Politics

FUBAR

PBS runs into the FCC’s nanny-state regulations

• Print
• Email
• Comments
• Single page

It’s official, we’ve become a nation of children. And like children, we can’t be trusted to hear nasty swear words—even while watching violent, televised images from a war zone.

Got that? Violence, OK. Bad language, verboten!

On September 23, PBS begins airing Ken Burns’ fourteen-hour World War II documentary “The War,” and in interviews with former soldiers, a few of them swore, a not-uncommon thing when discussing the horrors of combat.

But some PBS stations, spooked by the FCC’s prudish fine policy that levies a $325,000 indecency fine if the offensive language is broadcast between 6 a.m. and 10 p.m., are bleeping the words out. If that’s not silly enough, it looks like the inability to use language is just as bad in some newspapers covering the story. In the Washington Post’s write-up of the story this morning, reporter Paul Farhi gets around it by writing, “In two instances, the words are spoken by former American soldiers as they describe the meaning of the common military euphemisms “snafu” and “fubar,” as well as some combat experiences. The other two words refer to a body part and excrement. In the edited version, the soundtrack briefly goes silent when the profanities are uttered.”

Have we become too timid? Let’s not forget that in 2002, ABC ran “Saving Private Ryan” unbleeped, and the FCC left it alone, finding that the speech was neither “pandering, titillating or vulgar.” I would imagine that the same would be the case in the Burns documentary.

One would hope that something like this would provoke a discussion over which is more offensive: violence, or off-color language that brings a more human perspective to what war actually is and how a person reacts to it. One would hope, but I’m not going to hold my breath. It’s easier to pretend that censoring bad words, while broadcasting footage of what gave rise to those words, will somehow save us from ourselves.

CJR

If you enjoy this kind of press criticism please consider a subscription to our magazine, Columbia Journalism Review—a deal via the Web site at $19.95.

To subscribe, to give CJR as a gift, to renew, or to check student and CJR in the Classroom rates, click here.

Comments

padikiller

Fri 31 Aug 2007 04:17 PM

LOL!...

Pot meets kettle!

As one who has incurred the wrath of the CJR censors on many occasions, I cannot help but note the unbridled irony in Mr. McLeary's high-horsed chastisement of PBS.

CJR not only routinely censors comments it deems to be "offensive", "objectionable", "antagonistic", "inappropriate" or "inflammatory" but also actually forbids the FORMATTING of comments designed to "pump up the volume" of a post (whatever the Hell that is supposed to mean- I guess we can't have any overly expressive commenting raining on the liberal CJR parade)

What's good for the goose is unfit for the gander in McLearyland.

potus

Sat 1 Sep 2007 12:22 PM

Which is to say that you support McLeary's point of view regarding PBS.

padikiller

Sun 2 Sep 2007 12:30 AM

McLeary has the story wrong again (surprise, surprise)...

PBS has issued a "bleeped" version and and an "unbleeped" version of the documentary.

It appears that all but one of the stations (WHUT-Howard University's station in D.C.) will air the the uncensored version at night in primetime, but will run the censored version during daytime hours.

So obviously the fear of FCC fines is NOT driving the decision-making here.

I'm not glued to any particular position in this compelling "controversty" but a dual showing seems like a reasonable compromise to me. In the daytime there is a greater likelihood that children could be listening (perhaps without watching) the show. Why should children be exposed to the "f word"? Besides, what adult doesn't know what "SNAFU" means? To any adult, a "bleep" will be sufficient to fill in the blank and get the information across.

I am more interested in the boundless hypocrisy Mr. McLeary exhibits in castigating others for censorship. It is beyond the pale for Mr. McLeary to bewail this kind of mild censorship at PBS, when he directly participates in deleting reader comments on this very website!

The guy sure does have chutzpah (if not ethics)!

Furthermore, for all of Mr. McLeary's "b----ing", it is interesting to note that he has ALSO censored the content in his own article-you won't find the censored words printed in his article either. One would think that if the four censored words in question were necessary, as McLeary claims they are, to the presentation of a "human perspective" that he would have printed them here...

But he didn't.

For CJR, it's clearly a case of "SNAFU".