Steve Tarter writes about the “chilling effects of censorship that loom down the road,” as tacitly prophesied by WTVP’s decision not to air a special on Marie Antoinette until 10:00 p.m. due to “risque drawings and depictions of the Queen of France” that are shown.

Note that they’re still showing this program, just not at 7:00 when kids could be watching. Apparently, that’s what’s defined as “censorship” nowadays.

But this is the line that really got me: “We look to public television for bold reporting on issues. Will that be curbed now that there’s a threat that the finished product may be too hot to handle for some stations?” This country had much, much stricter decency standards thirty years ago and earlier, yet television was still able to take down McCarthyism and bring Vietnam into our living rooms every night. Don’t tell me TV can’t do “bold reporting” without showing naked pictures and playing unedited four-letter words.

Speaking of which, Tarter adds this: “Kevin Harlan, general manager over at WMBD-TV […] heard rumblings from some groups about some of the language used in the ‘9-11’ documentary run by CBS two weeks ago. New York firefighters had the gall to utter four-letter words while describing the devastation at the World Trade Center.” Tarter apparently is unable to grasp the subtle distinction between “live” and “taped” programming. If the firefighters are on live TV and reacting to a tragedy like 9/11, that’s one thing. No one is arguing that they should somehow have the presence of mind to censor themselves as they watch thousands of people die before their eyes.

But the program he’s talking about is a documentary; all the footage is on tape. The director and editor know exactly what is going to be said and when, and they are completely capable of bleeping out any offensive words at that point. Not only is it technically possible, but it also would not diminish the emotional impact of the program in any way. Who is the person who, upon hearing bleeps or audio dropout during that segment of the broadcast, thinks to himself, “I wonder what those fellows said when that plane smashed into that building?”

We all know what they said. We all know what we said when it happened. Not editing those words out is just the networks’ way of callously exploiting a national tragedy to push the envelope of what kind of language is allowed on broadcast television.

But the point is you’ve got a growing cable/satellite universe unfettered by federal restrictions while over-the-air networks cower in fear lest a community zealot cry foul.

In addition to having to fight for funding, now PBS also must battle with Animal Channel, TNT, History Channel and all the rest on a playing field not even close to being level.

And when was the last time you saw nudity or heard four-letter words on “Animal Channel” (did he mean “Animal Planet”?), TNT, or the History Channel? Hmm? If PBS is getting beaten up by these networks, it’s not because they’re “cower[ing] in fear” over federal decency standards.