"Broadcasters have a responsibility to serve the public interest and protect Americans from objectionable content, particularly during the hours when children are likely to be watching"
About this Quote
“Serve the public interest” is the velvet glove here: a phrase so broad it can hold anything from genuine child protection to outright moral policing. Bart Gordon, speaking as a politician and regulator-adjacent lawmaker, leans on the oldest American communications bargain: broadcasters get scarce public airwaves, so they owe the public something in return. That framing isn’t accidental. It turns censorship-sounding enforcement into stewardship, making limits on speech feel like basic infrastructure maintenance.
The line’s real engine is the time-based qualifier: “particularly during the hours when children are likely to be watching.” That’s the safe harbor logic popularized in the post-FCC era of indecency fights and culture-war flare-ups over profanity, sexuality, and “shock” content. You don’t have to ban everything; you just have to corral it into late-night, when the audience is presumed adult. It’s a politically elegant compromise because it borrows the moral clarity of “think of the children” without requiring a universal crackdown that would trigger louder First Amendment alarms.
“Objectionable” does a lot of strategic work too. It’s a mushy word that invites consensus while dodging specifics. Everyone agrees kids shouldn’t be served extreme material at 7 p.m.; fewer people agree on whether a swear word, a queer kiss, or a frank news clip counts. That ambiguity grants regulators discretionary power and gives politicians rhetorical cover: they can champion protection while leaving the boundaries to agencies, complaints, and whichever public panic is loudest that week.
The subtext is less about children than about legitimacy: reassuring anxious voters that someone is minding the cultural gates, even as the media landscape keeps slipping beyond broadcast control.
The line’s real engine is the time-based qualifier: “particularly during the hours when children are likely to be watching.” That’s the safe harbor logic popularized in the post-FCC era of indecency fights and culture-war flare-ups over profanity, sexuality, and “shock” content. You don’t have to ban everything; you just have to corral it into late-night, when the audience is presumed adult. It’s a politically elegant compromise because it borrows the moral clarity of “think of the children” without requiring a universal crackdown that would trigger louder First Amendment alarms.
“Objectionable” does a lot of strategic work too. It’s a mushy word that invites consensus while dodging specifics. Everyone agrees kids shouldn’t be served extreme material at 7 p.m.; fewer people agree on whether a swear word, a queer kiss, or a frank news clip counts. That ambiguity grants regulators discretionary power and gives politicians rhetorical cover: they can champion protection while leaving the boundaries to agencies, complaints, and whichever public panic is loudest that week.
The subtext is less about children than about legitimacy: reassuring anxious voters that someone is minding the cultural gates, even as the media landscape keeps slipping beyond broadcast control.
Quote Details
| Topic | Justice |
|---|
More Quotes by Bart
Add to List
