[Oops... Looks like The 463 posted 'prematurely' (so to speak). NBC now has both versions up online, so we may have just caught them in a looong transition. However, the questions discussed below that examine the potential for online video regulation still stand.]
Two Super Bowls ago, we had the Wardrobe Malfunction Moment. The FCC reacted with a big crackdown on broadcast standards that is still reverberating in media boardrooms across the country. ("Hello, Mr. Prince? I'm with the network and I understand that you'll be performing at the half-time of the Super Bowl this year. Can we talk about your song "Darling Nicki?")
This last weekend, Saturday Night Live ran a pre-recorded music video featuring a cheesed-out Justin Timberlake and Andy Samburg who waxed romantic about the value of their "dick in a box" as the best possible holiday gift this year. It was pretty damn funny. (Though, I still prefer Natalie Portman's NWA-esque send-up.)
The thing is, when you watched the video live, the pair opined about their "bleep" in a box. Yet, seemingly in an effort to best the inevitable onslaught from its "fren-emy" YouTube, NBC decided to immediately post the "uncensored" un-bleeped version that essentially confirmed the slang-term used for the object being inserted into said box.
For a blissful few days, the word "dick" was heard on computer speakers around the world as many times as its said on the playgrounds of junior highs in a single minute.
But, then something odd (or predictable) happened. When clicking on the NBC.com promo for the uncensored version today, I got the bleeped video. Apparently, Issues were considered and Second Thoughts were had.
This "Dick-in-the-Box Moment" immediately got me to thinking about our rants on how online video content policy will be at least as important as copyright policy in the coming years. We'd love to think that the FCC and other regulatory agencies would think to themselves: "Hey, this whole online video thing is going completely change how people consider and view TV. This is going make our authority over traditional broadcasting pretty darn moot, so let's just throw in the towel and watch cats that can flush toilets."
Yet, regulators don't work that way. The instinct is to extend old regulations to new delivery mechanisms. Thus, all the debate over the TV Without Frontiers legislation in the EU.
We don't know if this awareness of regulatory predilections made NBC-re-bleep a word that is a distant cousin of the Dirty Seven said much later than the highly-regulated prime time hours. It could have just bothered a single executive. Or, perhaps an advertiser blushed.
I wasn't the only one to wonder about all of this. Before the uncensored version got yanked, Caroline Palmer at the Broadcasting & Cable Beat blog asked:
Thankfully, NBC.com and YouTube immediately put up the video in all its unedited, uncensored glory.... Which moved me to call NBC and become better educated on the protocol for this sort of FCC and Indecency crackdown sidestep on late-night television. Why is it okay for the NBC website, but not the network proper? And, more importantly, does that make sense? And how long will it last before the FCC gets serious about what gets play online? I mean, you can put Jimmy and Suzie to bed before SNL comes on, but what's the point when they are online the next morning surfing around before breakfast?
When thinking about those questions, consider FCC Chairman Kevin Martin's September testimony covered by Broadcasting & Cable:
Martin said he didn't think the FCC had the authority to regulate online content, as it does with broadcast, but that doesn't mean he wouldn't like to. He told Senator Mark Pryor (D-Ark.) that he thought "all policymakers should try to make the Internet a more decent place," but said that was a challenge, pointing out that it had been challenging enough in the broadcast space, where the FCC does have authority to regulate decency.
As we noted then: Where there is a will, there's a way?
We also said:
Martin's comments on regulatory authority bring us back to Commisioner Jonathan Adelstein's viewpoint on online video regulation made at the PFF Aspen Summit. We asked him basically the same thing that was asked of Martin in yesterday's hearing, and he politely punted the issue because he claims that FCC didn't have the regulatory authority to regulate online video. He then said that the FCC only maintains its authority over broadcast television because of it's ubquity and reach. This is the same reasoning given on why the FCC's regulatory authority over cable and satellite broadcasts are more minimal than the broadcast model. That, and you need to make an active choice to become a cable or satellite subscriber.
Still, this was a bit of a head scratcher. On one hand, you can't question that broadcast TV is pretty much ubiquitous and available to anyone who can press the power button on a remote -- 99 percent of American homes have at least one TV.
But, on the other hand, at what point of penetration do you need to get to be broadcast TV-esque? Way back in 2003, more than 60 percent of U.S. households had computers and the more recent OECD report said that the US has 49 million broadband subscribers. Oh, and what about those little computers that people carry in the pockets? That is, phones and soon-to-be a bevy of different mobile devices that merge video capabilities and old-school voice calling? There are 180 million wireless subscribers in our country of 300 million. All we're saying is that those are a lot of video platforms that are a lot easier to access than paid-for cable on a 40-inch screen that's attached to a cable box.
We'll ask again: What should be made of Chairman Martin's aspiration: "All policymakers should try to make the Internet a more decent place."
This question is why Bob Pepper, a top adviser to the last six FCC chairmen, thinks social regulation will shape communications policy in the coming years.
It's a question that might have pulled two dicks from Christmas-wrapped boxes.
-S. Garrett
Dck in a box is good but box in a box is better!
http://www.webcastr.com/videos/comedy/my-box-in-a-box.html
Posted by: JENNY | January 04, 2008 at 12:12 AM
But the miracle of life persists, the mysterious germ of growth and renewal that is the seed itself.
Posted by: Nike Air Jordan | May 15, 2011 at 07:37 PM
Nice blog! More people should read it. Nice post thanks, and thanks to share! ! ! This is the most interesting post, thank you!
Posted by: Edible Arrangements Coupons | October 14, 2011 at 07:13 AM
I genuinely enjoy examining on this web site, it contains superb articles. "And all the winds go sighing, For sweet things dying." by Christina Georgina Rossetti.
Posted by: edyta | January 28, 2013 at 09:09 AM
There's certainly a lot to know about this subject. I love all of the points you made.
Posted by: Erlene Bashore | February 03, 2013 at 06:22 PM
Having read this I believed it was rather enlightening. I appreciate you finding the time and energy to put this information together. I once again find myself spending way too much time both reading and commenting. But so what, it was still worth it!
Posted by: Wendie Ridgel | February 04, 2013 at 09:40 AM
Hi, I do believe this is an excellent blog. I stumbledupon it ;) I am going to come back once again since I book marked it. Money and freedom is the greatest way to change, may you be rich and continue to help others.
Posted by: Estefana Schilke | February 04, 2013 at 05:30 PM
The very next time I read a blog, Hopefully it does not disappoint me just as much as this one. After all, I know it was my choice to read through, but I really thought you would have something helpful to say. All I hear is a bunch of complaining about something that you could fix if you were not too busy looking for attention.
Posted by: Abbey Simiskey | February 05, 2013 at 01:28 AM
I truly love your site.. Pleasant colors & theme. Did you create this amazing site yourself? Please reply back as I’m planning to create my own personal blog and would like to know where you got this from or just what the theme is named. Appreciate it!
Posted by: Leeann Sassman | February 05, 2013 at 10:23 AM
Pretty! This was an extremely wonderful post. Many thanks for providing these details.
Posted by: Stormy Carlton | February 12, 2013 at 08:12 AM
Saved as a favorite, I love your website!
Posted by: Trinh Rafus | February 16, 2013 at 02:54 AM
Excellent site you have got here.. It’s hard to find high quality writing like yours these days. I honestly appreciate people like you! Take care!!
Posted by: Kati Wible | February 16, 2013 at 01:00 PM
Hi! I simply wish to give you a big thumbs up for the great information you have here on this post. I am coming back to your web site for more soon.
Posted by: Bronwyn Puskarich | February 17, 2013 at 02:51 AM