These demographics are people who make conscious decisions about what station they prefer to listen to. They are entitled to have more say in the content aired than a random listener who is simply "passing by", tunes in by mistake, or has some moral, (religious or other social reason) as to why they object to that programming. If everyone on a personal crusade got his way all the time, our society would cease to function.
Audiences choose how much obscenity, lewdness, graphic or explicit sexual or excretory material they are comfortable with. By continually selecting a station to listen to based on its format, they accept and agree to a certain level of language and content.
An alternative rock station which seeks men and women 18-34 should not have to limit its content to what the "lite rock" station seeking 25-54 year-old women airs.
And for those who would argue children might hear something inappropriate, still others will counter that parents must take an active role in what they will allow their kids to hear. While driving in a car with young children, the parent makes the ultimate choice in what station is listened to. If that parent chooses to listen to "Bubba the Love Sponge", Howard Stern, Mancow or any number of other hosts who are known to feature controversial content, it is not my place, your place or any lawmaker’s place to tell that parent their decision is an immoral or socially unacceptable action while children are present. Those parents just may have another viewpoint or definintion of profanity, obscenity, and the like. It is really none of our business.
So, with the danger to young children momentarily dispelled - who are we really trying to protect? Adults who are old enough to make decisions for themselves?
I don’t think a group as small as the F.C.C. is qualified to make a judgment on this issue based solely on an assumed morality. Their answer is to call for "public opinion" before handing down a decision and that is simply not enough input because the average person does not even know such a procedure exists (although, I do think their new "localism" town meetings are a good start). Neither are our legislators alone qualified to decide this issue because you cannot legislate morality.
Since Radio is still a medium that “broad”casts and is openly available to anyone who turns one on, maybe some steps should be taken to insure that listeners are not deprived of programming choices nor are they blind-sided by them.
3 ideas that might lead to possible solutions:
1. A national census conducted by the F.C.C on the nature of content and what is acceptable under pre-defined circumstances. If the airwaves belong to the people - and they do - it’s not enough to assume how the people really feel. They are owed the opportunity to state their feelings on the record, whatever they are.
2. Requiring radio stations to follow certain content guidelines depending on their region. There is no doubt metropolitan New Yorkers will have a comfort level different from rural folks in Alabama. It’s time we recognized that. We have all heard of the “Bible Belt”, “Midwestern Values”, etc. Maybe we need to face the fact that certain areas of our country have quite different viewpoints. One region’s values should not be forced on another.
2. Requiring radio stations that air a certain type of content to identify that fact on an hourly basis along with their required legal identification. If the morning show is known to talk about certain adult subjects or use certain words, there might be a rating system put in place. Example: "WWWW-FM, New York - rated R, 6-10 A.M.".
In a society where we have come to expect the option for specific choices in our entertainment, from cable channels on gardening to radio stations that play only 1980s music, maybe the time has come to re-evaluate how we want the medium of Radio to serve us best. It is no longer feasible to think it can serve everyone in the same way.
