I appreciate your desire to get citizen input before you set
policy which will manage the upcoming media blitz made possible
by new telecommunications technologies.  My wife and I have some
pretty strong feelings about the social damage being done by
unresponsible media and advertising entities who proliferate
violence and immorality across our airwaves.

I understand the impossibility of Government stepping in and
cutting off this type of programming.  Our first ammendment
rights are too precious to leave up to the Government to control. 
But I believe that the public can pressure  advertisers and
television moguls to clean up their programming.  The problem is
that there are no tools, forums, or resources to help me unite my
puny little voice, with that of the other millions of outraged
citizens. I believe that the Government can and should help
create means and resources to help unite the public against those
who seek to proliferate this damaging content.

Here are 3 things that would help me in my personal fight against
irresponsible  programming...

1. Make advertisers responsible for the programming they sponser. 
At the beginning and ending of each questionable program (maybe
all programs) a list of the sponsers of the show, and how you can
reach them should be listed.  This will  allow the viewing public
to contact the people who really are the  'owners' of that hour
of program time.  I can't do that now without doing so much
research that it becomes impossible to do.  Maybe a site on the
WWW which shows not only television programming, but who the
sponsers are for each program, and a hot link to each sponsers
response page would do the job.  That seems to be an appropriate
task for Government...to set up and promote such a service.

2. Make local television stations more responsible for the
programming they air.  Right now if my local CBS affiliate airs
an objectionable program, and I call to  complain, their only
response is - 'We have no control over the programming. That
comes from the CBS corporate programming.  We can't change it.' 
So I go to write a complaint to the corporate Giant, and I find
that I don't have a name or number to write to. I quickly lose
faith that my little letter will do any good  anyway, so I stop.
If local affiliates were free to pick and choose from a menu  of
programming they could air then our community could demand more
decent  programming from our local affiliates. As it is, we have
no control of national  programming, and are doomed to have our
kids (and our neighbors kids) watching  whatever garbage media
moguls (and advertisers) believe will get the biggest  audience.

3.  Require movie trailers and TV show promos which are aired on
television to be shown in appropriate time slots...Right now my
children (and myself) can be watching a perfectly wonderful
program, when suddenly during advertising time, lewd, sensual,
violent, macabre, and powerful movie trailers blast onto the
screen. It takes another fifteen minutess of getting back into
the program to get the graphic nature of the ads out of my mind,
and I don't know if the images ever fully leave my children's
minds.  I can control what our kids watch on television.  But I
can't control the advertisements which are shown.  There needs to
be some control placed there.

Why should we bother?  

Because I believe that much of the television and other media
programming that air are tearing apart the trust structure of our
nation.  By constantly depicting people solving problems with
guns, normal people who go mad, normal mothers and  families that
are broken apart with greed, lust, and ambition, I learn in the
media that I can barely trust myself, let alone trust you.  I
learn that you shouldn't trust your spouse, your children, your
elected leaders, your police force,  your legal system, your
health system, etc.  I learn that the people I don't know
intimately are instantly suspect.  I learn that I have to keep my
own  interests uppermost in my mind and to heck with everyone
else's interest.

This is a terrible way to learn to live, for it tears apart our
nation.  It is worth fixing the media, so that we can begin to
learn to trust each other again.

------------------------------------------------------------

Broadcasters who are profiting from the public resource of
spectrum, should be obliged to provide public service.

Children's TV and other community service obligations are an
important part of broadcasters responsibilities.

Organizations such as the Media Access Project, and the Center
for Media Education are important voices in the public interest.

Thanks for your vision and leadership in this area.

------------------------------------------------------------

The suggestions presented in your column are exciting..
especially if  educational programming could be a reciprocated
(mandatory?) requirement for the broadcasters to obtain the
additional bandwidth .

------------------------------------------------------------

I am in agreement to the proposal to auction  commercial
broadcast frequencies. No longer should the airwaves  be free to
commercial entities. I support you in demanding that  children's
interests are addressed by television broadcasters.
We, as a nation, have been desensitized to violence by a deluge
of violent tv shows, movies, and the daily news reports/shows.
As a parent, I would like to see a standard used to guage whether
a particular tv program is suitable for veiwing by my ten year
old.

I am in support of computers/internet access in the classroom.
This can help to balance the disparities in informational sources
that exist in the educational system at the same time that it 
removes a major obstruction to learning - accessibility to
current and  relevant information. 

------------------------------------------------------------

As a parent of an eight and eleven-year-old I want to thank you
for opening public policy discussion on childrens' television
programming. While I am well aware that businesses need to make a
profit to continue provideing services, I feel that our country's
children are too important a resource to be left soley to market
forces. It seems to me that requiring a minimum amount of
programming specifically developed for the child audience would
create a very small hardship for providers to overcome; one that
requires only a fraction of the total value of broadcast licenses
granted to provide service in the public interest.

While I strongly support the First Amendment, and would not is to
see rulemaking infringe upon it, too often the First Amendment is
thrown up as a roadblock to stop public discussion of important
issues which need to be fully deliberated for effective puublic
policy to be developed. In particular, I support the idea of the
entertainment industry developing a rating system which would
give parents or other caregivers additional information on the
level of violence in programming so that we can make informed
choices on which programs our children will be allowed to watch.
We certainly use the current movie rating system in deciding what
movies our children will be allowed to view. A similar system for
broadcast or cable-delivered programs would provide an additional
tool for parents.

I also would support the idea of v-chip technology being required
in television receivers sold after a specific date. Technological
developments are coming at such a rapid pace that there may be
better yways for parents to control their childrens' viewing
developed over the next half-decade, but televised violence and
its impact on children is too important not to begin taking
advantage of available means of assisting parents.

We have lived with television for almost a half century. It is
time US public policy begins reflecting some of what we've
learned from our experence.   

------------------------------------------------------------

I want to urge the Federal Communications Commissioners to get
tough on the Children's Act and require stations to devote time
and money to programs for children.  If stations would devote
even one percent of the time and money they did to the O.J.
Simpson trial, the benefit to children would be enormous.

Just as pressing an issue for children and television is the
nature of the commercials being aired.  Some of these border on
the obscene (I refer particularly to those aired by Calvin
Klein).  Our children are affected by the programs they watch,
but they are also affected greatly by the commercials aired
during these shows.

--------------------------------------------------

     I definately feel that there is not enough children's
programming being  aired today!  I also feel that stations should
be required to provide at least two full hours of educational
shows per day...ten hours per week! I also feel that 
broadcasters should identify which shows are educational so TV
guides can alert parents to those programs.
     Children are impressionable and if we do not give them a
healhty and educational environment in which to learn, they will
not learn.  There is so much violence and ignorance in our
society.  These behaviors can be changed if we reach out to our
kids NOW!!! 
           
  ------------------------------------------------------------

A few weeks ago, c-span aired your discussion with school
principals and/or superintendents.  Please continue to meet and
discuss telecommunications issues with community groups.  There
is a shocking (perhaps not surprising) lack of coverage of the
pending telecom bills, the children's tv rm., and advanced tv rm. 
The coverage that does occur in print and the bits shown on tv
focus not on how these matters will change each citizen's life
(and how and whether he/she will know about issues), but rather
on an insider-big industry hook.  Your discussions on the net and
in person can help end the silence.

-----------------------------------------------------------

I heartily concur in everything yur column said.  All I want to
know is why is it taking so long and what can be done about it. 
Commercial TV really is a
"wasteland".  Maybe a tradeoff of partial license fees against
educational hours would attract some attention?  

------------------------------------------------------------
It is up to the parents to have 'their' children watch
educational TV, NOT government. When government gets involved in
deciding what programs children should watch, we are falling down
the 'slippery slope' of communism and socialism which have been
proven not to work.
------------------------------------------------------------

I agree wholeheartedly with your "top ten myths..."; the
bandwidth allocated to television is much too valuable to let
advertising revenues determine the content, especially when our
children are a part of the population which doesn't have
significant influence on product purchases.  

Access to children's television must be mandated, as a percentage
of total programming time and provided in a time-frame realistic
for the anticipated  viewing population.

If one measures the available violence, hatred, and negative
influences shown on television against the positive influences,
the result is an unfortunate comment on broadcaster's (if not
viewers) values.  Children need a more than equal amount of
access to positive programming, and I hope you will initiate and
support the very strongest regulations to bring about that
opportunity.

My only regret is that there are so few "Jim Hensons" with the
creativity to truly stimulate the very young viewer.

------------------------------------------------------------

I just finished reading your letter in the  LA Times. I support
the four points you make in your  column 100%. I also firmly
agree with your comments on the 10 Myths that you debunked in the
Email.
As a father and grandfather, I take an intense interest in the
kind of information that is offered to our  children and
grandchildren on TV. I have an abiding faith in the ability of
our younger generations to hit the ground running if we give them
the opportunity and the tools to reach their goals. 

------------------------------------------------------------

From where I stand, your "Ten Myths" hit the nail on the head. 
Although my  family has access to several types of media, I feel
that ALL commercial users  of the public airways should provide
some amount of "educational" programming.
These "educational" programs should be scheduled in prime times
for the age  of interest.  Programs for 5-7 year olds at 4:00AM
don't qualify.  Also have  concise limitations on amount and
content of advertising.  Only allow one  minute of advertising
for fifteen minutes of program, with NO tobacco or alcohol  ads
OR SUPPORT.  There are too many subtle ways to promote a product
if you  control the purse strings.  I support MINIMUM necessary
controls by government.
Keep policies simple and apply them fairly (uniformly). Thank
you.
------------------------------------------------------------

I think there is not enough educational programs in the TV. The
broadcasters  have to share the responsibility to provide such
programs. If the kids have  a chance to learn from television,
the television will have served its purpose to a great extent.

A small step in the right direction is a giant leap forward.

------------------------------------------------------------

   Several times in the comments, the statement was made that the
airwaves were public property.  In the past, the use of the
airwaves has been judged as for the public interest, convenience,
and necessity.  Now, in other notes in the same web pages, we
find discussions of auctioning these public airwaves to the
highest bidders.

  This seems to be somewhat of a conflict.  We now auction the
airwaves off to the deepest pockets, not the greatest public
benefit.

  As for programming, we have our government looking at mandating
that all television receivers will have a chip included that will
allow the set to block programming that might be inappropriate,
but we have no real input from the viewers of what is offensive. 
Presently (and for the past quarter century), we have had a
feature on the television that allows the blocking of undesired
programming.  A collection of controls, one of which turns the
set off.

  I don't want one.  I didn't want to pay for a closed caption
decoder just because the appropriate lobby for the deaf felt that
they should not have to pay for decoders -- now the total cost to
the country is much higher -- just spread out to a smaller amount
per set.  I have sets with tuning knobs and off controls.  I
don't need a chip to look at someone else's rating of the program
and decide if I want it seen in my house.

  As for mandating educational programming for children -- have
past requirements shown any benefit here?  Not really.  Even with
the ability to question if a station is serving the public
interest, convenience, or necessity, we still have cheaply done
animation, with a fair amount of violence in it, on most of the
Saturday morning programs.

  Commentary was made of the large number of hours of television
that children will watch over their lifetimes, but nowhere was it
mentioned that this television was not all in the 'saturday
morning' timeslots.
Much of it is watched in prime time.

  Better programming can push out worse in many cases, however,
mandated educational programming will simply be filled with
whatever is the lowest cost means of filling that requirement --
and it will be filled in the least prime time that is allowed.

  Broadcasters will notice most strongly if comments in their
files at license renewal time get more serious attention -- if
not satisfying the parents of their community will put their
licenses at risk, they will be looking more at providing a
service.  However, license renewal seems to be a pretty automatic
issue -- pay the fees, hire the right lawyers to fill out the
right forms and add the right words, and that is about it in most
cases.

  In summary:

    1.  They ARE public airwaves.  As such, selling them off to
the highest bidder is inappropriate.
    2.  Don't mandate what extra functions my television must
have.  There is no reason for me to have closed caption decoders
built in, and there is no value in a chip to enforce someone
else's standards.
        Parent's should set and enforce their own standards.
    3.  Requiring educational programming would simply provide a
market for the cheapest that would fill the requirements, and not
really produce any of the good creative material like Sesame
Street. You really cannot legislate creativity.

------------------------------------------------------------

I FULLY agree with everything you have said regarding childrens
educational  programming.  I think it should be obvious to most
everyone that decent, and uplifting television can, and should be
a major contributor to an improved society.  Whether it's good,
or not, we all spend vast amounts of time watching television,
and surely positive reinforcements are more 'positive' than
negative ones.  I'm concerned by what seems to be a downward
spiral,  in television broadcasting.  Some of the daytime talk
shows deal with  issues that are quite perverse, and very
unrealistic.  The scary thing is, that after being exposed to
bizarre lifestyles too much, one tends to get used to them, which
means that they are no longer considered bizzar.  If  children
grow up watching these things (hopefully they're in school during
these shows) they're not going to realize just how strange and
unusual the  things they observe on T.V. are, and rather will
consider them to be NORMAL.

I know this happense, because I've observed it in myself.  I
think that broadcasters have lost sight of the fact that spectrum
has been allocated to them for free, and that it's their
responsibility to treat public  property in such a way that it
doesn't undermine the basis upon which they are allowed to use
it.

I'd like to commend you in your efforts, and regulatory actions
regarding improved educational programming.  I hope that efforts
continue to be made to improve the educational experience of
everyone in every medium.

------------------------------------------------------------

The FCC should establish an Educational TV Home Page that acts as
both an Educational TV GUIDE and as a master link to the
Educational TV home pages established by each and every
"broadcaster".

By accessing the Educational TV Guide Home Page, a person can
learn which educational programs are being offered and when ...
and a synopis of the  program and its learning objectives
upcoming during the week. 

Also the Educational TV Home Page can contain web links to each
"broadcaster's" Educational TV Home Page.  Here the boardcaster
can advertise each of the Educational TV programs that it offers
and invites people to evaluate the program in general and each
show in particular.  In addition, a general idea page could be
offered to allow people to submit ideas for new programs/shows
and/or suggest improvements to existing programs and shows
offered by that  broadcaster.  

Once it gets going, the FCC could advertise the existance of the
Educational TV Home Page ... and the public would have a place
for one stop shopping concerning everything they would ever want
to know about the existance and  general health of Educational TV
in America.   

------------------------------------------------------------

If the airwaves are "public property", and if broadcasters should
"serve the public interest as a public trustee" by devoting time
to educational programming, rather than "slash and shoot" lowest
common denominator programming which  attracts an audience in the
same manner a multi-car fatality on the highway draws a crowd,
then the government shouldn't think of actually charging a
spectrum usage fee, should it?  I mean, if they've got to
sacrifice revenues to air boring stuff like Mr Rogers, they
shouldn't have to pay twice!!

------------------------------------------------------------

I have read the Top Ten myths section in the Web page. 

It stresses several times that broadcasting companies are driven
to put  programming on T.V. according to what will make them the
most money in  advertizing.  Since the purchasing audience is
18-49, programs which cater to this audience can make the
broadcasing companies the most money by selling their advertizing
time.  PBS stations have always been able to be a non-profit
setup with federal funding to subsidize their supperior
programming (both for children and adults).  With the drop in
funding to the PBS stations, how can it  be guaranteed that they
will continue to find good funds for educational T.V.?  It would
seem to me that the FCC needs to get the government to put "their
money where there mouth is" and support the PBS stations in order
to guarantee that at least these stations will continue supperior
programming, even if the other profit run stations will never
follow suit.

------------------------------------------------------------

The 10 myths you address could certainly be expanded to include
many other areas.  Commercial broadcasters don't want to spend
the time,energy, effort and funds to make educational proramming
a viable aspect of their programming efforts.
First of all, they don't have the staff to really understand what
it is they are dealing with in the first place.!
I think there should be very stringent and specific criteria in
order to judge commercial stations efforts in this area.

Compared to educational broadcasting stations (public),
commerical broadcasters have unlimited opportunities to make
money.
Look what the educational stations do with very limted funds in
terms of childrens/educational programming.
Keep pressuring commercial broadcasters to meet their
responsibilities in this area and in some other areas.

------------------------------------------------------------

I don't watch a lot of TV because of the poor quality of
programming  which is available.  Our Public Station has some
*excellent* educational programming but I haven't read about
anything close to educational on the commercial stations.  In
fact, on the few times when I have observed what type of
programming is on during the day, I am appalled.  

Even the advertising is often demeaning - to women, to
minorities, to the entire human race.  

I don't understand the uproar about what *can* be found on the
Internet when I see so much questionable material presented at
all hours of the day on widely available commercial television.

------------------------------------------------------------

As a father of four children, I am in total agreement with your
postition  regarding educational programs over broadcast TV.  I
"expect" you and the  commission to ensure that broadcast
television does their part.  I am apalled  at the lack of
educational TV available today and with the low quality of 
regular broadcast TV programs.  Please help to communicate my
thoughts to  the broadcast TV industry.  
     
------------------------------------------------------------

As an educator at (a state) University, I clear see the results
of hours upon hours of television watching by students from all
walks of life.  Mores, attitudes, behavior, knowledge of current
events, and much more is shaped by television programming.  I
have seen students entering into the University who can recite
who the lead singer is for some rock group and they haven't the
foggest idea who either their Senator or Congressperson may be. 
If you ask them anything about the enterainment environment, they
have that down in spades.  Ask them current events and you can
"forget it".

As you comments clear state, "Educational Television" can be a
very strong and positive influence on today's youth.  We clear
see the influence both the film and the commerical television
industry has by the continual increase in crime.  It's sad when a
movie star can make + 40 million dollars for film glorifying
violence and "big bird" has to walk around with a begging bowl.  

You ten myths clearly hit the nail right on "ye ole head".  Keep
it up.

------------------------------------------------------------

I agree wholeheartedly with the myths described above and wish
there were more programs such as "Wishbone" and "Carmen
Sandiego."  Of course, "Sesame Street" has been a favorite for
years.  There is so much garbage on television, and it seems to
continually proliferate.  I don't find sassy children to be
amusing (such as on "The Simpsons"), nor do I wish to watch the
voyeuristic shows such as "COPS" and  "Hard Copy."  We usually
just rent movies that we want to watch.  Other than that, we tune
into "Jeopardy," and my husband and son are "Star Trek" fans.

I certainly support your efforts for more QUALITY educational
programming for children and teens.  In addition, I would love to
see these quality shows aired after school hours and in the early
evenings.

------------------------------------------------------------

Broadcasters do not understand the fact that educational
programming creates a positive externality in society.  In other
words, investment in educational television benefits society.  It
is a fact that educational programming does not hold the selling
potential that entertainment programming enjoys.
It is also a fact that the societal benefit gained from a small
investment in educational programming is much greater than the
benfit gained from the same investment in entertainment
programming.  This benefit is shared by all of 
society--including those broadcasters.  For a small price to
themselves, they  can be proud of the service they provide to
American families.

------------------------------------------------------------

I certainly agreed with all your above reasoning.  I have a 13
year old niece who would benefit immeasurably from good quality
educational television.  Our commencial broadcast bands around
the St. Louis, MO are alomost totally devoid of any redeeming
content.  I certainly support more control of the broadcasters by
the FCC.  Further, I encourage the FCC to exercise a degree of
sensorship over the broadcasters and cable suppliers in the areas
of sex and violence.  Since I have subscribed to cable, I've
noticed that late evening (after 8:00 pm CST) the movie channels
are devoted to soft porn programs.

------------------------------------------------------------

While most people would never consider the option, I have chosen
to live without a TV for 6 years.  Garbage in - Garbage out.  So
why even let the garbage in the house.
Your efforts to enact minimum standards for educational TV are
applauded.  

------------------------------------------------------------

I think your ten myths about educational tv hit the nail on the
head... the dearth of regulation of public resources...whether
for the  broadcast frequencies of tv and radio or the public
telephone and long distance networks...is leaving the development
only to what will make corporations rich...it's disgusting.
  Rural electrification would not have come about if it was left
up to  profit-minded corporations...nor would a public oriented
telephone  network ever have been developed...look at the change
in attitude from  public servant to entertainment conglomerate by
Bell Atlantic...
  In my opinion, any organization that provides a public service
must be regulated once it reaches a size such that it impacts the
public...
...otherwise there is no organized way for the public to respond
to its actions.

Please consider this for

o   TV, both public and private/cable o   Telecommunications,
local, long distance, and cellular o   State and National real
estate land use planning commissions o   Electric and Gas 

These characters ought to stop spending money on radio and TV
adds and start serving the public...
------------------------------------------------------------

I agree wholeheartedly with your responses to the myth list.
There can be nothing more important to do with the e/m spectrum
than to help assure our young people aquire the best possible
education.
In addition, it is very hard to find the places the commercial
license holders- radio and television, fulfill their public
service responsibilities. Three a.m. is not a resonable time to
carry out that provision. I would like to see a license
requirement to broad- cast at least two half-hour news sessions
per day without any adver- tising... and not at three a.m.!

------------------------------------------------------------

Even though I don't have kids, if I did I would let them watch
all the tele- vision that they wanted to within certain
guidelines.  I watch alot of tele- vision, but I do this after
extensively researching the schedules, etc so that I can find the
most information for my time available.  There is no tool 
available that can inform someone more than tv if it is properly
utilized.   People that claim they never watch tv and won't let
their children watch tv don't impress me at all.  In fact, most
of these people don't have a very high degree of general
knowledge and are usually very uninformed as to what is happening
in the country as a whole.

I commend your efforts to get more educational programming on the
air for kids.
Please continue your efforts and I will back you as much as I can
in your quest for more mandatory hours of quality programming on
the commercial stations.

------------------------------------------------------------

I agree that television is a very powerful medium and I also
agree that we need real educational television shows for
children.  I work in instructional television and we broadcast
over 1000 hours each school year of good educational television
programs that teachers in our area use with their students. 
Parents teaching their children at home are among our most
supportive customers.  Schools pay a modest fee that provides
funding for the broadcast licenses for our programs.  

Keep the requirement for educational programming, but hold the
commercial television folks feet to the fire to prove that what
they do is truly  educational!  Some of the justification that
has appeared in the news for their children's shows is
ridiculous!
------------------------------------------------------------

Children's programming is an important asset to children in their
developmental years.
I believe that though they spend much time in front of
television, it shouldn't just be a waste of their bandwidth
(learning power).  Children absorb a lot.  While television may
not be the most effective method of educating them, it should not
be overlooked.

------------------------------------------------------------

  Television is an extention of human consciousness.  It provides
a visual, auditory  experience which imprints itself on the mind
and thus effects the development of  character.  Just as a child
picks up values, principles, language and attitude through his or
her direct experience in a particular physical environment, so
too, are they  conditioned by the tele-experiences brought to
them on screen.
  Mr. Hundt is absolutely right when he speaks about the consumer
driven  influence of the sponsor on the tele-experience fed to
America's children. Each television show is a small piece of art
and like any art it contains the  values and vision of its
creator.  If a television show is contructed to promote  specific
lifestyles and their coresponding products, not only will the art
form be debased but children, given a commercially promoted
world, may learn to reject the  world they live in at present and
their identities within it.
  Constant images of murder and crime, numb a child's natural
sense of horror and outrage at what should be considered highly
abnormal aspects of a healthy society and constant  injections of
an advertiser's perfect world can create self-hatred on a
national level.
   At it's best, television can offer, vision.   A world vision,
a vision of nature, a vision of civilization, a vision of history
and possibility. No matter how it's labeled all television is
education.  In the interest of the American public and thus the
nation, the FCC has a duty to oversee the mass education of
America's children.  Freedom is  nothing without responsibilty,
and this is definitely one area of American society where someone
needs to be held responsible.    
       
------------------------------------------------------------

I agree. I'm 14 and remember getting up 5:50 AM to watch Sesame
Street. Now, I'm in 8th grade and in the top classes at school.
In response to #1, I took the SAT's last January and received an
1190. To all those that think educational TV doesn't work: Look
at me, or any of my classmates!

------------------------------------------------------------

I agree with all your statements in this weeks column. But in
particular applaud the degree of importance you attached to the
fact that broadcasters  are using the public airwaves.

I believe the FCC should encourage broadcasters to air
educational programming during pre-prime time hours (Ie. prior to
8PM in most areas) as what's on now is complete garbage and
caters to the lowest common denominator. 

------------------------------------------------------------

My observations of the impact of TV programming on kids for the
past 30 years are very consistent with the above conclusions. 
This is one of the very few areas where I believe federal
government (and specifically FCC) standards and enforcement can
have a very beneficial effect on social behavior.  I encourage
you to strengthen both the requirements for, and enforcement of
educational brodcasts for kids wherever possible.

------------------------------------------------------------

No kids in this house, but lets keep public TV supported and
allow  some quality programming to reach the kids.

------------------------------------------------------------

As a single man with no children, I am sick of having my rights
trampled by others in the name of "saving the children." People
don't need to watch TV, and their children don't need to watch
TV.
If they don't like what they see, turn off the TV, unplug it and
sell it!!!! But let me watch what I want to watch! I find it
scary that the government might begin telling TV stations what to
program.
I am also tired of the twisted standards the FCC imposes on
stations.
Why is it that you can't say the "s-word" or the "f-word" on TV,
but you can blow somone's brains out?? Why is nudity forbidden
but murder and terrorism acceptable?? I'm more offended at
tastelessly graphic depictions of rape and brutality than I am at
someone uttering a four-letter word! I hope, Mr. Chairman, that
you ignore the voices of totalitarianism and let broadcasters air
what they wish. I also hope you will rectify the double standards
I have just delineated.

------------------------------------------------------------