The Evolving Boundaries of Broadcast Language in America

The Federal Communications Commission has long prohibited licensees from using government-allocated airwaves to broadcast obscene, indecent, or profane language. These regulations are straightforward and clear, enabling broadcasters to understand what is acceptable on the air.

Comedians Lenny Bruce and George Carlin played a pivotal role in challenging the norms around these broadcast standards. Their work highlighted the common understanding of what constitutes inappropriate language, creating a public dialogue that has persisted for decades. Broadcasters across America have absorbed these standards thoroughly before they ever set foot on-air.

In my 35 years in broadcasting, I have not received a single complaint regarding violations of these rules. It appears that my colleagues share a similar experience. Broadcasters recognize the importance of adhering to guidelines that aim not just to avoid offending audiences but also to prevent any language designed solely to shock. Even before the advent of ‘clickbait’, the infamous ‘seven dirty words’ served as early indicators of what could not be included in broadcast content.

Familiar Boundaries

Readers of this column are likely familiar with these trip-wire terms that cross the lines of acceptability. Likewise, elected officials across the country avoid using such prohibited language in paid advertising. They understand that misuse would result in disapproval and would not resonate positively with voters. In fact, many believe that employing obscene or indecent language could cost them votes rather than attract them.

Interestingly, while most adults and a significant percentage of teenagers frequently express themselves using language that would not pass muster in a broadcast setting, there was a time when candidates would never allow such language to slip during public or private events. This restraint seems to be fading.

Shifting Norms in Political Discourse

This week, California Governor Gavin Newsom—a skilled communicator regardless of one’s view on his policies—made headlines by unleashing what many are calling the ‘mother of all profanities’ during a podcast appearance. His choice of words points to an understanding of the current media landscape. By applying this language to popular podcaster Joe Rogan, Newsom may have made a calculated move to reach audiences in a new way.

In context, his remarks were undoubtedly deliberate, rather than mere spontaneous reactions. In legal settings, such utterances sometimes qualify as ‘excited utterances’, admissible to substantiate the truth of a statement without the usual restrictions on hearsay.

Governor Newsom’s behavior is far from isolated. An increasing number of public officials and influential figures exhibit a notable lack of filters when speaking publicly. The few remaining boundaries are often disregarded, with only the faintest awareness of potential political repercussions.

The Impact on Broadcasting and Society

For comedians and podcasters, however, flaunting the FCC’s forbidden language can serve as a branding tool. This trend spans ideologies, with both left-leaning and right-leaning platforms embracing casual profanity as a means to attract attention. The community of entertainers appears to thrive on such language, amplifying its presence in modern discourse.

Given this evolution, it’s vital for pollsters to explore the public’s attitudes toward profane or obscene speech. Many candidates and attention-seekers seem to believe there is no downside to leveraging such language. My hypothesis is that while attitudes may have shifted, a significant portion of the electorate, regardless of whether they identify as blue or red, remains wary of vulgarity in public dialogue.

Vulgarity in Discourse Today

The terms ‘prude’ or ‘Victorian’ have become pejorative labels thrown at those who object to the degradation of discourse. Yet, for many, being cautious about language is commendable. When members of the community resort to vulgar expressions, they often regret those choices, especially around children. Young ones have a remarkable ability to recall and emulate every phrase uttered by adults.

Interestingly, many individuals on the political left now seem to view the casual use of once-forbidden terms as advantageous. I remain skeptical. While evidence supporting this perspective would be beneficial, it could show that there might be a downside to embracing such language—however slight the impact may seem.

Reflecting on Societal Trends

The changing dynamics of acceptable language broadcasted in public forums reveal a critical moment in American cultural history. As boundaries blur, the implications for political discourse and societal norms are profound. The challenge lies not just in navigating these new waters but in understanding their broader impact on community values and behaviors.

As society grapples with these changes, the conversation about language and its consequences will continue to evolve. It will be essential to maintain open dialogues about the effects of vulgarity on public perception and voter attitudes. Balancing authenticity with caution remains a delicate task for public figures and broadcasters alike.