Friday, February 22, 2008

Sample - The 2004 NHL Lockout

In the fall of 2003 the graduate students of Dr. David Carlson's electronic publishing class were asked to create a website devoted to a particular subject of interest. For my project I focused on the causes and ramifications of the impending National Hockey League lockout, which lasted 310 days and cancelled the 2004-05 season.

As we were prohibited from using Dreamweaver or any other techniques other than basic HTML, the page design is rather rudimentary.

http://iml.jou.ufl.edu/projects/Fall03/Machado/

Read more!

Sample 2 - The Failings of the Moral FCC

The following is a research/opinion paper written for a Telecommunication Regulation class during my final graduate semester at the University of Florida. Please be forewarned that there are several obscenities within the paper but they are important to certain cases within the subject matter.

Indecent Proposal: The Failings of the Moral FCC


A simple glance through the Merriam-Webster’s dictionary defines indecency as “ the quality or state of being indecent,” and/or “something (as a word or action) that is indecent,” the latter term defined as “not decent.” As wholly ambiguous and vague as these definitions are, there are activists groups and individuals who believe that the lines between decent and immoral content are clear for all to see. In actuality these “visible” lines are anything but fixed, rather, they are conditional responses based solely upon their own selective and conservative analysis and bias.

In the past several years one such organization, the Federal Communications Commission, has launched a crusade to rid the public airwaves of all things indecent, obscene and profane. Broadcasters have been fined record amounts for airing such offensive content while the maximum penalties for these violations have been proposed to increase more than tenfold. Clearly the FCC has taken a stand in the battle to keep our communities free of highly immoral material while the public at large has made their collective voices heard in an attempt to take back the airwaves for all wholesome Americans.

Or have they?

The FCC defines broadcast indecency as “language or material that, in context, depicts or describes, in terms patently offensive as measured by contemporary community broadcast standards for the broadcast medium, sexual or excretory organs or activities” (Obscenity). For the purposes of this paper, I will examine the recent explosion in indecency complaints on radio and television and the less than clear position the FCC has adopted during this outburst. Just what does the government’s recent push to increase fines for indecency violations mean in relation to freedom of speech? Is indecent content on the airwaves becoming more prevalent now or are pundits just paying closer attention than ever before? If the FCC cannot adopt a concise and fixed position on what constitutes indecent material, will interest groups with their own agendas set contemporary standards for the future? Upon review of such questions this paper argues that there should be limits as to what can and cannot be said on our airwaves. However these inconsistencies compiled with the recent actions of the government have already had a chilling effect on our nation's broadcasters that constitutes what many believe to be nothing less than censorship.

The Words That Built a Furor

On January 19th, 2003, the band U2 took to the stage at the Golden Globes to accept an award for their contribution to Martin Scorsese’s film Gangs of New York, titled The Hands That Built America. Frontman Bono, aka Paul Hewson, sparked a firestorm of controversy by expressing his sheer delight with the win when he exclaimed “This is really, really fucking brilliant” in front of NBC’s live television audience. Though a brief and arguably innocent statement it was enough to result in over 200 complaints sent to the Federal Communications Commission. In a Memorandum Report and Order issued October 3, 2003, the Commission concluded that:

As a threshold matter, the material aired during the “Golden Globe Awards” program does not describe or depict sexual and excretory activities and organs. The word “fucking” may be crude and offensive, but, in the context presented here, did not describe sexual or excretory organs or adjectives. Rather, the performer used the word “fucking” as an adjective or expletive to emphasize an exclamation. Indeed, in similar circumstances, we have found that offensive language used as an insult rather than as a description of sexual or excretory activity or organs is not within the scope of the Commission’s prohibition of indecent program content.

Moreover, we have previously found that fleeting and isolated remarks of this nature do not warrant Commission action.
(FCC R&O)

The Los Angeles based Parents Television Council, responsible for many of the 200 plus complaints sent to the FCC, immediately appealed the decision. “They (FCC) don’t take indecency seriously and that’s why you see it proliferating on the broadcast airwaves”, said PTC employee Lara Mahaney, referring to the government agency as a “toothless lion” (FCC OK’s).

However in early 2004 the lion bared its teeth and bit into the previous ruling on the Bono case, ruling that the utterance was indeed indecent and profane. The Commission, after granting an Application for Review filed by the Parents Television Council, overruled the earlier Enforcement Bureau decision and concluded that use of the “F-Word” in the context of the Golden Globe Awards was profane under 18 U.S.C. Section 1464 (FCC finds). The FCC chose not to fine NBC for the incident but put all other stations on notice that any future use of the word would be deemed indecent, leaving the stations open to “forfeitures and potential license revocation, if appropriate” (FCC finds).

While the indecent connotation of the word may be open for debate, it is arguable that usage of the word “fuck”, no matter how fleeting, is not appropriate for a mainstream broadcast audience. What is particularly disturbing about the FCC’s ruling is that it removed fleeting references from the protection of the First Amendment, as evidenced in FCC v. Pacifica (1978). The word used by Bono on the telecast was an infamous one at that but what of any other words that, while fleeting, may be indecent to some and not others? Who ultimately decides whether or not a particular word or phrase is guilty of this indecency test?

Earlier that year former FCC Chairman Michael Powell called for a dramatic increase in fines for broadcasters guilty of airing obscenities on their stations. Powell reasoned that since Congress had not raised fines in decades, he wanted to increase them by a factor of ten, stating that the maximum fine of $27,500 per incident was not enough to persuade broadcasters to watch their language. “Some of these fines are peanuts”, said Powell. “They’re just a cost of doing business. That has to change” (FCC chief). Thanks to ensuing action from the United States Senate, it soon did.

The Broadcast Indecency Act

On January 21, 2004, Rep. Fred Upton (R-MI) introduced a bill hoping to increase the penalties for broadcast violations of the prohibitions against the transmission of obscene or indecent content or language. The bill was co-sponsored by 145 members of the House, 110 of whom were Republicans. Under the rules of the proposed law, an amendment of the Communications Act of 1934, each violator would be subject to a forfeiture penalty of no more than $500,000 per violation with a cap of $3,000,000 per day (Broadcast, 2004). Under Section 3 of the 2004 Act, the Commission shall take into account the following factors in regard to each violation case:

I. Whether the material uttered by the violator was live or recorded, scripted or unscripted;

II. Whether the violator had a reasonable opportunity to review recorded or scripted programming or had a reasonable basis to believe live or unscripted programming may contain obscene, indecent, or profane material;

III. If the violator originated live or unscripted programming, whether a time delay blocking mechanism was implemented for the programming;

IV. The size and viewing or listening audience of the programming; and

V. Whether the programming was part of a children’s television program

-108 H.R. 3717 (Broadcast Indecency Act of 2004)

In addition, the bill obligated the FCC to rule on indecency complaints within 180 days of receipt. It also contains a “three strikes” policy, where license revocation proceedings begin automatically after a licensee is found guilty of a third offense, though revocation consideration is allowed after even the initial offense. The bill was passed in the House on March 11, 2004, though it would be withdrawn and reintroduced a year later.

On January 27, 2004, the FCC proposed a $755,000 fine against Clear Channel Communications, the single largest fine ever for indecent content, for four sexually explicit radio segments on four Florida stations airing the Bubba the Love Sponge show (FCC Issues). According to the FCC the segments included graphic discussions about sex and drugs that were “designed to pander to, titillate and shock listeners” (FCC Issues). Clear Channel was fined $27,500 for each airing of the segment, or 26 times, and an additional $40,000 fine for record keeping violations. Only one member of the five-person FCC panel, Commissioner Michael Copps, voted to oppose the fine but only because he believed the penalty was not severe enough. Copps, advocating complete license revocation for offenders, stated, “even egregious repeated violations will not result in revocation of license”(FCC Issues). The show’s host, Bubba the Love Sponge, aka Todd Clem, was summarily fired by Clear Channel. “A line has been crossed,” said Chairman Powell, unaware of the national hysteria that would come just weeks later (FCC chief).

A Malfunction of Judgment

On the evening of February 1, 2004, millions of viewers across the globe tuned into CBS to see Super Bowl XXXVIII between the New England Patriots and Carolina Panthers. In what has now become one of the most infamous moments in television history, singer Justin Timberlake exposed part of Janet Jackson’s breast during the halftime performance. Though a sun shaped “pastie” covered her nipple, the watchful eyes of the public were more than aware of the brief display, and the ensuing outrage was immense. If Bono’s appearance at the 2003 Golden Globes was the spark that lit the fire, this particular episode was the can of gasoline dumped upon the proverbial fires of immoral indignation.

CBS immediately claimed that it had no advance knowledge of the incident while halftime show producer MTV (which, coincidentally or not depending upon your point of view, promoted the show as having “shocking moments”) also claimed it was unaware. Meanwhile Timberlake, in what has also become an infamous expression, blamed the breast exposure on a “wardrobe malfunction.” An outraged Michael Powell promised a thorough and swift investigation into the matter. While the results of that investigation would not come for another seven months, the fallout from ‘Nipplegate’ was itself swift and, in fining terms, thorough.

On March 18, 2004, the FCC reversed its previous ruling regarding Bono’s usage of the word “fuck” during the Golden Globes. Though Powell and other FCC officers publicly moved for such a reversal at the time of the original ruling, the move came at a perfect time to mollify those still seething from the Jackson debacle. Then on April 9, the FCC went after Clear Channel again, issuing a $495,000 fine for indecent content broadcast by their most infamous (and to date, fined) target, Howard Stern.

The offensive broadcast in question was not a recent Stern show (it aired April 9, 2003), but the Commission found that it included specific references to oral sex. Under the FCC’s enforcement procedure, the maximum fine of $27,500 was levied against Clear Channel a total of 18 times (Frey). As with Bubba the Love Sponge just weeks prior, Stern was immediately dropped from all Clear Channel stations. “It has created a great liability for us and other broadcasters who air it”, wrote John Hogan, President and CEO of Clear Channel Radio in a written statement. “The Congress and the FCC are even beginning to look at revoking station licenses. That’s a risk we’re just not willing to take” (Clear Channel).

Commissioner Copps wrote that the decision was “a step forward towards imposing meaningful fines”, adding that the FCC “makes clear the indecency enforcement will address not only the station that is the subject of the complaint but also any other station that aired the same programming” (Frey). Stern, as expected, lashed out at the FCC’s decision. “Those who are campaigning against broadcast indecency are expressing and imposing their opinions and rights to tell us all who and what we may listen to and watch, and how we should think about our lives”, he charged (Clear Channel).

Stern is no stranger to FCC fines, as his show has accounted for more than half of the $4.5 million in broadcast indecency fines levied by the agency since 1990. Stations that carried the Stern show were fined roughly $2.5 million since 1990, the bulk of which were for shows broadcast between 1991 and 1993, and five of which were settled with a record lump sum payment of $1.71 million in 1995 (Dunbar). “I’m so frustrated by the amount of censorship that’s been going on,” said Stern. “The FCC is on such a witch hunt against me that they actually go back 2 or 3 years for reasons to fine me” (Lerner). If the notorious shock jock alone accrued such hefty fines for this period of time, surely the number of total indecency violations on broadcast television and radio for the past decade must be even more phenomenal, right?

In a study of FCC records, the Center for Public Integrity identified 75 broadcast indecency proceedings instigated by the agency since 1990, focusing on Notices of Apparent Liability. Not only are a relatively few number of shows responsible for the majority of these fines, the monetary amount of the penalties have increased dramatically.

According to this study, the FCC proposed more fines for broadcast indecency in 2004 than the previous 10 years combined (Dunbar). The Center also found that only 4 percent, or three total fines, of these monetary penalties were levied against television broadcasters in the past 14 years. For the skeptics that insisted the sudden rush to clean up the airwaves in 2004 was more political than moral, figures like these are intriguing.

Nevertheless, advocates of cleaner airwaves will claim that the abhorrent quality of the offending broadcasts, rather than quantity, are what matter more when pressing for increased government legislation on indecency. This is ironic in a sense, for many of the complaints sent to the FCC are few in quantity (in relation to the American public as a whole), yet dominated by specific interest groups pushing their agenda upon the government. According to a December 2004 FCC estimate by Mediaweek, 99.8 percent of all indecency complaints in 2003 were filed by the PTC. Through October 2004, all complaints other than those concerning the Janet Jackson debacle were filed by the PTC, or 99.9 percent (Shields). The PTC filed 217 of the 234 complaints filed concerning the Golden Globe awards (FCC R&O).

The Parents Television Council defines itself as a grassroots organization with more than a million members nationwide. Its self-defined mission is “to promote and restore responsibility and decency to the entertainment industry in answer to America's demand for positive, family-oriented television programming by fostering changes in TV programming to make the early hours of prime time family-friendly and suitable for viewers of all ages “ (PTC). Pundits of the PTC claim the organization wants desperately to serve as the conscience of the entertainment industry, but this is actually a claim of their mission statement. “It means that a really tiny minority with a very focused political agenda is trying to censor American television and radio,” writes Jonathan Rintels, president of the Center for Creative Voices in Media, an artists’ advocacy group.

The Council’s main site maintains a thorough list of what they believe are the worst shows on television each week, with clips of selected “red light” shows presented online for appalled parents to review. While the FCC does not actively monitor television content, the PTC has a legion of staffers who review nearly all televised material between the hours of 8am-11pm. The PTC acknowledges that if their campaign is ultimately successful, the bulk of indecent and obscene content will be pushed to cable and satellite. However, their scope is not limited to broadcast television alone, and they eventually hope to have cable and satellite television subject to the same standards as broadcast.

“Each evening, the PTC records every prime-time program on ABC, CBS, Fox, NBC, Pax, UPN, and the WB, as well as original programming on expanded basic cable. The following day, the PTC’s team of entertainment analysts, with headphones, computers, and remote controls in hand, watches and transcribes verbatim every offensive word and every bit of sexual innuendo, and describes depictions of sexual activity and violence in detail. These analysts are men and women with stomachs of steel.

The information from the analysts is fed into the PTC’s custom-designed Entertainment Tracking System (ETS). The staff uses the information to compile e-mail reports, monthly newsletters, and in-depth studies. The researchers also use intelligence from ETS to produce frequent press releases and alerts exposing TV’s gratuitous sex and graphic violence, and to educate sponsors about program content.”

-Parents Television Council

In June, Clear Channel settled all outstanding fines from the FCC by paying a record sum of $1.75 million, topping the $1.7 million paid by Infinity Broadcasting in 1995 for indecency violations also committed by Stern. “We didn’t agree that all the complaints were legally indecent,” wrote Andrew Levin, chief legal officer for Clear Channel, “but some clearly crossed the line”(McCarthy). The PTC assailed this decree, calling it nothing more than a government payoff, though all along it called for a steep fine. At this point, Viacom/CBS knew that their time to pay was steadily approaching, and it would not get off light.

On September 22nd, Viacom was hit with a fine of $550,000 for the Super Bowl XXXVIII incident. The FCC proposed the maximum penalty against each of the 20 CBS licensees owned by Viacom, yet did not propose any forfeitures against the non-affiliates that aired the show. The official reason for the fine was that Viacom/CBS not only planned and approved the telecast, but also the history of indecency violations committed by Infinity Broadcasting and its subsidiaries were taken into account by the Commission as well. “While we regret that the incident occurred and have apologized to our viewers, we continue to believe that nothing in the Super Bowl broadcast violated indecency laws”, said a statement from CBS after the ruling. “Furthermore, our investigation proved that no one in our company had any advance knowledge about the incident” (CBS).

“As a result of the Janet Jackson thing, we have taken precautions, adding a five second delay to everything on our network other than live news and sports” said CBS chairman and Viacom co-president Leslie Moonves in a March 2005 interview with Playboy magazine. “We have taken precautions that it wont happen again. I believe the FCC should say, ‘All right, CBS has acted responsibly to address a problem that occurred’, that should be the end of it” (Sheff).

The end to the ordeal for Viacom/CBS came two months later, when the broadcasting giant entered into a $3.5 million consent decree with the FCC. Nevertheless, some FCC Commissioners were still not satisfied. Two members publicly objected to the fine as too lenient, expressing that even those affiliates not owned by CBS should have been fined also. “I am concerned about the effect of today’s decision on the commission’s license renewal process,” wrote Commissioner Copps in a concurring statement. “The totality of a broadcaster’s record is pertinent and should be considered when licenses are renewed” (Boliek, Viacom). Though Viacom agreed to immediately suspend or terminate any on-air employee whose broadcast results in an indecency fine proposal, it challenged the Super Bowl fine, calling it unfair and unwarranted (Boliek, Viacom). To date, the network has still not paid the $550,000 fine, which was excluded from the scope of the Consent Decree.

The Broadcast Indecency Act was passed again in the House on February 16, 2005 by a 389 to 35 vote (Ahrens, House). “Today, we are delivering something of real value to American families,” said Rep. Upton after the bill was passed. “A parent should not have to think twice about the content on the public airwaves. Unfortunately, that situation is far from reality.”

Is the FCC promoting a culture of censorship?

Howard Stern believes that the current push to regulate the airwaves is nothing more than a “witch hunt,” and in a sense he may very well be correct. There are many Stern fans that do not always take his antics seriously and accept the fact that there are those who cannot stomach his particular brand of comedy. Should the personal standards of his fans be precedent for others in their community, or should those whom abhor Stern govern the sensibilities of others? Should the standards of one person, or perhaps five hundred, decide what is “reasonable” and appropriate for everyone else in the country?

The FCC holds to the claim that their contemporary community standards are not local, do not encompass a particular geographic area, and are based upon the average broadcast listener/viewer and not the sensibilities of any individual complainant or group. This is where I find serious fault with the FCC’s position.

1.) The FCC is empowered with the ability to fine those who violate indecency laws, regardless of how many complaints they receive, which is something I can accept. However, how can they say they do not cater to the sensibilities of any individual or group yet respond to numerous grievances dominated by groups such as the PTC? How is the removal of personalities such as Stern or Clem justified when their detractors make up barely a percentage of their immense audience? For that matter, how do you enforce and protect community standards yet say those same standards do not encompass one particular area? Can any one group, whether the FCC or the PTC, determine the breadth of America’s standards, and if so, should they? It is not the job of the FCC to monitor every piece of content on our airwaves, but if they are upholding the law, should that important responsibility belong to them as opposed to the PTC and other watchdogs?

2.) The FCC steadfastly states that it is against censorship of any shape or form, and while I believe their intent to be true, I disagree with their practices. Michael Powell and the other Commission members never once censored material directly, though it is through the power of the FCC fines (now increased more than tenfold by the government) that indirect censorship occurs. When threatened with a $500,000 fine per offensive utterance, the FCC wields a powerful hammer which casts a cloud over all broadcasters in the US, regardless of their format. Stations wishing to avoid the scarlet letter of a whopping fine have begun to censor themselves in earnest, many times before the FCC has a chance to offer input regarding potentially fineable material. Broadcasters such as CBS/Viacom and NBC have repeatedly denied guilt when forced to pay steep indecency fines, yet both went ahead and agreed to their respective Consent Decrees. There is a dangerous precedent being set here, where powerful networks profess innocence yet refuse to stand up for their First Amendment rights as broadcasters. Once these companies choose quick settlements over principle, the FCC could very well begin fining at will. This could be even more disastrous for smaller outlets that do not have the capital of a Viacom or Clear Channel, potentially destroying their entire operation in the process.

3.) Numerous broadcasters are adopting a “zero-tolerance” policy when it comes to their on-air talent, threatening to immediately suspend or terminate those under fire for indecency violations/complaints. I believe this is playing directly into the hands of the FCC and watchdog agencies such as the PTC. If the powers that be know there are objectionable (or at the least, dissenting) voices under the umbrella of a zero-tolerance policy, would immediate fines regardless of substance not further their own agenda? Though this is speculation at this point, the mere possibility of this activity in such a subjective battle is chilling.

4.) Most importantly, the Federal Communications Commission cannot come to a solid agreement on what constitutes indecent content. Even more, the Commission cannot even agree on their own decrees! If Commissioners such as Michael Copps find that a particular Consent Decree is not powerful enough, why do he and the other members not settle this before the Decree is finalized and not after? I would say that I disagree with their conviction, but I do not see any to find fault with. It seems as if these Commissioners are never satisfied no matter what the outcome of these cases. “The FCC is not able to define indecency and keeps changing its mind about what it is,” writes ACLU counsel Mary Johnson. “ If the FCC can’t make the determination, how can broadcasters?” (Harper).

Just weeks after the Super Bowl fiasco, Michael Powell was asked about his own standard of decency. “I know it when I see it,” he said. “I don’t think you need to be a lawyer to understand the basic concepts of common decency here” (Hilden). Well, Mr. Powell, I am no lawyer myself, but if the basic concepts of common decency are so easily understood, why has the Commission not reached a firm ground? If you “know it when you see it”, please elaborate and share your extensive testing prowess with the country, especially those broadcasters operating in fear that they might violate the vague and unclear rules of your former employer.

“I will never sit here and do hypotheticals about whether something is liable for not,” Powell says. “If we receive complaints about a broadcast, that will be investigated and a decision will be made, I think, responsibly” (Boliek, Cablers).

The situation reached a boiling point in the winter of 2004 when numerous ABC affiliates refrained from showing Steven Spielberg’s World War II epic Saving Private Ryan out of fear they would be subject to indecency fines for the film’s excessive violence. “Stations were worried that they would be fined and went to the FCC and asked in advance if they would get in trouble, and the FCC stayed silent,” says Moonves. “In my view both the stations and the FCC were wrong. People are living in fear. It’s a dangerous precedent” (Sheff).

It has been said that the media does not advocate social change, instead it amplifies it. The world is not as clean and peaceful as all of us would like and the media merely reflects society’s attitudes as opposed to manipulating them. While we have the freedom to try and make things better for ourselves as well as our fellow man, we do not have the right to deny the freedoms of others so that we may mold society in the way we see fit. The FCC, much like the PTC, has good intentions on paper. However, despite these, they are misguided, imprudent and erroneous in the way they go about forcing their objectives upon the people of this country. Those who stand against the FCC and the rash of broadcast finings receive just as much bad judgment as Howard Stern. It is not so much a matter of rendering all controversial content decent. Rather, it is about protecting those voices from being unfairly regulated and punished by an indecisive government agency responding to select agenda pushing activists. As long as the FCC remains mum, these groups wield considerable power.

The rash of indecency complaints and fines in 2004 were an overzealous election year attempt to appease the moral majority and scare broadcasters for years to come. If the trend worsens, society will lose out, as diverse ideas and voices become increasingly absent from our airwaves. By constructing a firm definition of indecency (with a faithful attempt to cultivate as much public opinion as possible), the power is given back to the broadcasters, who can then use the template to regulate themselves without fear. “We need to affirm local broadcasters’ ability - and responsibility – to reject inappropriate programming,” says current FCC Chairman Kevin Martin. “This obligation is critical to local broadcasters’ ability to keep coarser network programming off the air in their communities. The network affiliates asked us to clarify this right over three years ago. We still have not acted” (CBS).

Now is as good a time as any, Mr. Chairman.


Citations

Ahrens, F. (2005). House raises penalties for airing indecency. Retrieved Feb. 17, 2005, from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A30651-2005Feb16.html.

Ahrens, F. (2004). Radio giant in record indecency settlement. Retrieved Feb. 17, 2005, from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A26431-2004Jun8.html

Boliek, B. (2004, May 5). Cablers decry 'censorship' tactics of FCC. Retrieved Feb. 10, 2005, from http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr/television/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000502679.


Boliek, B. (2004). Viacom, FCC settle indecency claims with $3.5 mil fine. Retrieved Feb. 26, 2005, from http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000726039.

Broadcast Indecency Act of 2004, 108 H.R. 3717, 108th Cong., 2nd Sess. (2004).

Broadcast Indecency Act of 2005, 109 H.R. 310, 109th Cong., 1st Sess. (2005).

CBS hit with $550k Super Bowl fine settlement. (2004). Retrieved Feb. 17, 2005, from http://money.cnn.com/2004/09/22/news/fortune500/viacom_fcc/.

Clear Channel yanks Stern from 6 stations. (2004). Retrieved Feb. 23, 2005, from http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/04/08/stern.clearchannel/index.html.

Corn-Revere, R. (2004). Indecency, television and the First Amendment (Can the FCC square off in the legal circle?). Consumers' Research Magazine, 87(2), 21.

Crawford, K. (2004). Breasts, butts...oh my! A look back at the indecency crackdown of 2004. Retrieved Feb. 2, 2005, from http://money.cnn.com/2004/12/16/news/fortune500/indecency/.

Crawford, K. (2004, December 27). Howard's End? Retrieved Feb. 6, 2005, from http://money.cnn.com/2004/12/23/news/newsmakers/stern/.

Dorf, M. C. (2004). Does the First Amendment protect Janet Jackson and Justin Timberlake? Retrieved Feb. 9, 2005, from http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/02/04/findlaw.analysis.dorf.jackson.indecency/index.html

Dunbar, J. (2004). Indecency on the air - Shock-radio jock Howard Stern remains 'King of All Fines'. Retrieved Feb. 6, 2005, from http://www.publicintegrity.org/telecom/report.aspx?aid=239&sid=200.

Federal Communications Commission. (2004). Memorandum Opinion And Order: Complaints Against Various Broadcast Licensees Regarding Their Airing Of The “Golden Globe Awards” Program. Washington, DC: U. S. Government Printing Office.

FCC and Viacom inc. enter into $3.5 million consent decree concerning indecency restrictions. (2004). Retrieved Feb. 2, 2005, from http://www.fcc.gov/eb/News_Releases/DOC-254596A1.html.

FCC and Clear Channel Communications, inc., enter into $1.75 million consent decree concerning indecency restriction. (2004). Retrieved Feb. 2, 2005, from http://www.fcc.gov/eb/News_Releases/DOC-248237A1.html.

FCC chief wants crackdown on obscenity over the airwaves. (2004). Retrieved Jan. 29, 2005, from http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/01/14/fcc.obscenity/index.html.

FCC finds that broadcast of “f-word” during Golden Globe awards was indecent and profane. (2004). Retrieved Feb. 2, 2005, from http://www.fcc.gov/eb/News_Releases/DOC-245133A1.html.

FCC issues steep indecency fines. (2004). Retrieved Feb. 26, 2005, from http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/27/tech/main596334.shtml.

FCC OKs Bono's f-word slip. (2005). Retrieved Feb. 26, 2005, from http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/09/17/entertainment/main573729.shtml.

FCC proposes statutory maximum fine of $550,000 against Viacom-owned CBS affiliates for apparent violation of indecency rules during broadcast of Super Bowl halftime show. (2004). Retrieved Feb. 2, 2005, from http://www.fcc.gov/eb/News_Releases/DOC-252384A1.html.

File an official indecency complaint with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) now. (2005). Retrieved Feb. 21, 2005, from https://www.parentstv.org/ptc/fcc/fcccomplaint2.asp.

Frey, J. (2004). Clear Channel fined $495,000, dumps Stern. Retrieved Feb. 17, 2005, from http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A63071-2004Apr8¬Found=true.

Harper, L.(2004). Policing the airwaves: The debate over indecency. Retrieved Mar. 21, 2005, from http://www.pbs.org/newshour/extra/features/jan_june04/indecency_3-31.html.

Hilden, J. (2004). Jackson 'Nipplegate' illustrates the danger of chilling free speech. Retrieved Feb. 6, 2005, from http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/02/20/findlaw.analysis.hilden.jackson/index.html.

House approves tougher indecency fines. (2005). Retrieved Feb. 16, 2005, from http://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/02/16/congress.indecency.ap/index.html.

House passes bill to raise indecency fines. (2005). Retrieved Feb. 17, 2005, from http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=politicsNews&storyID=2005-02-16T193927Z_01_N16383250_
RTRIDST_0_POLITICS-CONGRESS-DECENCY-DC.XML.

Lerner, G. (2004). Stern lambasts Bush, FCC. Retrieved Feb. 5, 2005, from http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/30/stern.bush/index.html.

McCarthy, M. (2004). Clear Channel settles for record $1.75m. Retrieved Feb. 26, 2005, from http://www.usatoday.com/money/media/2004-06-09-clear-channel_x.htm.

Networks' naked truth: Fear of the FCC. (2004, December 27). Retrieved Jan. 26th, 2005, from http://www.cnn.com/2005/SHOWBIZ/TV/01/26/apontv.the.jitters.ap/index.html.

Obscenity, Indecency & Profanity. (2005). Retrieved Feb. 2, 2005, from http://www.fcc.gov/parents/content.html.

Obscene, Profane & Indecent Broadcasts. (2005). Retrieved Feb. 2, 2005, from http://www.fcc.gov/eb/broadcast/opi.html.

Parents Television Council: Because our children are watching. (2005). Retrieved Feb. 2, 2005, from http://www.parentstv.org/.

Sheff, D. (2005). Playboy Interview - Leslie Moonves. Playboy, 52(4),159.

Shields, T. (2004). Activists dominate indecency complaints. Retrieved Feb. 21, 2005, from http://www.billboardradiomonitor.com/radiomonitor/search/article_display.jsp?schema=&vnu_content_id=1000731910.

Read more!

Sample 3 - The 1967 Central Park Riots in Tampa

The following is an excerpt from a report on the news coverage of the 1967 Central Park Riots in Tampa, written for a class covering the role of the media during the Civil Rights Movement.

It was a small routine burglary, one rarely covered by reporters and one usually overlooked by the public at large. This simple theft resulted in the shooting death of a fleeing suspect, a shooting that sparked a racial explosion in what was often considered a progressive southern city. A white policeman gunned down an unarmed black teenager who reportedly tried to surrender. Regardless of the circumstances and facts surrounding the event, this was the story which traveled throughout the Central Park community and it touched off three furious nights of looting, arson and violence. While it might have seemed the violence was in direct response to the shooting death alone, it is now believed that the death of the youth was merely the last straw, angering the youth of the black community who felt the authority of the police had oppressed them for far too long.

When analyzing the accounts of the Central Park riots as covered by the Tampa Tribune, and to a lesser extent the Tampa Times, I found that while the coverage was detailed it sometimes cast an insensitive light upon the residents of the Central Park area. The abundance of photos run in the papers were of a forceful, almost oppressive nature, and the few photos of members of the black community cast them in a combative and often bewildered state. Though arguably due to the time period of the riots, references to the black community were sometimes dated and insensitive.

“Negro Rioters Burn, Loot Stores, Hold Hostage”

On June 11, 1967, three African-American youths broke into Tampa Photo Supply, located within the Central Avenue neighborhood, and took assortment of cameras, film and flashbulbs worth nearly $300. While attempting to elude police capture one of the boys, 19-year old Martin Chambers, was shot dead by patrolman James Calvert. The .38 caliber bullet struck Chambers square in the back and killed him almost instantly. Within the hour reports of the shooting spread throughout the Central Avenue Housing project as residents gathered in the streets and near the shooting location to seek immediate answers. Rumors spread that a white police officer had shot a black youth who tried to surrender to police and raised his hands accordingly. Angry crowds began to form within the project, seeking answers for the seemingly heinous act committed within their community. As a special precaution the Special Enforcement Unit of the Tampa Police Department was held on duty until 7:30pm.

As rain began to fall the crowds dispersed and the tension seemed eased for the time being. The Special Enforcement Unit was dismissed as reports from the project indicated that things were returning to normal. However after 10pm, reports of gathering crowds surfaced and additional police units began to muster. Deputy Police Chief Allison Wainright, acting as chief while his superior was on vacation, was continuously advised by persons in the Central Avenue neighborhood not to aggravate the situation by sending in a small police force. Reports of widespread shooting, fires, looting and beatings surfaced, and the police then had little choice but to intervene.

By 11pm, an advance force of twelve Tampa police officers were dispatched to the Jesse Harp gun shop, just a hundred yards from the shooting scene, to contain a crowd that looted the store of guns, ammunition and tear gas. A force of about forty city patrolmen, including the advance unit, gathered in the heart of the disturbance. Shots rang out from the mob and targeted the marching officers.” All persons will at once leave the street. If you do not move we will move you,” blared the sound car accompanying the police unit. “All those who are armed will be shot” (New).

As the streets became relatively clear of rioters, the Tampa Fire Department moved into the neighborhood to quell out of control blazes on Main Street, Third Avenue and Nebraska, and Central Avenue. It was around this time that the first and only casualty of the riots was recorded, when Deputy Sheriff Sgt. Don Williams suffered a heart attack and died soon after (Cox, How). For the next several hours, random sniper activity was reported within the projects. Random fire bombs and fires reduced many local businesses to cinders and reports surfaced of countless passing motorists being dragged from their cars and beaten in the streets. Police and rioters converged upon Central Avenue and a half-mile strip of stores, poolhalls, liquor stores and restaurants. Among many incidents reported by the Tampa Tribune:

- Numerous reports of white motorists being dragged from cars and beaten by gangs of black men.

-A 19-year old white woman reported a young Negro dragged her from her car, pulled her into a parking lot and beat her. (An earlier report claimed she was beaten by 20 men).

-A policeman was hit with a dose of tear gas “originally directed at a Negro who had already been subdued and put under arrest.”

-An Ybor City storekeeper warned by passing black teenagers that they would be back that night with axes, this after they smashed all his store windows.

- A white attendant at a Nebraska Ave. gas station told police three young Negroes entered t the station office, placed a knife against his stomach, took his keys and forced him into the restroom. They then stole $75 from the register (Hendrick).

Florida Governor Claude Kirk, away on vacation, agreed to fly in to assist with the escalating situation. Governor Kirk arrived at 4am Monday June 12, and conferred with Sheriff Malcolm Beard, Deputy Chief Wainright, Tampa Mayor Nick Nuccio and assorted Negro leaders of the Tampa community. Two of these leaders, James Hammond and Robert Gilder of the Tampa NAACP chapter, preached to local youths at the Mount Moriah Baptist Church in the hopes of ending the violence but were unsuccessful. In the course of these meetings it became clear that there were severe disagreements between the young black men involved in the riots and the leaders of the community. The rioters claimed that a major reason for the ongoing violence was the heavy presence of the National Guard and police in the black neighborhoods.

Later that morning State Attorney Paul Antinori convened a special inquiry into the shooting death of Martin Chambers. By Monday afternoon Sheriff Beard had requested that Governor Kirk call the National Guard in on the basis of reports that the violence would likely spread within the community. At 5pm, just three hours after the appeal to Governor Kirk, the National Guard was deployed in trouble areas with fixed bayonets. Sheriff’s deputies carried county issued riot guns, but many of the underequipped officers came armed with riot sticks and personal shotguns.

Governor Kirk appeared on WFLA-TV at 9pm to appeal for a return to normalcy and strongly urged Tampans to stay off the streets and remain in their respective homes, however his appeal fell upon deaf ears. For much of the night, rioters exchanged gunfire with Guardsmen and police stationed in the conflict zone. Between 7:43pm and 11:44pm, the Tampa Fire Department recorded eleven fires connected to the rioting, many started by Molotov cocktails thrown at cars and buildings in the area (Second).

The Martin Chambers shooting inquiry reconvened at 9am Tuesday, June 13. After hearing the testimony of Patrolman Calvert, Antinori visited the scene of the shooting death with police escort and assorted newsmen. Antinori and the police interrogated three young boys who witnessed the shooting. According to witnesses, Calvert shot Chambers after he had stopped running and had his hands up against a chain link fence with his body running forward (Antinori). This corroborated the testimony of Chambers’ brother, Jerome Collins King, who witnessed the shooting. Contradictory testimony surfaced that there was more than one shot fired, though there were no actual witnesses or physical evidence to prove this. Rumors flew through the black community that Chambers was shot as many as four or five times, and cut down in cold blood after surrendering. Tampa Police testified that Chambers was running hard and about to turn a corner when the shot was fired. If he had turned the corner, they argued, he probably would have gained freedom by running past two frame buildings and across Harrison St. to the Central Park Housing Project (Antinori).

Patrolman Calvert testified that he had not previously shot anyone since joining the force two years earlier but had not qualified when he took his last pistol marksmanship test. “I drew my revolver and pointed it at him…approximately at the area of the right shoulder…not specifically aimed…more or less pointed it,” Calvert testified (Cox, Officer). Chambers was “running as hard as he could” and made “no move to surrender.” Under Florida law, officers are required to give only a voice command to a suspect to halt. Once given, the officer may fire at the fleeing suspect. There is no requirement that an officer must fire a warning shot into the air before firing at the suspect (Justice).

Several youths attending the inquiry admitted to being friends with leaders of some rioting factions in the neighborhoods. Antinori asked the youths if they could spread word that the law officials were doing their best to get to the truth, and they indicated that they would indeed try. Tampa NAACP leader Robert Gilder was less than pleased with the rumors spreading throughout the Central Park community, feeling they were a severe detriment to any attempts to keep the peace and reach an accord in the situation between the police and the community. “There’s no good talking about it in the community,” Gilder stated. “Have them bring it (evidence of police misconduct) down here where we can do something about it. If they can’t produce now, they need to shut up.” The inquiry was fully open to members of the press (Cox, Antinori).

By 4pm the inquiry concluded. Throughout the afternoon, city officials held a series of meetings with leaders of the black community to try and reach an accord for the peace. An agreement is reached to try and limit Guard and police presence in the trouble areas in an effort to relax the tension and violence. Deployment of Guardsmen and police were limited by the early evening as a result of these talks. While assorted fire bombs were set off during the night, few isolated incidents occurred within the area, and the police used minimum force in quelling the disturbances. Volunteer patrols of young members of the black community assisted the police in keeping the peace. These volunteers, identified as the “White Hats” for their protective helmets, patrolled the streets and dealt with potential trouble through talk and persuasion.

At 9am on Wednesday, June 14, State Attorney Antinori exonerated James Calvert in the shooting death of Martin Chambers. “Under the facts, circumstances, evidence and law of the State of Florida, the death of Martin Chambers must be ruled justifiable homicide,” the decision stated (Cox, Officer). Since Chambers was a found to be a felon fleeing from apprehension, Calvert’s shot was deemed “reasonably necessary in order to capture him. “At what point did this boy become a felon?” asked Gilder. “The law does not apply to this case” (Gorham). Antinori replied that Chambers became a felon “when he robbed the Tampa Photo Supply Store.” “Those who take it upon themselves to commit burglaries, larcenies and robberies necessarily assume the risk that officers of the law will reach out and seize them. If such occurs, the law requires that they peaceably submit to its authority. If they refuse, they voluntarily assume the additional risk that the law will impose its sanctions to the limit of force until capture and apprehension is accomplished” (Cox, Officer) According to Antinori, that risk included that of shooting. “The law makes no discrimination. If we disregard the law in this case for appeasement, then the law means nothing” (Cox, Officer).

According to police and medical testimony, as well as physical evidence, Chambers could not have been in the surrender position described by several witnesses when he was shot. Despite their anger at the decision, various black leaders spent the day pleading with the restless youth of the community in hopes of curbing any violent retaliation. Many riot leaders agree to join the volunteer youth patrols and stop rioting. The patrol units, shaped into a makeshift paramilitary organization, received their uniforms with white helmets and take up positions in the black Central Avenue project community. Some youths are named captains and lieutenants while given the responsibility of patrolling hot areas in squads to convince the rioters, often friends, to cease the looting and arson. Sheriff Beard kept the National Guard and police out of these areas except when called by the volunteer patrols. The White Hats were credited with dispersing various crowds on the brink of violent behavior. By Thursday morning, the worst appeared to be over. The National Guard was soon demobilized and Sheriff Beard announced that calm had indeed returned to the area.

When addressing the Florida Association of Broadcasters at a convention in Miami Beach, Governor Kirk praised the state’s broadcasters for presenting the truth about the riots, while verbally condemning the work of the Associated Press. Saying that “nothing could be further from the truth”, Governor Kirk took issue with the quotations from the AP report in Miami concerning “a night of Tampa terror” and “rampaging Negroes burned and looted Tampa’s sprawling slums” (Kirk lauds). Governor Kirk was particularly upset at the AP’s claim that “Negroes battled with about 1,000 heavily armed police and National Guards.” According to Governor Kirk, there were 500 National Guardsmen gathered at the armory, but 162 were the most actually deployed. After augmentation by 48 officers from the Hillsborough County Sheriff’s office plus city police, the force count made no less than 500 men. “The report was untrue. I was there, unarmed,” said Governor Kirk. “Thanks goodness there were radio and television men with me to report this on tape and film to back what I tell you today” (Kirk lauds). Paul Hansel, chief of bureau for the AP in Florida argued that the AP “had several men in Tampa covering the Negro troubles there” (Kirk lauds).

Another point of contention with Governor Kirk was the absence of any mention of the numerous citizens of the black community who avoided violent behavior and strove to ensure peace. “It doesn’t tell about the five Negro preachers who did sentinel duty without terror at my request Monday night. By large everybody in Hillsborough County cooperated.” In the meantime, Governor Kirk went on to declare that there was peace and quiet in Tampa, and that only a few shoes were stolen on the Monday night of the riots. “They (AP) are maligning the good people of Tampa who are cooperating with our efforts to restore peace and improve the lot of all Floridians, Negroes and whites” (Kirk lauds).

Earlier that day, Governor Kirk met with the mother of Martin Chambers, Mrs. Janie B. Chambers, in a gathering of “200 Negroes” at Mitchell Elementary School. “Right must prevail”, she urged the Governor. “You’ve got do to something.” “I agree. Right must prevail, and justice must prevail”, he replied. At this point, someone in the crowd shouted, “There are two sides, not just your side.” According to the Tribune, Governor Kirk “went on and talked for about 40 minutes to the Negroes, who appeared impressed that the governor wasn’t afraid to come to their meeting” (Kirk sees).

During the week, Rep. William C. Cramer, R-Fla, charged that the racial riot in Tampa was caused by a national conspiracy amongst militant “black power” leaders. “All the national leaders are preaching ‘defy the law’, ‘kill the cops’ and they are adding to that this year ‘to hell with the draft’, which is pretty close to treason,” said Cramer (Cramer). After speaking to Sheriff Beard by telephone, Cramer said he would advise the networks to stop giving free television time to people such as Martin Luther King, Jr. and Stokely Carmichael, who served “to preach hatred and incite riots.” Cramer attempted to enact a bill that would make it a federal crime to travel or communicate in interstate commerce with the intention of causing a riot. According to Cramer, Sheriff Beard informed him that the Congress of Racial Equality (CORE) and the Black Muslims both had headquarters in the area where the riot broke out. “This is part of a national conspiracy that is going to break loose all over the country if Congress doesn’t do something about it,” he said. “The sheriff agrees with me that if CORE and the Black Muslims had not been there with this constant preachment of hatred of whites, this would not have happened. These people don’t dream these things up. They were told, ‘get guns.’ Where do you get them? In a gun shop” (Cramer).

Cramer also noted that, coincidentally, Stokely Carmichael was arrested that Sunday in Alabama. Carmichael was quoted in saying he “going to get the cops” This was presented again in an attempt to tie the threat to the Tampa riots. “At midnight the whole town broke loose. Carmichael went there with the express purpose of stirring them up.” Rep. Sam Gibbons, D-Fla, who represented Tampa, said he would not attempt to say what the real cause of the problem was. “There is no doubt in my mind that people of all races are better off in Tampa than they were 5 years ago, 10 years ago, 15 years ago, as far as opportunity is concerned. More is being done for poor people in the Tampa area than anywhere in Florida or anywhere in the South” (Cramer).

The dilemma that faced Gilder, Hammond and other black leaders of the community was how to appease the restless youth of the black community while also cooperating with impatient law enforcement officials. It was the suggestion that the black youths of the community be allowed to patrol their own neighborhoods that had a profound impact on ending the violence and keeping peace in the projects. A recurring problem both before and during the riots was the severe lack of communication between the black leaders and the youth of the community. Once the channels of communication were opened and the elders’ plea for peace was joined with a willingness to let the youths patrol their own area, the rioters soon calmed down. The black leaders wanted minimal police presence in the hot areas, though this directly conflicted with the philosophy of the law enforcement officers, who felt that a heavy Guard and police presence was necessary to contain the violence and keep it from spreading. The police were vastly unprepared for such a violent outburst, and more importantly, unprepared to act fairly on complaints from the Negro communities. Though little was filmed due to obvious safety concerns, the television news film from the period was eventually spliced without a soundtrack into chronological sequence for use as a Police Department training tool (Bentayou).

“I’ll tell you, the people were mighty tired of having Tampa police shoot down young blacks and having it be ruled justifiable,” said Robert Gilder nearly ten years after the riots (Bentayou). James Hammond agreed, saying there were serious problems with the way white police dealt with young blacks. “They could just do anything they wanted to do. The way they arrested people, the way they handled people, the way they talked to them. “You know, the ‘boy’ syndrome, acting like you’re not even human. But the shootings. Everytime a black got shot by a white policeman, it was just ruled ‘justifiable’ overnight. No investigation, no nothing.” “This wasn’t a race riot, because the white citizens didn’t get involved against the Negro,” said Gilder. “ It was a protest against authority – both white authority and Negro authority (Bentayou).”

As stated by Florida law, a homicide by a police officer is justifiable “when necessarily committed in arresting felons fleeing from justice.” A suspect who feels from an officer and refuses commands to halt invites the use of force necessary for apprehension. However, Chambers was unarmed and in no way attempting to attack Patrolman Calvert. There was no moral justification in apprehension by means of death in the Chambers case. Despite Calvert’s admission that he was not much of a marksman, the officer should have exercised better judgment when drawing his weapon. The use of a firearm may be justified, but is shooting to kill as such? The distance between Calvert and Chambers was a mere 25 feet, more than enough space to allow for a shot that would stop the fleeing suspect while avoiding any fatal injury. “Nothing can be done to change the unfortunate circumstances of the Chambers case, but it seems to us that Mayor Nuccio and Chief of Police Mullins might prevent a recurrence of such trouble by more careful instructions to police,” read a Tribune editorial on June 15, 1967. “The department policy ought to be to use firearms with great restraint in pursuit of petty criminals, whether black or white. If it appears necessary to shoot, then shoot to wound, not to kill” (The Force).

This same editorial, like several others published that week, did not try to blame the black community for the violent outburst outright. Rather, they showed just how naïve much of the city was in believing that such a disaster could happen there. In the aftermath of the riots, it seemed as if there was more remorse for the blow Tampa’s national reputation suffered than for the harm inflicted upon race relations in the city. In the editorial “Justice Will Be Done”, the writer laments how the reputation of Tampa, as well as racial progress, were scorched by the rioting in Negro areas (Justice). The editorial goes on to note that lawlessness cannot be excused, and that the police have the duty to review police instructions on the shooting of fugitives in relatively minor cases. Almost as naïve as the presumption of peace are the questions posed by the editorials in regard to the social reasons behind the riots.

“An objective study of the areas and persons involved in the disorders (are needed). Are there social conditions present which create the tinder for racial fires? Were the rioters led by professional troublemakers? Were idle, out-of-school youths heavily involved? What kind of adults took part in the rock throwing, looting, and assaults? These findings will indicate how large or small the minority of the Negro community involved and whether the problem is one demanding action primarily of a law enforcement, educational or economic nature (Justice).

“We must stop the alienation of our Negro citizens and not only open the door to them but welcome them to the world outside the ghetto,” urged Hillsborough County’s Assistant Director of Neighborhood Service Centers, Jack Espinosa in his editorial “Tampa Riot – Why?” “The ghetto in which we have forced the Negro to live has produced a way of life different than the life the whites live. The older Negro Americans can still live there, but the young, now better educated and to some extent, coming in contact with the outside, cannot remain. When he feels restrained, he revolts. If the white community does not understand this, there isn’t a poverty program in existence that can stem the trouble” (Espinosa).

I believe the Tribune did a good job in documenting the facts of the Chambers shooting and the ensuing riots. Multiple diagrams of the shooting scene and the origins of violence in Central Park were presented to readers, and the Tribune cameras recorded many images of both the violent aftermath of the riots and of the community amidst the rioting. However, nearly all of the photos are of a forceful nature. Numerous pictures of bayonet wielding Guardsmen and hordes of gun toting officers are shown with only a select few capturing the citizens of the community.

While many of the articles go out of their way to avoid noting any particular violence by the black community, pictures with captions such as “Negro Downed During Disturbance” and “Officers Frisk Negro Leaning Against Paddy Wagon” are in striking contrast. To one ignoring the fine print of the articles, one would look upon these pictures and envision Tampa as a war zone, with armed gunmen “polishing up their bayonet techniques” and waiting in anticipation for the next wave of Negro violence. These are the captured images of the scenes that made up the week in Central Avenue, and although they are newsworthy, the arrangement and placement of the photos and the respective articles are insensitive. Photos of four black teenagers, hands bound with a gun-toting officer behind them, without captions or explanations as to why they are being detained are also detrimental to the supposedly “progressive” mentality of Tampa. Of the few pictures shown of NAACP leader Robert Gilder, most showed him in an angry and defiant light. One such photo of Gilder was placed on a page with several pictures of policemen in packs, while another, showing a teenager amidst the turbulent atmosphere, carried the caption “Bare Chested Negro confronted in Riot Area.”

After analyzing the news clippings of the fateful week, I do not believe the Tribune was deliberately attempting to cast the black community in a harsh light. Some of the photos and their respective captions are highly insensitive but the printed accounts of the riots, community and law enforcement efforts, and varying social issues at the heart of the violence were satisfactory and without subjective bias. When reading the references to the citizens as “the Negro” or “their people”, I begrudgingly give the paper the benefit of the doubt and understand that, at that particular time, it was common language. That does not make it particularly sensitive and appropriate, nor do I condone it, but it must be noted it was simply how many members of the black community were referred to in that time. In a highly volatile week of racial strife and violence, I believe the coverage of the Tribune, at worst, was fair.

Newspapers:

(1967, June 12). Kirk keeps silent on riot reaction. The Tampa Times, pp. 3-A.

(1967, June 13). Cramer says Tampa riot is part of national conspiracy. The Tampa Tribune, pp. 10-A.

(1967, June 13). Justice will be done. The Tampa Tribune, pp. 4-B.

(1967, June 13). Kirk lauds broadcasters, raps AP. The Tampa Tribune, pp. 1-B.

(1967, June 13). Kirk sees mother of dead youth. The Tampa Tribune, pp. 1-B.

(1967, June 13). New violence flares in city's riot areas. The Tampa Tribune, pp. 1-B.

(1967, June 13). Second night of rioting sweeps Tampa as Kirk calls out guard. The Tampa Tribune, pp. 1-A.

(1967, June 15). Negro volunteer patrols put damper on race incidents. The Tampa Tribune, pp. 1-A.

(1967, June 15). The Force of Law. Tampa Tribune, pp. 6-B.

(1967, June 16). Return of Reason. The Tampa Times

Bentayou, F. (1977, June 11). Decade Passes Since Three Angry Nights of Racial Riots. The Tampa Tribune.

Cox, B. (1967, June 13). Antinori warns rioters, probes Negro's slaying. The Tampa Tribune, pp. 1-A.

Cox, B. (1967, June 13). How it happened: a chronology of Tampa's travail. The Tampa Tribune, pp. 17-A.

Cox, B. (1967, June 14). Negro's slaying detailed at scene. The Tampa Tribune, pp. 1-A.

Cox, B. (1967, June 15). Officer clear in boy's death. The Tampa Tribune, pp. 1-A.

Cribb, H. (1967, June 13). Nuccio promises quick, just action in slaying by police. The Tampa Tribune, pp. 11-A.

Espinosa, J. (1967, July 8). Tampa riot - why?. The Tampa Times.

Gassaway, B. M. (1967, June 13). Tampans, surprised by riot, ask 'can it happen again?' The Tampa Tribune, pp. 11-A.

Gorham, H. (1967, June 15). Negroes urged to stay calm. The Tampa Tribune, pp. 1-A.

Hawes, L. (1994, October 16). For Tampa's blacks, avenue was central. The Tampa

Tribune, pp. 10-B.

Hendrick, C. (1967, June 13). Not-so-pretty vignettes gathered during riots. The Tampa Tribune, pp. 1-B.

Jones, B. (1967, June 13). Anger, fear grip Negro community. The Tampa Tribune, pp. 1-A.

Jordan, E. (1967, June 14). Sunday night racial rioting had at least one Negro hero. The Tampa Tribune, pp. 1-A.

McCarthy, J. (1963, July 22). Negroes ask integration of hotels, movies here. The Tampa Tribune.

Raum, T. (1967, June 21). No race tones in funeral. The Tampa Times.

Redfern, J. (1967, June 12). Riot victim says: 'like animals'. The Tampa Times, pp. 1-A.

Scott, A. (1967, June 14). Tampa Negro community torn in hunt for solution. The Tampa Tribune, pp. 14-A.

Wilson, D. (1978, February 11). Traces of the flames. The Tampa Times, pp. 2-D, 3-D.

Wood, A. (1967, June 12). Negro rioters burn, loot stores, hold hostage. The Tampa Tribune, pp. 1-A.

Zappone, T. (1968, January 10). Trouble lurks in Tampa. The Tampa Times, pp. 1.

Read more!