The Wall Street Journal doesn’t trust the FCC to clean up TV:

Haven’t we seen this TV sitcom before? It’s the one in which politicians try to clean up the airwaves in the name of protecting children.

—FCC TV, Wall Street Journal, May 2007

Even though parents are concerned about violence on TV, the WSJ notes that there isn’t exactly a groundswell of demand for political interference:

“The report cites studies showing that parents in the U.S. are deeply concerned about violence on TV. That may be true, but it’s difficult to square with another of the report’s findings, which is that nearly 70% of children have a TV in their bedroom. Either mom and dad aren’t as concerned about the issue as policy makers and special-interest groups would like, or they have things in better perspective.”

— FCC TV, Center for Creative Voices in Media Blog, 23 May 2007

Is this the only conservative voice against FCC censorship of whatever it chooses to call violence?

Rintels notes in a later post that David Solomon, formerly in charge of enforcing the FCC’s indecency rules as Chief of the FCC Enforcement Bureau, is equally opposed:

“Furthermore, the FCC’s record on regulating indecency screams out against extending its authority to include violence. No matter how hard the commission may have tried to explain and apply its indecency standard in an objective, coherent and consistent manner, broadcasters are too often uncertain of what the commission will deem to be indecent.”

No Violence to the First Amendment, Center for Creative Voices in Media Blog, 18 June 2007

Maybe Solomon is referring to the FCC’s recent overextension of its indecency regulation getting slapped down by a court and Chairman Martin’s record scream about that.

This is the same FCC that can’t find time to implement net neutrality rules. For that matter, I don’t hear the current FCC calling for a revival of the old fairness rule for giving political candidates equal time. Perhaps it needs to revisit its priorities.

-jsq