FCC and Broadcasting Standards: A Shift in Language Usage
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has a clear mandate: no broadcasting of obscene, indecent, or profane content on federally assigned radio waves. This rule is pretty straightforward. Comedians like Renee Bruce and George Carlin, once considered boundary-pushers, shaped the expectations for public broadcasting by pushing the limits of what was deemed acceptable. It seems like ages ago—thirty-five years and counting—since these standards were established, and I don’t regret pushing against them. After all, many radio stations might play it safe without really knowing the viewers they cater to. Some language seems designed more to shock than to inform.
Most people might not even be aware of terms like “Tripwire” unless they dig deep into the weeds. Elected officials tend to avoid language that could be considered inappropriate, especially in paid media. There’s a widespread belief that using indecent or profane language could hurt their chances at the polls. Interestingly, many adults and teens regularly navigate discussions laden with such language in private settings, whereas just a while back, candidates were careful about what they said in public.
But times have changed. Recently, California Governor Gavin Newsom—who’s known for his communication skills—spoke on his podcast and referenced “mother” in a somewhat controversial manner. It’s hard to say if his choice was strategic, possibly to connect with popular podcaster Joe Rogan, but it certainly felt intentional. This wasn’t just a slip of the tongue; it wasn’t off-the-cuff chatter that could be ignored. In fact, in legal settings, spontaneous statements can be treated differently under hearsay rules, which adds a layer of intrigue to his comments.
Governor Newsom isn’t alone. There’s a noticeable trend among public figures and politicians using less-filtered language. The remaining filters seem weak and don’t quite hold up to scrutiny, almost like they’re trying too hard to win over casual fans. This shift isn’t just about casual conversations either; it’s becoming a branding strategy for both left-leaning and right-leaning podcasts alike.
As voters grapple with these evolving norms regarding profanity and crude language in political discourse, it’s clear that many candidates see no significant downside in embracing it. Yet, I can’t help but wonder if there might be unseen costs that could affect the core of American political dialogue. People in both blue and red states may hesitate to fully embrace language that’s considered shocking.
In some circles, being labeled “prude” or “Victorian” carries an air of disparagement, yet it feels like a compliment to those who are simply advocating for a degree of decency in public dialogue. The truth is, nobody wants to be associated with offensive or vulgar speech, even if it’s becoming more commonplace. Many feel regret when such language sneaks in, especially in front of younger audiences, who often latch onto every expression used by their elders.
There’s a curiosity, particularly among those on the left, regarding the positive impacts of this once-taboo language. Personally, I’m skeptical about this perception. However, if there’s a positive side to this trend, perhaps it offers evidence that there might not be any severe consequences involved.
