How The World Compares TV Indecency
By Susan Visakowitz
When
U.S. pop star Janet Jackson pulled a stunt during American football's
Super Bowl's halftime show this past January that involved the partial
baring of her breast, the U.S. communications authority (FCC) and a good
segment of the American population went up in arms, declaring it everything
from inappropriate to appalling.
Pundits and politicians issued statements, calling for a swift end
to "on-air
smut," as one FCC commissioner called it, and harsher fines against broadcasters
who transmit "indecent material."
The perception among most countries and even from those with similar
sensibilities (e.g., Canada) has long been that America is unnecessarily
uptight in its stance toward sexuality, nudity, foul language and other
forms of so-called "mature
content," but not as much for violence.
Several months after the incident, the uproar over what is and what
is not acceptable over public airwaves continues to rage on in the
U.S., and there have been several unexpected repercussions, including
the institution of audio and video tape delays for such broadcasts
as the Academy Awards and a new ruling by the FCC that broadens the
scope of its indecency enforcement to include profanities, even when
used without sexual or excretory overtones. Most recently, radio broadcasting
giant Clear Channel dropped Howard Stern, the country's best-known "shock jock," from
its stations after the FCC proposed fining the company $495,000 for sexually
explicit remarks made on his show.
However, a comparison of the Broadcasting Codes of various democratic countries
reveals that, on paper at least, America hardly stands out from the crowd. In
fact, U.S. Code sets a fair standard for defining material as indecent.
In
the U.K., for example, only non-sexual, relevant nudity is acceptable
before 9 p.m., but is mostly to be left for after that hour. Additionally,
bad language is not expressly banned from the airwaves, but cannot be
used frequently before 9 p.m., or, if it is highly offensive, cannot
be used at all before that time. In South Africa, 9 p.m. is also the
hour that marks the shift from general programming to adult-oriented
content. In New Zealand, while there are no hard and fast rules, nudity
and foul language are generally expected to screen only after 8:30 p.m.
In Mexico, 8 p.m. is the line drawn between adult programming and programming
appropriate for all audiences, with racier material expected to air well
after the "watershed" hour. And in Japan, the Broadcasting
Code states that the "exposure of a part of the body shall be so
handled as not to arouse the feeling of indecency or obscenity."
Considering that the Jackson incident aired only shortly after 8
p.m. (on the East Coast, far earlier in the West), was in no way
relevant to the context, and occurred during an event that draws
a large and diverse audience, it would be fair to conclude that,
going strictly by the letter of the above Codes, the halftime show
could have been declared "indecent" in any of the aforementioned
countries.
The U.S. Code defines indecency as "language or material that, in context,
depicts or describes, in terms patently offensive as measured by contemporary
community standards for the broadcast medium, sexual or excretory organs and
activities." Such material is confined to airing after 10 p.m. - which,
indeed, is a bit later in the evening than in other democratic nations, but not
so much so as to represent a drastic divergence in policy. And because the U.S.
has a powerful First Amendment guaranteeing freedom of speech, broadcasters technically
have more leeway with their content here than anywhere else in the world.
Whether the baring of a breast in a non-sexual context could even
pass as a "patently
offensive" depiction of a "sexual organ" is still questionable.
(As of press time, the FCC had not yet ruled on whether the incident was in fact "indecent" and
worthy of action against the broadcaster.)
But none of this stopped the American public from responding to the
incident with outrage. Would a similar have event have elicited any
sort of response at all in other parts of the world? "Most people would probably [have] laugh[ed]," said
Jane Wrightson, chief executive of New Zealand's Broadcasting Standards Authority. "There
would almost certainly not have been calls to reprimand broadcasters." She
noted that "brief glimpses" of nudity do at times get away with a PG
classification, making such material acceptable post-7 PM. Of course, the Jackson
reveal happened live and without warning. But Wrightson surmised that, should
there have been any complaints by the public, they would have been directed toward "the
performer/event organizer itself, as most New Zealanders would tell the difference" and
not place blame on the broadcaster.
Ellen Baine, director of programming at Canadian broadcaster CHUM
Television, said that in Canada, an event similar to the Jackson
Super Bowl stunt would have been "no big deal. We don't blur out nipples in Canada. As far as we know,
women have nipples; people are aware of that." Baine went on to add that,
in general, there's "really no problem with nudity before 9 p.m., as long
as it's not in a sexual context."
Both women pointed out that, in their countries, U.S. cable programs like The
Sopranos and Sex and the City - considered quite graphic in the U.S.
for their depictions of violence and sex, respectively - air on free TV, albeit
with warnings and at a fairly late hour.
In the more conservative Mexico, TV Azteca's Esteban Moctezuma imagined
that, while the government may not have been fazed by a similar event,
the "private
sector" would have been another story. "There's a civil effort here
to increase standards of television. And we have a huge challenge, because most
people who write and produce for TV think sex and violence are easy ways to get
ratings."
Moctezuma added that America is not too strict in the way it defines
indecency. "As
TV goes to every home and children of all ages see TV at any time, the society
has to have a standard as to what can be seen. What is normal for some, can be
crude to others."
Even Wrightson admitted that "some New Zealanders would certainly think
that U.S. concepts of decency are correct. Some groups here, e.g., religious
groups, Pacific Islanders and some Maori, have 'conservative' views on morality
and decency issues." But she added that "the overall system" in
New Zealand "is fairly heavily weighted towards freedom of expression, mostly
with provisos relating more to protection of children rather than 'decency' per
se." And Moctezuma reveled that there has never yet been in Mexico a "nationwide
scandal" over a racy broadcast.
FCC Chairman Michael Powell remarked at the NAB Summit on Responsible
Programming in late March that the debate over the Jackson incident "is
not best understood as one about what you can do or cannot do on
radio or television. Rather, it is more about whether consumers can
rely on reasonable expectations about the range of what they will
see on a given program at a given time."
And this is also the position of the U.S. Association of National Advertisers,
which, during a recent conference in New York, stated that broadcasters could
do anything they liked as long as the sponsors were informed in advance and not
surprised.
But with the American politicians still on "high alert" for
offensive content, broadcasters are walking on eggshells and refusing
to take chances. Scenes that would have been broadcast just a few
weeks ago are now being cut - even from programs that air after 10
pm.
