**REMARKS OF FCC COMMISSIONER MICHAEL J. COPPS**

**NAB INDECENCY SUMMIT**

**WASHINGTON, DC**

**MARCH 31, 2004**

Thank you for coming and being a part of what could be and should be the
beginning of real and measurable progress to clean up America's
airwaves. I have been urging top-level industry attention to indecency
for a long time and I hope that sustained, results-oriented solutions
are exactly what's on your mind.

Let's begin with why we are here today. We are here because millions of
Americans have made it convincingly clear that they no longer will
tolerate media's race to the bottom when it comes to indecency on the
people's airwaves. We are here because it is no longer possible for your
industry or the Federal Communications Commission to duck the issue with
impunity. And we are here because people are demanding action---action
now.

The issue we are discussing today \-- indecency \-- goes right to the
heart of your public interest responsibility to the communities you
serve and to the Commission's obligation to enforce the law.

Every day when I boot up my FCC computer, every time I visit a town or
city anywhere across this country of ours, I hear the people's concern:
we are fed up, they say, with the patently offensive programming coming
our way so much of the time. I saw the people's anger all last year when
Commissioner Adelstein and I took to the road in our media ownership
forums, and I saw it again over the past few months as all the
Commissioners were in Charlotte, North Carolina and San Antonio, Texas
for hearings on localism---people from all walks of life and every
political persuasion lined up to express their frustration---their
anger---with the sex, violence and profanity that pervades so much of
our media. We even had kids stand up and say how fed up they are with
the programming coming their way.

It wasn't the Super Bowl that started all this. This issue has been at
the grassroots since long before I came to the FCC, and anyone who
thinks it was just one or two recent high profile incidents that got it
going has missed the most important part of the story. About the only
place where the Super Bowl had a galvanizing effect was here in
Washington, particularly at the FCC, where the tired old arguments I
have been hearing for the past three years were finally laid to rest---I
think. "If people don't like what they're seeing, they can just turn it
off," I was told. Are we supposed to just turn off the all-American
Super Bowl? Another refrain I had been hearing was: "Let the V-Chip
handle it." Don't get me wrong, I like the V-Chip. But it was irrelevant
that Sunday night. How do you warn against half-time shows or slimy ads
or sensation-seeking previews of coming movie and television
attractions? One incident seldom sparks a revolution, and the seeds of
this particular revolution have been building---and have been painfully
obvious---for a long, long time.

What fueled this mad race to the bottom? I think two things. One is that
some chose to push the envelope too far. Particularly in this age of
huge media conglomerates, the unforgiving expectations of the
marketplace have more influence than they once did in driving media
behavior. The other reason---every bit as important---is that the
regulatory commission charged with keeping this race from happening
abdicated its enforcement responsibilities and thereby created a climate
wherein indecency could flourish. If the agency charged with putting the
brakes on has no credibility with those who are programming
indecency---if it commands no respect on the issue because it runs away
from the issue---is it any wonder that the envelope gets pushed farther
and farther out?

I believe that, as a society, we have a responsibility to protect
children from content that is inappropriate for them. And when it comes
to the broadcast media, the Federal Communications Commission has the
statutory obligation---the legal mandate---to protect children from
indecent, profane and obscene programming. I take this responsibility
with utmost seriousness. I am supposed to take it with utmost
seriousness---whether I agree with it or not---because it's the law.

The process by which the FCC has enforced these laws has long been lax.
I won't detail here the long history of actions not taken, program
complaints ignored, fines not imposed, procedures made as
user-unfriendly as they could be, and buck-passing in the
decision-making process that together constitute the Commission's record
on indecency. We weren't even talking the talk most of the time, leave
alone walking the walk. Now, happily, we are not only talking the talk,
but actually sending up some signals that maybe we'll even walk the walk
some day soon, which for me means assessing fines that go beyond the
normal costs of doing business and, more importantly, sending some of
the more outrageous cases to administrative hearings for possible
license revocation.

I want you to know exactly where I stand. I am encouraged and supportive
of your coming together today to talk about actions you can take to
solve a problem that most of you now seem willing to recognize. I wish
you nothing but success as you tackle this problem. But while you meet
and discuss and move toward I hope resolute new industry policies on
indecency, I am going to be pressing my colleagues to get on with the
job of enforcing the statute, using all the ammunition already in our
armory and also putting to immediate use any additional arrows that
Congress may provide for our quiver. Congress, it seems clear, intends
to make us walk the enforcement walk.

In recent Congressional testimony, I laid out some steps we could take
at the Commission to carry out our statutory obligations. These include
using our full authority, including license revocation hearings, to
punish those who violate the statute; reforming the complaint process to
make it consumer-friendly and also to make decisions more quickly;
tackling the depiction of graphic violence that has become such a
pervasive problem, something we should have done long ago; making
certain that affiliated stations have the right to preempt programming
that is on their stations; and refusing to renew the licenses of those
who wantonly disserve the public interest.

That's what I see for me. How about you? I hope that as
broadcasters---as licensees of the public airwaves---you will also take
action. By taking more responsibility for what is broadcast,
particularly when children are likely to be watching, you would make a
huge contribution to our kids and to our society. From the day I arrived
at the Commission, I have been talking about how broadcasters could
voluntarily tackle the issues of indecent, profane and violent
programming. Many of you remember the old Codes of Broadcaster Conduct.
Through enlightened self-regulation, the industry clamped restrictions
on the presentations of sexual material, violence, liquor, drug
addiction, even on excessive advertising. The Codes also affirmed
broadcaster responsibilities toward children, community issues, and
public affairs. It didn't always work perfectly; I'm not saying it was
some golden age; but it was at least a serious effort premised on the
idea that we can be well entertained at levels several cuts above the
lowest common denominator that now dictates so much programming. It is
time for a tough new code. And the code I'd like to see is not some
bland statement of general principles, but something explicit and
including incentives to encourage compliance.

I believe the industry could come together and craft a new code,
perfectly able to pass court muster, and one that would serve the needs
of businesses as well as those of concerned families. Some other ideas:
broadcasters could commit to family hours during prime time. More
diversity in program-development and program-sourcing could also
help---that means more independently-produced programs. And you need to
include in your deliberations what public interest standards you think
appropriate for the new world of multi-casting that digital television
is already beginning to bring us. These are just a few suggestions; I am
certain you can come up with many more.

Successful resolution of the indecency issues must in the end include
cable and satellite. Eighty-five percent of homes get their television
signals from cable or satellite. Most viewers, particularly children,
don't recognize the difference as they flip channels between broadcast
stations and cable channels. Because cable and satellite are so
pervasive, there is a compelling government interest in addressing
indecency when children are watching. Indeed, the courts have already
applied this to cable. And let's not forget that cable and DBS make
liberal use of the people's spectrum too and this incurs an obligation
to serve the public interest. Cable could also explore such options as
offering a family tier so that families don't need to receive channels
like MTV in order to get the Disney Channel. Commissioner Martin has
made positive suggestions on this. Cable could also make sure that
family channels offer all family-friendly programming. One other
suggestion: Have Eddie Fritts call up Bob Sachs and invite him and his
CEOs to a more inclusive industry summit on indecency.

The proof of your efforts will not be that you have begun a dialogue or
put together a task force. Or even that you have crafted a program. No,
the final judgment here will be rendered by the American people and will
be based on what they actually see on their televisions and hear on
their radios. Anyone in industry or at the Commission who thinks they
can "politick" this problem for a few months and it will magically
disappear needs to crawl out of his or her cocoon. Nor will returning to
lax enforcement after a few months pass muster with our citizens.
Industry and the Commission will get passing grades here only insofar as
the airwaves really are cleaned up and kept clean. If that doesn't
happen, this issue is not going away.

Let me urge you also to cast your net widely as you develop a program. A
grassroots issue merits---indeed compels---grassroots input. If this was
an "inside-the-Beltway" issue, we wouldn't be here today. Open your
doors, let the sun shine in, reach out and talk to those who you want to
see and hear your programs. You'll have a better product by far if you
do this.

My challenge to you is to put the FCC on the enforcement sidelines by
eliminating indecency on the airwaves. My challenge to my colleagues at
the Commission is to make enforcement credible enough so that industry
will do what it should have been doing all along.

Yours is a proud and special industry, about as special as they get.
You're not a "toaster with pictures." You are stewards of a precious
national resource, charged to advance the public interest in exchange
for the right to use that resource. What you do affects profoundly the
future of our kids and the future of our country. I know many of you
personally, and as I meet and talk with you, I am impressed so often to
see the flame of the public interest still burning. Sometimes it
flickers for want of oxygen, particularly in the new media environment
in which we live. That new environment explains a lot, but it excuses
nothing. And I am here today to ask you to breathe the clean fresh air
of citizen concern and common sense on that flickering flame. Passing
our airwaves on to the next generation in better shape than we found
them is your job and my job, and how you and I, in our individual ways,
handle the matter before us today will provide ample opportunity for
people to judge the success of our stewardship. They are watching and
they are judging right now.

Thank you and good luck.