*Pages 1--2 from  Microsoft Word - 55724.doc*
 1 
 STATEMENT  OF  COMMISSIONER  MICHAEL  J.  COPPS 
 Re:  Complaints  Regarding  Various  Television  Broadcasts  Between  January  1,  2002  and  March  12,  2005,  Notices  of  Apparent  Liability  and  Memorandum  Opinion  and  Order 
 Complaints  Against  Various  Television  Licensees  Concerning  Their  December  31,  2004  Broadcast  of  the  Program  “Without  A  Trace,”  Notice  of  Apparent  Liability 
 Complaints  Against  Various  Television  Licensees  Concerning  Their  February  1,  2004  Broadcast  Of  The  Super  Bowl  XXXVII  Halftime  Show,  Forfeiture  Order 
 In  the  past,  the  Commission  too  often  addressed  indecency  complaints  with  little  discussion  or  analysis,  relying  instead  on  generalized  pronouncements.  Such  an  approach  served 
 neither  aggrieved  citizens  nor  the  broadcast  industry.  Today,  the  Commission  not  only  moves  forward  to  address  a  number  of  pending  complaints,  but  does  so  in  a  manner  that  better  analyzes 
 each  broadcast  and  explains  how  the  Commission  determines  whether  a  particular  broadcast  is  indecent.  Although  it  may  never  be  possible  to  provide  100  percent  certain  guidance  because  we 
 must  always  take  into  account  specific  and  often-  differing  contexts,  the  approach  in  today’s  orders  can  help  to  develop  such  guidance  and  to  establish  precedents.  This  measured  process, 
 common  in  jurisprudence,  may  not  satisfy  those  who  clamor  for  immediate  certainty  in  an  uncertain  world,  but  it  may  just  be  the  best  way  to  develop  workable  rules  of  the  road. 


 Today’s  Orders  highlight  two  additional  issues  with  which  the  Commission  must  come  to  terms.  First,  it  is  time  for  the  Commission  to  look  at  indecency  in  the  broader  context  of  its 
 decisions  on  media  consolidation.  In  2003  the  FCC  sought  to  weaken  its  remaining  media  concentration  safeguards  without  even  considering  whether  there  is  a  link  between  increasing 
 media  consolidation  and  increasing  indecency.  Such  links  have  been  shown  in  studies  and  testified  to  by  a  variety  of  expert  witnesses.  The  record  clearly  demonstrates  that  an 
 overwhelming  number  of  the  Commission’s  indecency  citations  have  gone  to  a  few  huge  media  conglomerates.  One  recent  study  showed  that  the  four  largest  radio  station  groups  which 
 controlled  just  under  half  the  radio  audience  were  responsible  for  a  whopping  96  percent  of  the  indecency  fines  levied  by  the  FCC  from  2000  to  2003. 


 One  of  the  reasons  for  the  huge  volume  of  complaints  about  excessive  sex  and  graphic  violence  in  the  programming  we  are  fed  may  be  that  people  feel  increasingly  divorced  from  their 
 “local”  media.  They  believe  the  media  no  longer  respond  to  their  local  communities.  As  media  conglomerates  grow  ever  larger  and  station  control  moves  farther  away  from  the  local 
 community,  community  standards  seem  to  count  for  less  when  programming  decisions  are  made.  Years  ago  we  had  independent  programming  created  from  a  diversity  of  sources.  Networks 
 would  then  decide  which  programming  to  distribute.  Then  local  affiliates  would  independently  decide  whether  to  air  that  programming.  This  provided  some  real  checks  and  balances. 
 Nowadays  so  many  of  these  decisions  are  made  by  vertically-  integrated  conglomerates  headquartered  far  away  from  the  communities  they  are  supposed  to  be  serving—  entities  that  all 
 too  often  control  both  the  distribution  and  the  production  content  of  the  programming. 
 If  heightened  media  consolidation  is  indeed  a  source  for  the  violence  and  indecency  that  upset  so  many  parents,  shouldn’t  the  Commission  be  cranking  that  into  its  decisions  on  further 
 loosening  of  the  ownership  rules?  I  hope  the  Commission,  before  voting  again  on  loosening  its  media  concentration  protections,  will  finally  take  a  serious  look  at  this  link  and  amass  a  credible 
 body  of  evidence  and  not  act  again  without  the  facts,  as  it  did  in  2003. 
1
 2 
 Second,  a  number  of  these  complaints  concern  graphic  broadcast  violence.  The  Commission  states  that  it  has  taken  comment  on  this  issue  in  another  docket.  It  is  time  for  us  to 
 step  up  to  the  plate  and  tackle  the  issue  of  violence  in  the  media.  The  U.  S.  Surgeon  General,  the  American  Academy  of  Pediatrics,  the  American  Psychological  Association,  the  American 
 Medical  Association,  and  countless  other  medical  and  scientific  organizations  that  have  studied  this  issue  have  reached  the  same  conclusion:  exposure  to  graphic  and  excessive  media  violence 
 has  harmful  effects  on  the  physical  and  mental  health  of  our  children.  We  need  to  complete  this  proceeding. 
2