On Wednesday, details arose about ABC television affiliates choosing not to run an uncut version of "Saving Private Ryan" on Thursday evening. As it turned out, 66 affiliates chose to pre-empt the broadcast, and 159 stations ran it - 10 of those being wholly owned by ABC. It wasn't exactly a ratings boon for the network, but the ratings are slightly skewed based on the 66 stations it didn't run on. These affiliates have mostly come out and stated that they were unsure about the FCC's reaction to the broadcast - not necessarily that they disagreed with the content, especially considering that none opposed running it the last time it was shown in 2002. In an effort to staunch the flow of affiliates choosing to drop the program, ABC even offered to pay any fines levied on the stations, but it does not appear that it helped.

For the last two days, I had been trying to reach someone at the Federal Communications Commission to see if they would make a statement on this issue, and was finally able to do so on Friday afternoon. I had received a response from someone in the Enforcement Bureau, who offered to provide me with a little bit of background on the situation. Unfortunately, I was unable to get a statement specific to this airing. I was informed that in a situation such as this one with ABC, the FCC relies on its most recent case law when reviewing any complaints that might arise, which may or may not warrant an investigation. This isn't surprising.

The FCC does, however, clarify that the requests that were widely reported as being made by various ABC affiliates to "pre-allow" the film's airing are not considered. The reason? Purely because of censorship concerns. If you think about it, the FCC coming out and saying "Sure, run with it" to any broadcast opens a door that shouldn't be unlocked - because any "yea" or "nay" creates a situation where the FCC is now stuck with having to pre-judge any given broadcast. They are not a screener for what broadcasters can and cannot do. That being said, my questions about the stations having legitimate concerns because of the "grey" rulings that have been made in the past went unanswered. Literally. I suggested that due to recent announcements, that companies weren't sure what was or was not decent, as many companies seem to be "guessing" incorrectly, if the fines are any indication. Broadcasters feel there are double standards, a solid example being things that Howard Stern has said being comparable to statements made on the "Oprah" show. Nothing. Zilch. Nada.

If we are sitting here waiting to see which shoe falls next, a good bellwhether might be statements made by FCC Chairman Michael Powell - who commented on the film, curiously enough, a few months back while speaking with PBS. Aaron Barnhart at the Kansas City Star has details:

FCC Chairman Michael Powell, who led the action to fine Viacom over the Super Bowl incident, did not comment on the affiliates' decision Thursday. However, he mentioned the movie in April in a PBS interview on indecency issues.

“I have a difficult time distinguishing whether ‘Schindler's List' or ‘Saving Private Ryan' is an acceptable form of violence or whether Bugs Bunny and the Road Runner are not,” Powell said on the program “Now with Bill Moyers.” But the chairman, who was appointed by President Bush, added that “I don't know that three of five unelected regulators ought to be the ones making that decision for the public.”

Well, if "recent case law" is used to make a decision here, I would expect the FCC to have to fine ABC and the affiliates. Jeff Jarvis, who is all about the FCC needing a laissez faire attitude, took an interesting tact today in filing a complaint against ABC today, for one reason, and one reason only - to make the FCC have to do things consistently. I'm just bummed that he only dropped two f-bombs in the complaint, frankly.

Love it or hate it, there's one thing that must happen here - the FCC needs to be clear and consistent. Of course I don't want them infringing on my ability to change the channel, but what can you do.