Primetime to get racier after FCC ruling

[WyldeMan45]

Interesting, and long overdue.

There was a particularly unbridled episode of Fox's "American Dad" in January in which Stan, well, gave "full release" to a racehorse. That shenanigan was duly hit with an FCC fine. But five years ago, it wouldn't even have aired.

Fade whatever is left of the family hour: It's about to get even racier out there.

Primetime TV this fall is going to be chock-a-block with even more blatant sexuality and raunchy language. It's a trend that's been a long time coming and is now accelerating.

This week, the FCC's regulations on indecency were struck down by a federal appeals court that termed them "unconstitutionally vague," essentially loosening strictures against profane language on the small screen.

And it's not just about those fleeting expletives.

The CW has been upping the quotient of sexy goings-on on "Gossip Girl" and its updated "90210"; CBS turned a blind eye, as it were, to a contestant caught topless on "Survivor" with the naughty parts blurred (have a look for yourself in the video player on this page).

And now we're bracing for couples doing it on "Friends With Benefits" on NBC; Kathy Bates smoking pot on "Harry's Law" (and she plays a lawyer!), also on the Peacock; and a CBS sitcom starring the irrepressible William Shatner titled "$#*! My Dad Says."

Said Andrew Schwartzman, head of the Media Access Project: "There's no question that this decision is going to mean more (sexual content on television)."

The appeals court opinion, if upheld, could stymie the FCC in its ability to put the genie back in the bottle when it comes to the f-word and such; the court all but begged the watchdog to clarify and simplify its rules on such issues.

Within networks' standards and practices units, the decision was met with a collective sigh of relief.

As one longtime network standards expert put it: "We have been living in an unbelievable netherworld of ambiguity and uncertainty with an amazing backlog of cases pending, when the culture, our society as a whole, has moved on. This new ruling, if it's upheld, lifts a cloud of uncertainty. It will make it easier to interpret the rules and not have to second-guess everything we want to put on air."

One reason the floodgates have opened -- and this came long before the court ruling -- is the incessant pressure from the Internet, including the increasingly out-there postings on social media sites.

"Technology is the enemy of reverence," said media consultant Michael Levine, who added that the envelope likely will get pushed more quickly in light of the ruling.

"It's a seminal moment for broadcasters -- and probably not something to celebrate if you are part of the Moral Majority."

Another reason for the trend is the huge bite that cable -- which has never been under FCC regs -- has taken out of the broadcast ratings pie, partly because it has been able, in shows as varied as "Saving Grace," "Rescue Me," "The Shield" and those on Adult Swim, to be more profane and provocative.

Another media guru hazarded that there also has been "a general coarsening of the culture," first in cinema and music terms even before grossness by degrees "infiltrated" TV.

Reality TV -- especially relationship and dating shows such as "Big Brother," "Temptation Island" and "The Bachelor" -- have built their success around titillation of one sort or another.

Said Shine International president Chris Grant, who licenses such shows as "The Moment of Truth" and "The Biggest Loser" around the world: "Reality TV already has pushed the envelope, long before scripted, but there still are limits. And right now, with ad dollars harder to come by, we have to consider their point of view on these things."

Official word this week from the major networks is that their policies toward indecency and profanity won't change. Execs are adamant that they will continue to be sensitive to their national viewership, which means not just sophisticated types in New York and Los Angeles.

"We still have viewers who expect a certain level of content on our network," one executive said. "I don't think you're going to see any change. For one thing, this will likely be appealed to the Supreme Court. For another, we have the ability right now after 10 p.m. to do whatever we want, and you don't see that stuff. If we were going to do it, why wouldn't we have already done it before?"

Advertiser concerns in any case always act as a tamp to the most outlandish outre situations or innuendoes.

Not that there isn't going to be push-back.

Dan Isett, director of corporate affairs at the Parents Television Council, suggests that some groups will not take the ruling lying down.

"The court was extremely misguided," he said. "It's a slap in the face to parents and families -- not to mention 70 years of jurisprudence about the publicly owned airwaves." (The FCC is likely to appeal this week's decision.)

And this being an election year, there's almost always a moment during the fall when a passel of politicians suddenly becomes focused on just how debased Hollywood has become, and with a new TV season full of suggestive content, the target is hard to resist.

This week's ruling could be construed, several sources suggested, as a rebuke to Bush-era attempts to define obscenity and tighten rules against it. It doesn't mean there should be no standard, just that it has to be better defined.

So how hard and how fast might the nets push the limits?

Schwartzman said that the effect of the latest ruling is "to give networks greater freedom before 10 p.m., subject to the restrictions of the marketplace."

He added: "They're already much more aggressive about trying to get stuff in. They're always saying: 'Look what cable does! It's not fair. We can't sell against that.' "

Naturally, creative types want the same kind of freedom on broadcast TV that they have on cable and the Internet.

Others were more conservative in their assessment, suggesting that tape delays and bleeps will remain part of the landscape and that there will be hesitation in Hollywood until there's a definitive ruling on this week's decision.

"The further the nets go, the more push-back they'll get from advertisers who are sensitive to that kind of content as well as from watchdog groups," Horizon Media senior vp Brad Adgate said. "It will be a slow, steady pace until they hit a place where they can't go any further."

Meanwhile, there are three major indecency cases pending.

One is the appeal in the Second Circuit over the Steven Bochco drama "NYPD Blue," which the FCC fined for showing seven seconds of a female rear end. ABC appealed, it was argued 18 months ago, and the case is pending. A second appeal is the Super Bowl boob-flash case involving Janet Jackson from 2004. That incident went to the Supreme Court but was remanded to the appeals level. The third involves the Fox reality show "Married by America," which focused on outrageous bachelor and bachelorette parties -- with pixelated nudity.

No decisions in these cases are likely until the Supreme Court rules on the appeals court's overturn of the FCC rules.

[Batman1980]

Good news especially for networks like the CW where so many of the characters have close relationships but never sexual relations, at least not that you get to see.

[WyldeMan45]

Originally Posted by Gandalf Stormcrow

Good news especially for networks like the CW where so many of the characters have close relationships but never sexual relations, at least not that you get to see.

They will never compete with cable, atleast not for a very long time.

[STARSCREAM]

Originally Posted by Gandalf Stormcrow

Good news especially for networks like the CW where so many of the characters have close relationships but never sexual relations, at least not that you get to see.

If you want to see that watch Spartacus: Blood and Sand or True Blood.

[Groo The Perverted]

I think this is stupid. Why can't there at least be ONE hour that doesn't have a bunch of slutty behavior and cursing in it? ONE hour??? That's too much?

I'm not a prude by any means (check my username here) but come on....

One of the TV shows I like the most is a comedy out of Canada called "Little Mosque on the Prairie". The thing I like about the show, besides it being hilarious, is the fact that it's kinda clean. Which is shocking because it's not the type of show I'd normally watch.

But it's kinda of a sweetly innocent type show that despite the name doesn't really hammer you with political statements or anything.

And Fox bought the rights to do an American remake which infuriates me because of the 100% guarantee they're going to "Dirty" it up. They're going to drop in stupid sex jokes and whatnot, and they're going to do what typically happens when American remakes occur, and that is to remove what is wholly enjoyable about the original (see NBC's dreadful and atrocious remake of BBC's Life on Mars).

And frankly I don't understand why this is such a watershed moment and cause for celebration. What, there isn't enough dirty humor, sluts and violence on TV these days?

Personally I think the 8-10 hour should be toned down as far as the sexual type stuff anyway, but it'll never happen. Especially now with this ruling. But it doesn't matter, because eventually it'll end up going to the Supreme Court and the ultra conservatives on there will slap it down.

[PrivatePixel]

Originally Posted by Groo The Perverted

I think this is stupid. Why can't there at least be ONE hour that doesn't have a bunch of slutty behavior and cursing in it? ONE hour??? That's too much?

The network execs believe that they have no other recourse than to follow in the same path as their cable brethren, if they want to retain existing viewers, or try to lure new ones. With a gamut of entertainment options available to the public (including online surfing and video games), it's becoming increasingly difficult to retain, much less attract viewers to the relatively safe haven that is network programming; by upping the ante in their content, network execs are convinced that they can compete for those viewers lost to cable programming over the years. As viewers decline, so does their ad revenue; if a drastic overhaul in programming is necesary to pursue or preserve viewers, then so be it. I'm not happy with this direction, but I understand why they deem it as being integral to their survival.

One of the TV shows I like the most is a comedy out of Canada called "Little Mosque on the Prairie". The thing I like about the show, besides it being hilarious, is the fact that it's kinda clean. Which is shocking because it's not the type of show I'd normally watch.

This is one of the reasons why I love Canadian programming (and it has nothing to do with being Canadian). Both CBC and CTV still produce sitcoms, a genre that has all but disappeared from the US network landscape. The beauty of a show such as Little Mosque is that the writers have tackled and incorporated traditional and modern scenarios without offending viewers' sensibilities; it takes a quality staff to pull off such endeavours on a weekly basis. Problem is, writers cost money, especially good ones, and US networks have opted for the avenue of lowest cost, in the form of reality programming. That's not to say that this plague hasn't afflicted Canadian broadcasting; it's just not as pervasive.

Personally I think the 8-10 hour should be toned down as far as the sexual type stuff anyway, but it'll never happen. Especially now with this ruling. But it doesn't matter, because eventually it'll end up going to the Supreme Court and the ultra conservatives on there will slap it down.

Too much has changed in the past decade to turn back the clock on what was. As for whom will prevail, that will be decided by the lobbyists in both camps.

[Mouse]

I don't think much will change until there is a ruling on the appeal and even after that the Networks won't go too far for fear of losing viewers.

Either way it does not affect me personally but I have little cousins and nephews that will be growing up with these new rules and pretty sure their parents wouldn't want them seeing nudity every time TV is turned on. Now if they complain about curse words they are hypocrites as my whole adult family (minus a select few) use profane language constantly even infront of the small children.

This also goes back on the parents to .. well, be parents. Be mindful what your kids are watching or playing. Stop relying on the government to do your job as a parent. They give you those rating systems on everything these days so use it.

[saprano]

Don't really care either way. There's more important stuff to worry about.

[assydingo]

Never really cared for sex in TV Shows.

If anything it made True Blood seem exploitive and cheap. Luckily I've gotten used to it in that show as it's good entertainment that doesn't take itself seriously.

[WyldeMan45]

Originally Posted by assydingo

Never really cared for sex in TV Shows.

If anything it made True Blood seem exploitive and cheap. Luckily I've gotten used to it in that show as it's good entertainment that doesn't take itself seriously.

I hate when gorgeous women get naked for my entertainment and it makes me feel cheap, that's why I don't go to strip clubs, cause I feel dirty.................

[Show spoiler]