Stigler and the (Bleeping) FCC

How often do you hear people bemoan the Federal Communications Commission, the national agency designed to regulate, among other things, radio and television? Creative minds in TV and radio grumble frequently about the stiff regulations of thecontent they are, or rather aren't, allowed to broadcast. Shouts of "Don't Censor Us!" are hardly uncommon, and certain shows like South Park and Family Guy (which did a popular musical number slamming the FCC) repeatedly push the threshold of suitability. Some shows have more "Bleeps" per minute than words, it seems, and some stations with laxer restrictions might play up their riskier shows in an attempt to seem edgy. But how badly do they really want these restrictions pulled? According to Peter Funt, son of Allen Funt, creator of Candid Camera, they don't. His theory is quite simple: people find the censored versions or broadcasts more entertaining. As he puts it, "The sizzle has far more appeal than the steak," which I take to imply that people are much more amused when someone curses and they aren't supposed to, leaving it to the audience's imagination to fill in the bleeps, than when someone curses freely. He even says broadcasters have "always been driven more by self-censorship than by the government-mandated kind," and as an example demonstrates how CBS mandated his show 'bleep' any eruptions of "Jesus!", which left "viewers to assume a truly foul word had been spoken." This brings to mind George Stigler's paper, "The Theory of Economic Regulation." Indeed, the circumstances are not identical. Stigler showed that firms often acquire regulation to give them an edge, somehow stifling competition from other entities, often requesting regulation that on the surface seems to harm their business. Funt contends that broadcast companies do something very similar. They play a hypocritical game with the FCC, "begging not to be thrown in the briar patch of censorship, because that’s really where they most want to be." Why else would shows script words they know won't make it past the censors? Because, Funt explains, it gets the audience excited and seems to challenge authority. His father was actually prohibited from censoring non-illicit material as a way to draw laughs, leaving the bleeps for only the really foul stuff. He mentions shows today that take advantage of double-entendre and censorship, including the popular "Unnecessary Censorship" bit in Jimmy Kimmel's talk show, which mimics Funt's father's gimmick of old. As companies plead for regulation on their industries to earn economic profit, so to, Funt asserts, will broadcasters (secretly) desire regulation to keep their audience laughing. There might well be something to this. After all, satellite radio has never taken off as expected, and one of their biggest assets was their claim of no-censorship. Stand-up comedian Mitch Hedberg said that, "there's a reason you can say whatever you want on satellite radio... Nobody is listening." Perhaps Howard Stern was funnier in a regular broadcast, and Funt is right when he declares, "Censorship, it seems, remains one of the most entertaining things on television."