Benton RSS Feed

SOLDIERS' WORDS MAY TEST PBS LANGUAGE RULES
[SOURCE: New York Times 7/22, AUTHOR: Elizabeth Jensen]
The PBS documentarian Ken Burns has been working for six years on “The War,” a soldier’s-eye view of World War II, and those who have seen parts of the 14-plus hours say they are replete with salty language appropriate to discussions of the horrors of war. What viewers will see and hear when the series is broadcast in September 2007 is an open question. A new Public Broadcasting Service policy that went into effect immediately when it was issued on May 31 requires producers whose shows are broadcast before 10 p.m. to adhere to tough editing requirements when it comes to coarse language, to comply with tightened rulings on broadcast indecency by the Federal Communications Commission. Most notably, PBS’s deputy counsel, Paul Greco, wrote in a memo to stations, it is no longer enough simply to bleep out offensive words audibly when the camera shows a full view of the speaker’s mouth. From now on, the on-camera speaker’s mouth must also be obscured by a digital masking process, a solution that PBS producers have called cartoonish and clumsy. In addition, profanities expressed in compound words must be audibly bleeped in their entirety so that viewers cannot decipher the words. In the past, PBS required producers to bleep only the offensive part of the compound word. Since May 31, bits of dialogue have been digitally obscured about 100 times in four PBS programs, most often in two episodes of the music documentary “The Blues.” Mr. Burns, in an interview, said he was not worried that his work, which he called a “very experiential take on the Second World War,” would be affected by the policy, noting that while the series includes some “very graphic violence,” there are just two profanities, read off camera. But several other senior public broadcasting executives said “The War” was likely to become a test case for PBS and the FCC.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/22/arts/television/22pbs.html
(requires registration)

* Censorship at work
If strong language accompanies strong documentary content, as it sometimes does, WGBH’s Frontline would be frequently affected by the FCC’s war on bad words. Indeed, it already has been. This commentary reflects the personal views of the program’s executive editor.
http://www.current.org/fcc/fcc0613indecency.shtml

* PBS hopes bleeps and blurred lips keep FCC fines at bay
http://www.current.org/fcc/fcc0612indency.shtml

TELEVISION INDUSTRY UNVEILING $300M CONTENT CONTROL CAMPAIGN JULY 27
[SOURCE: Broadcasting&Cable, AUTHOR: John Eggerton]
The television industry plans to unveil a new $300 million content-control consumer awareness campaign soon starting with a briefing for key Senators July 27. Former Motion Picture Association of America President Jack Valenti will direct the dog and pony for the Senate Commerce Committee. The campaign will include TV and other ads, print materials, and a Website that Valenti says will be user-friendly. The goal is to let parents know what technologies are already available to help control their family's TV viewing, including cable set-top controls and the broadcast V-chip/rating system. The other goal is to convince Washington that parental control, not government regulation, is the way to address content criticisms. Broadcasters are battling an FCC indecency crackdown, while the cable industry is hoping to head off calls for mandatory à la carte cable service as a way to let subscribers control content. Both are counting on Valenti's stature with the committee and his experience at creating a ratings system for movies that helped stave off content regulation of that industry.
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6355483.html

CONGRESS TARGETS DECEPTIVE 'SEX' SITES
[SOURCE: C-Net|News.com, AUTHOR: Declan McCullagh and Anne Broache]
Web pages that use innocent words like "Barbie" or "Furby" but actually feature sexual content will be subject to felony charges, thanks to a bill the U.S. Senate approved Thursday. Anyone who includes misleading words or images intended to confuse a minor into viewing a possibly harmful Web site could be imprisoned for up to 20 years and fined, the legislation says. The Child Protection and Safety Act represents the most extensive rewriting of federal laws relating to child pornography, sex offender registration and child exploitation in a decade. Supporters say it's necessary to protect the nation's youth. An earlier version of the measure had already cleared the U.S. House of Representatives, which is expected to approve the revised version next week. President Bush endorsed the bill Friday, saying it will provide "law enforcement officials with the tools they need to track those who prey upon children." A key phrase in the legislation promises prison time only if a Webmaster has the "intent to deceive" a casual visitor. David Greene, staff counsel for the nonprofit First Amendment Project, says it could pass constitutional muster if used against Web sites that trick minors into viewing off-color sexual material.
http://news.com.com/Congress+targets+deceptive+sex+sites/2100-1028_3-609...

SURVEILLANCE WE CAN LIVE WITH
[SOURCE: Washington Post, AUTHOR: Sen Arlen Specter (R-PA)]
[Commentary] President Bush's electronic surveillance program has been a festering sore on our body politic since it was publicly disclosed last December. Civil libertarians, myself included, have insisted that the program must be subject to judicial review to ensure compliance with the Fourth Amendment. The president has insisted that he was acting lawfully within his constitutional responsibilities. On its face, the program seems contrary to the plain text of the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which regulates domestic national security wiretapping. The president argues, however, that his inherent constitutional powers supersede the statute. Without knowing the exact contours of the program, it's impossible to say whether he is right or wrong. But three federal appeals court decisions suggest the president may be right. The integrity of our nation's adherence to the rule of law requires an answer to the question of whether this program is legal. The protection of our nation's security and individual rights requires a modification of the program if it is not lawful as currently fashioned. The challenge, which I have been trying to meet legislatively, is to structure a procedure under which the courts can adjudicate the lawfulness of this highly sensitive program while maintaining the secrecy the president contends is so important. In my opinion, it is intolerable to let this matter drift indefinitely. If someone has a better idea for legislation that would resolve the program's legality or can negotiate a better compromise with the president, I will be glad to listen.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/23/AR200607...
(requires registration)