C ommentary A pril 21, 2004 T he C lackamas P rint • 5 Censorship has media concerned [Media censorship should be closely monitored, enforced Jeff Sorensen T he C lackamas P rint ■ If the ill-accountable media insists that sex -and lies are the only way to sell their product, then the censorship of that media is needed now more than ever. I Recent events have practically caused a riot at the offices of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) as they’ve attempted to “crack down”. on generally offensive content in the media, meanwhile, Conan O’Brien is still con­ fused on what his guests can and can’t say dn his “Late Nite” show; comedians Robin Williams and Chris Rock, who rely heavily on profanity, are all but banned from television; and lonely young men can still have beautiful women to “talk” to for $2.95 a minute. Bottom line: the I<2C’s efforts are too little, too late. ■ Censorship in the media has long been an outstanding and controversial issue, but the fact is, the media has a responsibility of fairness to the public if for no other reason than that the public doesn’t have access to mass media as a free forum. Sure, they censor some things (even Jerry Springer wori’t let just anyone on ¡TV), but the only thing that’s really censored in the media anymore is the content that Could potentially eliminate viewers. But people in general should be smart enough to protect themselves from out- side influence, right? We are disabled from creating an informed thought, opinion or idea, thanks to the lack of information provided by the media. They use their right-to “free speech” and their right to “remain silent” in concert to create a -world surrounded with what they feel will make for the best ratings, rather than the highest national intelligence quo­ tient as they use the same two basic rights tel protect their ability to prevent any neg­ ative publicity that might seep through t&ir airwave-tight filters. This holds true for television, radio, and newspaper alike, all of which have become nothing more than a free-range playing field for some of our nation’s most ruthless and financial­ ly demanding salespeople. It’s in the interest of sales that the media has run rampant with their lying and misleading marketing campaigns. What are they wrong about? Here’s a short list: we don’t need a leggy blonde on the weather channel to tell us it’s raining; there doesn’t have to be a murder “in our neighborhood” just so we’ll watch the news; Faith Ford and Kelly Rippa are not funny, especially together; beer doesn’t really help guys get women; magic pills don’t enlarge any body parts or cause immediate weight loss; and there is yet to be a “low-carb solution” that doesn’t taste like fresh cardboard. It doesn’t matter what the forum is— TV, radio, newspapers or magazines— they’ve all sold out to advertising and sub­ par programming in a world driven by business and money-grubbing. The chil­ dren of our nation are growing up to believe that having sex, drinking beer, treating women like objects and disre­ specting their parents is how they become “cool.” The fact is, the media is the reason we’re self-destructing, and something needs to be done. Media censorship violates public's right to complete truth Hilliary Ferguson T he C lackamas P rint It’s funny to think that one word and one boob can bring about a cultural revolution bent on revoking our First Amendment rights, but that’s exactly what’s happened, and now the media world is caught in limbo, attempting to balance somewhere between edgy media that sells and increasing fines from the Federal Communications Commission (FCQ. In the 1978 case of FCC v. “Pacifica,” the FCC declared any material deemed “patently offensive” (any depiction or description of sexual or excretory activities or organs) would be banned from the airwaves. This was well and good, because for the most part TV and radio stations stayed within the line of common decency. Then came Janet Jackson’s right boob and the FCC decided to take more of a literal (not contextual) mean­ ing to “patently offensive.” What’s more, the Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act (BDEA) of 2004 is meant to increase fines for violations. Currently, the highest fine allowed is $27,500 per offense. The BDEA would raise fines to $275,000 per offense and up to 3 million fqr repeat offenders. For major communication companies, these are often absorbed as a cost of doing business. For independent—and almost always controversial—media sources, these fines could potentially cause bankruptcy. “What might be the cost of doing busi­ ness for Infinity Broadcasting could spell death for a college station that plays records with edgy lyrics, or a low-power community station that airs serious discussions about sex and health,” said Jesse Walker, author of “Rebels on the Air.” Under the literal meaning, of “patently offensive,” educational shows an