Is Live Radio & TV a Thing of the Past?

by on October 4, 2004 · 12 comments

Broadcasting and Cable magazine is reporting that broadcasters are officially on notice to begin delaying live programs long enough to edit out any possibly “indecent” material. The magazine notes that the recent $550,000 record fine levied against CBS / Viacom for the Janet Jackson Super Bowl incident included a not-so-subtle suggestion that broadcasters start using delay techniques and technologies. Here’s the relevant language from the ruling:

“We urge each licensee to take reasonable precautions in the future, such as employing such delay technology to independently prescreen the network feed to prevent the broadcast of indecent programming over its licensed station.”

One wonders how live news shows will respond. I guess a five second delay isn’t a huge deal–and I know that many broadcasters already use such techniques–but I still find it troubling that this could mean the death of truly live TV and radio.

SHARE: 12 comments

About Adam Thierer

Adam Thierer is a senior research fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University. He previously served as President of The Progress & Freedom Foundation, as Director of Telecommunications Studies at the Cato Institute, and as a Fellow in Economic Policy at the Heritage Foundation. He is the author or editor of six books on technology and media policy and also writes a weekly column for Forbes called "Technologies of Freedom." Thierer earned his bachelor's degree in political science and journalism at Indiana University and received his master's degree in international business management and trade theory at the University of Maryland. His passions in life (besides technology and liberty, of course) are fast cars, fine cigars, and good beer.

Read more articles by Adam Thierer.

  • James Gattuso

    A random thought — is there a 5-second delay for the presidential debates? Would the networks ever use it to filter content? Could they be fined were they NOT to filter something out? Probably not a likely scenario, but interesting to ponder.

  • James Gattuso

    A random thought — is there a 5-second delay for the presidential debates? Would the networks ever use it to filter content? Could they be fined were they NOT to filter something out? Probably not a likely scenario, but interesting to ponder.

  • Sam

    Funny…a 5-second delay to protect a nationwide audience from a peek at GWB or JK’s left nipple?

    Seriously, Mr Gattuso’s though is dead on…though I am ignorant of video editing techniques, it seems nevertheless feasible to (at least) filter out “objectionable” content during a show or debate etc.

    Who decides when content is objectionable? A firm (think, Clearchannel in radio, Murdoch’s Newscorp & FOX for television…) that has holds large number of stations in many national markets.

    Unless, rules of ownership are reviewed by the FCC, yes, live radio & television will become a thing of the past.

    Surely, it will be replaced by “100% family&kids friendly, caucasian-friendly, conservative-friendly, ((put your asinine adjective here))-friendly” contents. “Rogue” outfits such as NPR will sputter to oblivion as listener support dwindles…Gone with the wind will freedom of choice (how/where you get your news, that is) be! Your evening news (no matter the channel) will become “fair and balanced!”, Oprah will unexpectedly “retire”, Howard Stern will never work in radio again.

    Impossible, you say? It’s already started…This can only be stopped with the FCC reviewing ownership rules and this likely won’t happen until there’s a regime change on November 2nd.

  • James Gattuso

    I certainly agree with your anti-censorship sentiments, but I seriously doubt stronger media ownership rules are the solution. Getting the government involved more in media would only, well, get the government involved more. And that would mean more censorship not less.

  • Sam

    It is almost as saying that “matters of the people are too serious to be handled by politicians”…

  • Adam Thierer

    Gattuso is right… you can no longer separate out the two issues (media ownership controls and censorship). In fact, the current indececy bill going through Congress contains specific language about media ownership regulation. And during the debate last year over the FCC’s new media ownership regs, several members of Congress argued that we needed more study into the question of whether increased consolidation led to more indecent programming on TV and radio.

    You can’t have it both ways. If you want to govenment to come in and police the economic structure of industry, they will use it as an excuse to also regulate content.

  • Sam

    Funny…a 5-second delay to protect a nationwide audience from a peek at GWB or JK’s left nipple?

    Seriously, Mr Gattuso’s though is dead on…though I am ignorant of video editing techniques, it seems nevertheless feasible to (at least) filter out “objectionable” content during a show or debate etc.

    Who decides when content is objectionable? A firm (think, Clearchannel in radio, Murdoch’s Newscorp & FOX for television…) that has holds large number of stations in many national markets.

    Unless, rules of ownership are reviewed by the FCC, yes, live radio & television will become a thing of the past.

    Surely, it will be replaced by “100% family&kids; friendly, caucasian-friendly, conservative-friendly, ((put your asinine adjective here))-friendly” contents. “Rogue” outfits such as NPR will sputter to oblivion as listener support dwindles…Gone with the wind will freedom of choice (how/where you get your news, that is) be! Your evening news (no matter the channel) will become “fair and balanced!”, Oprah will unexpectedly “retire”, Howard Stern will never work in radio again.

    Impossible, you say? It’s already started…This can only be stopped with the FCC reviewing ownership rules and this likely won’t happen until there’s a regime change on November 2nd.

  • James Gattuso

    I certainly agree with your anti-censorship sentiments, but I seriously doubt stronger media ownership rules are the solution. Getting the government involved more in media would only, well, get the government involved more. And that would mean more censorship not less.

  • Sam

    It is almost as saying that “matters of the people are too serious to be handled by politicians”…

  • Adam Thierer

    Gattuso is right… you can no longer separate out the two issues (media ownership controls and censorship). In fact, the current indececy bill going through Congress contains specific language about media ownership regulation. And during the debate last year over the FCC’s new media ownership regs, several members of Congress argued that we needed more study into the question of whether increased consolidation led to more indecent programming on TV and radio.

    You can’t have it both ways. If you want to govenment to come in and police the economic structure of industry, they will use it as an excuse to also regulate content.

  • James Gattuso

    I’m certainly glad that the FCC doesn’t have jurisdiction over stadium videos then. (Or it that something else in their “ancillary” jurisdiction?

  • James Gattuso

    I’m certainly glad that the FCC doesn’t have jurisdiction over stadium videos then. (Or it that something else in their “ancillary” jurisdiction?

Previous post:

Next post: