FCC issues super fine for Super Bowl incident
As expected, and with a unanimous 5-0 commissioner vote, the Federal Communications Commission today nailed 20 Viacom/CBS O&O television stations with fines of 27.5K each, the maximum allowable under current guidelines, as punishment for the Janet Jackson/Justin Timberlake Super Bowl wardrobe malfunction, resulting in a 550K bottom line for Viacom. Viacom has stated its intention to fight the Notice of Apparent Liability.
"The Commission found that this partial nudity was, in the context of the broadcast, in apparent violation of the broadcast indecency standard," wrote the FCC in announcing the finding. "It proposed the statutory maximum amount against each of the Viacom-owned CBS licensees of the 20 television stations that aired the show due to the involvement of Viacom/CBS in the planning and approval of the telecast and the history of indecency violations committed by Viacom's Infinity Broadcasting Corporation subsidiaries. Although the Commission found that other, non-Viacom owned CBS affiliates also aired the material, it did not propose forfeitures against them because of the unexpected nature of the halftime show and the apparent lack of involvement in the selection, planning, and approval of the telecast by these non-Viacom owned affiliates."
Viacom reiterated its disappointment in the ruling. "While we regret that the incident occurred and have apologized to our viewers, we continue to believe that nothing in the Super Bowl broadcast violated indecency laws," said Viacom in a release, according to the Associated Press. Furthermore, our investigation proved that no one in our company had any advance knowledge about the incident."
Viacom's decision to battle the FCC on this goes all the way back to its conference call to discuss Q1 2004 revenue results (4/23/04 RBR Daily Epaper #80). Back then, now former honcho Mel Karmazin said, "We are aggressively going to take the FCC to court if we get an opportunity." Hew added, "We'll conform and we'll fight 'em." Subsequent statements by Viacom officials have conformed to that stance.
RBR observation:
Read further into today's issue. Particularly, read the comments of Jonathan Adelstein, who notes the "...puzzling precedent" of "...failing to hold all licensees responsible for the material broadcast over their station." If this NAL can't even pass the smell test on the 8th Floor of the FCC, how is it ever supposed to bet through a court of law?
Are you reading this from a forwarded email?
