The Public's Knowledge of Broadcast and Non-Broadcast Network Indecency Regulations

The Public’s Knowledge of Broadcast and Non-Broadcast Network Indecency Regulations
by
Kurt Rempe
B.A.A. Central Michigan University, 2012
Central Michigan University
School of Broadcast and Cinematic Arts
Mount Pleasant, MI
2014

Kurt Rempe 2
Abstract
This study examines the difference in audience perceptions of indecency regulations
between broadcast and non-broadcast television networks. The research focused on
television consumer’s habits of where they get their media and if age had an impact on the
consumer’s habits. A survey of college students and average adults was conducted with 316
participants. The research shows that multichannel video providers (MVPD’s) are quickly
becoming a universal service to television viewers. The study also discovered that high
majorities of people do not know that the FCC has the ability to regulate broadcast television
networks but not non-broadcast networks. The study found that because of this, respondents
felt that indecency regulation should be the same throughout all television networks. This is
one of the first studies of its kind that analyzes if consumers of television programming
understand indecency regulations and if they feel that regulation is necessary.

Kurt Rempe 3
Introduction
When analyzing broadcast and cable television, indecency is one of the largest
issues in television media. The reason that indecency is such a large issue is because the
Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is only able to regulate indecency on the
broadcast stations and has no power to regulate indecency on non-broadcast networks.
The reason the FCC is able to regulate broadcast stations and not those non-broadcast
networks because those stations are granted licenses from the FCC to use the public
airwaves that they broadcast on. The FCC licenses broadcast stations because those
stations require engineering that will keep those public frequencies that the broadcast
signals are on from interfering with each other. From the engineering aspect the FCC
simply moved also to regulating indecency on those stations as well. This is the reason that
the FCC cannot regulate for indecency on cable, due to the fact that there is not a limited
bandwidth that goes over the airwaves to the consumers that needs to be maintained or
licensed.
Broadcast television stations are carried along with most MVPD’s thanks to the must
carry laws that have been put in effect that state that MVPD’s must carry local broadcast
signals in their packages, these laws stemming from the Supreme Court’s ruling in Turner
Broadcasting vs. FCC (1994). Through this policy, those broadcast network signals are put
side by side with non-broadcast networks, but are regulated while non-broadcast networks
are not. This puts broadcast networks at an unfair disadvantage in comparison to non-
broadcast networks, which have no indecency guidelines to follow. The United States
Congress through the Telecommunications Act of 1996 mandates this jurisdiction, which
gave the FCC the power to regulate indecency in broadcast television (Hammond, 1996).

Kurt Rempe 4
Another objective of this study is to examine if the large majority of people
subscribe to some sort of multichannel video provider (MVPD) instead of only having
access to broadcast networks, or have started “cutting the cord.” Another major purpose of
this study is to analyze television consumer’s understanding of the current indecency
regulations for broadcast and non-broadcast networks, as well as what types of television
content should be regulated more heavily than others or if they feel indecency regulation is
needed at all.
These aspects should be analyzed due to the fact that cable and other MVPD’s have
become universally accessible in the United States. This based from a report from August
2013 that showed that 86% of U.S. households were currently subscribed to an MVPD
provider (Actionable research on the broadband, media & entertainment industries, 2013).
As a result of this, the majority of the youth in the United States grew up watching not just
the broadcast stations but also non-broadcast networks and therefore do not know the
difference between the two. If the data gathered from this study shows that individuals do
not know the difference between a broadcast and non-broadcast network, then it should be
taken into consideration by the FCC that broadcast and non-broadcast networks should be
regulated by the same indecency regulations so that one type of network will not be held at
an unfair advantage over the others.
There are very few research studies that have been dedicated to analyzing if certain
age groups understand the difference between broadcast and non-broadcast networks, or
if age impacts the understanding between broadcast and non-broadcast networks. The
reason that this study is required for the future of indecency regulation is due to the issue
that more and more consumers are moving away from “traditional” means of watching

Kurt Rempe 5
television through those broadcast, over the air, stations. Consumers are continuing to
move to MVPD’s or cutting the cord completely. Since MVPD’s appear to be becoming
universally accessible to consumers in the United States, it should be researched to see how
many consumers actually know the difference between those broadcast stations and those
non-broadcast networks to see if the average consumer can tell the difference. If the
average consumer cannot report which stations are broadcast and which are non-
broadcast then the FCC should look into changing their current policy of indecency
regulation on broadcast stations. This study also looks to analyze if the average consumer
can understand the FCC’s current definition of indecency, which has been seen as vague
amongst the television industry. If consumers feel that the current definition is vague and
not easy to understand then the FCC should also examine their current definition and
possibly redefine indecency for television managers to be able to more easily follow the
definition when looking for indecent content.
Literature Review
Indecency Regulation
Indecency is defined by the FCC as “language or material that, in context, depicts or
describes, in terms of patently offensive, as measured by contemporary community
standards for the broadcast medium sexual or excretory activities or organs” (Obscene,
Indecent and Profane Broadcasts, 2013). This definition has been seen as incredibly vague
and confusing by broadcasters and has been adjusted for its vagueness as a result of the
Supreme Court case FCC v. Fox (2012).
The FCC changed its policy on indecent language in response to complainants
regarding “Bono’s use of ‘the F-word’ while accepting an award at the 2003 Golden Globe

Kurt Rempe 6
Awards” (Smith, 2012). It was because of this incident as well as several other incidents
such as the “wardrobe malfunction” that occurred between Janet Jackson and Justin
Timberlake during the halftime show of the 2004 Super Bowl, as well as Cher and Nicole
Richie’s performance at the 2002-2003 Billboard Music Awards that pushed the FCC to
take up a policy of allowing broadcast networks to be free from fines when “fleeting
expletives” were used such as the example with Bono. The FCC cannot fine a broadcast
network when a fleeting expletive occurs because the network had no prior knowledge of
what the individual was going to say (FCC v. FOX, 2012). However, it was also due to these
incidents that led the FCC to increase the amount that a network can be fined for airing
indecent content. The FCC increased the fine for indecent material from $32,500 dollars to
$325,000 dollars after lawmakers passed the Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act in 2006
due to the number of indecency complaints from these events (Kaye & Sapolsky, 2009).
After a thorough analysis of several different sources, a prominent issue that arises
when analyzing broadcast indecency versus non-broadcast is that there are not many
studies that analyze individual’s knowledge of the difference between the two. There is
also the issue that individuals may not know what indecency is and that broadcast
networks have indecency standards to abide by while non-broadcast networks do not.
After analyzing these studies the majority of literature found was from articles that discuss
what indecency is and how it is used to regulate broadcast television.
Several prominent Supreme Court cases have affected indecency regulation and
policy. The first issue that needs to be addressed is the difference between indecency and
obscenity. Obscenity is the worse of the two and it is a violation of federal law and there is
no protection ever for obscene speech or content in any from of delivery. In order for a

Kurt Rempe 7
work to be labeled obscene it must meet the three-pronged test that was established after
the court case Miller v. California (1973).
The first law ruling that was eventually adapted into American law came from the
English case of Regina v. Hicklin (1868). This case involved a man who resold copies of an
anti-Catholic pamphlet, which were eventually labeled obscene. This ruling stated that a
work could be labeled obscene if any portion, no matter how large a portion of the material
presented has a tendency to “deprave or corrupt” an individuals mind (Wayne, 1992). The
first United States Supreme Court case to define obscenity was Roth v. United States (1957),
stating that a work is considered obscene if, “whether to the average person, applying
contemporary community standards, the dominate theme of the material taken as a whole,
appeals to the prurient interest” (Roth v. United States, 1957). This changed how a work
can be claimed as obscene. That being if as a whole, the entire work, not just portions of
the work that has been published appeals to the prurient interests of an average person.
This ruling was the first time that the Supreme Court specifically stated that obscene
materials do not receive any First Amendment protection, which has continued throughout
their rulings.
The next landmark case that provided the Supreme Court with the ability to
redefine obscenity, and create a test for determining if a material is obscene or not was
Miller v. California (1973). The Supreme Court created a three-pronged standard for a
work to be labeled obscene. According to the Miller test for a work to be labeled obscene it
must meet all three prongs of the test. The three prongs are:
1: “Whether the average person, applying contemporary community
standards, would find that the work taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient
interest;

Kurt Rempe 8
2: whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual
conduct or excretory functions specifically defined by applicable state law;
and
3: whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious artistic, political, or
scientific value” (Miller v. California, 1973).
This standard provided states greater freedom to prosecute those individuals who would
send out obscene material to the public. Miller v. California (1973) provided the United
States with the definition for obscenity that is still used today. However, along with the
definition and Miller test that the Supreme Court created, the FCC has yet to create a test or
definition for indecency. An important note to add here is that although the Supreme Court
has had repeated opportunities, most recently with Fox vs. FCC (2012), they do not seem
interested in creating a similar test for content that is labeled indecent.
The most prominent case that involves indecency in broadcasting was FCC v.
Pacifica Foundation (1978). It was in this case that the Supreme Court defined the power
that the FCC has over indecent material as it applied to broadcasting. The case stems from
the radio station WBAI based out of New York City and owned by the Pacifica Foundation
that played the popular comedian George Carlin’s comedy routine labeled “Filthy Words”
during a weekday morning. The station warned those individuals in the listening area
before the broadcast that they would be playing the routine that included some strong
language and if they did not want to hear these “Filthy Words” then they should tune to a
different station or turn off their radios. The “Filthy Words” routine was a twelve-minute
monologue in which George Carlin discussed words that could not be said on broadcast
airwaves. Throughout the routine Carlin listed the words and then continued to repeat
them. A man who was driving with his son at the time tuned into the station in the middle

Kurt Rempe 9
of the routine unknowing the content that was used throughout the routine and then sent a
complaint to the FCC.
Throughout the case the dissenting argument was that an individual who switches
to a radio station, makes a decision to take part in an ongoing public discourse and if they
did not enjoy the content then they should either turn off their radio or switch to another
station. The Supreme Court eventually ruled that, “Broadcast media are intrusive and are
seen and heard everywhere. The airwaves come into the home unbidden. The audience
has no idea what is being broadcast until the receiver is turned on” (FCC v. Pacifica, 1978).
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the FCC because they believed the case appealed to the
government’s interests in shielding children form potentially offensive material, and
ensuring that unwanted speech does not enter an individual’s home (FCC v. Pacifica, 1978).
These three Supreme Court cases created the FCC’s basic outlines for what works are
considered indecent or if a work is labeled obscene, and as one can tell by the rules
established here, the definitions are extremely vague and difficult to understand.
A study of television manager’s understanding of indecency regulation, found that “a
healthy minority of the respondents seemed unable to describe where a line might be, or
how one would begin to identify it” (Loomis, 2008, p. 53). This shows that even some of
those people responsible for the television content for broadcast stations at a local level do
not have an understanding of what the FCC would consider indecent.
The majority of articles reviewed for this study involved law reviews on the
definition of indecency and the FCC’s rulings on several court cases (Richards, 2012;
Samoriski, 1995; Blevins, 2011). When analyzing indecency in the television media and
comparing broadcast to non-broadcast networks indecency regulation one must analyze,

Kurt Rempe 10
thoroughly, the history on rulings involving indecency, and the history of the FCC’s
regulatory rules on indecency. One must also understand why it is that the FCC can
regulate broadcast networks but not those non-broadcast networks. There are also several
issues that pertain directly to the issue of MVPD’s and their influence on broadcast
networks. Issues such as the must carry laws, safe harbor hours, and retransmission
consent and several more.
When analyzing the difference between broadcast and non-broadcast indecency
regulations, one of the many important issues to understand is the must carry laws that
MVPD’s must obey. The must carry laws stem from the court case U.S. v. Midwest Video
(1972). During this case the Supreme Court enforced the FCC’s ability to require MVPD’s
that have over 3,500 subscribers to include broadcast signals in their packaging. It is from
this ruling that the argument of indecency being such a large issue between cable and
broadcast networks, this ruling was also upheld in Turner v. FCC.
At the end of the case of FCC v. Pacifica (1978) the FCC also felt the need to create a
time during the day when indecent material is allowed to air on the broadcast spectrum
and created the Safe Harbor hours. The Safe Harbor hours are from 10 P.M. to 6 A.M. for
broadcasters both on radio and television to air content that is indecent but not obscene.
The reason that these hours in specific were chosen is because the Supreme Court believed
that it is more likely that children will already be asleep by 10 P.M. and that they would not
be up by 6 A.M. so they will not see or hear this indecent material during these hours
(Samoriski, 1995). These rules were put into place to protect content that could be
damaging to children.

Kurt Rempe 11
However, the safe harbor hours, as well as all other indecency regulations only
apply to broadcast television and not cable programming. This means that if cable
programmers wanted to play indecent material at any time during the day they would not
get fined by the FCC because at this point in time the FCC does not have any regulatory
control for a television program’s content in cable networks programs and cable does not
have to abide by the safe harbor hours. However, cable companies do abide by the safe
harbor hours because they do not want to give the FCC any more reason to begin regulating
cable television more seriously. They also seem to abide by the safe harbor hours because
if they were to play programs that had some indecent content all throughout the day then
there is the belief that these networks would not be able to gain advertisers for the
programming (Indecent Broadcasting, 2013).
When analyzing the difference in indecency regulations between broadcast and non-
broadcast networks, one must also understand retransmission consent. Retransmission
consent means that cable and other MVPD’s will pay those broadcast stations to carry their
signals along with their basic packaging. Since there has been some individuals in
communities still wanting these local broadcast networks for their news content, these
local broadcast television networks felt that they should be paid for the MVPD’s to carry
their signals in their packaging. The reason that retransmission consent is so important to
this research is due to the fact that some local broadcast affiliated stations are in fact being
paid by the MVPD to include their signal into their packaging. This is due to the fact that
individuals in local communities watch these local broadcast affiliates for their signals
which have been labeled as the public’s airwaves, which are free to the citizens of the
communities (McConnell, 2005).

Kurt Rempe 12
Of the quantitative studies found that had an influence on this study, the majority of
them involved the analysis of content, such as violence or sexuality, from certain programs
and the authors discovering if specific content has an influence on the individual being
exposed to the program (Gottfried, Vaala, Bleakley, Hennessy & Jordan, 2013; Palazzolo &
Roberto, 2011; Brocato, Gentile, Laczniak, Maier & Ji-Song, 2013; Lee, Hust, Zhang, & Zhang,
2011).
For example, if there is sexual violence in a program it has been found that men and
women react differently to acts of sexual violence in terms of whom they feel to be guilty
and whom they believe to be innocent based on the information presented in the program
(Lee, et al., 2011). These studies have also analyzed if different genres of television
programming have a larger effect on the viewer. Gottfried et al., (2013) found that, in
regards to sexuality shown in television, the genres of comedy and drama have different
impacts on how the viewer sees sexual behavior. The data gathered showed that comedies
made individuals have a more positive attitude towards sex, whereas dramas made
individuals to think more negatively about sex (Gottfried, et al, 2013).
In regards to violence in television, the study done by Brocato, Gentile, Laczniak,
Maier, and Ji-Song (2010) showed that violence in television advertising, no matter how
brief, had an effect on children. The authors gathered data that showed children under the
age of 12 showed more tendencies of violence after watching programming that had
advertising that showed violence than those children who did not have the programming
that included violent advertising (Brocato, et al., 2010). The authors however did find that
if children co-view the violent content with a parent than the parent has the ability to dull
the effects of the content on their child (Brocato, et al., 2010).

Kurt Rempe 13
The study from Palazzolo and Roberto (2011) also discussed how, an individual who
is involved in a domestic violence act with a partner can be depicted by the media to lead
the consumer of said media to blame certain members negatively. The authors found that
if the media depicted the perpetrator of a domestic violence act as the one at fault, than the
consumer would feel anger towards them and feel that they should be put in jail. However,
if the media depicted the victim as the one at fault for the act than the consumer would feel
anger towards them and feel that they deserved what happened (Palazzolo & Roberto,
2011).
These studies serve as a layout as to what issues have been considered the most
widely thought to have an effect on the individuals that view them. These studies show
what effects certain content can have on the consumer and whether that effect is positive
or negative. These studies have shown that violence, sexuality and coarse language being
shown in television does have an effect on the viewer. With this being the case and how
there are so many more programs arising that have violence, sexuality and coarse language
in their content, this study analyzed if viewers feel non-broadcast networks that show this
content should be regulated the same as those broadcast networks.
There have also been studies that analyze if cable or other MVPD’s are becoming
universally used by consumers and are showing that MVPD services are becoming
universally available. When analyzing what universal service is in terms of the FCC’s
definition when creating new policies, they state that a “universal service is the principle
that all Americans should have access to communications services” (FCC Encyclopedia:
Universal Service, 2014). The growth of MVPD’s has expanded over the years and in 2010
analysts projected that within a few years, approximately 90% of the population is likely to

Kurt Rempe 14
have access to an MVPD (Crawford, 2010). As stated above however, in 2013 the mark was
near 90% being shown as at the 86% mark at this time.
There is also the issue of “cord cutting” that has begun to steadily rise in the past
few years. “Cord cutting” is when an individual who attained his or her television
programming in the past from broadcast signals or non-broadcast MVPD’s has decided to
leave those older ways of acquiring television programming and now go to digital
platforms such as the Internet to attain their television programming. An recent article
published in Advertising Age (November 12, 2013) indicates that the top four publicly
traded cable operators lost around 340,000 subscribers during the third quarter of 2012.
That figure rose to 499,000 subscribers during the third quarter of 2013 (Poggi, 2013).
This data provides support for the idea that online viewing from platforms such as Netflix
and Hulu are providing increased amounts of consumers to start “cord cutting” and going
away from broadcast and non-broadcast television altogether. Delivery platforms such as
Netflix and Hulu allow for a unique and personalized content for each user. Platforms such
as Netflix have now exceeded the 33 million-subscriber mark in the United States (Stelter,
2014). This shows that over the years these digital media platforms have grown and
gained increasingly large amounts of consumers to pull them away from traditional media
outlets.
Although non-broadcast networks do not have indecency standards to abide by,
they still do not use indecent language in their content as much as one would be expected.
The reason for this is because many believe that advertisers would drop advertising from
the programs (Indecent Broadcasting, 2013). When indecent programming is aired, not
only are the networks that air that content accountable, but also the advertisers that are

Kurt Rempe 15
knowingly supporting the programming by advertising during that program (Indecent
Broadcasting, 2013). Advertisers do not want to be seen as supportive of content that can
be controversial because they feel that in supporting negative program content will give
them a negative view to those consumers they are hoping to appeal to.
The indecency regulations that broadcast networks need to follow along with
provide a sort of chilling effect on these networks because there is no clear definition of
what the FCC labeled as indecent that they are not allowed to put on air. Due to the FCC’s
definition of indecency being so vague and difficult for the broadcaster to understand, the
FCC has in effect created a type of “chilling effect” on the broadcasters. With the maximum
fine for airing something the FCC deems indecent being $325,000 dollars, (Kaye &
Sapolsky, 2009) it is clear to see what it is that keeps broadcast networks from airing
anything that they think could be pushing the boundaries. Broadcast networks are under
this control from the FCC while cable programming is free from this chilling effect, even
though broadcast networks are included in the same packages at cable networks provided
by MVPD’s.
Several articles discuss how broadcast networks are at an unfair disadvantage
compared to cable networks. Throughout the digital transition of television, cable
television has been able to provide consumers with a vastly expanded amount of
programming in comparison to broadcast (Waterman, 2010). This is because cable not
only attains revenue from advertising on their networks, but they also get revenue for each
subscriber. With the extra revenue that cable networks get they are able to afford higher
production costs as well as being able to bring in more expensive and well-known talent to
work in their programming (Waterman, 2010).

Kurt Rempe 16
There was however, one study that has a direct impact on this study’s research.
Loomis (2008) created a study which surveyed 453 general managers (GMs) of local
network affiliates from around the United States with the hope of analyzing the
relationship between the affiliates and the networks, opinions of indecency regulation (for
broadcast and non-broadcast networks), and how they felt about the standards they are to
uphold as local stations serving a local community. The GM’s felt that more government
regulation would not be the answer to the indecency question.
The study done by Loomis (2008) found that the GMs, “do not feel broadcasters
should be held to higher ethical standards than cable channels” (Loomis, 2008). In terms of
indecency regulation between broadcast versus non-broadcast networks some of the GMs
“implied the perceived unfairness of holding broadcast television up to different standards
than cable (non-broadcast) networks” (Loomis, 2008). The research went on to show that
the majority of the GMs felt that broadcast and non-broadcast networks should not be held
to different standards when it comes to indecency regulation.
Social Responsibility Theory
This study embraces the social responsibility theory to lead the research. The
reason that social responsibility theory was used for this research is because this theory
was the basis for indecency regulation. In 1947, the Hutchins Commission “argued that the
U.S. mass media have a social responsibility for carrying out certain essential functions
including the dissemination of entertainment that does not threaten public morals”
(Klieman, 1986, p. 285). Social responsibility theory allows free press without any
censorship but at the same time the content of the press should be discussed in public
panel and media should accept any obligation from public interference or professional self-

Kurt Rempe 17
regulations or both (Middleton, 2009).
The social responsibility theory gives total media freedom in one hand but the
external controls in other hand. The social responsibility theory moves beyond simply
reporting facts to investigative reporting. The theory assisted in creating professionalism
in media by setting up a high level of accuracy and truth in the information being reported
(Kleiman, 1986). It also allows for everyone to have the ability to express their opinion
about the media while stating that the media must take care of social responsibility and if
they do not, than the government or another organization will.
Several individuals who feel that television is still in need of networks to keep a
closer eye on what content that they put on air call on the social responsibility of the
broadcasters. FCC Commissioner James H. Quello stated, “Today there is an overwhelming
public outcry against excessive, explicit, deviant sex and glamorized violence and brutality
on the air. It requires responsible action by the FCC and by public service minded
broadcasters” (Lipschultz, 1997, p. 17). This brings to the forefront of the social
responsibility of broadcasters to understand that they are there to serve the public’s
interests in regards to what they air. Social responsibility theory strongly challenges
libertarian assumptions that the marketplace forces push the mass media to serve the
public to the best of its abilities (Kleiman, 1986). There is a belief that mass media enforces
social norms as a result of exposure to certain conditions that deviate from the professed
public morality. Mass media can also lead the average individual to become more
narcotized as a result of the flood of content shown from the media (Lazarsfeld & Merton,
1948).
This study analyzed where it is that collegestudents and averageconsumers go for

Kurt Rempe 18
their television programming. This studyalso analyzed if consumersof television
programming understand the differences, in terms ofindecency regulation, that each media
platform is under. Whenusing thesocial responsibility theory to analyzing indecency in
television programming, it is important to note that all television should serve the“public
good,” and not just thosebroadcast networks (Ganaratne & Hasim, 1996). Broadcast
networks haveaffiliatesthroughout the country wheretheir jobis to appeal to the local
communities that they are basedin with what they decide to put on air. Along with these
broadcast affiliates, cable providers arelocated in theselocal communities aswell and also
must be held to standards that would serve to benefit the public.
This is where the social responsibility theory comesinto play. Broadcast television
affiliates are small stationsthroughout the country; however, these affiliates are becoming
increasingly overwhelmed by theemerging competition that has arisenfrom those non-
broadcast networks that MVPD’s provide. The programming that MVPD’s provideto
consumers are immense, allowing each viewer to have at least one network, orstation, that
appeals to what they are looking forin their television viewing experience. With the
increasing amount of new networks that can appeal to nicheaudiences, thesebroadcast
network affiliates must appeal specifically to their community andbe more appealing than
those non-broadcast networks being offered by MVPD’s.
Broadcast televisionnetworks attain most of their revenuethrough advertising.
However, since the emergence of cable and other digital televisionviewing platforms, the large
amount of advertising dollars that broadcast television networks andtheir syndicates attained
in the past have startedto shift away from thesebroadcast networks, to their competitors.
The continued growth of theInternet has “destroyed the traditional businessmodel by giving

Kurt Rempe 19
advertisersfarsuperior waysto reachtheir prospective consumers” (McChesney, 2012).
Television however, is still the largest media outlet in terms ofadvertising dollarsattained
(Berman, Battino & Feldman, 2011). Throughthe MVPD’s as well as thedigital platforms
there is programming that is specific to certain demographics, thereforeadvertisers find these
networks and digital platformsmore appealingbecausethey canattempt to appeal specifically
to the audience that their product is relevant too. It is due to this that the broadcast stations
have started to pull away from theirsocial responsibility and “attend more to the interests of
the advertisersthan thoseof the audience” (Kleiman, 1986).
If these broadcast networks were put at the same level in terms of indecency
regulation then it would bemuch easierfor them to attain higher advertising revenue, while
also providingthe content that is beneficial to their local communities, whichis their primary
responsibility. This would be by those broadcast networks beingmore willing to take the
risks that those non-broadcast networks are able to takein terms ofthe content in their
programming that can attract massive audiences. The social responsibility theorybelieves
that these broadcast network affiliatesneedto appeal specifically to theircommunity because
it is their responsibility as a media. However, if non-broadcast networks areable to appeal to
viewers by being ableto air nearly anything that they want in their programming content,
than those broadcast network affiliates areat an unfair disadvantage.
Research Questions and Hypotheses
This study has a series of research questions, as well as hypotheses to analyze the
survey data. One of the main issues analyzed is an examination of whether viewers are
able to determine if certain networks are either broadcast or non-broadcast. This research
also analyzed if age had any impact on an individual’s understanding of the difference

Kurt Rempe 20
between broadcast and non-broadcast networks. This meaning that there could be no
difference in understanding what the difference is between broadcast and non-broadcast
networks on the grounds of an individual’s age, and in fact, individuals of all ages may not
understand the difference. In order to see if individuals involved in the study know the
difference between broadcast and non-broadcast television the following research
question was proposed:
RQ1: Does age affect the knowledge of an individual in understanding whether a network
is either broadcast or non-broadcast?
Throughout prior research articles it has been proposed that while cable and other
MVPD’s have become universally used over the past 5 years, younger television viewer are
“cutting the cord” and moving to digital sources for their television content. In order to
analyze if MVPD’s are becoming universally used, or if younger individuals are starting to
“cut the cord” the following research question is proposed:
RQ2: Does age affect where an individual went to watch the majority of their television in
2013?
In terms of analyzing if an individual feels that broadcast and non-broadcast
networks should be regulated the same the following research question is proposed to
analyze which variables affect their decision:
RQ3: What variables affect whether an individual feels that broadcast and non-broadcast
networks should be regulated the same?
RQ4: Does the individual’s understanding of whether a network is broadcast or non-
broadcast affect their feeling of whether indecency regulation is in need of a change or
should remain the same?

Kurt Rempe 21
In terms of an issue that is extremely important for people to understand is that the
definition that the FCC has for indecency. For analysis of the FCC’s definition of indecency
as vague and if an individual thinks it is easy to understand:
H1: The more an individual knows about indecency the more likely they will think
indecency is easy to understand.
A final aspect that will be analyzed is if individuals who participate in the study feel
that indecency regulation is needed for television programming as well as analyzing which
aspects of television content should be regulated most strictly. In order to analyze this
aspect of indecency regulation in today’s society the following research question and
hypothesis are proposed.
RQ5: Does age affect which topics of television content that an individual feels should be
regulated most strictly?
H2: Age will not affect an individuals understanding of indecency regulation.
Methodology
To answer these research questions and hypotheses, the survey methodology was
employed. Surveys have been used several times in prior studies that analyzed if certain
content had an effect on an individual. Surveys appear to be one of the best ways at
gathering mass amounts of data for research in which the author is looking to gather
quantitative data. The survey proposed would allow for a large amount of data that will be
able to provide analysis for the study. The survey conducted collected a large number of
responses (N=316).
Methods such as content analysis and other experiments would not do well to
gather enough data to allow the author to analyze the variables. The research proposed

Kurt Rempe 22
needs to gather data from a wide variety of people in order to analyze the variables and to
understand if the significant sample of individuals understand the variables being
investigated in the research questions and hypotheses. Methods such as experiments and
qualitative small group discussions would not be able to get enough information. What is
needed for this study is a large number of individuals to answer a series of questions that
can be brought in and used as data that can then be tested to see if there is statistical
significance in a large group of individuals.
The independent variables that will be measured in the research questions are as
follows. For the first, second and fifth research questions proposed, as well as the second
hypothesis the independent variable is age. The reason that age is important to this study
is to see if there is a difference between ages and if an individual understands the
difference between a broadcast and non-broadcast network. The survey collected two
major age groups for analysis. The two groups were composed firstly with those college
aged students aged 18 to 23 (n=171) and secondly those individuals ages 24 and above
(n=141). The reason for the split at the age of 23 is because it is believed that those users
who are ages 23 and below grew up watching television that was brought to them by
subscription to an MVPD, while those respondents ages 24 and above are more likely to, at
some point, watched the majority of their television through over the air broadcasts. This
is because the universal use of those MVPD’s is a relatively new theory that may have not
been an issue when those older respondents were growing up watching television. By
using these two groups for age, we will be able to analyze if those individuals in the older
group had a better knowledge of indecency regulation than the younger group, or perhaps
the other way around.

Kurt Rempe 23
For the first research question the dependent variable is if an individual
understands the difference between broadcast and non-broadcast networks. For the
second research question the dependent variable is where the individual went to watch
their television for the majority of 2013. For the fifth research question the dependent
variable will be which topics of television content an individual feels should be regulated
and how strictly they should be regulated. For the second hypothesis the dependent
variable will be the individuals understanding of indecency regulation for television.
For the third research question the independent variables will also include age, but
will also include an individuals understanding if a network is broadcast or non-broadcast,
and their feelings toward the FCC’s current definition of indecency. The dependent
variable for the third research question is the individual’s feelings towards whether
broadcast and non-broadcast networks should be regulated differently or the same. For
the fourth research question the independent variable is the individuals understanding if a
network is broadcast or non-broadcast while the dependent variable will be if the current
standard for indecency regulation should be changed or remain the same.
For the first hypothesis proposed the independent variable is the knowledge that
the individual has about indecency regulation for television content. The dependent
variable for the first hypothesis will be whether the individual feels that indecency
regulation that is enforced by the FCC is easy to understand or not.
Respondents and Procedures
Respondents were recruited throughout February and March of 2014; through
either paper surveys distributed through a Midwestern universities classes that were
collected by the researcher, or through email solicitation through a church congregation in

Kurt Rempe 24
the Midwest’s weekly e-blast to take an online survey. Respondents of the survey were
anonymous and did not receive any compensation for taking the survey.
Results
From the total sample (N=316), 54% (n=171) of respondents were ages 23 and
below, while 46% (n=145) of respondents were ages 24 and above. The sample was 53%
(n=168) male and 47% (n=146) female with 2 respondents neglecting to answer. The
mean age of the study was 30 (N=316, SD=15.12). The age split at 23 was used to analyze if
age has any influence on if an individual has a better understanding on the difference
between broadcast and non-broadcast networks.
Through this study one of the main goals was to analyze if the majority of
consumers not only could understand the current indecency regulations in effect today, but
also to see if respondents knew that the FCC has no ability to regulate indecency on non-
broadcast networks. What the data indicated was that 75% (n=237) of the 316
respondents did not know that the FCC could not regulate indecency on non-broadcast
networks.
Yet another finding that should be reported about the data collected was, when
analyzing an individuals understanding of a network being either broadcast or non-
broadcast, 77.5% (n=245) of the respondents thought that the CW, a broadcast network,
was non-broadcast or did not know which type of network it was. Along with this network,
the majority of individuals thought that both CNN and ESPN, both non-broadcast networks,
were broadcast networks or did not know which type of network they were, CNN – 54.2%
(n=177), ESPN – 56.6% (n=179). The data on the remainder of the networks indicated that
on average, users got 6.86 out of the ten networks listed correctly. Of the 316 respondents

Kurt Rempe 25
to the survey, only 8.2% (n=26) were able to list all ten of the networks listed into the
proper type of network, while .6% respondents (n=2) got all ten of the networks incorrect.
Throughout analysis of the results of this data, the results indicated that the high
majority of respondent’s households, that being 89.2% (n=282), were currently subscribed
to a cable or satellite provider. This goes along with this study’s assumption that cable is
becoming universal used that the high majority of the population subscribes.
This data also indicates that in terms of all the respondents surveyed MVPD’s are
becoming universal used that a high majority of television viewers use to watch their
programming. If the data was also to include those users who watch television online it
would show that 95.6% (n=302) of respondents either watch their television through an
MVPD or online and only 4.4% of respondents (n=14) either watch television through over
the air broadcasts or do not watch television at all.
Research Question 1: Does age affect the knowledge of an individual in understanding
whether a network is either broadcast or non-broadcast?
A one-way ANOVA test was run on three different age groups. The first age group
was at the media age of the study 23 and below (n=171) M=6.60, SD=1.84). The second age
group was from 24 to the mean age of 30 (n=55) M=7.11, SD=2.04. While the final age
group was from age 31 onward (n=90) M=7.19, SD=1.88. This test was run to analyze
which age group had a better understanding on whether a network was broadcast or non-
broadcast and found statistical significance F(2,213)=3.44 p<.05. This meaning that age
does impact the respondents understanding of whether a network is broadcast or non-
broadcast. The Tukey post-hoc test reveals the statistical significance for those under the

Kurt Rempe 26
age of 23 had a better understanding between whether a network was broadcast or non-
broadcast.
Research Question 2: Does age affect where an individual went to watch the majority of
their television in 2013?
Through running a frequency test, the data found that 71.5% (n=226) of
respondents had watched the majority of their television programming through an MVPD
(cable or satellite) in the year 2013. The data also indicated however that 24% of
respondents (n=76) had “cut the cord,” and watched the majority of their television
through an online provider such as Netflix or Hulu. The one-way ANOVA test indicated that
age was a factor for where people went to watch television in 2013 F(4,311) = 11.52,
p<.001.
A Tukey HSD post hoc test was run to compare the number of groups that indicate
there is a statistical significance between the different places respondents went to view
television and their age. The Tukey results indicated that the ages of those respondents
who watched the majority of their television content in 2013 through cable (CI=31.35 ±
1.142, SD=15.942) had varied significantly from ages of those respondents who watched
the majority of television through satellite (CI=39.26 ± 2.962, SD=16.492), as well as
varying significantly with the ages of those respondents who watched television through
Internet services (CI=21.93 ± .554, SD=4.829). The mean ages of respondents who watched
television through satellite primarily also showed statistical significance with not only
cable, but also the mean ages of those respondents who watched the majority of their
television programming through Internet services.

Kurt Rempe 27
Besides those respondents who went to cable or satellite for their television
programming, the respondents who stated that they watched the majority of their
television through over the air broadcasts (CI=40.27 ± 5.641, SD=18.709) varied
significantly when comparing with the ages of those respondents who watched the
majority of their television through the Internet. The only other answer that respondents
chose was that they did not watch television at all during 2013.
Research Question 3: What variables affect whether an individual feels that broadcast and
non-broadcast networks should be regulated the same?
To analyze the data that was collected for this research question, a regression
analysis was run. What the data indicated was that the higher an individual scores on their
knowledge of whether a television network was broadcast or non-broadcast they would
then think that there should be less regulation (𝛽 = −.123, SE=.075, p<.05) while those
individuals who thought the FCC indecency definition was vague thought that there should
be more indecency regulation (𝛽 = .155, 𝑆𝐸 = .232). The data was statistically significant
in its findings; however, after examining the regression analysis, the data also indicates that
these factors only predicted 19% of the variation in feeling broadcast and non-broadcast
networks should be regulated the same (Adj. R2 = .189, p<.001).
Research Question 4: Does the individuals understanding of whether a network is
broadcast or non-broadcast affect their feeling of whether indecency regulation is in need
of a change or should remain the same?
For this research question, a correlation test was run and found that there was no
statistical significance. This means that an individual’s ability to identify broadcast and

Kurt Rempe 28
non-broadcast networks had no impact on their feelings towards the necessity of changing
the indecency regulations definition that is currently employed by the FCC.
Hypothesis 1: The more an individual knows about indecency the more likely they will
think indecency is easy to understand.
For this hypothesis a regression analysis was performed between if an individual
thought that the current FCC indecency definition was easy to understand and if an
individual knew the FCC had the ability to regulate broadcast but not non-broadcast
networks for indecency, the individuals feelings on if the current FCC definition for
indecency was the best definition, and if the individual felt that they could apply the
current FCC definition to television content in able to find indecent programming.
The results indicate that the more a respondent thought that the current FCC
definition was easy to understand, the more likely they were to think that the current
indecency regulation is the best definition to regulate indecency (𝛽 =.325, SE=.058,
p<.001), as well as the more likely they were to believe that they could apply the current
definition to television content to find indecency(𝛽 = .370, 𝑆𝐸 = .050, 𝑝 < .001).
However, the data also indicates that there is no statistical significance between
respondents thinking that the definition is easy to understand and their knowledge that the
FCC regulates broadcast television networks but does not have the ability to regulate non-
broadcast networks. The data was statistically significant in its findings; however, after
examining the regression analysis, the data indicates that these factors only predicted 35%
of the variance in believing that the current indecency definition is the best definition
(N=316) Adj. R2 = .351, p<.001.
Research Question 5: Does age affect which topics of television content that an individual

Kurt Rempe 29
feels should be regulated most strictly?
For each of the topics of television content that individuals were asked to regulate,
the data found that age did have an effect on if an individual should be regulated most
strictly. The data results indicated that there was statistical significance between age and
the amount of indecency regulation respondents felt should be put on each topic of
television content.
A moderate positive relationship was found between age and violence in television
content (r(316) = .43, p<.001). For sexual content in television programming a moderate
positive relationship was also found (r(316) = .42, p<.001). There was also a moderate
positive relationship found for language in television content (r(316) = .46 p<.001). For
drug use in television content there was also a moderate positive relationship (r(316) =
.42, p<.001). And lastly there was also a moderate positive relationship found for
suggestive dialogue in television content (r(316) = .46, p<.001). The positive correlation
shown in all of the topics in television content and age means that the age of the
respondent did have an affect on their feelings towards the amount of regulation that they
felt was necessary for each of the television topics.
Hypothesis 2: Age will not affect an individuals understanding of indecency regulation.
The data indicated that the older that a respondent of the survey was, the less they
felt that they could apply the FCC’s current definition of indecency to television, r(316) = -
.139, p<.05, the less that they thought the definition was good, r(316) = -.121, p<.05, and
the less they thought the definition was easy to understand, r(316) = -.214, p<.001. The
data however, was not statistical significant between if the age of an individual had an

Kurt Rempe 30
effect on their thoughts that the current indecency definition was the best definition to
regulate indecency in television.
Discussion and Conclusion
This study discovered that the majority of individuals had some understanding
regarding which television networks were broadcast and which were non-broadcast.
However, this research also indicated that there were several networks that individuals did
not know if they were broadcast or non-broadcast, such as CNN, CW and ESPN. Another
key finding of this study was that the majority of respondents thought that the current
definition of indecency proposed by the FCC is vague and not easy to understand and that
the FCC should look into a new definition of indecency so that it will be easier for television
executives to follow and see if the content that they are deciding to air will not be at risk of
fines. It is due to the findings that are shown in this study that suggests that the FCC should
analyze their current definition of indecency as well as consider regulating both non-
broadcast and broadcast networks equally so that one set of networks would not have an
unfair advantage over the others.
The data collected from the survey for this study indicated that when the
respondents of the study tried to figure out which networks were broadcast in comparison
to those networks were non-broadcast the data indicated that, when splitting the group
into three separate groups (age 23 and below, 24 to 30, and 31 and above) that age was a
factor in an individuals knowledge towards what type of network each was. The test run
showed that those respondents in the study at or under the age of 23 had a better
understanding on whether a network was broadcast or non-broadcast.

Kurt Rempe 31
The data collected from this survey however also indicates some statistics that
actually go against one another. For example, in research question three the data collected
indicates that those individuals that thought the FCC’s current indecency definition was
vague thought that there should be more indecency regulation. This finding does not make
logical sense; the more that a respondent thinks the definition is vague than it would be
thought that they would feel that there should be less regulation since they do not
understand the current definition. This finding is a strong reason why the indecency
definition currently being employed by the FCC should be analyzed and redefined so that it
is less confusing to not only the common citizen, but also so that those television executives
are able to abide by the regulation more easily.
The data collected also indicates that the more knowledge that an individual had in
terms of a network being broadcast or non-broadcast then the more likely that they were
to think that there should be less regulation of indecency on television. What this means is
that the better an understanding an individual has in terms of television networks the more
likely that they were going to think that indecency regulation is not necessary. However,
this is another example of where the data contradicts itself. From research question four,
there was no statistical significance between an individuals understanding of whether a
network was broadcast or non-broadcast and if that understanding had an affect on
whether they felt that indecency regulation was in need of a change or to stay the same. So
while part of research question three shows statistical significance between an individuals
knowledge of whether a network is broadcast or non-broadcast and their feeling that there
should be less regulation, research question four indicates that there is no statistical
significance between an individuals understanding of a network being broadcast or non-

Kurt Rempe 32
broadcast and their feeling towards if the regulation currently used by the FCC should
remain the same or change.
Another crucial finding of the study is between where respondents went in 2013 for
the majority of their television programming and their age. The data indicates that MVPD’s
are becoming universally used, showing that nearly 90% of the respondents in the study
currently were subscribed to an MVPD. The data also indicates that younger people are
tending to cut the cord more than older respondents are, which it is believed is due to the
idea that the younger generation is more technologically adept. This also could be due to
the fact that a majority of those younger respondents were in college and therefore were
unlikely to have enough money to pay for their television through an MVPD. The data also
showed that older consumers are the majority of those who still attain their television
programming through over the air broadcasts. In terms of cable and satellite subscribers
the average age was different as well showing that the older consumers tend to use satellite
subscriptions over cable subscriptions in order to watch their television content.
This study also found that, when analyzing the different topics of television content
there are certain topics that respondents feel should be regulated more than others. The
data collected indicated that respondents on average felt that of the five topics of television
content listed, (violence, sexual content, language, drug use, and suggestive dialogue) that
violence, sexual content and language should be regulated more than drug use or
suggestive dialogue. The researcher believes that the reason that suggestive dialogue was
rated less likely to need regulation by the respondents is due to respondents not knowing
what suggestive dialogue is, where as violence, sexual content, language and drug use are
easy for respondents to understand what exactly it is.

Kurt Rempe 33
When analyzing if age had any effect on an individuals understanding of indecency
regulation, the data gathered by this study indicated that age did not have effect the
respondents understanding of indecency regulation. However, the data did show that they
older the respondent was, the less likely they were to think that they could apply the
current FCC definition of indecency to television, the less likely they were to think that the
definition was good, and the less likely they were to think that the definition was easy to
understand.
The opposite is true for those younger respondents. The younger respondents
thought that there was less need for regulation than older respondents. One possible
definition for this finding is that those younger respondents do not have the responsibility
of having children that they want to protect from that content that they may think could
harm their children if they were to see it on television. Along with this possibility is the
ideal that with age comes wisdom, and as these respondents start to get older, the more
regulation they may start to feel is necessary. Another possible reasoning for this is that
the younger generation is growing up in a different time of television programming where
violence and sexual content is everywhere. They have the ability to go on the Internet and
watch whatever type of content that they want where as the older generation did not have
the Internet and television content was not as provocative as it is today.
Throughout this study it is clear to see through the data gathered that the current
definition of indecency as defined by the FCC to regulate television content is vague and
difficult to understand for college students as well as average adults. This has been a
reoccurring theme from publications that have looked into indecency regulation in
television in the past years. The indecency regulation that the FCC has over broadcast

Kurt Rempe 34
television networks is unfairly imposed on them, while those non-broadcast networks do
not have to deal with regulations from the FCC at all.
With only a quarter of respondents knowing that the FCC has the ability to regulate
indecency on broadcast networks but not on non-broadcast networks the results suggest
that since the majority of viewers have no knowledge of what networks are broadcast and
non-broadcast that all television networks should be regulated the same. This is what the
research is suggesting, that indecency regulation should be equally established and
regulated amongst all television networks, not only those broadcast networks. The FCC
should analyze their regulations that are used today to discuss if the regulations should be
abolished from television networks altogether, or if the current indecency regulations that
are currently being applied to broadcast television should start to be applied to those non-
broadcast networks.
It is the recommendation of this researcher that both broadcast and non-broadcast
television be regulated equally due to this fact. One possible way that the FCC could put
this into place is by redefining their current definition of indecency and creating a test for
indecency that is easy for those television managers to follow. If the FCC was to do this
then it would be much easier for those television managers who control what content they
air to decide if certain content fits their standards while not crossing the indecency
boundaries. This would have a positive effect on the television industry by, in a sense,
leveling the playing field between broadcast networks and non-broadcast networks so that
their programming could be on an equal level in terms of quality as well as content.
Since MVPD’s are becoming the industry norm for television providers, then why is
it that broadcast networks should be under indecency regulation, whereas those non-

Kurt Rempe 35
broadcast networks should not be. It is not the recommendation of this study that
indecency regulation should be spread over to those non-broadcast networks, or that
indecency regulation should be gone altogether, just that the indecency regulations be the
same between all television networks.
When analyzing the data collected and connecting it with the social responsibility
theory, the researcher is able to come to the conclusion that this study will help to advance
the study of indecency regulation when analyzing the responsibility that the television
networks have to their consumers. With MVPD’ssuchas cable and satellite television
becoming universal used, the question must beasked, what level of social responsibility
should be expectedfrom those non-broadcast networks that are in the basic packagesof
MVPD’s? With the enforcement ofthe must carry laws that placebroadcast and non-
broadcast networks in the samepackaging, the social responsibility to the consumerin
television programming is no longeran issue that solely broadcast networks shouldabideby,
but instead, all television networks and stations shouldunderstand that they have a
responsibility to their consumers. It is because ofthe growth of MVPD’s becoming universally
used by consumersthat the social responsibility theory should not only be pressed on those
broadcast networks because theyareusingthe airwaves that are free to thepublic, but also
MVPD’s should realize that they have a social responsibility to their consumers as well.
In conclusion, the data that wascollected from this study indicates that thereis a
strong need forthe FCC to analyze their current definition ofindecency and their regulation
over the television medium altogether. It is the suggestion of this study that the FCC start to
regulate all television networks equally, andnot unfairly impose regulationson the broadcast
networks while those non-broadcast network free to take more risks ontheir programming.

Kurt Rempe 36
It is due to the indecency regulations imposed by the FCC on broadcast stations that they are
creating a type of chilling effect on the broadcast networks. They are not willing to take the
risks that those non-broadcast networks are starting to takewith their programming because
if they create programming that could be seen as indecent on broadcast airwaves than the FCC
has the ability to fine them up to $325,000.
If the FCC were to look into creating a test for indecency as well as redefiningtheir
current indecency definition than it would impact the television media environment
tremendously. It would be mucheasier forthose television executives to understand where
the line is that they can not crosswhen it comesto indecent content, as well as allowing them
more freedom in understanding what it is exactly that is consideredindecent and not
appropriate for television. These changes in the FCC’sindecency regulationsin effect today
would level the playing fieldforall television networks to create programming that is
beneficial to society. They would create a more competitive television programming
environment whereall networks are able to create programming that is not only enticing to
their viewers, but is also beneficial to them as well. The leveling of theplayingfield in the
television medium would help all televisionnetworks to onceagain obligetheir responsibility
to the consumers.
Limitations
The generalizability of the present study is limited by the use of college students
primarily from a single Midwestern university where a portion of them were currently
enrolled in broadcasting courses at the time. This could mean that those younger
respondents had a better understanding throughout the study because of their experience
studying in this field. Also, those individuals whom were recruited via online email were

Kurt Rempe 37
only those who are on a list of weekly email recipients from one Midwest church
congregation whereas the respondents could be more conservative than the average
American. This being said, the majority of respondents were from Michigan and very few
were from outside the state.
Another limitation comes from the fact that the surveys measure self-reports. For
example, when a respondent was asked if they thought they could apply the current
indecency definition to television content, 72.1% of respondents agreed or felt neutral
about the statement. However, 63% of respondents also found the definition of indecency
vague and confusing, as well as 25% of respondents felt that television executives would be
able to follow the definition of indecency to find indecency programming today. This data
shows that most respondents felt that they were better equipped than television executives
to find indecent programming.
Future Research
Since this is one of the only studies of its kind that analyzes the current indecency
standards, as well as the common adult and college students understanding of those
regulations and if certain networks are broadcast or non-broadcast, there will be a need for
much more research in the future. The current research suggests that the FCC should
analyze its definition of indecency and tries to figure out a way to make it clearer and easier
to understand. However, several future studies with much larger and more varied
responders should be studied to see if these results are the norm throughout the entire
country. The use of the social responsibility theory should be used at an even larger extent
in future research to analyze if television viewers feel that this definition is easy to
understand, but also to take a look into the indecency regulation and who they feel is

Kurt Rempe 38
responsible for the critical analysis of indecency in the television medium today. At the end
when analyzing the statistics and data collected for this study, since there was significance
found throughout the study between these two groups composed of primarily college
students and church going members, there is reason to continue to move forward with
future research.

Kurt Rempe 39
Appendix A
1) Gender: Male Female Other
2) Age (Must be 18 years or older to take this survey): _____________________
3) From the list provided below please specify which type of network you believe
each is.
NBC - Broadcast Non-Broadcast Don’t Know
USA - Broadcast Non-Broadcast Don’t Know
TBS - Broadcast Non-Broadcast Don’t Know
FOX - Broadcast Non-Broadcast Don’t Know
CNN - Broadcast Non-Broadcast Don’t Know
CW - Broadcast Non-Broadcast Don’t Know
CBS - Broadcast Non-Broadcast Don’t Know
TNT - Broadcast Non-Broadcast Don’t Know
ABC - Broadcast Non-Broadcast Don’t Know
ESPN - Broadcast Non-Broadcast Don’t Know
4) Does your household subscribe to a cable or satellite provider?
Yes No
5) During the majority of 2013 did you watch the majority of your television
through:
1 - Cable 2 - Satellite 3 – Television through Internet services (Hulu, Netflix)
4 – Over the air Broadcasts 5 – I did not watch Television 6 – Other
How much regulation do you feel is necessary for each topic.
6) Violence - 1-No need for regulation 2-Should be regulated but only lightly
3-The regulation in effect today is efficient enough
4-Should be regulated more than it is now 5-Should be heavily regulated
7) Sexual Content - 1-No need for regulation 2-Should be regulated but only lightly

Kurt Rempe 40
8) Language - 1-No need for regulation 2-Should be regulated but only lightly
9) Drug Use - 1-No need for regulation 2-Should be regulated but only lightly
10) Suggestive Dialogue - 1-No need for regulation 2-Should be regulated but only
lightly 3-The regulation in effect today is efficient enough
11) Did you know that the FCC regulates broadcast television networks but does not
have the ability to regulate non-broadcast networks? Yes No
The current FCC definition of indecency is “language or material that, in context,
depicts or describes, in terms of patently offensive, as measured by contemporary
community standards for the broadcast medium sexual or excretory activities or
organs.” Answer below how you perceive this definition.
12) This is a good definition of indecent programming.
1-I strongly disagree 2-I disagree 3-Neutral 4-I agree 5-I strongly agree
13) This definition is easy to understand.
14) I could apply this definition to television content to find indecent programming.
15) This is the best definition to regulate indecency.

Kurt Rempe 41
16) This definition could be adjusted.
17) This definition is too vague.
18) Television executives will be able to easily follow this definition.
19) The FCC should analyze their definition of indecency.
20) Broadcast television should be under stricter indecency regulation.
21) Broadcast television should be regulated the same as non-broadcast television.
22) Cable television should be under stricter indecency regulation.
1-I strongly disagree2-I disagree 3-Neutral 4-I agree 5-I strongly agree
23) Broadcast and non-broadcast television should be under the same indecency
regulations.
24) Indecency regulation is not necessary for any television programming.

Kurt Rempe 42
References
Actionable research on the broadband, media & entertainment industries, (2013)
Leichtman Research Group, Inc. Research Notes. Web: May 3, 2014. From:
http://www.leichtmanresearch.com/research/notes09_2013.pdf.
Basu, S. (2011). Social responsibility: The obligation of mass media. Global Media Journal: 1-
6.
Berman, S. J., Battino, B. & Feldman, K. (2011). New business models for emerging media
and entertainment revenue opportunities. Journal of Strategy & Leadership, 39(3),
44-53. DOI: 10.1108/10878571111128810.
Blevins, J. L. (2011). Applying the US safe harbor policy to television violence. Journal of
Children and Media, 5(1), 37-52. DOI: 10.1080/17482798.2011.533486.
Brocato, D. E., Gentile, D. A., Laczniak, R. N., Maier, J. A. & Ji-Song, M. (2010). Television
commercial violence: Potential effects on children. Journal of Advertising, 39, 95-107.
CBS Corp. v. FCC. 663 U.S. 122. Third Circuit Court, 2011.
Cohen, H. (2005). Chapter three: Obscenity and indecency: Constitutional principles and
Federal statutes. Edited by J.V. Barton. Television Standards? Indecency, Booze and
Violence. New York: Nova Science Publishers, Inc. 59-105.
Crawford, S. P. (2010). The looming cable monopoly. Yale Law and Policy Review. 29(34).
Web. March 24. 2013.
Creech, K. C. (1993). Chapter 5: Regulation of broadcast programming and Chapter 8: The
regulation of cable television. Electronic Media Law and Regulation. Boston: Focal
Press.
Dlouhy, J. A. & Amol, S. (2004). A new indecency standard lost in the vagueness. CQ Weekly.
62(28), 1668-1772. Web. 12. Mar. 2013.
Donnerstein, E., Wilson, B. & Linz, D. (1992). Standpoint: On the regulation of broadcast
indecency to protect children, Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 36(1):
111-117.
Edwards, C. & Williams D. (2006). The Arbitron cable television study: Exploring the
consumers relationship with cable TV.” Arbitron.com. Web. 12. Mar. 2013.
FCC Encyclopedia: Universal Service. (2014). The Federal Communications Commission.
http://fcc.gov/encyclopedia/universal-service.
Federal Communications Commission v. Fox, 567 U.S. Supreme Court 2012.

Kurt Rempe 43
Federal Communications Commission v. Pacifica. 438 U.S. 726. Supreme Court 1978.
Gottfried, J. A., Vaala, S. E., Bleakley, A., Hennessy, M. & Jordan, A. (2013). Does the effect of
exposure to TV sex on adolescent sexual behavior vary by genre? Communication
Research, 40(1), 73-95.
Gunaratne, S. & Hasim, M. S. (1996). Social responsibility theory revisited: A comparative
study of public journalism and developmental journalism. Javnost, 3(3), 97-107.
Hammond, A. S. (1996). Indecent proposals: Reason, restraint and responsibility in the
regulation of indecency. Moorad Sports & Entertainment Law Journal, 3(1)1-36.
Hanks, W. E. & Coran S. E. (1986). Federal preemption of obscenity law applied to cable
television. Journalism Quarterly 63(1) 43-47. Communication & Mass Media
Complete. Web. 20 Feb. 2013.
Higgins, J. M. & Bednarski P. J. (2005). How the fight over indecency threatens to turn the
cable industry upside down. Broadcasting & Cable 135(52) 14-16. Communication &
Mass Media Complete. Web. 3 Mar. 2013.
Hilliard, R. L., & Keith, M. C. (2007). Dirty discourse: Sex and indecency in broadcasting.
Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
Indecency in the media: Rating and restricting entertainment content. (2005). The
Congressional Digest. 84(2) 33-64.
Indecent broadcasting. Citizens for Community Values. (2013). Web. 14. Mar. 2013.
Kaye, B. K. & Sapolsky B. S. (2009). Taboo or not taboo? That is the question: Offensive
language on prime time broadcast and cable programming. Journal Of Broadcasting
& Electronic Media 53(1) 22-37. Communication & Mass Media Complete. Web. 21
Feb. 2013.
Kleiman, H. M. (1986). Indecent programming on cable television: Legal and social
dimensions. Journal Of Broadcasting & Electronic Media 30(3) 275-294.
Communication & Mass Media Complete. Web. 10 Mar. 2013.
Lazarsfeld, P. & Merton, R. (1948). Mass communication, populartaste, and organizedsocial
action. In L. Bryson (ed.), The communication ofideas. New York: Institute forReligious
and Social Studies.
Lauer, A. (2005). The circuit affirms prior decision to strike down FCC fine for CBS
broadcast of Janet Jackson’s breast during Super Bowl halftime show. Harvard
Journal of Law & Technology. Web. April 1, 2013.

Kurt Rempe 44
Lee, M. J., Hust, S., Zhang, L., & Zhang, Y. (2011). Effects of violence against women in
popular crime dramas on viewers’ attitudes related to sexual violence. Mass
Communication and Society, 14. 25-44.
Lipschultz, J. H. (2001). Broadcast Indecency: F.C.C. Regulation and the First Amendment.
Boston: Focal Press, 1-78.
Loomis, K. D. (2008). The FCC and indecency: Local television general managers’
perceptions. The International Journal on Media Management, 10, 47-63. DOI:
10.1080/14241270802000371.
McChesney, R. W. (2012). Farewell to journalism? Journalism Studies, 13, 682-694. DOI:
10.1080/1461670X.2012.679868.
McConnell, B. (2005). Cable under attack. Broadcasting & Cable 135(10), 12. Communication
& Mass Media Complete. Web. 27 Feb. 2013.
Middleton, M. (2009). Social responsibility in the media. Global Media Journal
Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 U.S. Supreme Court. 1973.
Obscene, indecent and profane broadcasts. The Federal Communications Commission, Web.
Accessed: March 20, 2013. From: www.fcc.gov/guides/obscenity-indecency-and-
profanity.
Palazzolo, K. E. & Roberto, A. J. (2011). Media representations of intimate partner violence
and punishment preferences: Exploring the role of attributions and emotions.
Journal of Applied Communications Research, 39(1), 1-18. DOI:
10.1080/00909882.2010.536843.
Poggi, J. (2013). TV cord-cutting could be worse. Retrieved from
http://adage.com/article/media/tv-cord-cutting-worse/245231/.
Richards, D. R. & Weinert, D. J. (2012). Punting in the First Amendment’s red zone: The
Supreme Court’s “indecision” on the FCC’s indecency regulations leave broadcasters
still searching for answers. Albany Law Review. 76(631).
Rideout, V. (2004). Parents, media and public policy: A Kaiser family foundation survey.
The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. Web. April 10, 2013.
www.kff.org/entmedia/upload/Parents-Media-and-Public-A-Kaiser-Family-
Foundation-Survey-Report.pdf
Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476, U.S. Supreme Court, 1957.
Samoriski, J. H. & Huffman J. L. (1995). Indecency, the Federal Communications
Commission, and the post-Sikes era: A framework for regulation. Journal Of

Kurt Rempe 45
Broadcasting & Electronic Media 39(1) 51. Communication & Mass Media Complete.
Web. 20 Feb. 2013.
Smith, P. (2012). Does the FCC’s indecency enforcement policy, regulating indecent speech in
broadcast media, violate the first and fifth amendments?. Retrieved from
http://jenner.com/system/assets/publications/8100/original/ABA_Preview4.pdf?
1326486394.
Stelter, Brian. (2014). Netflix stock soars 16% on huge subscriber growth. Web. April 22,
2014. CNN Money. From http://money.cnn.com/2014/01/22/technology/netflix-
earnings/.
Snyder, B. B. (2010). How Netflix stays ahead of shifting consumer behavior. Advertising
Age, 81(8) 28.
Telecommunications Act of 1996, Public Law 104-014, 110 U.S. Statues at Large 56.
The Cable Communications Act of 1984, Public Law 98-549, October 30, 1984, Amendment
of Communications Act of 1934
The public interest standard in television broadcasting. (1998). Advisory Committee on
Public Interest Obligations of Digital Television Broadcasters. Web. April 10, 2013.
From: govinfo.library.unt.edu/piac/novmtg/pubint.htm.
Thierer, A. (2007). Why regulate broadcasting? Toward a consistent First Amendment
standard for the information age. The Catholic University Of America Communication
Law Conspectus 431. Communication & Mass Media Complete. Web. 20 Feb. 2013.
Tillinghast, C. H. (2000). American broadcast regulation and the First Amendment: Another
look. Ames, IA, Iowa State University Press.
Wald, P. M. (1994). Doing right by our kids: A case study in the perils of making policy on
television violence. The University of Baltimore Law Review 23. 397. LexisNexis
Academic. Web. 4 Mar. 2013.
Wallman, K. (2007). Defining indecency as an artifact of cultural policy. Review Of Policy
Research 24(2)119-132. Social Sciences Full Text (H.W. Wilson). Web. 24 Feb. 2013.
Waterman, D. & Sangyong H. (2010). Broadcasters vs. MVPDs: Economic effects of digital
transition on television program supply. Info 12(2) 15-24. Communication & Mass
Media Complete. Web. 20 Feb. 2013.
Wayne C. B. & Bartee A. F. (1992). Litigating morality: American legal thought and its
English roots. Greenwood Publishing Group. pp. 64–65.

Kurt Rempe 46
Welborn, A. A. & Cohen, H. (2005). Chapter One: Regulation of broadcast indecency:
Background and legal analysis. Edited by J.V. Barton. Television Standards?
Indecency, Booze and Violence. New York: Nova Science Publishers, Inc., 1-40.
Wright, P. J. (2009). An evaluation of the Federal Communications Commission's 2007
report on TV violence. Communication Review 12(2) 174-186. Communication &
Mass Media Complete. Web. 25 Feb. 2013.

The Public's Knowledge of Broadcast and Non-Broadcast Network Indecency Regulations

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (10)

Similar to The Public's Knowledge of Broadcast and Non-Broadcast Network Indecency Regulations

Similar to The Public's Knowledge of Broadcast and Non-Broadcast Network Indecency Regulations (20)

The Public's Knowledge of Broadcast and Non-Broadcast Network Indecency Regulations