FCC Has No Issue With David Ortiz’s Pregame Speech

[michael hagerty]

Good point. But they can't appeal the Supreme Court decision, so maybe agreeing with it is the right move anyway.

Agreeing with the Court's view throws out the concept of regulating indecency, and it's pretty clear that's not what they want to do.

Well, I don't know about part one. The Court didn't say the FCC had no authority to regulate indecency or that the function should not be performed, just that the current policy was capricious. They agree by pursuing a revised policy.

And that revised policy is likely to be a catch-22. To avoid the capriciousness issue, there really are only a couple of sure-fire avenues: A list of banned words and phrases, use of which in any context or under any circumstance is a violation...which might also run into trouble in the Supreme Court at some point, depending on its makeup at the time...or walking away from indecency.

 

[TheBigA]

To avoid the capriciousness issue, there really are only a couple of sure-fire avenues: A list of banned words and phrases, use of which in any context or under any circumstance is a violation...which might also run into trouble in the Supreme Court at some point, depending on its makeup at the time...or walking away from indecency.

From what I've been told, the comments they're corrently receiving are overwhelmingly in favor of them retaining some form of indecency rules. Not that they're bound to follow the comments. They aren't. The initial response to the SC decision was that they were going to come up with a revised policy. And they seem to be laying the groundwork for that now.

As recently as three weeks ago, Genachowski said he'd like a policy that only targets "egregious" cases. He obviously doesn't consider the F word broadcast in the early afternoon to be an egregious case.

http://variety.com/2013/tv/news/fcc-chair-genachowski-fleeting-expletives-on-egregious-indecency-cases-1200331440/

 

[michael hagerty]

Well, here's the takeaway from that Variety piece:



Were the FCC to pursue a policy that singled out only “egregious” cases, it also would mark a return to the way that the commission pursued incidents before a stricter approach was adopted in the middle of last decade.

In the aftermath of the Supreme Court’s landmark Pacifica decision in 1978, the FCC pursued cases where expletives were uttered in a “deliberate and repetitive use in a patently offensive manner.” That changed in 2004, when the commission singled out even isolated expletives, such as Cher, Nicole Richie and Bono’s separate utterances of the f-bomb during award telecasts.

If that's the direction the FCC 's going, then the Papi speech is safe. He said it wasn't deliberate, the stations that broadcast it had no advance knowledge he would say it, and it wasn't repetitive.

Meantime, the FCC can put the Papi case on review while policymaking continues and simply run out the clock.

 

[raccoonradio]

"When is a Word considered profane? (" In asking around we’ve verified that the word was properly bleeped on both teams’ radio networks... The FCC needs to come up with procedures to be able to adjust their handling of what they consider to be indecent as time goes by.")

http://radioinsight.com/blog/blogs/81739/when-is-a-word-considered-profane/

 

[JeeperOne]

It went out on NESN. Isn't the FCC only concerned with over-the-air obscenity?

NESN is a cable sports outlet. The FCC has no jurisdiction over what goes out over cable outlets

Cheers & 73 ;D

 

[michael hagerty]

If it's true that both teams' radio networks caught and bleeped the "f" word, then there's nothing more to see here. There are no licensees who might be fined, because they got a bleep down the line.

 

[Frank Ferreri]

The "Ortiz defense" could be used in future situations where someone overcome with anger or emotion lets profanity hit the air waves, however having said that, Mr. Ortiz showed no class addressing a crowd in a family freindly situation such as a baseball game. Good going David as surely little kids who look up to you may think that sort of gutter talk must be OK. Not the place or time Mr. Ortiz. You need to work on your vocabulary.

 

[CTListener]

The "Ortiz defense" could be used in future situations where someone overcome with anger or emotion lets profanity hit the air waves, however having said that, Mr. Ortiz showed no class addressing a crowd in a family freindly situation such as a baseball game.

And of course, nobody ever swears at a baseball game.

 

[dumber than a box of hair]

The "Ortiz defense" could be used in future situations where someone overcome with anger or emotion lets profanity hit the air...

No, it can't. It hasn't appeared on any official docket and no complaints have been filed. Officially it never happened. A news story is no substitute for an official (and therefore citable) precedent.

 

[thirdendorsed]

The FCC has no authority over a network. Harken back to Nixon who wanted to "get" Paley and Stanton but the only way he had to do it was to go after the O & Os. That was the 7-7-7 days. Now, if they yanked one O & O, it would automatically set up challenges to all the others (cf. RKO General) so t here is really nothing that can be done other than fines and how do you find someone for something in the network feed the local operator had no control over?

 

[dumber than a box of hair]

The FCC has no authority over a network.

Wrong. Networks still need FCC-licensed facilities for program distribution, whether it's satellite uplinks or microwave relays.

Harken back to Nixon who wanted to "get" Paley and Stanton but the only way he had to do it was to go after the O & Os.

This is not the minimal threat you seem to think it is. The O&O's traditionally make lots more money for their owners than the networks do.

 

[TheBigA]

According to this, the word wasn't heard on broadcast radio or the Red Sox Radio network.

http://www.insideradio.com/Article.asp?id=2644815&spid=32061

 

[thirdendorsed]

The FCC has no authority over a network.

Wrong. Networks still need FCC-licensed facilities for program distribution, whether it's satellite uplinks or microwave relays.

Wowzers. You really need to work on that reading comprehension problem. I was right, as usual. The only direct authority the FCC has over networks is over their owned properties. Nobody is getting fined for satellite uplink or microwave relay content. Even the prime time access rule wasn't a network rule, it was a rule on what licensed stations could carry. Same thing with fin-syn, it was the settlement to an anti-trust action, not broadcast regulation of networks.

 

[TheBigA]

The only direct authority the FCC has over networks is over their owned properties.

AND their affiliates, as was the case with nipple-gate, and many of the Howard Stern fines. Having authority over a network's customers really gives them defacto authority over the network itself.

 

[dumber than a box of hair]

I was right, as usual. The only direct authority the FCC has over networks is over their owned properties.

Wrong again. If the FCC finds a licensee unfit, it yanks ALL its licenses, not just its broadcast licenses. That would effectively put a network out of business, since there's no way to distribute network programming at reasonable cost any other way these days.

 

[raccoonradio]

Bleepin' A.

http://www.fybush.com/nerw-20130429/

>>WEEI’s Jason Wolfe tells the Los Angeles Times that the pre-game show a week ago Saturday was running through a delay on flagship WEEI-FM (93.7 Lawrence-Boston) and Big Papi was bleeped before his comments hit the airwaves. But Wolfe also says the Red Sox network broadcast wasn’t running through the delay, and so it’s possible some stations elsewhere on the network may have carried the comments unbleeped.

On WBOQ they pick up the feed right from WEEI's on air broadcast apparently; the board op has to quickly fade down any promos for 93.7 and substitute a "North Shore...104.9" liner. Yesterday the Sox game was on 850 not 93.7 due to C's, so listeners to 104.9 heard "ESPN...on WEEI"
(Jim Cutler's voice) a few times. Well if 93.7 didn't have the Ortiz F-word, WBOQ may have been safe. Otherwise..

(WFAD may be silent too; not sure...in recent times 1420 and 1490 had simulcast Cruisin 93.7
(Addison VT) oldies...)

 

[SonicOverload]

The "Ortiz defense" could be used in future situations where someone overcome with anger or emotion lets profanity hit the air waves, however having said that, Mr. Ortiz showed no class addressing a crowd in a family freindly situation such as a baseball game. Good going David as surely little kids who look up to you may think that sort of gutter talk must be OK. Not the place or time Mr. Ortiz. You need to work on your vocabulary.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qh2sWSVRrmo

 

[KeithE4]

I was right, as usual. The only direct authority the FCC has over networks is over their owned properties.

Wrong again. If the FCC finds a licensee unfit, it yanks ALL its licenses, not just its broadcast licenses. That would effectively put a network out of business, since there's no way to distribute network programming at reasonable cost any other way these days.

That still doesn't shut down a network. To shut a broadcast network down, the FCC would have to yank the licenses of all 200+ affiliates, not just the O&Os. That just flat-out will never happen. Ever.

And besides, the network programming would just move to cable/satellite. Satellite uplink transmitters (which I'm not sure are owned by the networks to begin with) are not subject to the same language restrictions that broadcasters are. IIRC, they are considered fixed-service facilities, not broadcast stations. AFAIK, the only FCC-regulated services that have bad-language restrictions are broadcasters and hams.

 

[raccoonradio]

"We must think of the tiny tots..."

--from Stan Freberg's "Elderly Man River"; Stan sings "Old Man River" but the "CBS Censor" (Daws
Butler, aka the voice of Yogi Bear etc.) keeps correcting him--"we must think of the tiny tots".
Stan is forced to correct it: Elderly Man River, he must know something but he doesn't
say anything..." Finally when Stan gets to the part about "you get a little drunk" he
realizes he has met his match

 

[KeithE4]

In any case, David Ortiz himself wouldn't catch the fallout, but the little AM in St Johnsbury or St Albans would if those were the stations on which the complaint(s) were filed.

Right there is the big problem I have with the "fleeting expletives" rule: The actual offender gets away clean, but the stations (or networks) are stuck holding the bag and get punished.

David Ortiz is a baseball player, not a broadcast licensee. He is not subject to FCC rules and regulations. He is subject to MLB rules and regulations. If Bud Lite or the Red Sox think he should be fined over this, he will be. But the FCC has no say-so over David Ortiz or any other person who is not an employee of a broadcaster, and has a microphone in front of him.