Media is all around us. We as a society absorb media from television, radio, magazines, billboards, and newspapers. Media has such a strong effect on our lives that we do not even notice its presence sometimes. It reflects and sustains the values and traditions of our striving, but necessary democracy. The freedom to read and write is essential to the democratic way of life, but today that freedom is being threatened. Private groups and public authorities everywhere are working to remove both books and periodicals from sales, to exclude certain books from public schools, to censor and silence magazines and newspapers, and to limit controversial books and periodicals to the general public. They are also being brought against the educational system, films, radio, television, and against the graphic and theatrical arts. Censorship occurs often in today’s society, much of which is justifiable, but in some cases is simply unnecessary. The issue that arises with censorship is that it prevents the people from being exposed to a wide variety of views. The question to ask ourselves is do different aspects of media censorship hinder tolerance or benefit our society?
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
Introduction
Howard Stern Moves to Satellite Radio
For many years, Howard Stern has been fighting the FCC and its radio regulations. Up until 2005, Howard Stern was the voice of 97.1 WKRK, a CBS owned radio station located in Detroit. During his time as a DJ at WKRK, Stern has done nothing but battle with the Federal Communications Commission, receiving fines and penalties many times.
In April of 2004, Stern was slapped with the biggest fines in his history as a radio DJ. On April 8, the FCC ruled that Howard Stern’s Show, which is featured on nearly thirty-five stations nationwide, contained sexually explicit and graphic content unsuitable for radio broadcast. Eighteen of the thrity-five stations that carry Stern’s show were cited for this infraction of FCC regulation, all of which were fined the maximum amount of $27, 500. Even worse, all eighteen of the fined stations are owned by a company named Clear Channel. Since all eighteen fines were cited to Clear Channel, they received a total penalty of $495,000. When news and media reporters asked Stern about his feelings towards the issue, he responded stating that, “’[i]t is pretty shocking that governmental interference into our rights and free speech takes place in the U.S.,’” (Unknown). Within the transcript of the day in question’s spoken content, Stern, along with the other guests on the show spoke using a myriad of expletives. However, the question remains about wether or not it right for a governmental agency to decide wther the content is appropriate for the public.
Since this incident, and many incidents like this, Stern has moved on to a new show featured on the Sirius XM Satellite radio. On his new show, Stern is more free to express his feelings in the manner he wants, due to the inability for the FCC to regulate satellite radio transmissions.
T.V. Ratings
The TV Rating System
- TV-Y" All children. The Themes and elements in this program are specifically designed for a very young audience, including children from ages 2-6 (preschool and small children)
- TV-Y7 "Directed to older children. Theme and elements in this program may include mild physical or comedic physical or comedic violence, or may frighten children under the age of seven. Most of these shows come on Saturday mornings or on weekday afternoons on most television networks and local affiliates.
- TV-G" General audience. It contains little or no violence, no strong language and litter or no sexual dialogue or situations. For everyone to watch, if you trust the broadcasters in their judgments.
- TV-PG" Parental Guidance Suggested. The program may contain infregquent coarse language, limited violence, some suggestive sexual dialogue and situations. This is the most confusing rating of all. This is the reason why the new "ratings letters have been added." Some parents may think one show is okay, whilst others think it should be rated "TV-14" or "TV-M." The most important thing about this rating is that the producers meant for the parents should choose what their children should watch, and they're the true judges, because everyone's standards are different. These shows were not meant for a kid to watch by him/herself.
- TV-14" Parent strongly cautioned. This program may contain sophisticated themes, sexual content strong language and more intense violence. This rating could be compared with "PG-13." This is a level below TV-M or rated R, in which it is not advised that a person under 17 watch the program or movie. However, as with "TV-PG," standards are different amongst different people. As for letting a 13 or 14-year-old watch the show, it depends on the maturity level of the person. Children under seven should not watch these programs of this nature. Children 8-14 year-olds should watch these shows with their parents.
- TV-M " Mature audiences only, This program may contain mature themes, profane language, graphic violence, and explicit sexual content." This is considered “The "R" of television. This rating is generally rarer on broadcast television, because advertisers have a fear that a program with an M rating would either not be watched or family groups would boycott their related companies. Any rate, this show is not for kids under 17 (Craig,1-2.)
For years there has been a debate whether television censorship is good or bad. Censorship for television especially was made to protect people, namely children. One thing that the government had to be careful about was not to violate the first amendment. The first amendment states that that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. In no way does censorship violate this. In 1990 the Children’s Act was enacted by congress. The act was made to increase the quantity of educational programs for children. More than two thirds of children are said to be influenced by what they watch on television between the ages seven and seventeen (Office of Public Affairs.) Censorship is both good and bad, depending on how an individual weighs the issue. However the cons outweigh the positives.
Cons of Censorship in television:
- The governments should not control people.
- Individuals have different tastes
- It is used to control people.
- Freedom of speech is compromised.
- It works against creativity
· Censorship is subject to just television, although there are ratings for movies as well, when aired on television words and gestures are censored out. (Pillai, 1.)
Movie Rating System
Movie audiences today know that when they see a trailer for an upcoming film, there will be a rating attached. Though people have become accustomed to this system, they may not know that it didn’t always exist, or why it was created in the first place.
When Jack Valenti became the president of the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) in 1966, it was in the midst of a tumultuous time in our nation’s history. Valenti said Hollywood had lost authority over the content of films, and at the same time, American attitudes and ideals were shifting dramatically. The movie industry was bound to be affected by these changes, and films emerged that were, as Valenti put it, “frank and open, and made by filmmakers subject to very few self imposed restraints.”
And so, in 1968, Valenti collaborated with the National Association of Theatre Owners (NATO) and the International Film Importers & Distributors of America (IFIDA) to create a voluntary film rating system. Initially, there were four ratings: G for general audiences, M for mature audiences, R for restricted, and X for no one under 17 admitted. M was later changed to PG, which was then divided into PG and PG-13 in 1984. In 1990, the X rating was changed to NC-17: NO ONE 17 AND UNDER ADMITTED.
Valenti said the rating system was not meant to censor films, but simply to offer information about a movie to parents so they could decide whether to allow their children to see it. “Indeed, if you are 18 or over, or if you have no children, the rating system has no meaning for you. Ratings are meant for parents, no one else,” Valenti wrote.
However, some filmmakers have felt pressured to censor themselves in order to avoid the dreaded rating of NC-17. Some theatres won’t show NC-17 movies and some newspapers won’t run ads for them, so a movie with this rating will gross far less money than an R rated film. Often times, the ratings board will give a movie the NC-17 rating initially, and the director will cut the offending content until the film is R material.
Though the purpose of the movie rating system may be to provide information to parents, the controversy over the NC-17 rating holds some filmmakers back. Writers and directors should be allowed to explore their creative vision and show it to audiences who wish to see it. They shouldn’t feel forced to cut their material for fear that a theatre wouldn’t play their movie and cause it to be a box-office flop.
Censorship in Music
Music censorship has been a major problem plaguing America for over fifty years. In 1957, Elvis Presley was only allowed to be filmed from the waist up on the Ed Sullivan show (EP Music). Plenty of controversy has taken place between then and now, but more recently it has become mush more prominent in the media, and people and organizations are beginning to actually take a stand.
For example, Island Records, owned by Disney, dropped the Insane Clown Posse just after their release of The Great Milenko (MTV Network) and MTV actually refused to play Madonna’s video for Justify My Love because it was considered too sexually explicit. 
In Madonna’s “Like A Prayer” video she burned crosses, kissed an African American Saint, and showed stigmata. As a result Pepsi pulled their sponsorship for her tour, as well as cancelled her Pepsi commercial (Celebrity Ragazine).
Music content is just one of the many issues that puts the First Amendment of our Consitution to work. On one hand people believe that lyrics should be censored as that people can be protected, and on the other hand, people believe that the First Amendment protects everyone’s rights to free speech. Basically, it is a matter of wheather lyrical censorship is accepted. Many people say yes, that there should be censorship because lyrics from songs are telling our youth it is acceptable to participate in illegal actions such as murder, rape or drugs. These people believe that the lyrics actually drive people to become social deviants. In one case, the parents of John McCullom sued Ozzy Osbourne, because his song “Suicide Solution,” “aided, advised and encouraged” McCullom’s suicide.
In my opinion, I think it is unconstitutional to censor lyrics. The First Amendemtn gives everyone the equal right to speak freely about anything, in any way. This does not exclude musicians. If I am allowed to speak my opinion, positively or negatively, on a subject, then so is a lyricist, eve if he/she is speaking to the public. When an organization such as the Christian Coalition protests against artists, that is the same idea of musicians’ controversial lyrics (Schapiro). Both sides are expressing two extreme views, and if one side is going to be stifled, then so should the other. I believe Thomas C. Grey explained it best when he said, “if you are going to regulate speech, then you’re going to create the danger of suppressing debate, and suppressing ideas” (Grey 18-24).
1. Madonna - Like A Prayer (1989)
2. Britney Spears - Baby One More Time (1999)
3. Michael Jackson - Thriller (1983)
4. Madonna - Ray of Light (1998)
5. Madonna - Vogue (1988)
6. Michael & Janet Jackson - Scream (1995)
7. Robbie Williams - Rock DJ (2000)
8. Eric Prydz - Call On Me (2004)
9. Jamiroquai - Virtual Insanity (1997)
10. Spice Girls - Wannabe (1996)
A Coffin, a Flag, a Photograph
On February 9th, President Obama stated that he was considering overturning a Pentagon policy that has been in place since the Persian Gulf War in 1991, under President George H.W. Bush’s administration (Tyson & Berman). This policy regards a photo ban on the Dover Air Force Base in Delaware, where soldiers’ bodies are taken off planes in coffins and given a simple prayer and honorary ceremony. This brief ceremony is known as the “dignified transfer of remains” (Tyson & Berman). This photo and media ban has been the source of much controversy, especially with the war in Iraq occurring right now.
The big question here lies in the issue of privacy and media coverage. Many of the fallen soldiers’ families wish to keep this ceremony private, and want nothing to do with the media because they believe their moment of grief and suffering should be private. Other families want the media there, to show America the pain and suffering they go through to make the public more appreciative of what our soldiers are doing for us. Because of the emotional nature of this ceremony, the Pentagon banned all media coverage and photos, with a few select exceptions. Sixty percent of Americans felt that the public should be allowed to see pictures of the military guard and ceremony, with only one third answering the other way, in polls during 1991 and 2004 (Tyson & Berman). At Arlington National Cemetery, the policy is that family members of the diseased choose whether or not to allow media, and if they choose to let them cover it, they are kept far enough away where they cannot hear anything (Tyson & Berman). 
Visual Art Censorship
While many aspects of censorship may be easy to point out, photography is more difficult to spot. A great deal of photographic censorship has to do with how a person protects him or herself from certain images. Photography is seen as the “most democratic of the arts… one that most people can embrace, whether has a practitioner or as a consumer through exposure to photos in the home and at a distance in newspapers, magazines, books and on video” (Censorship).
Because it is so common, putting a rating scale or black censor box over every image is too difficult. People must use morals and make personal decisions for what images they expose themselves to and what they take photographs of. Explicit photos of children have been named by society and the law as unacceptable; however, when the subject is an adult, anything goes because it’s all artwork. The choice to censor what artwork is displayed or viewed is up to the individual.
Robert Mapplethorpe has caused quite a ruckus in the artistic photography world. Because his images are primarily homosexual views of men and women in controversial positions, many have chosen to keep Mapplethorpe’s images from being displayed in public places. While they are not flaunted for the entire public to see, Mapplethorpe’s images are still available for purchase for those who choose to expose themselves to the artwork.
Because censorship of photography is primarily a personal judgment, the individual has the choice of what images he or she is exposed to. The privilege to pick what you may or may censor is a great one because censorship should always be a personal decision.
Censorship and Advertising
Advertising executives create many ads that do not make it to the public. However, with many regulations and censors affecting their ads, most of the original ads are forgotten. Censorship in advertising severely hinders creativity and prohibits the audience from making their own inference about the subject.
Using controversial print advertisements as examples, one can see how the censoring regulates the viewer’s opinion. In an advertisement featured in Vogue, Harvey Nichols, and Elle for a new lipstick, the female driver is shown applying lipstick in the rear-view mirror. In the windshield, the viewer sees a suit-clad man about to be struck by the vehicle (Nichols).
Complaints made to the Advertising Standard Authority stated that the advertisement was irresponsible for depicting unsafe driving habits but also may offend those who may have been or know someone who has been in an automobile accident (Nichols). Complaints were made, however, the print was not removed from circulation, saying that readers of the publishing magazines would find the advertisement humorous and would most likely refrain from replicating the same driving habits (Nichols). The consumer should be allowed to decide if they find this offensive or humorous themselves.
An advertisement from Italy, originally ran by Marithe & Francois Girbaud features models in the traditional placement and intensity of Jesus Christ’s Last Supper (Girbaud). The ad features all female models with one male, who has his bare, muscular back to the viewer.
The Advertising Standards authority of Italy felt this ad offends anyone of any religious background. The advertiser wanted to switch the traditional roles of men and women to show men as fragile and sacred (Girbaud) . Instead of portraying an intended satirical effect, the advertisement crossed the line between the outrageous and the religious, therefore unable to be printed (Girbaud). This advertisement may not offend everyone, however, the Advertising Standards authority of Italy refused to let the public decide that for themselves. The censorship neglects to let the public be exposed and make an opinion for itself.
Banned Books and Censorship
For every controversial book written, there seems to be someone determined to censor it. Whether it is because the book contains profanity, sexual explicitness, or even material considered to be too radical, many people seem to believe that banning books is the best way to protect the world from material deemed inappropriate to them.
Of books that have been banned recently, I found that many are books that display positive themes on homosexuality. This past week, it was revealed that Amazon had apparently been censoring books such as Annie Proulx’s “Brokeback Mountain”, and other novels containing homosexual material (The Associated Press, 2009). Amazon claims that this was simply a glitch in the system and not an act to censor such books (The Associated Press, 2009). Many people are skeptical, however, because this alleged glitch only affected novels containing homosexual material, labeling them as “erotic” (The Associated Press, 2009).
This censorship of gay themed books has been commonly seen for many years. In 2006, a book entitled “King & King” was banned in a Massachusetts school, because parents were outraged at the advancement of the “gay agenda” it presented (Doyle, 2008). The excuse parents gave as to why this book should be banned, was, "Let kids be kids… and not worry about homosexuality, race, or religion. Just let them live freely as kids (Doyle, 2008)." Unless being a kid entails not being introduced to important life issues or acknowledging diversity, these parents are only sheltering their children from the real world.
What is truly shocking is that many “controversial” books are being banned before even being read. For instance, Sarah Palin removed the children’s book “Daddy’s Roommate” from a local library, because its depiction of a normal, loving family with two fathers went against her moral beliefs (Kranich, 2008). Palin did not even read the book to form her opinion, but ignorantly assumed it was inappropriate (Kranich, 2008). Many people against the banning of books have argued that controversial topics are a part of life, and one cannot rid the world of such things based on their own opinions simply by banning reading material.
This is supposedly a free country, and if a person is so desperately against the subject matter presented in certain books, perhaps they should simply leave those books closed on the shelf and stop forcing their beliefs on the rest of society.
Newspaper Censorship
Ironically, the time of the American Revolution held some of the most blatant examples of press censorship this country has seen. In 1775, colonists looking to rid America of an English presence burned a printing press owned by James Rivington, publisher of The New York Gazetteer, because he supported the English monarchy in his newspaper (James Rivington). In 1776, New York printer Samuel Loudon advertised an upcoming response to Thomas Paine’s pro-revolution pamphlet, Common Sense. Colonists looking to part from the Crown became alarmed, broke into Loudon’s home and forced him to lead them to his printing press. The group of patriots smashed Loudon’s printing plates and burned 1,500 copies of his American Advertiser newspaper (Hildeburn 154). The next morning every printer in New York found notes on their steps from the “committee of tarring and feathering” warning that “destruction, death, and perdition” would be their fate if they printed “anything against the rights and liberties of America” (Adams 56). It comes as little surprise that censorship increases during times of war, as the government looks to silence dissenting voices.
While it is less blatant, censorship of the current “War on Terrorism” shares some characteristics with Revolution-era censorship. Following the 9/11 attacks, President Bush addressed a joint session of Congress and the American public, saying “either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.” With those words, Bush effectively told the media to get on board with the war, or else. Those who dared critique the rush to war were attacked for having insufficient patriotism. Even Dan Rather, perhaps the most vocal journalistic patriot after the tragedy, has had second thoughts, confiding in a BBC interview that "patriotism run amok" has led to self-censorship by journalists, himself included (Jensen). This self-censorship offered little resistance to President Bush’s argument for the 2003 Iraq invasion. Despite numerous skeptics abroad, Congress signed off on the war, which is still costing Americans $12 billion each month (Studies). In addition to this de facto censorship, the government has also legally restricted newspapers from publishing information regarding the “War on Terrorism”.
In 2001, Sami al-Hajj, a Sudanese journalist for the Al-Jazeera network, was traveling to Afghanistan to film a news segment when he was captured by Pakistani soldiers. Despite holding a legitimate visa, al-Hajj was turned over to the United States government and held in Guantanamo Bay as an “enemy combatant” until 2008. During his stay in the military prison, al-Hajj made several drawings, which he named “The Sketches of My Nightmare,” that illustrate his take on the conditions at Guantanamo. The U.S. government has decided to censor those sketches, but it could not prevent cartoonist Lewis Peake from recreating the pictures from al-Hajj’s description of them (Worthington). By censoring the sketches, the government seems to be trying to suppress any opinions that may question its treatment of prisoners.
The media has an obligation to inform the public to its fullest extent. If newspapers fail to report controversial topics, the public loses a major source of information and its ability to participate in a democracy is jeopardized. An argument can be made that the media should censor issues dealing with national security, especially in times of war, but in the end the U.S. government and military represent the American public. We deserve to know if and how these powerful institutions are giving us a poor international reputation.
