Markey Statement for Broadcast Indecency Hearing

NEWS FROM ED MARKEY

United States Congress Massachusetts Seventh District

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

CONTACT: Israel Klein / Colin Crowell (202) 225-2836

February 11, 2004

MARKEY STATEMENT FOR BROADCAST INDECENCY HEARING

Washington, DC: This is the prepared statement from Representative Edward J. Markey (D-MA), the
Ranking Democrat on the House Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet, which will be
delivered at the hearing on broadcast indecency today:

"Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to commend Chairman Upton for calling this hearing this morning
on the issue of broadcast radio and television indecency.

Today's hearing will permit us to gain testimony on the legislation that Chairman Upton and I have
introduced, along with many of our Committee colleagues on both sides of the aisle, to raise the fines
available to the FCC tenfold.

The public's airways are licensed to a relatively precious few who have the honor, opportunity, and
obligation to use them as trustees of the public interest. There are those licensees, however, who are not
treating these licenses as a public trust, but as mere corporate commodities, and they air content replete with
raunchy language, graphic violence, and indecent fare.

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is charged with ensuring that licensees serve the
public interest and that stations do not air obscene, indecent, or profane content in violation of the law and
Commission rules. The enforcement record at the FCC is not encouraging. In 2002, there were 14,000
complaints about some 389 different programs, yet the FCC issued only 7 notices of apparent liability
(NALs) that year. Last year, complaints skyrocketed to 240,000 for allegations about 375 different
programs. Yet last year the Commission issued only 3 notices of apparent liability. And we heard testimony
at our first hearing that thousands of complaints are never addressed or languish to the point where
essentially the statute of limitations runs out.

The FCC has many numerous tools to enforce these important policy requirements - including the
ability to revoke a station license. Yet it is increasingly clear that the paltry fines the FCC assesses have
become nothing more than a joke. They have become simply a cost of doing business for far too many
licensees, particularly in the radio marketplace. Many stations regard the prospect of a fine as merely a
potential slap on the wrist.

Washing their mouths out with soap would have a greater deterrent effect than the few and paltry
fines the FCC currently levies.

The FCC's utter unwillingness to revoke licenses or raise these issues during license renewal
essentially means there's no real deterrent effect left. This is especially true of the multi-billion dollar media
conglomerates who control a multitude of stations. What possible deterrent effect can $27,000 have on a
company which reaps in $27 Billion in annual revenues? We need to have a public discussion about the
FCC's failure to use its enforcement and deterrent tools effectively - even in the most egregious cases - and
what the FCC plans to do about this issue. Clearly, Congress will have to address these shortcomings at the
FCC.

Second, we need to do a better job in educating parents about the tools they already may possess or
can utilize to address the myriad concerns they raise with us about what is on TV and radio-and need the
assistance of the industry in this area. Parents can use the TV ratings system and the V-Chip, which stems
from legislation I authored 7 years ago. Today, the several million families that use the V-Chip and like it.
Yet the vast majority of parents will only use it if they fully understand the ratings system and how it works
in conjunction with the chip, and only if such parents have bought a recent TV that has the chip in it. The
industry did a good job, with much fanfare, after the TV ratings system was finalized, in doing public service
announcements and other educational messages regarding the ratings. Yet those efforts have waned in recent
years. I believe the industry should renew such efforts and also consider a number of other ideas.

For instance, I believe that the icon that appears at the beginning of a show, such as TV-13, with a V,
S, or L for violence, sex, or language, should also appear after each commercial break. That way, channel
surfers who land on that show during commercials will get a warning as the show resumes. I also believe the
industry should consider adding a voice-over when the ratings appear. If dad or mom is in the kitchen, out of
the room, or distracted reading a newspaper, they may not see the icon when it appears. A voice-over could
help parents hear the rating as the show begins and prompt them to change the channel and protect their
children from inappropriate programming.

With respect to cable programming, we need to explore ways in which we can educate parents, and
make more useful, the provisions of the Cable Act of 1992 that permit any cable subscriber to request a
blocking mechanism to block out any cable channel parents find objectionable. If a family buys the
expanded tier of basic cable service, but does not want MTV in their house, they can request equipment from
their cable operator that effectively blocks out MTV. This is an option that many subscribers do not know
they have and we should explore ways of improving the effectiveness of this provision.

Clearly, many broadcasters need to clean up their act. Parents are increasingly frustrated and have
every right to be angry at both certain licensees with a history of repeated violations as well as with the FCC
itself.

I thank our witnesses for their time and testimony and again commend the Chairman for calling this
hearing."