January 27, 2004

Ms. Gail Berman
President
FOX Broadcasting Company
10201 West Pico Boulevard
Los Angeles, California 90035

Dear Ms. Berman:

As you are aware, during the FOX Television Network's live broadcast of the 2003 Billboard Music Awards on December 10, 2003, Nicole Richie, co-star of the FOX show Simple Life, stated "Why do they even call it the Simple Life? Have you ever tried to get cow s**t out of a Prada Purse? It's not so f**king simple." Ms. Richie's statement was transmitted unedited to FOX owned and affiliated stations in the Eastern and Central time zones and then broadcast to millions of homes. This broadcast occurred during a viewing period in which the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has determined that children are likely to be watching television.

Since that time, the FCC has been asked to determine whether the broadcast was indecent, as a matter of law. However, in my mind, whether Ms. Richie's remarks fall within the FCC's narrow reading of the definition of indecency is not the core issue. No matter how the FCC rules on the pending complaints, a more important question is why the FOX network permitted such objectionable language to be broadcast to millions of American homes. Along these lines I would appreciate answers to the following questions:

1. Does the FOX Television Network believe that it is acceptable to transmit programming -- live or otherwise -- that contains the "f word" or similarly objectionable language? Does the network believe that it has a responsibility to its viewers to prevent such broadcasts?

2. At the time of the January 2003 broadcast, what preventive mechanisms and procedures did FOX have in place to ensure that such objectionable language was not transmitted to FOX broadcast stations? If such mechanisms did exist, why did they fail?

3. Since the January 2003 broadcast, what changes or improvements have you made to such mechanisms and procedures to ensure that such objectionable content is not aired again?

4. Legislation has been introduced in the House (H.R. 3717) that would increase by ten-fold the monetary penalty that the FCC can impose upon licensees that broadcast programming which contains obscene, indecent, or profane content. Do you support such legislation? If so, why? If not, why not?

5. The FCC has recently indicated that it may begin to impose monetary penalties per utterance rather than per broadcast program upon licensees that broadcast obscene, indecent, or profane content. Do you support such a change in the agency's enforcement policy? If so, why? If not, why not?

6. The FCC has also recently indicated that, for certain licensees that repeatedly violate its indecency rules, it may begin to seek the revocation of the repeat offenders licenses rather than simply continue to impose fines. Do you support such a change in enforcement policy? If so, why? If not, why not?

As you may be aware, the Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet plans to conduct a hearing on the subject of broadcast indecency tomorrow, January 28, 2004. I would appreciate if you could respond to this letter on or before Tuesday, February 3, 2004, and I will ask that your answers be included in the hearing record. If you have any questions, please contact me, or have your staff contact Gregg Rothschild, Minority Counsel, at 202-226-3400.

I hope you agree that it is wholly unacceptable for the FOX network to broadcast objectionable language as it did last December, and that you will ensure that what happened during the Billboard Music Awards will never happen again on your network.

Sincerely,

JOHN D. DINGELL
RANKING MEMBER

cc:   The Honorable W. J. "Billy" Tauzin, Chairman
        Committee on Energy and Commerce