Does it seem sometimes like coalition forces have, forever, been in Iraq? It’s certainly been a long time: we are coming up on five years. The early months of 2003 seem an eternity ago to me. But news has now surfaced that the U. S. Federal Communications Commission has been watching television reruns from those days, slapping ABC with a $1.43 million fine for nudity shown in an episode of NYPD Blue that aired on February 25 of that year. The episode, in fact, was called “Nude Awakening,” and it began with a brief scene in which a young Theo Sipowicz walks in on Connie McDowell, his father’s girlfriend, in the shower. This moment of humor contrasts the later discovery that John Clark’s father has committed suicide.
It seems as though no one is laughing now.
In its statement, the FCC notes that the scene features “close-range views of an adult woman’s naked buttocks” and “the material is… dwelled upon and repeated.” They find the depiction of actress Charlotte Ross is both “titillating and shocking.” ABC contends that the material is “not presented in a lewd, prurient, pandering, or titillating way” but is meant, instead, to demonstrate “the complexity and awkwardness involved when a single parent brings a new romantic partner into his or her life.” No one is suggesting that this is a seductive scene; no one is claiming that the intent of the scene is to depict a sexual response from a child. But the intent of the material seems to make little difference to the FCC. It is not the demonstrated effect of Connie’s nudity on Theo that concerns them – nor is it the supposed effect of Ms Ross on Austin Majors, the young man playing Theo. (It is doubtful that Mr. Majors was ever in a room with the naked Ms Ross. But, in any case, as a recent guest star on Desperate Housewives, he has had to endure much, much more.)
They are concerned about the effect of Ms Ross’s body on the viewing public, of course, about an apparent breach of “contemporary community standards” committed by NYPD Blue. ABC argues that the program’s robust ratings and the relatively few complaints they received suggest the community is conditioned (and perhaps somewhat indifferent) to this material. The FCC claims not to be moved by the number of complaints: they admit only to having received “numerous complaints, including thousands of letters from members of various citizen advocacy groups.” This is code, of course, for thousands of busybodies who, having never seen the program, add their names to petitions drafted by shut-in prudes who have nothing better to do. In fact, the FCC uses ratings statistics against ABC: because many people were watching NYPD Blue, this increases the “likelihood that children were among those who may have seen the indecent broadcasts, thereby increasing the public harm from the licensees’ misconduct.”
How stupid is this? We have now had five years to assess what “public harm” was done by Ms Ross’s behind. If we scour the papers for reports of sex offenders who blame Ms Ross’s behind for inflaming their monstrous passions, we will find none. Ms Ross had just celebrated her thirty-fifth birthday when her wares were displayed to the American public. Perhaps therapists could report as to whether they saw a spike in thirtysomething patients ashamed, by comparison, of their own bodies. Were advice columnists besieged by letters from women feeling residual guilt because their children walked in on boyfriends in the shower? Perhaps we can ask Dan Savage if “Savage Love” has subsequently printed letters from men whose children walked in on their boyfriends in the shower.
The indisputable fact is that in 2003, and during the years since, American popular culture has never hesitated to depict wanton acts of violence. Primetime television is ruled by forensic investigation and police dramas that show people killing each other while the cinematographers wallow in the aftermath of that violence. If were are going to accept that “contemporary community standards” reflect a taste for limbs dismembered from torsos, perhaps we should accept that the public might be ready to see these body parts in working order.
When the nostalgic part of my soul gets a hankering for classic television, I pop in a DVD of Rawhide. But the libertarian side of me must stand up for artistic integrity. Have you seen the bowdlerized versions of The Sopranos on A&E? All those “freakings” and “flippings” stretch credibility. In Canada, CTV has decided that little eyes should be in bed after 9pm or 10pm, and after this “watershed” they show some unexpurgated programming. This, of course, is how the matter is handled in England, where “timeshifting” is not an issue. While CTV conveniently ignores the fact that kids in Alberta can watch “adult” programming on cable after 6pm, the FCC gets itself tied in knots by this fact. It is hard to imagine that in the nanny state that is Canada, our broadcasters have more trust in parents to control what their children watch. If you are a parent that lets your kid follow NYPD Blue or The Sopranos, you have already made a choice. And I find it hard to believe that the kinds of parents who do not object to mob violence on A&E would object to foul language and nudity. Are you picking up on the hypocrisy of industry watchdogs?
Have these folks ever surfed the internet? Oh, right… That shoe is left to drop. As a society, we should spend time trying to shift “contemporary community standards,” teaching our children about the implications of rampant sex and violence. But we should also support the right of artists to reflect our society back to us, instead of trying to pretend that our society is something it is not. Perhaps television is not meant to be an honest representation of what we are. But as long as we pretend it is so, we’d be a lot better off treating sex and violence in the same manner.
