Parents Television Council, FCC complaints, and the unions

I'm really starting to get worried about the emerging climate of censorship in this country's media -- and I'm not just talking about Howard Stern's travails. The whole thing was certainly kicked off by Janet Jackson's Super Bowl "wardrobe malfunction", but it's taking on a much more sinister dimension. Three things, just from today's news: While the LA Times reports that Los Angeles broadcasters are rejecting an anti-syphillis public service ad for being too "lighthearted", the International Labor Communications Association notes that American broadcasters are increasingly rejecting ads from unions, who have never got a fair break from broadcasters to start with. Then Mediaweek discovers that the Parents Television Council, an activist group, was resposible for 99.8% of all indecency claims filed with the FCC in 2003, and 99.9% of all indecency claims filed since the CBS Super Bowl halftime show this year. Yes folks, 99.9%! One artists' rights advocacy spokesman is quoted as stating the bloody obvious: "It means that really a tiny minority with a very focused political agenda is trying to censor American television and radio.” Trying?


Last word to the unions:

This unfair and unbalanced practice [of rejecting union advertising] is, of course, not reported on by the media. Rejecting union ads or any other ads (except political campaign ads) is perfectly legal, and no explanation for the decision to reject a particular ad is required. But ad sales executives are completely open about their motivations. If, they say, an ad from a union will be viewed negatively by a corporation that buys more advertising than the union does, the union ad gets rejected. Thus the collective wealth of working people cannot compete in our "democratic media" against the wealth of corporate owners unless the union spends as much as the corporations – and even then ads can be rejected or required to become corporate friendly.