Debate: Should some profanity be permitted on broadcast radio?

[fordranger797]

I was thinking about what my answer would be to this question today. Although I do not feel that it would be a good idea to permit radio stations to air whatever they please, I feel that it is rather silly to censor certain words that fall into the category of "indecency" for broadcast radio. I was listening to the song "Money" by Pink Floyd on a local rock station, and it just occurred to me that our local iHeart owned rock station always removes the word "bullsh*t" from the song. It's a similar story for other rock songs like "Jet Airliner" (among others). On a personal level, I just don't see how one instance of one or two a profane words equate to indecency that must be edited out of a song. On the contrary, there are many popular songs that contain excessive profanity, which probably should not be permitted on the radio without censorship. Effectively, I feel that there should be some sort of happy medium where we don't need to censor every single thing, but also ensure that the airwaves remain clean of excessively inappropriate content. This common sense approach certainly has limitations, but in the year 2020 it feels wrong to impose strong censorship, especially in an era where it's fairly common for children to listen to music from streaming sources where censorship is non-existent.

I understand that the rules and regulations put forth and maintained by the FCC are constantly in flux, so please feel free to correct me if I am wrong. When I learned the rules of radio, George Carlin's "seven dirty words" was the main point of reference for what is permitted, and what could lead to serious trouble.

 

[TheBigA]

The public airwaves are public. Streaming services are private. One must subscribe in order to stream. No subscription required for AM/FM. They're not the same thing. If children hear certain words on a service they subscribe to, they have made that choice. That has been the philosophy behind broadcast indecency rules. I don't see it changing.

The George Carlin reference was to a legal case made about 50 years ago. Radio station WBAI played the recording on the radio, and they were fined by the FCC.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_dirty_words

 

[fordranger797]

I agree with the notion that there needs to be some sort of indecency standard for broadcast radio. We cannot allow the public airwaves to be subject to an "anything goes" mentality. However, to base so much of our current broadcast standards on a 1978 court case (FCC v. Pacifica Foundation) also seems to be a little extreme, particularly in the digital age. While broadcast radio remains an essential part of modern world, I think we all can agree that radio no longer has the same "captive audience" with the younger audience. If a younger person wants to hear a song that contains inappropriate content, they certainly will be able to do so as long as they have access to the internet, and know that most songs can be found with a simple YouTube search. While I am not championing for these songs to end up on the radio completely unedited, I really do feel like that there can (and should) be some sort of happy medium. What if radio stations were able to have the autonomy to decide what is inappropriate based off of their target audience? For instance, the same classic rock station that I referenced earlier could air unedited music on the basis that most of their listening audience is older. On the other hand, a CHR station might decide to edit their music based on the fact that it will attract young listeners, or families listening with children. While I am well aware that this strategy is completely flawed, I do feel that a collaborative approach between broadcasting outlets and the FCC could prove beneficial for everyone.

 

[TheBigA]

If a younger person wants to hear a song that contains inappropriate content, they certainly will be able to do so as long as they have access to the internet, and know that most songs can be found with a simple YouTube search.

As I said, that requires them to take action. FM radio is passive. You're sitting in your chair or car, and someone says indecent language you didn't expect. Same with broadcast TV. When someone goes to YouTube or a streaming site, they're looking for something. Two very different processes.

What if radio stations were able to have the autonomy to decide what is inappropriate based off of their target audience?

Target audience is age and demographics. We don't gather information on whether a listener accepts indecent language. That isn't in any database. You can't assume that because someone is a certain age or race that they're OK with indecent language.

Keep in mind the FCC determines all this. There is no "collaborative approach." The government licenses the airwaves, and we play by their rules. That's the end of the collaboration.

 

[fordranger797]

As I said, that requires them to take action. FM radio is passive. You're sitting in your chair or car, and someone says indecent language you didn't expect. Same with broadcast TV. When someone goes to YouTube or a streaming site, they're looking for something. Two very different processes.



Target audience is age and demographics. We don't gather information on whether a listener accepts indecent language. That isn't in any database. You can't assume that because someone is a certain age or race that they're OK with indecent language.

Not to play devils advocate, but is tuning into a specific radio station for a certain type of content not based on that same logic? Additionally, it seems that other countries (countries in the continent of Europe, in particular) have looser censorship policies that seem to work fine. I understand that such a comparison is apples versus oranges, but nonetheless, it seems like our censorship policies tend to lag behind.

 

[TheBigA]

Additionally, it seems that other countries (countries in the continent of Europe, in particular) have looser censorship policies that seem to work fine.

Other countries also have prime ministers and universal health care. The US doesn't base its rules on what other countries do.

Try to understand that you're not coming up with ideas that haven't been thought of before. Everyone in radio would love to play in the sandbox without any rules. That's just not the world we live in, and none of us have any control of how that happens.

 

[fordranger797]

Other countries also have prime ministers and universal health care. The US doesn't base its rules on what other countries do.

Try to understand that you're not coming up with ideas that haven't been thought of before. Everyone in radio would love to play in the sandbox without any rules. That's just not the world we live in, and none of us have any control of how that happens.

That makes sense. With all other societal issues aside, what do you think it would take to modernize our current FCC to what we see some European countries? While I understand that it probably isn't likely to happen, I would like to know what has maintained these policies.

 

[TheBigA]

I would like to know what has maintained these policies.

Politics. I don't know any politician who is running on the platform of say whatever you want on the radio. The president picks the FCC Commissioners. The Congress writes the broadcasting laws. Neither of them have ever said they're in favor of indecent language on the radio. As I said, if you want to hear indecency, it's available at your disposal.

Right now the president and congress are battling over ways to control the internet. Enjoy it while you can now, because if they get their way, there will be laws for the internet just like broadcasting. That's the direction things are going.

 

[Kelly A]

I understand that the rules and regulations put forth and maintained by the FCC are constantly in flux, so please feel free to correct me if I am wrong. When I learned the rules of radio, George Carlin's "seven dirty words" was the main point of reference for what is permitted, and what could lead to serious trouble.

So, if I'm carrying a news conference or rally, and POTUS expels verbal obscenities, which by the way has happened on more than one occasion, should the individual station be considered responsible?

 

[TheBigA]

So, if I'm carrying a news conference or rally, and POTUS expels verbal obscenities, which by the way has happened on more than one occasion, should the individual station be considered responsible?

The way the law is written, it doesn't matter who speaks. But it would put the FCC in an interesting position.

So far, AFAIK, no stations have been fined for those utterances.

 

[kenglish]

I kinda think that an occasional "adult" word should not be a big problem. A blast of obscene language, or a pattern of abuse should be.
They say it's to protect the children, but how many children care to listen to broadcast radio? Just keep it fairly clean, like what most folks would do in front of your own family.
And, try not to say "booger".

 

[b-turner]

I was always taught you have to realize you are heard by even the most conservative and that your adult listener might have young children in the room.

Kids cuss. I did and kids do now. Everybody pretends it doesn't happen and likely a couple of adult friends talking about their kids throwing out 4 letter words likely use a couple in their conversation.

At one station in a town of 3,500, the traffic manager at the station made a good case for keeping airwaves clean. Her daughter, fresh from day school goes to the bank with Mom. She hides behind a couch, trying to get a good 'hide and seek' game going. She pops up from behind the couch a second and yells "Hey Motherf....er" to a lobby full of folks. And she did it time and time again followed by a giggle. Worst of all, everybody at the bank knew who her mother was. Her daughter heard the word from a classmate.

I think the 'fleeting' expletive or the song lyric that is not terribly blatant in the use of expletives (ie: an example: 'working my tail off and taking sh.t off a boss half my age'). Some material I have heard seems to have expletives just for the shock value. Certainly it is a matter of personal judgment and hard to regulate. I feel the fear of a random word or fleeting remark, especially unintended, should not be an issue.

 

[TheBigA]

I feel the fear of a random word or fleeting remark, especially unintended, should not be an issue.

It all comes down to someone complaining to the FCC. It's not open to popular vote. Maybe it should be, but that's not how it works.