Supreme Court Decides The Future of TV.

Image via WikipediaThe Supreme Court is currently deciding if the Federal Communications Commission should be in the business of censoring nudity and profanity on broadcast TV.

The issue here is the FCC's inconsistency when it comes to applying broadcast standards to an industry that's struggling to compete with cable.  They can fine networks for showing exposed female nipples at the Super Bowl, celebrities uttering f-bombs on awards shows, and for merely putting Howard Stern on the air.  But they did allow ABC to run the World War II movie "Saving Private Ryan" uncensored, prompting some of the network's stations to pull it for fear of getting a hefty fine.  There's also NBC's telecast of the film "Schindler's List", which includes scenes of naked people in a concentration camp about to take a "shower".  (It seems that if your name is Steven Spielberg, who produced both movies, you can get away with almost anything.)

This was a case just waiting to happen, even if it's argued before a body that doesn't allow cameras into its courtroom.  (Not that we're advocating it.)  Judging from early reports, some of the justices don't seem to watch much TV.  And Chief Justice John Roberts is the only one on the bench with young children.

This is 2012, folks.  Not 1962.  The rules made sense back in the days when there were only three or four channels, and "The Beverly Hillbillies" was the top-rated program on TV.  Now more than half of the population get their TV from cable or satellite, with its hundreds of channels that are indistinguishable, unless you also subscribe to HBO or Showtime.  There you can get all the swear words, sex and nudity you want.

That's why broadcast TV, which is government regulated while cable is not, thinks it can't compete because they have to dumb down their shows with bleeping, blurred-out body parts, and dancing around certain subjects.

Not only that, but cable has gotten a lot better at producing original shows that people will actually watch (and that includes "Jersey Shore", "The Real Housewives of . . . ", and the Kardashians).  Broadcasters who can't afford a "Mad Men" or "Boardwalk Empire" have to make do with lower-cost reality shows while watching its viewers go elsewhere.

The purpose of broadcast standards, of course, is so that parents don't have to explain to their kids what the s-word or the f-word is, or what two people do in a bedroom besides sleeping.  Chances are real good that Our Precious Children already know this stuff, and they didn't get it from watching TV.  Instead, they either surf the Web or hear about it from their friends at school. 

What the justices are asked to rule on come spring has less to do with upholding the nation's morals as it does with deciding the future of broadcast television.  A ruling in favor of the FCC means one more nail in the coffin for TV stations, as viewers and revenues flee towards cable.  It will also prove that upholding broadcast standards is as archaic as the Supreme Court itself.