FCC failure

I imagine everyone has seen the video already. If not, here it is.

In it, David Ortiz expressed his thanks to the mayor of Boston, the governor of Massachusetts and the city police department for their efforts in the wake of the April 15 bombing. All well said, and I—and everyone else around the country—agree wholeheartedly with the sentiment.

However, it seems somebody somewhere ought to point out that Ortiz’s dropping of the F-bomb a few seconds later to a stadium full of people and to a television audience of millions was in error, even if it was heartfelt. (To his credit, Ortiz did apologize afterward, saying, “It just came out. If I offended anyone, I apologize.”)

Instead, the Federal Communications Commission implictly endorsed Ortiz’s choice of words with the following Tweet:

David Ortiz spoke from the heart at today’s Red Sox game. I stand with Big Papi and the people of Boston – Julius

The Julius credited with this message is Julius Genachowski, the chairman of the FCC. As a Harvard grad—and, again, as an American—his personal feelings on this issue are completely understandable.

However, as the head of the organization charged with preventing indecency on the airwaves, Genachowski should have tempered his approval of Ortiz’s language. I don’t know if he has a personal Twitter account, but that would have been a better platform for such a statement. Sure, rules are made to be broken, but the rule-makers shouldn’t be supporting their breaking.


Print This Post
Greg has been a writer and editor for both The Hardball Times website and Annual since 2010. In his dreams, he's the second coming of Ozzie Smith. Please don't wake him up.

Leave a Reply

41 Comments on "FCC failure"

Notify of
avatar
Sort by:   newest | oldest | most voted
Todd
Guest
Todd

Alternatively, we could not worry about things that are of no consequence whatsoever, as Julius apparently had the sense to do. It’s not like Ortiz insulted anyone or said anything offensive. There’s no difference in meaning or intent between sentences like “This is our blasted city”, “This is our bloody city”, “This is our damn city”, and “This is our fucking city”- so why bother to draw lines between them?

Brad Johnson
Guest
Brad Johnson
Greg, I don’t want to start a political argument, but this strikes me as a potentially specious argument. There are two elements here to consider, is the censure of the F-word obsolete and does an executive body have the right to not enforce obsolete laws. The first point is hardly worth discussing, it will only sow further argument and to no end. Let’s just say that there is a strong case for either condition. And the second point is open and shut. The executive frequently decides to not enforce the rules if they are believed to be harmfully arbitrary. Obama… Read more »
Greg Simons
Guest
Greg Simons

Todd – Right or wrong, our society and government have chosen where to draw the line.  In this case, the FCC is selectively choosing not to enforce the rules, which makes the rules arbitrary.  Either enforce them or change them, but the rules need to be known and applied consistently.

Greg Simons
Guest
Greg Simons

Brad – Yes, this could become too political very quickly, so I’ll try to make this bipartisan.

To your first point, the standard at this time is that the F-word is inappropriate.

To your second, this isn’t a decision not to enforce a rule, but to selectively enforce it – and to support it’s breaking.

Todd
Guest
Todd

Dumb rules are dumb. Change them, and don’t enforce them in the meantime. Brad put it better than I did.

hopbitters
Guest
hopbitters

Sorry, I’m with Greg here. There are reasons to censor, whether you agree with them or not, and Genachowski should not be flouting his own organization’s mission, particularly while in official capacity.

Maverick Squad
Guest
Maverick Squad
I don’t think the problem here is necessarily the lack of censorship. I understand that the FCC may let this slide- it was a live event in the aftermath of an emotionally jarring incident. The real problem is the approval given by the chairman of the FCC. Rather than just ignoring it and letting slide, he is endorsing the use of swearing. It’s like with the police, they may choose not to charge someone (discretion)- eg. maybe someone getting into a scuffle when they arrive at the scene of an accident where their child has been seriously injured – but… Read more »
Jack Weiland
Guest
Jack Weiland

It’s pretty silly to think this in any way reflects the FCCs actual position on saying f*ck on television, and anyone taking this as a license to do so is either dumb or immature or both, and will likely be fined. I’m fine with that.

I don’t think I buy the analogy above as being pertinent to this situation.

Maverick Squad
Guest
Maverick Squad

Yes, I don’t think his comments will be used as a precedent next time the FCC goes after swearing on TV.
It’s rather that it’s inappropriate for the head of the FCC to come out with this comment. There was no need for him to comment on this and he did.

Maverick Squad
Guest
Maverick Squad

Maybe a better analogy is an umpire letting something slide- maybe if a player swears to the ump after a call, but maybe the umpire lets it slide since he though the play was close and the ump maybe thinks he got the call wrong.
But the umpire isn’t gonna say to the press after the game that it’s it’s perfectly okay to talk smack to the umpire.

Greg Simons
Guest
Greg Simons
Jack, the Chairman of the FCC used the commission’s official Twitter feed to make a statement that basically said they have no problem with what Ortiz said.  That seems like “the FCC’s actual position” to me. Yes, it was an emotionally charged moment, but Ortiz had five days to reflect on the situation, and he knew who was listening and watching. How about this for an official FCC statement: “The Federal Communications Commission understands the unique circumstances of David Ortiz’s comments before Saturday’s baseball game at Fenway Park in Boston.  However, the FCC code regarding inappropriate language was violated, and… Read more »
Jack Weiland
Guest
Jack Weiland
Well, I disagree. And I know my thoughts on the subject are colored by the fact that I live in Boston, but man … it meant a lot to me to read those comments. So you may see no value, but it’s there. You’re not wrong for thinking he should have just kept his mouth shut (it is the easiest way to avoid trouble, after all) but I also think analyzing it at this level is a bit over the top. Sometimes people are people. Sometimes even bureaucrats are people. I think there is virtually no harm in what Genachowski… Read more »
Jack Weiland
Guest
Jack Weiland
Greg, He certainly did not have five days … Ortiz said this the day after the entire city, and a large portion of the metro area, were locked down for like 14 hours. If you think things ended Monday at 2:50, then you don’t really understand “who was listening and watching.” If you really think the FCC now condones saying the f-word on TV … I mean … you’re completely detached from reality. This was an absolutely unique situation. The game was broadcast on a regional television network in which virtually every single person watching it saw way worse things… Read more »
Jack Weiland
Guest
Jack Weiland

@Maverick Squad – I appreciate the point I think you’re trying to make, which seems to be: let it slide, fine, I can deal with that, but there’s no point in going the extra mile to point out you’re letting it slide.

I disagree; I saw value in his comment. Reasonable people can differ on this.

Maverick Squad
Guest
Maverick Squad

It’s obviously an emotional and fairly unique situation and while the chairman’s comment were in my mind unnecessary it’s unlikely they did any real harm to the FCC and it’s mission.
While swearing isn’t nice, but swearing doesn’t kill or maim people.

Greg Simons
Guest
Greg Simons
Jack, You’re right about Ortiz not having five days, so I apologize for that.  The lockdown obviously ended much sooner than that, and the situation was very raw. I didn’t mean the FCC now condones saying the f-word on TV, though I can see how my comments could be read that way.  I was referring to this specific incident, and I’m saying the FCC commissioner, given his and his commission’s role, made a mistake with his Tweet. Silence would have been better, or even something like, “Though we don’t condone the use of this language on TV, given the situation,… Read more »
Jim
Guest
Jim

How did you people get anything specific out of Julian’s gobbledygook?

You people are on a witch hunt.

languedoctor
Guest
languedoctor

Could part of the reason behind Julius’s decision be that the FCC doesn’t have jurisdiction over the cable network (NESN) that televised the game?

Just sayin’…

No ma'am we're musicians
Guest
No ma'am we're musicians

Wow, this is why they put juries in trials.  Choosing to act or not act is what executives are supposed to do, otherwise we’d use computers/robots.

Jack Weiland
Guest
Jack Weiland
@Greg – Fair enough. I can see that take, although I don’t agree. And honestly it’s impossible for me to tell how I would feel if I weren’t so emotionally invested. But I am fine living in a world where things aren’t so black and white, especially when it comes to something as harmless (in my view) as this. @languagedoctor – Good point, it’s one I considered as well, although it’s possible the game was carried by Fox in some markets, no? Also, I think this debate is about the larger issues at play, even if they weren’t technically at… Read more »
Jack Weiland
Guest
Jack Weiland

There are reasons to sensor, yes, just as in extraordinary circumstances the statement made by not censoring is worth a million times more than whatever statement would have been made by censoring.

I’m okay living in a world that is not merely black and white. Sometimes it’s okay for humans to just be human.

Randy Sutton
Guest
Randy Sutton

Wow. I honestly can’t believe that this is being made into an issue. What would you have the FCC do? Fine Ortiz? Perfect example of ‘mountain out of a molehill’.

Randy Sutton
Guest
Randy Sutton

I think the fact that someone is actually sitting around worrying about David Ortiz saying f*** would be comical if it weren’t so silly, and it probably says a lot more about that person than it does Ortiz.

Greg Simons
Guest
Greg Simons
Randy, if this is within the FCC’s jurisdiction, then yes, they should fine whomever is supposed to be fined – Ortiz, the network, the team, whatever. What would you have the FCC do?  Do its job or not?  If not, then why are the rules in place? And as I said earlier, given the circumstances, I could understand a statement such as, “Though we don’t condone the use of this language on TV, given the situation, we’re not going to levy a fine.”  It maintains their standards while being understanding of the specifics circumstances.  What they said undermined themselves, if… Read more »
Randy Sutton
Guest
Randy Sutton

Greg,
Thankfully, common sense won out in this instance. I think you have to look at context. If this had taken place before, say, a Red Sox-Yankees game, or any game under normal circumstances, I would probably agree with you. However, this was a special case, and should be treated as such.

Randy Sutton
Guest
Randy Sutton

I probably was a little harsh in my response, and that wasn’t my intention. It just seems that there are entire groups of people just looking around for something to be offended by ( and I’m not accusing you of that, of course, but that is probably why I have such a strong reaction to things like this).

Greg Simons
Guest
Greg Simons

Randy, I’m thankful that while people have been expressing strongly held opinions, the level of discourse has remained civil.  I can only imagine the commentary if this were being discussed on some other sites.

mcsnide
Guest
mcsnide
I feel a bit like this guy: http://xkcd.com/386/, but I had to respond to this, even if I am late to the party. First, from the FCC’s website: “With respect to cable and satellite services, Congress has charged the Commission with enforcing the statutory prohibition against airing indecent programming “by means of radio communications.” The Commission has historically interpreted this restriction to apply to radio and television broadcasters, and has never extended it to cover cable operators. In addition, because cable and satellite services are subscription-based, viewers of these services have greater control over the programming content that comes into… Read more »
Total
Guest
Total
Uh, it would be wise to know the actual law/regulation which you’re invoking.  The FCC has *never* held that just the use of the word “f#$@#$” is indecent.  Instead, it has always said that context is important.  A single, fleeting use of the word in a live broadcast has long been seen as unproblematic, as have extreme circumstances.  From the FCC FAQ: “Are there certain words that are always unlawful? No. Offensive words may be profane and/or indecent depending on the context. In the Golden Globe Awards Order, the FCC stated that it would address the legality of broadcast language… Read more »
Total
Guest
Total
Randy Sutton
Guest
Randy Sutton

Greg,
I very much agree. I come here to get away from the ‘discussions’ on certain other sites.

Greg Simons
Guest
Greg Simons

Total – I did say above that “given the circumstances, I could understand a statement such as, ‘Though we don’t condone the use of this language on TV, given the situation, we’re not going to levy a fine.’”

I’ve softened my stance somewhat, but I’m not ready to say Ortiz’s usage was *not* indecent or profane.  I know we’ll each have opinions on that, especially those who are particularly close to the situation.

I still think the FCC’s response could have been stated better than it was.

Total
Guest
Total

My point remains:  you don’t actually understand the law you’re invoking.  What you are invoking is your imagining of that law, and that perception differs substantially from what it actually is.  If you want to criticize the FCC, you need to at least understand what their charge is.

Greg Simons
Guest
Greg Simons

I do understand the FCC’s charge, and when the law says, “Depending on the context presented,” that leaves lots of room for subjectivity.  Your imagining and perception of that law differ from mine.

Given this subjectivity, it’s incongruous you’re telling me I’m misinterpreting the law but that you’re interpretation is correct.

Total
Guest
Total

and when the law says, “Depending on the context presented,” that leaves lots of room for subjectivity. 

It *does* leave a lot of room for subjectivity, a subjectivity that you’re not allowing for in your post.  If it is within the FCC’s ability to say that Ortiz’s words were *not* punishable because of the context presented then it’s not an “FCC Failure” not to punish him or the broadcasters.  You’re criticizing them for failing to do their job when you’re conceding that doing what they did is perfectly within the allowed responses of the law.

Greg Simons
Guest
Greg Simons

The failure wasn’t in not punishing anyone, but in choosing to issue the statement they did.  I’m criticizing the way they did their job.

Jim
Guest
Jim

Greg, if that is your whole purpose in starting this thread, you should have written your Congressman/woman and complained to that person that your Government was not doing their job to your expectations and what you are paying them to do.  Then you wouldn’t have had to stir up this hornets nest.  Contrary to what you think, this august body can do absolutely nothing to help you and your complaint.

You must have been absent from school when they went through this.  Too bad, it would have come in handy last week.

Greg Simons
Guest
Greg Simons

Jim, some people disagreed with me and/or misunderstood my intent, so I tried multiple times in varying words to explain my stance, and apparently for some the only satisfactory reply is a full capitulation.  Sorry, I’m not going to do that.
I think both Oritz and Genachowski made mistakes.  Nothing earth-shattering, but something I thought was worth addressing.

Reasonable people can disagree – and do so without insults.

Jim
Guest
Jim

Capitulate?  NO!!  But you did find out you presented this in the wrong forum. 

Did I insult with the presumption you went to school?  Sorry, didn’t mean to.

Jim
Guest
Jim

mcsnide, well put.  Wish I had thought it up like that.  It must have been extremely hard to explain the happenings to your children.  You are a saint with those two.

Greg Simons
Guest
Greg Simons

mcsnide – I don’t think I was “bashing” Ortiz or Genachowski, but our definitions of the word may differ.

If the FCC has no jurisdiction over this incident, okay.

I think Genachowski’s use of the FCC’s official Twitter account to express what may or many not have been a personal opinion was an incorrect decision.

I think Ortiz’s statement would have been just as potent without the f-word.  “This is OUR city!” would have worked just as well.

I’m not bashing Ortiz’s sentiment or Genachowski’s feelings, and I sympathize with everyone who has suffered as a result of this event.

wpDiscuz