I have a question for everyone who believes that the FCC should not be policing the broadcasts.
Can we all agree that there is content that is inappropriate for children to watch / listen to?
To me the argument for deregulation feels a little bit too much like, "well he is doing it so why cant I?". I feel that if someone purchases access to a different network they would have the right to police their own viewing, including what their children are exposed to. However I feel that any state affiliated network should remain policed. (to be honest I don't know much about all the different American broadcasters, but in South Africa we have a state broadcaster and a few independent ones.) Now I should also mention that with this policing though that they should not be hypocritical about it. As the example showed, they had to exclude swearwords from awards programming, but could show saving private Ryan. I feel the standards should be strictly formulated, including looking at violence, and implemented.
I just feel there should be an enforced standard that is considered acceptable for children on state broadcasting. With that said though, I also feel that the standards should be regularly re-assessed to move with the times. Languages change, as do attitudes towards what is acceptable and unacceptable.
I see your point, and I largely agree. I just have one point of contention, and one point of how broadcasting is in the US.
Point of Contention: What is or isn't appropriate for children to see largely depends on the child in question and their parents. I agree that the younger a child is the less able they are to properly handle violence and sexual themes, but there is no hard and fast rule on what those ages are. I also feel it should be up to the parents to decide which programming is acceptable for their children to watch, and to not feel like the television is an acceptable baby-sitter. I mean, they've even made television programs that seems to be specifically for infants (just look up "Boohbah" on Google to see such an example, though I actually find it quite creepy).
Point on US Broadcasting: The US doesn't really have state broadcasting. The publicly available broadcasting stations, whether they require a fee or no, get their finances from corporations that pay to have their advertisements aired. The only real difference between broadcast television, which has no fee to view, and cable/satellite television, which does have a fee to view (sometimes content specific), is that broadcast television must maintain their own broadcasting towers, while cable/satellite television goes through a content provider who selects which channels they wish to provide.
Now, if there was state broadcasting I would say it is fully within the right of the FCC to regulate what content the state can air. I just don't feel it's the business of the FCC to regulate what private companies can air (aside from content that would otherwise be against the law) on the sole basis of personal morality or because they feel they know better than parents what children should watch during normal children's waking hours.