40 years old and Nate is about to begin his senior year of high school, the (mostly teen) audience is exposed to a scene of statutory rape." Uh no. The last time I checked, most high school seniors have passed their 17^th birthday. The show is set in New York City and – I checked this myself – the age of consent in New York states is 17. In Canada and much of the United States the age of consent is 16. So by any definition of statutory rape, Nate and Catherine are not guilty. As far as the scene itself, it's on the PTC's website. I watched it and if that's the worst the PTC can come up with all I can say is that they've obviously come up with a new way to define sex. We see a lot of Catherine's legs (at least I presume they're Catherine's) but everyone seems to have all the necessary clothing – Nate's pants are on and he's still wearing his T-shirt (though admittedly it's pulled up to his shoulders), and Catherine's breasts seem to be covered enough. In short they ain't doing it yet. Maybe this scene qualifies as "moderate sexual activity" which is the standard for the "S" descriptor in a TV-14 show but it seems pretty mild compared with some of the shows that are also rated TV-14 and also don't have the descriptor.

Finally, let's turn to a fellow traveller on this pseudo-crusade of mine against the PTC and their fellow travellers. I first found the link to this article by TVWeek's Joe Adalian thanks to the Creative Voices in Media blog and let's just say that it says all of the things that I've said and feel about the PTC. Adalian's basic point is that while the PTC claims that it does what it does as an organization "Because our children are watching," (the motto on the masthead of their website) the fact is, according to Adalian, "the PTC's actions and words too often have indicated that its real mission includes pushing for government-sanctioned censorship of the media and the elimination of any and all programming that conflicts with its far-right social and political philosophies. What's more, rather than working with networks to figure out ways to increase family-friendly programming and offer true protection to children, the PTC is obsessed with denouncing shows clearly aimed at adult audiences. The PTC doesn't want to make TV safe for kids. It wants to make it safe only for those shows that fit into its narrowly constructed worldview of what constitutes acceptable TV." Adalian cites a number of examples of the PTC condemning shows that may or may not be intended for audiences that include children. Most notable of these was the PTC demands that local CBS affiliates pre-empt the series Swingtown because it "undermines the institutions of marriage and family." Says Adalian: "It doesn't matter that "Swingtown" contained no obscene language or nudity. The fact that CBS aired the show at 10 p.m. in most of the country is irrelevant. Adult viewers simply shouldn't be able to watch this show, period, according to the cultural crusaders of the PTC." He notes that Fringe was named worst show of the week once for "because of an opening scene involving some flesh-melting" (deemed violent by the PTC, "icky" by Adalian, and derivative by those of us who saw Raiders of the Lost Ark during its theatrical first run). Another show named worst of the week was a tribute to American troops called America United, condemned because it "contained some randy humor, an appearance by a scantily clad Pamela Anderson and a performance by Snoop Dogg." (Just how "scantily clad" Pam Anderson was is a matter for debate; every frontal shot of her was covered by a superimposed phone number to call – we don't know if she was showing something she shouldn't, if someone at ABC decided not to take the chance that she might be showing something she shouldn't, or if ABC just didn't want to run the risk that someone at the PTC would protest because the thought she was showing something she shouldn't.)

But for Adalian, as for me, it is the hypocrisy of the PTC's aims that are difficult to deal with: "What's most irksome -- and dangerous -- about the PTC is the way it uses children as human shields to hide its real agenda. There's nothing wrong with any person or group declaring their disgust with what's on the small screen. It's part of what I do for a living, after all. But the PTC is being morally and intellectually dishonest by pretending that it's simply trying to protect kids. How are children helped when the PTC spends so much of its time railing against shows that clearly aren't intended for their eyes? How are America's families strengthened by an organization that wastes its time ginning up bogus outrage over a half-second shot of a penis on "Survivor" that could only be seen by viewers watching in HD and using the freeze-frame function of their DVRs? If the PTC really cared about kids, they'd spend as much time coaching parents on how new technologies can help them monitor their kids' viewing as they do trying to censor networks. Instead, the PTC regularly twists the technicalities of decades-old obscenity regulations to force networks to spend millions defending programming that is very clearly not obscene." But of course coaching parents on how "new technologies can help them monitor their kids' viewing" is exactly the opposite of what the PTC wants to do. We seen in every one of those "Misrated" columns that I've sited over the years that the PTC is in the business of convincing parents advertisers and probably the FCC itself that those new technologies don't work – don't protect kids from smut and violence and "icky" things – because the networks habitually and deliberately underrate their shows for reasons which I confess I don't understand at all. Could it be ....Satan?!

For Joe Adalian, and for myself, it is far easier to see sinister intent in the action of the PTC than it is in the broadcasters. Adalian points this out when he examines the PTC current obsession with cable TV and their demands for 'cable choice:' "In recent years, the organization has even started challenging cable, doing all it can to defame shows with even an ounce of edge. PTC founder L. Brent Bozell last month launched a verbal broadside against FX and its president, John Landgraf, because Mr. Bozell thought the network's Sons of Anarchy represented the 'gruesome unfolding of a pervert's mind onto a national television screen.' He denounced FX for being more concerned about artistic vision than the 'prospect of a 10-year-old boy finding a terrifying castration scene as he's flipping channels in his home.' Personally, I'd be more troubled by the irresponsibility of the parents of any 10-year-old who would allow their son to be channel surfing, unattended, at 10 o'clock at night. There's a reason Mr. Bozell and the folks at the PTC have broadened their attacks beyond broadcasters. They want Congress to require cable operators to offer channels on an a la carte basis. Their argument: Consumers shouldn't have to subsidize "filth" on channels they don't like. The problem, of course, is that a la carte would mean the death of numerous cable channels, and a severe restriction in programming budgets for those that survived. There would be far less choice for consumers, and far fewer outlets producing cutting-edge fare such as Sons of Anarchy." Of course by describing Sons of Anarchy as being cutting edge or having any artistic merit at all, the PTC would accuse Joe Adalian of being a typical elitist TV critic (or rather non-critic) who are, as a PTC writer put it, "heaping praise on the most extreme examples of graphic and gratuitous gore, sex and profanity.... [who] 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."

In his summation Joe Adalian reiterates the point "It's not cable choice the PTC and its allies want. It's not even to shield kids from smut. It's control of what you get to watch." Or, as I've put it occasionally, if the PTC is indeed intent on "protecting the children" they must regard all Americans as children to be protecte, from what the PTC as parents considers "bad."