COPPS JOINS TRISTANI CRUSADE AGAINST INDECENT PROGRAMMING
Providing first glimpse of his public policy priorities, new FCC Comr. Copps teamed up with Comr. Tristani to lash out at Enforcement Bureau’s handling of 2 indecency complaints against radio stations. In separate statements issued Mon., Copps and Tristani criticized Enforcement Bureau for not aggressively investigating listener complaints filed against Chicago station WKQX(FM) and Burlington, N.C. station WDCG(FM). Copps and Tristani, 2 Democrats on Commission, called on Bureau to take more steps in enforcing broadcast indecency regulations, instead of dismissing many complaints because station didn’t provide record of what was broadcast. “Lack of information about what was said and when it was broadcast should not be allowed to derail our enforcement of the laws,” Copps said. “If something is said on the public airwaves, a strong argument can be made that it should be part of the public record.” Copps raised similar concerns in interview with Communications Daily last month (CD June 14 p1).
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Communications Daily is required reading for senior executives at top telecom corporations, law firms, lobbying organizations, associations and government agencies (including the FCC). Join them today!
While Tristani has made stronger enforcement of federal indecency rules one of her signature issues at FCC, Copps is new to cause. In his statement, he said stricter enforcement “will be an important priority for me as I begin my service on the Commission.” Arguing that “Americans have a right to expect their government to enforce the indecency laws of the United States,” he said he wants to “ensure that the Commission investigates vigorously the complaints filed by citizens.”
In Chicago case, listener David Smith filed 3 complaints concerning total of 5 incidents of allegedly indecent broadcasting by WKQX last year. Enforcement Bureau issued notice of apparent liability against station over 2 of incidents but dismissed remaining 3 because they didn’t appear to be indecency violations on their face. All 3 incidents occurred during morning broadcasts hosted by Eric (Mancow) Muller, who, among other things, discussed adult-child sexual intercourse in detail and claimed that he had once had sex with 9-year-old girl when he was 27. Enforcement Bureau said it could not conclude that the Mancow discussion was indecent because it didn’t have “sufficient context in terms of the words and language used.” “Although we have previously found apparently indecent a crude joke about adult-child sex, there is not sufficient context to ascertain whether the discussion was so explicit or graphic so as to rise to the level of being patently offensive,” Bureau said in letter to Smith.
Tristani criticized Bureau’s judgment in case, arguing that WKQX clearly violated indecency law. “If ever there were a case for a per se violation of the indecency laws, this is it,” she said. Tristani also criticized Bureau for not going beyond its letter of inquiry to station and contacting Smith for more information. “The Bureau took the correct first step when it sent a Letter of Inquiry to the station,” she said. “The problem is that the investigation ended when the station failed to provide any evidence implicating its self.”
Tristani argued that in such cases “contacting both the station and the complainant should not impose unreasonable burdens on Commission staff” and “would undoubtedly result in more thorough records to evaluate indecency complaints.” Copps agreed, contending that most broadcasters “already retain recordings of their broadcasts” for “good management” and other reasons. He said he’s interested in “looking at how the Commission could encourage universal retention of broadcast programming to aid in its indecency enforcement.”
In Burlington case earlier this year, listener Joyce Moller complained that WDCG aired joking discussion about masturbation that offered prizes to callers who would masturbate during program. Enforcement Bureau dismissed complaint after finding that program did not meet its 3-prong test to be considered obscene. It also ruled that material was “not sufficiently explicit to conclude that it is patently offensive so as to constitute indecency.” Bureau advised Moller to contact “your station management and station advertisers to express your opinion.”
Arguing that Moller’s complaint “deserved a careful investigation rather than the summary dismissal it received,” Tristani said, bureau “at the very least… should have contacted the station to request a tape or transcript of this program.” She said such move “might well have led to the finding” that station violated indecency rules. “Without a change in the Commission’s process for enforcing the broadcast indecency regulations,” she said, “far too many complaints will be dismissed for ‘lack of context’ when all that is required for reasoned decision-making is a minimal amount of follow up.”
Copps agreed again, repeating his call for universal retention of broadcast programming and more aggressive actions by agency. “The process by which the FCC has enforced these laws places an inordinate responsibility on the complaining citizen,” he said. “It seems to me that when enforcing the indecency laws of the United States, it is the Commission’s responsibility to investigate complaints that the law has been violated, not the citizen’s responsibility to prove the violations.”