Is profanity still against the rules on broadcast FM?

[FM_Listener]

Just wondering because I'm listening to an automated low power station tonight and just heard a song where they said the MF words nice and clear. No blanked audio like you hear sometimes.

Not sure if it was an oversight or if it doesn't matter much these days. Just curious.

 

[davideduardo]

Just wondering because I'm listening to an automated low power station tonight and just heard a song where they said the MF words nice and clear. No blanked audio like you hear sometimes.

Not sure if it was an oversight or if it doesn't matter much these days. Just curious.

It matters, is prohibited, but it has to be recorded and reported to the FCC. The FCC does not normally monitor stations.

 

[kf4rca]

Most Likely A Pirate

Such antics are not uncommon with the pirates.
Lots of pirates are out there.

 

[Kelly A]

There was an LPFM in the Seattle area who's IP audio link was hijacked by someone because the station engineer hadn't changed the default password. The hijacker played 'F-Trump' on the station repeatedly for several days, until someone contacted the church where the station was housed. The Commission was also notified, but I don't believe any action was taken against the station.

 

[michael hagerty]

It matters, is prohibited, but it has to be recorded and reported to the FCC. The FCC does not normally monitor stations.

David, it's been a while since I needed to know---is "safe harbor" still a thing?

 

[davideduardo]

David, it's been a while since I needed to know---is "safe harbor" still a thing?

Good question. I don't know the answer as most of us would not have taken the risk back then or today with certain material at any time of the day.

What I find about obscenity on the FCC site does not mention "safe harbor"...

https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/obscene-indecent-and-profane-broadcasts

Using the FCC site's search and entering "safe harbor" brings up nothing relevant.

Good question!

 

[Kelly A]

There have been obscenity complaints filed with the Commission that specifically mentioned the incident occurred inside of 'safe harbor' hours. So it must still be a thing.

 

[semoochie]

There have been obscenity complaints filed with the Commission that specifically mentioned the incident occurred inside of 'safe harbor' hours. So it must still be a thing.

Here's the line you are looking for: "Indecent and profane content are prohibited on broadcast TV and radio between 6 a.m. and 10 p.m., when there is a reasonable risk that children may be in the audience." https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/obscene-indecent-and-profane-broadcasts

 

[installLSC]

Here's the line you are looking for: "Indecent and profane content are prohibited on broadcast TV and radio between 6 a.m. and 10 p.m., when there is a reasonable risk that children may be in the audience." https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/obscene-indecent-and-profane-broadcasts

I've heard non-commercial stations using warnings since they're playing music outside of "safe harbour" hours, listeners may hear obscenities in the music they play. I don't think any commercial stations would take the risk of airing profanities anyway.

 

[Syfy]

It matters, is prohibited, but it has to be recorded and reported to the FCC. The FCC does not normally monitor stations.

If there is no recording or archive of it how would they even be able to prove that inappropriate words were said?

 

[semoochie]

If there is no recording or archive of it how would they even be able to prove that inappropriate words were said?

Since there is no such ruling for something as benign as You Tube, which is available anytime and anywhere, I just don't see this restriction lasting much longer. What possible benefit is there for children to protect them from one form of media with over 90% of market penetration, over another with virtually equal if not more effect? I know the excuse is that one is completely free and the other isn't but if the latter has also grown to have "necessary" status(as in "the public interest, convenience and necessity"), what possible difference is there? All it does is prevent broadcasting from competing on an equal playing ground!

 

[michael hagerty]

I've heard non-commercial stations using warnings since they're playing music outside of "safe harbour" hours, listeners may hear obscenities in the music they play. I don't think any commercial stations would take the risk of airing profanities anyway.

Depends. The big chains are risk-averse, but I still hear the unedited versions of Pink Floyd's "Money" ("bulls**t) and The Who's "Who Are You" ("who the f**k are you") on classic rock stations from time to time.

 

[michael hagerty]

If there is no recording or archive of it how would they even be able to prove that inappropriate words were said?

They can't. The person filing the complaint needs to back it up with a recording. If it's especially egregious, the FCC could request the logger recordings from the station, but they're not going to do that because one person says they heard one dirty word on air.

 

[michael hagerty]

Since there is no such ruling for something as benign as You Tube, which is available anytime and anywhere, I just don't see this restriction lasting much longer. What possible benefit is there for children to protect them from one form of media with over 90% of market penetration, over another with virtually equal if not more effect? I know the excuse is that one is completely free and the other isn't but if the latter has also grown to have "necessary" status(as in "the public interest, convenience and necessity"), what possible difference is there? All it does is prevent broadcasting from competing on an equal playing ground!

Politics. The Republicans don't want to tell their base they're the reason F-bombs are on free, over-the-air radio and TV, and the Democrats don't want the Republicans blaming them for it.

And, when you get right down to it, what percentage of the population will tune away from something "because they don't swear enough"?

 

[CTListener]

Politics. The Republicans don't want to tell their base they're the reason F-bombs are on free, over-the-air radio and TV, and the Democrats don't want the Republicans blaming them for it.

And, when you get right down to it, what percentage of the population will tune away from something "because they don't swear enough"?

There is a certain percentage of hard rock and hip-hop fans who criticize radio for not "keeping it real" by letting the "artists" express themselves on air they way they intended to when they made the recording. Fortunately, most of them are too busy playing online games in mom's basement or telling junior-high-school-macho stories of their imagined conquests to matter much to advertisers. Some, I've heard, even get to college before outgrowing that phase.

 

[Kelly A]

If there is no recording or archive of it how would they even be able to prove that inappropriate words were said?

Larger radio stations used to have slow speed tape recorders which 'logged' the station 24/7. The purpose was for everything from proving to an advertiser or agency that a spot ran, to protect the station from accusations of libelous or obscene language. Not many radio stations 'log' anymore, but many TV stations still do.

 

[michael hagerty]

Larger radio stations used to have slow speed tape recorders which 'logged' the station 24/7. The purpose was for everything from proving to an advertiser or agency that a spot ran, to protect the station from accusations of libelous or obscene language. Not many radio stations 'log' anymore, but many TV stations still do.

I've only been in two radio stations in the last seven years, but both log. In fact, there were five stations in the cluster at the last place and two at this one, so it's seven for seven. Logging digitally is exceptionally easy and very cheap (no moving parts, no physical tape). They're generally recorded compressed at low bit-rates, and are kept for a minimum of 30 days. It's less about the FCC or even civil lawsuits than it is proof of performance in case a client has a question about their spots.

 

[frankberry]

Before my retirement, WTVT television, Tampa, recorded audio and video 24 hours per day.
Back then, they used three VHS recorders and three 8 hour VHS tapes each day. They kept the tapes for 90 days (longer if there was any issue at all).
I'm sure that they're now recording on hard drives.

 

[SomeRadioGuy]

They can't. The person filing the complaint needs to back it up with a recording. If it's especially egregious, the FCC could request the logger recordings from the station, but they're not going to do that because one person says they heard one dirty word on air.

What logger tapes? They aren't required in the US.

 

[semoochie]

Politics. The Republicans don't want to tell their base they're the reason F-bombs are on free, over-the-air radio and TV, and the Democrats don't want the Republicans blaming them for it.

And, when you get right down to it, what percentage of the population will tune away from something "because they don't swear enough"?

I'm just saying that "protecting the children" has always been the reason for this ruling and that is now a moot point. It's virtually impossible to justify! How many millions of parents are going to tell their kids they can't watch You Tube?