Fox TV Is Violent, Profane & Obscene

December 2007

In our New Oxford Note "The Filthy Speech Movement" (Sept.), we wrote: "The neocon Fox television network has violated decency standards by broadcasting the 's-word' and the 'f-word' in family-viewing time slots. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) ruled in March that broadcasting such vulgarities was 'indecent.' The FCC, however, did not impose a fine on Fox. Nevertheless, Fox appealed the FCC ruling, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in New York decided in Fox's favor."

In our New Oxford Note "Smooth as Silk" (March 2006), we cited an article in Touchstone magazine by Rod Dreher. Dreher recalled: "In the early 1990s, I was a television critic for the Washington Times. One of the biggest television stories in either 1992 or 1993 was the debut of Matt, an openly gay character on the [neoconservative] Fox nighttime soap Melrose Place.... The producers made Matt into a veritable saint, and audiences got comfortable with him.... Just over a decade from the moment when Fox tentatively stepped forward with an openly gay character in prime time, homosexuality is at the white-hot center of our popular culture."

Dreher also said: "This is...why you have seen little, if any, reference in the mainstream media to the role male homosexual culture played in the Catholic sex-abuse scandal. Mainstream journalists are making conscious decisions to ignore it. When I arrived in Dallas in the summer of 2002 to cover the historic meeting of the Catholic bishops for National Review, I was asked to brief a correspondent for [neocon] Fox News who had been put onto the story at the last minute. When I got to the part about the role of male homosexuality in Catholic clerical culture, I told her she needed to speak to Michael S. Rose, who was at the conference [meeting], and whose terrific book Goodbye, Good Men was an important exposé of the so-called lavender mafia. The reporter shook her head and said the crew had orders from New York, from the top of the company, not to talk to him [Rose], and to stay off the homosexual thing." Fox News claims to be "fair and balanced." Is it really?

In our New Oxford Note "It's Good for Business" (Dec. 2006), we reported: "According to LifeSite­ (Sept. 8 [2006]), the neocon Fox News channel donated $10,000 to the National Lesbian & Gay Journalists Association (NLGJA)."

You have two options:

  1. Online subscription: Subscribe now to New Oxford Review for access to all web content at AND the monthly print edition for as low as $38 per year.
  2. Single article purchase: Purchase this article for $1.95, for viewing and printing for 48 hours.

If you're already a subscriber log-in here.

New Oxford Notes: December 2007

Read our posting policy Add a comment
Fox TV Is Violent, Profane & Obscene as is ABC, NBC, CBS and most main stream TV - even during the "family hours" timeframe. I don't watch any of them so don't know what the latest garbage they carry covers. Obviously you are a fan of fox as you use your favorite (and undefined) neocon term. You also don't seem to discriminate between the fox news channel and the regular fox channel. However, if the dems win both the congress and the presidency, you will find even more filth on the TV and the FCC, with dem picked members, will embrace all kinds of vulgarity. Other than that, what is the point of this article? The culture war is well under way with liberals holding sway in the schools and many legislatures as well as some judgeships championing gay behavior, abortion on demand and a general degradation of society under the guise of human rights and the first amendment rights. Some notorious catholics such as Senators Kennedy, Leahy, Durbin, Kerry and Nancy Pelosi in the house are helping this slide right along. Many, who claim to be Catholic, still vote in these type of people. Yet articles, like this one, ignore those people and their contribution to the destruction of traditional American values and attack "neocons". Maybe NOR can give me a definition of neocon so that I know who you are referring to. It appears to fit white, social conservative, republicans who are also hawkish on the defense and protection of America. Posted by: wunsch
December 19, 2007 08:04 PM EST
Add a comment