Entry tags:

studio 60, television

Studio 60: Revisited
I hate to say it, but I'm one of the self-loathing people who have been watching Studio 60, out of some sense of obligation and because there's not a lot else on at that hour. As I said in my earlier review, the show was showing definite signs of descent into some kind of love story or soap opera that had a television backdrop, as early as the first couple of episodes, but because we all hoped Mr Sorkin had something to say, a dwindling number of people have kept watching.

Unfortunately, while most of the cast is superb and the actual words on paper are well punctuated, as I said before, the show really doesn't have anywhere to go because the subject of television is not that deep. And, though they've found a continuing storyline which is supposed to make us outraged and keep us interested in the outcome, not only do I think that no one really cares about it, but the calendar has worked against him because the question has become moot.

Basically, the story is that during a live news interview with a soldier in Afghanistan, a rocket-propelled grenade exploded nearby and the soldier shouted "fuck". As a result of this, the FCC is supposedly threatening a huge fine against, several board members are suggesting that they put the news on a five second delay to appease the agency and weasel out of the fine, while Lou Grant and the guy from Wings are plotting some kind of chess move in hopes of outwitting everyone.

Now in today's environment, you might think this would be a plausible story and I'm sure it was theoretically possible when Aaron Sorkin first wrote it, but times and circumstances have changed. In the December 20th arguments before the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, during the case of Fox Television v. FCC, the attorney for the agency clearly says that while there's no blanket exemption for news, the FCC would tread lightly out of concern for the first amendment.

You can see and hear the discussion yourself, if you load the case into your RealPlayer and fast forward to the twenty-six minute mark. At issue were the utterances of Cher saying "fuck 'em" during the the 2002 Billboard Music Awards and Nicole Ritchie saying; "Have you ever tried to get cow shit out of a Prada purse? It's not so fucking simple" during the 2003 edition.

Throughout the arguments, the attorneys for both sides and the judges were often repeating the specific words used by the performers, which caused Judge Peter W. Hall to ask Attorney Eric D. Miller, who was acting on behalf of the FCC: If cable or broadcast television would be in violation of the law, if they were to run all or part of the arguments uncensored, live or during the six o'clock news, or if they were to rerun the clips of Cher and Miss Ritchie as background for the story.

And to quote from an AP wire story about the case; "Miller said they would not because the use of the otherwise indecent words would be broadcast in a news program rather than to pander, titillate or for shock value, a legal standard."

Under deeper questioning by the judge, Attorney Miller said that such a broadcast would not be subject to FCC "hand-slapping" because of the "reason stated in this very order, in respect to the Early Show case. The Commission has emphasized that it will exercise great restraint, when it comes to news programming."

Under the jump, I have clipped the portion of the FCC order which relates to the Early Show, but it's plain to see that under the order issued on November 6th by the regulating agency and after hearing the attorney for the FCC argue in front of the Federal Appeals Court, such an unplanned exclamation from a uniformed soldier on a battlefield would be entitled to the same or better consideration, as something said by a Survivor cast member on a morning show's couch.

So, if nobody cares about the love stories and if their big plot point has been made irrelevant or implausible by current events, that only leaves Mr Sorkin railing against reality programming, product placement, bloggers and big corporations on his show, while offscreen, he's expanded his targets to include newspapers, unemployed writers and people who dare to question his genius.

I'll probably continue to watch Studio 60, if I'm in front of the television and if there's nothing else on at the time. In my earlier post, I said that I thought NBC would keep the show going until they've reached the same conclusion as myself, but now I don't know. Yes, the grammar is correct and most of the leads are great, but there should come a time, when it can longer be sustained just so the network can claim; "The quality shows on NBC".

The "Early Show" Portion of the FCC Order

A. "The Early Show"

67. "The Early Show" is a two-hour morning program that airs weekdays on
the CBS Television Network. On December 13, 2004, the program devoted
significant coverage to discussion of the CBS program "Survivor:
Vanuatu," which had crowned its winner the prior evening. As part of
that coverage, "The Early Show" co-host Julie Chen conducted a live
interview with the final four contestants from "Survivor: Vanuatu."
During that interview, Ms. Chen asked runner-up Twila Tanner whether
she agreed with fourth-place finisher Eliza Orlins that Chris
Daugherty, the winner of the program, would have prevailed had he been
matched up in the finals against Ms. Orlins. Ms. Tanner then
responded, "Not necessarily. I knew he was a bullshitter from Day
One."

68. A viewer subsequently filed a complaint with the Commission that
Station KDKA-TV, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, which is licensed to CBS
Broadcasting Inc., aired Ms. Tanner's comment at approximately 8:10
a.m. Eastern Standard Time, on December 13, 2004, and alleged that the
comment was indecent and profane. In response to the Commission's
letter of inquiry, CBS does not deny that the comment in question was
broadcast on KDKA-TV. However, CBS argues, among other things, that
the material is not actionable because it was spoken during a bona
fide news interview.

69. In the Omnibus Order, we "recognize[d] the need for caution with
respect to complaints implicating the editorial judgment of broadcast
licensees in presenting news and public affairs programming, as these
matters are at the core of the First Amendment's free press
guarantee." Indeed, when we denied an indecency complaint regarding
material that was aired during "The Today Show," which is a competitor
of "The Early Show," we reiterated the need for the Commission to
exercise caution with respect to news programming.

70. This restrained approach is consistent with a long line of Commission
precedent. For example, in Peter Branton, the Commission held that an
NPR news story on John Gotti, which included a wiretap of a
conversation in which Gotti repeatedly used variations of the
"F-Word," was not indecent because "it was an integral part of a bona
fide news story." The Commission explained that "we traditionally have
been reluctant to intervene in the editorial judgments of broadcast
licensees on how best to present serious public affairs programming to
their listeners."

71. In today's Order, we reaffirm our commitment to proceeding with
caution in our evaluation of complaints involving news programming. To
be sure, there is no outright news exemption from our indecency rules.
Nevertheless, in light of the important First Amendment interests at
stake as well as the crucial role that context plays in our indecency
determinations, it is imperative that we proceed with the utmost
restraint when it comes to news programming.

72. Some critics have questioned whether the segments of "The Early Show"
devoted to "Survivor: Vanuatu" are legitimate news programming or
instead are merely promotions for CBS's own entertainment programming.
CBS nevertheless maintains in its LOI response that its interview of
the "Survivor: Vanuatu" contestants was a "bona fide news interview."
"The Early Show" is produced by CBS News and addressed a variety of
other topics that morning, including a suicide bombing in Iraq, the
withdrawal of Bernard Kerik as a candidate to serve as Secretary of
Homeland Security, and the apparent poisoning of then-Ukrainian
opposition leader Viktor Yushchenko, which clearly fall under the
rubric of news programming. In light of these factors and our
commitment to exercising caution in this area, we believe it is
appropriate in these circumstances to defer to CBS's plausible
characterization of its own programming. Accordingly, we find that, in
the Omnibus Order, we did not give appropriate weight to the nature of
the programming at issue (i.e., news programming).

73. Turning to the specific material that is the subject of the complaint,
we can certainly understand that viewers may have been offended by Ms.
Tanner's coarse language. Nevertheless, given the nature of her
comment and our decision to defer to CBS's characterization of the
program segment as a news interview, we conclude, regardless of
whether such language would be actionable in the context of an
entertainment program, that the complained-of material is neither
actionably indecent nor profane in this context. Accordingly, we deny
the complaint.

(link)