FCC Chairman Kevin Martin spoke enthusiastically Monday about the crash of David Gilliland's car, Number 38, during a NASCAR race in Phoenix Sunday. The FCC had spent $355,000 to sponsor the car that sported a message to remind viewers that the switch to digital television will take place on February 17. The use of taxpayer dollars for the sponsorship has been criticized by numerous consumer groups and even by fellow FCC commissioner Jonathan Adelstein. "The cars that crash get a lot of attention during the race itself," Martin told TV Week. "The cameras focus on it. What we are trying to do is get all the attention on this car."
Question: if the aforementioned approach -- "getting all the attention" -- is deemed valuable for FCC messaging, why is TV programming featuring sex, violence and fleeting expletives not considered an equally compelling and acceptable environment/platform for garnering attention?
At this juncture, I thought I would take a written moment to revisit other landmark taboos that have surreptitiously made their way into the TV homes of America that has caused federal agencies and watchdog group's consternation and sleepless nights building up to their present day preoccupation with the fleeting expletive and the decline of American morals:
Perhaps the FCC should emulate our peaceful brethren to the North and implement a similar fictitious crystal-clear program guideline/rating system (1-9) to alert viewers to the contential nature of the programs they opt in to view: