Censorship and Today

Censorship and Today

Since early television, there have been coalitions and public policy groups fighting for the “good” of television airwaves. Now in the 21st century there is no excuse for anyone to glance away from their newspaper briefly only to see their children watching an obscene or violent program. With all our technological advancements, we now have the ability to keep uninvited television out of our homes.

Broadcasters have been mostly self-regulated since the beginning. Early on, however, there was a necessity to incorporate a standard of decency for the public airwaves. The National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) had one of the first attempts at a solution. Originally, the NAB was created for radio; however, in 1951 the NAB created a citizens advisory board to help found a code of conduct for television broadcasts. Television broadcasters to this day pay annual dues to belong to the association, and agree to comply with the rules and regulations of the organization in order to qualify for membership. In turn, the NAB assures the public that they will receive quality programming with everyone’s best interests in mind; all the while giving their members a voice on Capitol Hill (Campbell, 1999).

The original creation of the NAB code had good intentions for broadcasters and their public alike. Unfortunately, the code still had its flaws. One of the first issues to arise was the lack of membership. In order for the NAB’s code to be effective, all television stations needed to subscribe and follow the guidelines. The NAB had restrictions upon certain areas of advertising which destroyed profits not all broadcasters were willing to compromise. In 1967 only 63 percent of television broadcasters belonged to the NAB (Campbell, 1999). This effectively hindered the functionality of the code.

As time progressed, another flaw surfaced with the NAB’s plan. Enforcement of the regulations among its members became redundant. As the rules were eventually broken, the NAB hesitated to suspend or expel its members for the fear of losing the annual capital each membership provided. Furthermore, a television station’s expulsion failed to show much consequence. A historian of broadcasting, Erik Barnouw refers to the enforcement of the NAB code as machinery:

If a subscribing station was charged with violating the code and found guilty by an NAB review board, the station (according to the rules) would lose the right to display on the screen the NAB “seal of good practice.” Since the seal meant nothing to viewers and its absence would be virtually impossible to notice, the machinery meant nothing. (Barnouw, 1970, p. 251)

Looking at society today many people should feel liberated having the cultural diversity and freedom that today’s broadcasting companies provide us. Back in the 50’s and 60’s when television was just starting to go mainstream, the major broadcasting companies were encouraged by the NAB to lump us Americans into one category. This particular category was the only market they based their broadcasted content on. In this period, a broadcasting with the inclusion of minorities called for much controversy; and sexual relations were unheard of, even among marriage (Worringham, Buxton, 2006). If this kind of censorship took place in today’s electronic society, mounted heads on poles would strew the White House lawn.

Throughout the 70’s and 80’s TV took a new turn in which broadcasters catered to more audiences. The old ideals of TV programming were being stretched and reformed to appeal to a new generation. At this point though, not all of the changes were necessarily welcomed. Various social groups rallied more and more for the government to incorporate additional limits on how far the networks could go (Worringham, et al., 2006). This indeed may have seemed necessary at the time, mainly because of parents’ inability to stop what was making it into their living rooms with considered impressionable children viewing. The only thing a parent could do is watch over the TV constantly to see what their kids might be seeing. The Federal Communications Commission or FCC, decided to pressure broadcasters into only showing objectionable programs later at night when a nuclear family presumably has their children in bed. Though broadcasters willingly went along with the idea, a later argument proved that the whole idea was infringing the first amendment.

Finally, after years of bickering and rule riddled jargon, the FCC started divulging the need for a different kind of censorship. In 1996, congress asked that broadcasters start to develop a common rating system (FCC, 2006). The system decided upon, basically, is tiered to age appropriate levels ranging from the youngest audiences, TV-Y, up to TV-MA, which is appropriate for adults only. As a secondary measure,