Here's what may seem like a minor issue, regarding the Rod Blagojevich outrage, Patrick Fitzgerald's press conference about it yesterday, and the media's reporting of it.
Fitzgerald told us that he had a recording of the Illinois Governor, speaking of his duty to appoint someone to fill Barack Obama's Senate seat, saying, "I've got this thing, and it's bleepin' golden."
Now, we all know that Blagojevich never said "bleepin," he said "fucking" about the big money he might make from the Senate appointment, and "fuckin'," about many other things, all in the complaint transcript, easily available online. My question is: why could not Fitzgerald have quoted Blagojevich verbatim - are we all five year-old children, who can't take hearing that word?
It's not as if "bleepin'" didn't tell us exactly what Blagojevich said, anyway. So its advantage is, what? Our ears are not singed by the real word?
I know, the FCC doesn't care much for that word on television, and has been inclined to fine networks that broadcast that word on television millions of dollars - even though we have a First Amendment in this country. CNN is apparently so desirous not to offend, that it added a disclaimer at the top of the above mentioned transcript: "This document contains language that some readers may find objectionable." Fox and MSNBC, to their credit, posted just the transcript.
Not that there's really anything wrong about posting the disclaimer, except that it caters to a worry that media should not have. Print, broadcast, web media should put up the truth on the page and screen, just as it is.
In an ideal world, Fitzpatrick would have spoken just what Blagojevich said, and the media would have broadcast that. And what would the FCC have done, gone after Fitzgerald and thousands of media outlets around the country?
Just something to think about, for next time.
See also Of Asterisks, Black Swans, Thom Yorke, and D*ck
4 comments:
I agree, what was the point in censoring the actual comment? It could not have been to make Blagojevich appear in a more "morally upstanding" position, in light of the charges involved. And, while I try to avoid using profanity, as I have always felt there were many less-offensive alternatives, profanity has become commonly used. For the FCC or a news source to take the "virgin ears" stance in this day and age is unrealistic, and does no justice to the truth, or even to accuracy. The disclaimer that the document or story contains objectionable or disturbing language should be adequate provision for those who live in an ivory tower to turn down the sound or send Granny and Junior out of the room. I do see some usefulness in such disclaimers, as there are people who are easily offended by profanity and feel the need to be protected. I find the attitude of needing protection from language to be ridiculous (how often does saying "shit" lead to the use of harsher, nastier words, I ask you?), but I can understand where some people would be offended and wish to avoid that type of language. To them, I say: create a network that is profanity-free, where the news is all tidied up to a pristine condition that you can deal with, and the programming does not present any indication of the harsher aspects of the world. Then, instead of complaining about the stuff found on the other networks, just stick with the one that you know is "safe." It may not be realistic, but at least you won't have to worry that dear Aunt Gretchen will accidentally hear the vernacular term for fornication, excrement, or various parts of the human anatomy.
Good analysis - I agree.
Hey Paul its good to be back-Merry Christmas. And you are right- the FCC is completely out of control. Thats why you have to respect a guy like Howard Stern that got sick of it and told them to go screw themselves. I just got my satellite radio and love the lack of commercials and watered down content!
Hey Frank - good to have you back, and Merry Christmas back at ya!
I agree completely about Howard Stern.
Post a Comment