Abstract
On Feb. 1, 2004, during the halftime show of Super Bowl XXXVIII, the right breast of singer Janet Jackson was briefly exposed on national television when fellow performer Justin Timberlake tore off part of her top during a song-and-dance routine.Prompted by this episode, which spawned a record 500,000-plus complaints to the Federal Communications Commission,1 and other controversial acts by radio hosts and on television shows, on March 11, 2004, the U.S. House approved the Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act, which raised the maximum fine the Commission could level against a broadcaster to $500,000. The bill also made it easier for the FCC to fine performers themselves, and ordered the FCC to begin license revocation hearings for any broadcast licensee after its third offense. A similar bill was debated in the Senate. Eventually, a bill with the same name, with slightly reduced penalties, became law in 2006.The FCC also took action. On Sept. 22, 2004, the commissioners voted unanimously to fine 20 CBS-owned stations the then-maximum $27,500 for the Super Bowl wardrobe malfunction, for a total $550,000, a record for a television broadcaster. CBS appealed the decision, and in 2008 the U.S. Appeals Court for the Third Circuit struck down the fine although the U.S. Supreme Court reversed it on further appeal in May 2009. It remained in court through late 2010.A newly-vigilant FCC also issued fines for other alleged violations of decency codes. These included $755,000 against radio giant Clear Channel Communications for graphic language and antics by Bubba the Love Sponge, and $1.7 million against another of its disc jockeys, Howard Stern. The Commission also fined Fox Television over a reality TV show, Married by America.Given it set off a national debate about media decency standards, the Janet Jackson incident was a controversial issue with political and policy implications-what might be termed a focusing event in public policy.2 One would expect events such as these to prompt local newspapers, to take positions on them through their editorials.3The issue of broadcast indecency is a significant one for media organizations because it goes to the heart of debates about freedom of speech and the press. This study asks the question: What factors may have influenced editorial posturing on this issue?This work explores two competing influences thought likely to affect editorial positions on broadcast indecency regulation: the libertarian commitment of media organizations and professionals to the philosophy of the First Amendment or economic/ ownership interests of a given paper's parent corporation. The results indicate that economic interests of organizations appear to significantly affect editorial positions, as newspapers were far from universally supportive of unfettered free expression in this instance.Literature ReviewA recent vein of research concerns whether, or to what extent, the media are themselves political actors, with motives, agendas and policy positions they may promote in their coverage.4 But as political communication scholar Benjamin Page notes, sorting out the possible causal connections between media outlets' own interests and their content is extremely difficult. For one, reporters and editors are relatively autonomous, or at least work without overt, direct control. Nevertheless, it seems reasonable to assume that media organizations or their owners, managers or editors have interests, biases or motives other than simply presenting news or educating the public.Previous work has uncovered several ways media organizational interest affects media content. Rowse found a clear relationship between 31 newspapers' handling of the 1952 Nixon and Stevenson campaign funding stories and their editorial endorsements in that election.5 Page also saw a link between some outlets' editorial posturing and coverage of the 1991 Los Angeles riots. …
Published Version
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call