A Paper Discussing the Legal Aspects of George Carlins "Seven Dirty Words"

 Obscenity has been restricted in broadcast communication since the beginning. In 1973, the Miller Test was created to define what obscenity really meant. That same year, George Carlin used a Pacifica radio station to break convention - and the law - with a seven minute rant discussing his belief that the restriction of words was preposterous. He picked out the following taboo words to express his outrage: Shit, piss, fuck, cunt, cocksucker, motherfucker, and tits. At two o’clock in the afternoon on October 30, 1973, George Carlin offended the senses and sensibilities of the many Americans who were tuned into WBAI radio with his comedy sketch about the seven words you could never say on television. This sketch led to a variety of outbursts, complaints, and court hearings, which in turn ultimately ended up in defining the FCC’s control over the radio waves and forever changed obscenity laws for broadcast in America.

George Carlin was a famous American stand-up comedian and social critic most famous for his humor which was often filled with comments on politics, philosophy, religion, and taboo subjects. His most controversial routine was his “Filthy Words” sketch (see Appendix 1).  In October 1973, a Pacifica Foundation FM radio station broadcast this routine in New York City in the middle of the afternoon. Soon after, a father complained that his son had heard the appalling comedy sketch by accident on their drive home. Due to this complaint, Pacifica received a letter from the FCC sanctioning them for violating FCC regulations by broadcasting “indecent material”. This was the starting point of a long and heated debate over what should and should not be considered indecent, how much control the government should have over broadcasts, and where the freedom of speech granted by the First Amendment ended.

Five years later the debate finally came to a conclusion in the 1978 U.S. Supreme Court FCC versus Pacifica Foundation case, where George Carlin’s “Filthy Words” were a main focal point of the discussions. The station claimed protection under the First Amendment while the FCC argued it was a breach under Section 1464 which included the FCC’s right “to regulate a radio broadcast that is indecent but not obscene” (Cohen, 2003 : 18). In an incredibly close five to four decision, it was ruled that government had the power to regulate indecent material on the public airways – a ruling that still holds true today.

Despite the United States great emphasis on every individual’s freedom of expression, it was concluded that higher restrictions can be placed on broadcasts because “the broadcast media have established a uniquely pervasive presence in the lives of all Americans … confront(ing) the citizen, not only in public, but also in the privacy of the home” and also because “broadcasting in uniquely accessible to children” (Cohen, 2003: 18).

The FCC vs Pacifica case and its controversy also led to long-absent definitions of indecency and profanity. Obscenity had been determined a few years prior in the 1973 Miller vs. California case to be any material that met the following three standards:

(1) an average person, applying contemporary community standards, must find that the material, as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest (i.e., material having a tendency to excite lustful thoughts); (2) the material must depict or describe, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by applicable law; and (3) the material, taken as a whole, must lack serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. (Main, 1987: 1159).

In America, indecency is less serious than obscenity, but also more difficult to define. The Federal Communications Commission defines indecency as any material that “depicts or describes sexual or excretory organs or activities in terms patently offensive as measured by contemporary community standards for the broadcast medium” where juries are used to decide contemporary community standards (FCC, 2010). In addition, “Profane language includes those words that are so highly offensive that their mere utterance in the context presented may, in legal terms, amount to a nuisance” (FCC, 2010). Since both profanity and indecency are agreeably at a lower level that obscenity, it is protected at a higher extent by the First Amendment and may not be banned entirely.

            In the last 32 years since the FCC vs Pacifica case, the government has maintained this control, but at varying extents. Immediately following the case the FCC was quick to insist they never intended to put an absolute ban on this type of language in broadcasting, but rather that they wanted to channel it to more appropriate times of day. In 1988 Congress required the FCC to ban all indecent broadcasts 24 hours a day (Cohen, 2003 : 19). However, these regulations never came into effect because the court of appeals declared the ban unconstitutional. It was then agreed in 1992 that the FCC could “promulgate regulations that prohibit indecent programming on radio and TV from 6am until midnight except for public radio and TV stations that go off the air at or before midnight, which may broadcast such material beginning at 10pm”. This ruling lasted a year before being overturned in early 1993. On June 30, 1995, today’s “Safe Harbor” standards of no indecent material between 6am and 10pm were passed for both public and non-public stations (Cohen, 2003 : 19). Also in 1995, the Communications Decency Act was created to modernize existing protections as well as to increase maximum fines from $10,000 to $100,000 for both radio and cable television infractions (Emeritz, 1996: 191-192). In 1996, the Communications Act was edited to include telecommunications and internet publications. In the last few years, the FCC has toughened their enforcement by proposing monetary penalties for each indecent utterance in broadcast rather that a single penalty for the whole broadcast.

            Those who feel these decisions are an attack on Constitutional rights are given the response concluded in the Red Lion Broadcasting Co vs FCC Case of 1969 in which the FCC sued the Red Lion Company for not applying the Fairness Doctrine in their attack of a local cook. This case found that “where there are substantially more individuals who want to broadcast than there are frequencies to allocate, it is idle to posit an unbridgeable First Amendment right to broadcast comparable to the right of every individual to speak write or publish” (Cohen, 2003: 18). The government also asserts that it is their responsibility to support parents in preventing minors from being exposed to indecent material.   Those in favor of looser regulations are should also remember that the FCC does not regulate violence, does not interfere with any paid programming services, is constitutionally forbidden from monitoring specific radio or television programs, and, contrary to George Carlin’s monologue, there is no set list of offensive words (FCC, 2010).

            The Federal Communications Commission becomes actively involved in about ten to fifteen cases each year and has the authority to issue civil monetary penalties, revoke a license or deny a renewal application or place a maximum two year prison sentence on the broadcaster (FCC, 2010).  In 2004, $8,000,000 was collected in fines, however, no one has ever been sent to prison in America for violating the indecency code. In the United Kingdom, punishments are harsher than US condemnations, including up to three years in prison and unlimited fines. The People’s Republic of China and Great Britain are the only two countries to jail first offenders for obscenity (Robertson and Nichol, 2008: 226). However, unlike the US, Great Britain does not have a set profanity law.

            Even so, the laws in the United Kingdom are comparable to those of the United States despite the fact that there is no guaranteed right to the freedom of expression and speech. The UK Human Rights Act asserts a necessity to receive and impart information and ideas. The United Kingdom also separates material into obscene and indecent just as in America. Obscene is defined by section 1 of the Obscene Publications Act as those broadcasts whose “effect, if taken as a whole, tend(s) to deprave or corrupt persons who are likely, in all circumstances, to read, see or hear the matter” where deprave means the “ability to make morally bad, to pervert, to debase, or corrupt morally” (Robertson and Nichol, 2008: 198). It has been argued that it is impossible for any material to actually “deprave” any individual, but, as in the United States, juries are trusted with the ability to take contemporary standards of ordinary people into account. Another way in which the UK law parallels the US law is the exclusion from intellectual, artistic, and scientific materials from the definition of obscene.  However, the UK law differs from US law in that obscenity may refer to more than just sexually explicit material. While the US law is confined, courts in Britain “have interpreted the statutory definition of obscene to encompass encouragements to take dangerous drugs and to engage in violence” – two topics Americans can avoid FCC censorship on with their claim to First Amendment protection (Robertson and Nichol, 2008: 215). Indecency on the other hand still escapes an easy definition and is simply said to mean any topic which may “offend the ordinary modesty of the average man” (Robertson and Nichol, 2008: 239). Decency standards change with time and are something that cannot be proven or disproven and are therefore the sole result of jury deliberation.

With these changing standards, many of the words originally ranted about by George Carlin have since been uttered on the public airwaves without consequence. A 1995 study compared the prime time offerings of January 1990 to those of March 1994. The offensive language of the programs changed vastly even in that short amount of time from “God” “hell” “sucks” and “damn” to later include “butt” and “ass” (Wells and Hankanen, 1997: 468). While the FCC still sees “fuck” as highly offensive and will often declare its use both obscene and profane, many other so-called bad words fill the broadcasting world. The 1995 research found more than six instances of offensive language per hour, and despite the unspoken ban on “fuck”, the word does find its word into live broadcasts, subtitles, documentaries, and in countless innuendos (Wells and Hankanen, 1997: 468). In 2002, during episode four of The Wire, there is an entire scene in which the only spoken word is “fuck”. The 1995 analysis, making reference to Carlin’s “Filthy Words”, pointed out the use of both “tit” and “shit” without consequence in 1994. The word “piss”, generally used in the phrase “piss off”, has been standard since the 1980’s, and “shit” was heard for the first time in an episode of Chicago Hope in the late 1990s, but has since been used very infrequently on non-cable programming (Wells and Hankanen, 1997: 470).

            As society continues to evolve and change, so will its use and connotations of words. While some of the seven words originally named by George Carlin no longer make us cringe, others are still deemed by humanity at large as indecent. Some may argue that it does not matter if it is indecent and that all broadcasters should have the right to air whatever they please and the FCC is overstepping boundaries by stripping radio and television of full constitutional rights. However, the simple fact of the matter is that the protection of the innocence of children has always been at the forefront of importance in law in both the United Kingdom and in the United States. This need to protect the vulnerable justifies to government’s interference with broadcast by putting a blanket ban on societal-judged “indecent” and “profane” material during “Safe Harbor” hours, and as long as it is left up to juries to define indecent, most concur that the government is not going too far.

References:

Cohen, H. (2003) Obscenity: Constitutional Principles and Statutes Novinka Books, Hauppauge, NY.

Emeritz, E. (1996) The Telecommunications Act of 1966: Law and Legislative History Pike and Fischer, Silver Spring, MD.

Federal Communications Commission. 14 January 2010. “Regulation of Obscenity, Indecency and Profanity”. Accessed at http://www.fcc.gov/eb/oip/Welcome.html on 18 March 2010.

Main, E.J. (1987) The Neglected Prong of the Miller Test for Obscenity: Serious Literary, Artistic, Political, or Scientific Value New York, NY.

Robertson, G & Nichol A. (2008) Media Law (5^th Ed) Penguin Books, London.

Wells, A and Hakanen, E (Eds.) (1997). Mass Media and Society JAI Press, London.

*The paper was also presented in-class in a 10-15 minute discussion*

The Loss of Respect for Christianity on Television: The Falling of a Myth and the Failing of a Country’s Religious Tendencies : An Essay

It has been said “the only gracious way to accept an insult is to ignore it; if you can’t ignore it, top it; if you can’t top it, laugh at it; if you can’t laugh at it, it was probably deserved”. I think this is a relatively positive ideal to live by.  However, when it is a person’s religion or belief system that is being mocked it may be harder to stomach.  Although in the past Christians have mostly sat idly by as the media, their peers, and novels poked fun at their faith, this precedent has led to an alarming trend: Christianity and those who follow it are now viewed as something to laugh at, coddle, or ridicule.  Religion, especially Christianity, is losing its prestige as the myth and the ideals it represents fall by the wayside.  As this negative view of Christianity becomes more commonplace, it is mirrored by a marked decline in American Christians, steadily replaced by new age ideas and the expansions of science.  In the television drama Supernatural, particularly the episode “My Bloody Valentine”, the semiotics surrounding Castiel, an angel of the Lord, reflect this notion that religious figures should be placed no higher than, and perhaps taken less seriously than, our human heroes.  With the failing of a myth, it is feared that there will be negative repercussions on the moral and social standards of society as a whole.

A myth is that story which a society tells itself in order to understand its past, set ethical guidelines for the present, and construct a vision of a future.  Joseph Campbell stated that myths provide a shared public dream based on a shared body of experience.  Among the functions of myth, Campbell asserts that they validate a moral order; in the case of Christianity, these morals are deeply ingrained.  From the 10 Commandments to the teachings of Jesus and the prophets, the ethics of Christianity mirror many of the steadfast morals of American society today. 

The portrayal or misportrayal of a myth can be studied in many ways.  One such method of analysis is through semiotics, or the science of signs.  VandeBerg, Werner, and Gronbeck define signs as “something accessible to your senses … a sign is a signifier or vehicle, (and) what we usually call ‘meaning’ is the signified” (72).   Signs can be found in many forms including, but not limited to, linguistic units, communication acts, visual orientation, and acoustic codes (70-71). The meanings we attach to these signifiers may change over time, but there are some generally consistent and accepted trends in television today.  In film and television, there are standards that are followed in order to send subliminal messages to the audience; these messages come from sources such as camera angles, lighting, background music, and dialogue – all of which play active roles in how characters are viewed by the active viewer.  In Supernatural’s “My Bloody Valentine” verbal and visual signs were strung together to establish a difference in the portrayal of Castiel in comparison to that of Sam and Dean, the human heroes.

In “My Bloody Valentine” as with virtually every episode of Supernatural in which Castiel plays a role, traditional denotations of a character’s standing and worth are used to ensure his inferiority is maintained.  Whereas one might typically think of portraying heavenly creatures bathed in light, the creator of Supernatural, Eric Kripke, makes the conscious decision to often show Castiel in the shadow, or at least partially there.  His first appearance in “My Bloody Valentine” depicts half his face in the darkness, and towards the end of the episode, in a scene where he is falling prey to the power of famine, he is almost completely immersed by the darkness of the scene.   To add to this portrayal, Castiel is also given no special privilege with screen placement.  Ironically, it is typically Dean or Sam who are given positions of power. Even in instances when Castiel is providing the solution, as when he comes to translate the Enochian (the language of the angels) for them, he is forced to share the screen with at least one of the brothers.  Also, many times Castiel is depicted as subservient to Dean, not only as Dean calls the shots, but by being placed in a less power-demanding segment of the screen shot.  For example, when Dean and Castiel are in the car discussing their plan of attack, Dean is given foreground while Cas is placed behind him.  Also, in the scene where Sam, Dean and Castiel encounter Cupid, Dean and Sam are both shot at higher angles than Castiel giving them a greater sense of importance.

This subservience is not only visually portrayed, but narratively as well.  This is a common theme in nearly every episode of Supernatural.  VandeBerg, Wenner, and Gronbeck emphasize the impact of what stories are told within the story arc in order to emphasize certain ideals or thoughts (70). While Castiel is crucial to helping the boys figure out the problem and potential solutions, he is very rarely the hero at the end of the day – Sam and Dean must overcome the supernatural beings without angelic help. In this particular episode, the failing of Castiel and his relative uselessness is extremely apparent.  Not only is he wrong in his first guess as to what is plaguing the city, but once the correct culprit has been found, he falls victim to Famine’s power.  In the climactic scene, Castiel is seen prone on the ground, succumbing to his weaknesses and the power Famine yields over him, while Dean is miraculously able to walk up to Famine unaffected.  Clearly, viewers are encouraged to hold Dean, in his human role, as both more heroic and more impressive than Castiel.  The scene ends with Dean confronting Famine head on and Sam arriving to save the day while Cas remains generally useless on the ground.  The message from the writers in this instance is loud and clear: what is supernatural is unreliable and often useless, and humanity instead should turn to their own strengths for success.

Furthermore, dialog also plays a crucial role in the semiotic foundation of Castiel’s inferiority.  Dean is the leader of the group and his dialog reflects this through short, powerful statements that demand attention.  Sam is the brains of the three and often offers expositional dialog that is presented eloquently and in a manner that is worthy of respect.  On the other hand, throughout the Supernatural series, Castiel’s dialog is a source of amusement and hilarity marked by his famous one-liners.  This sets up his character as cute, adorable, and one that not only allows himself to be laughed at, but one that sets himself up for it again and again.  “My Bloody Valentine” is no exception.  He enters the show with an awkward, but comical exchange with Dean that begins on the telephone:

Dean: Cas, it’s Dean. Yeah, room 31 C, Basement Level, St. James’ Medical Centre-
Castiel: I’m there now.
Dean: Yeah, I get that.
Castiel: I’m gonna hang up now.
Dean and Castiel: Right.

This awkwardness and inability to relate to humans is standard for the angel characters on Supernatural.  On earth, it is excruciatingly obvious that Castiel and the other angels do not fit in and cannot possibly understand human life.  This inability to adapt themselves not only adds comedy to the show but also drills the idea into audiences that religion does not have a place in human affairs.

            This disregard of respect for Christianity is not a new topic; however, in recent years, the mockery of Christians and their faith has been a growing trend. “Thanks to the freedom of speech only made possible by the internet, there is a growing chorus of resentment towards religion, and scathing criticisms are starting to echo into the mass media. For the first time in more than 1500 years, it is finally becoming socially acceptable to be openly anti-Christian” (Evolutionary Metaphysics).  Taking advantage of this, many shows currently airing, spanning from The Office, to The Simpsons, and from Jesus Camp to 30 Rock, have an oft laughed at Christian character.  Furthermore, much to the dismay of many Christians, Comedy Central intends to release a new carton next season which will “depict Jesus as a guy who moves to New York City to escape his father's enormous shadow" (Martin).  This type of blatant disrespect for religion is powerful and possibly damaging.   It is discouraging that Comedy Central deems it appropriate to make such flagrant attacks against Christianity while tip-toeing around the sensitivity of other religions such as Islam.

Some argue that making fun of religion and its followers is necessary because otherwise religious leaders would stand unchecked and it is the job of the media to undermine it where it stands before it gets too powerful.  Others feel that making fun of religion is perfectly justifiable because it is a personal choice and personal choices should always be fair game for mockery. “Making fun of religion is like making fun of bad taste. It's making fun of something that's up to individuals themselves, something for which individuals are willing to take responsibility. It's open to the religious believer, just as it is to the connoisseur of felt paintings, to disabuse her critics of their false evaluation of her attitudes”, Cline states in his self-proclaimed guide to Atheism.  There is also a third group of people who argue that poking fun at religion is necessary for its growth and acceptability in our culture.  Eric Metaxas, writer for Veggie Tales, Chuck Colson, and the New York Times, spoke out on the issue asserting that “having a sense of humor implies that you are real, that you’re not a phony, that you see through things, that you’ve got self-deprecation … (Christianity) needs to speak to the core of human existence so it better have some understanding of humor”.  However, most do not agree with this outlook, and trends in today’s culture would have to disagree as well.

            Over the last 20 years, as television and other forms of traditional and new age media have increased their mockery of and thereby decreased their opinion of Christian religions, the United States has seen a drastic decline in its numbers of participating Christians.  During the 20^th Century, up until 1990, Christianity had remained consistently popular with about 87% of adults consistently identifying themselves as Christian, but the next 18 years saw a steady decline in numbers resulting in only 76% identifying with the faith by 2008 (Religious Tolerance).  If this rate of change maintained consistency, “most Americans would identify themselves as non-religious by the year 2035” (Religious Tolerance). Unsurprisingly, congregations are facing struggles as well.  A recent study conducted by Faith Communities Today found that “In 2005, 42 percent of congregations strongly agreed that they were spiritually vital and alive. In 2008 that was down to 35 percent”, while the average number of attendees at Protestant Churches dropped from 102 to 89 in just 11 short years (Weiss; Religious Tolerance).  In addition to the percentage of Christians taking a marked decline, the number of Americans who claim no religion at all doubled in the same time frame to 15% of United States citizens (Anderson).  The challenge to Christianity, therefore, does not come from other religions, but from the notion of rejecting all forms of organized religion.

So to where are people flocking as the religious myths slowly get broken down and destroyed?  The answer is two-fold: Some find solace in the abstract notion of spirituality while others have turned to hard-hitting science.

Spirituality is a relatively new term in our society, and one that is unique to it; no other country has people touting themselves as “spiritual”, but rather maintains the standard “religious” or not.  The concept of spirituality began to spread after the 1960s when revolting against organized authority was the standard of the time, and religious institutions were just another figure to overcome (Cline). This way Americans were not forced to abandon religion entirely, but could still escape the supposed evil and corruptness of it.  Today, spirituality continues to separate itself from religion as the less formal, less restrictive version.  “Religion tends to take great inspiration from the past. It reveres the ancient religious texts as the way to achieve salvation. Spirituality is not so concerned with the past. Spirituality believes in the eternal now … (Also) quite often religion takes the approach of fearing God. Religion is a reminder to do the right thing so will not suffer in the future. The spiritual approach to God is through the path of love” (Pettinger).   It focuses more on the inner life of the practitioner, their core values, and their personal development.  “A spiritual person finds his own way, travels it alone and reaches there in a state of euphoria. Following a religion is doing a duty, whereas being spiritual is being who you are” (Gaikwod).  For this reason, many choose what they feel is the more personal, possibly easier, option instead of becoming slaves to an outdated religion they cannot make apply to their individual lifestyles.

Additionally, religion is also being outdated by science.  In a world where the internet allows us to have answers at our fingertips and technology has made extravagant advanced in biology, medicine, and physics, people are no longer searching for the same types of answers they once were.  Instead, practical applications of truth such as science, are butting heads with the philosophical search for truth, and as many struggle to find common ground between the two, many are abandoning the complexity of religion for the straightforward never changing solidity of modern science.  “ ‘One hundred and fifty years ago it was intellectually irresponsible to be an atheist because you couldn’t explain creation,’ Campbell said. Campbell said most atheists he knows are not irresponsible; they just ask questions and expect academic answers” (Anderson).  The simple fact is, instead of reaching towards the unknown and inexplicable for answers, today science provides the new orthodox view of how to interpret the world.  Along with this change comes a new innate objection for the supernatural. “The very word now carries pejorative connotations of something fanciful” admonishes John Hardy who goes on to express his distress at society’s tendency to cling to science to tightly and so readily turn away from that which is in explicable.

Furthermore, some religions find themselves in direct battle with scientific discovery.  This is evidenced by the current predicament over the teaching of evolution versus creationism in schools.  Certain sects of Christianity take a literal interpretation of the Bible which proves the world is only 6,000 years old.  It is ostentatious statements such as these that often make it difficult for religion and science to reconcile, and as science continues to grow stronger, religion can only take a back burner in people’s minds and lives.  Unfortunately, due to this, by the late 1980s and 90s “enthusiastic church-going Christians were assumed to be ignorant” – a trend that is now echoed in television shows across the screen.

So what is the big deal? Why should we, as individuals of this society care about the blatant disregard for Christianity? Why should its gradual replacement by spiritualism and science give us pause? Christianity, for the last 2,000 years has acted as a source of spiritual, ethical, and moral order - placing restrictions on human actions and curbing individual temptations.  With the fall of religion, especially Christianity, America is losing a strong source of ethical guidelines.  When applied to the human circumstance, Evolutionary Metaphysics interprets the consequences like so:

“If our lives are merely the product of complex interactions between atoms and molecules, then any attempt to make judgments about human behavior would be the same as saying ‘this chemical reaction is good, and this one is bad’. You might want to believe that if you added up all the molecular interactions and calculated the most successful way to live, the result would be something like ‘love thy neighbor’. But without ever being able to perform this calculation, we cannot be sure that the result would not be ‘screw thy neighbor’.” (ch.16).

In a society already plagued by sin, murders, hatred, lust, and greed, American morals are failing, and the loss of Christianity will only further the digression as the purpose of choosing what is right will slowly fade away. 

In addition to there being no true reason for good behavior, without religion, society also faces a reality where there is no true reason for existence.  Without religion, there is no higher power, no after life, no end goal towards which a nation of people can strive.  “Our existence (would have) no purpose and our lives no meaning other than whatever meaning we event for ourselves”, contemplate the theorists at the Academy of Evolutionary Metaphysics (ch. 16).  If this meaninglessness of life sounds depressing, it is because it is.  For what or to what should individuals strive if there is, in essence, no point? Not only would this realization lead to possible negative behavior, but also to a loss of ambition and an increased occurrence of depression.

            A third devastating effect of the loss of Christianity, and religion in general, is interpersonal interactions and relationships.  Many fear that without the advent of Christian ethics, a scientific worldview would result in an every man for himself mentality. Without religion, “other than feelings of affection or the possibility of some mutual benefit, we have no provable cosmic reason to care about each other. And other than the fear of punishment or rejection, or the perception of personal gain, there is no reason to follow the rules and values of society” (Evolutionary Metaphysics, ch.16). Without religion in place to act as a moral compass, future societies run the risk of a world full of egotistical, self-centered, power-hungry individuals simultaneously plagued by apathy.

It is impossible to accurately speculate how the loss of Christianity in United States culture will affect American Society.  However, it cannot be denied that this loss of religious myth is at least a possibility in the years to come. In today’s society, Christians have found themselves without a place, and those that cling steadfastly to their beliefs are often jeered at and mocked for it.  Since the early nineties, the numbers of declared and practicing Christians in the United States has been steadily reduced.  At the same time, Christian characters have been a growing source of laughter on television - something to be tolerated rather than respected.  In Supernatural, Castiel is no exception. Although his humor is mild and under-stated, the idea that his religious identity prevents him from understanding humanity is loud and clear.  Additionally, the show’s portrayal of him, through semiotics, as an equal or lesser character than Sam and Dean, emphasizes the notion that viewers should place their trust in human heroes and not supernatural ones. Clearly, the directors of Supernatural either do not buy into the impact television can have on faith or hope for a less religious world for tomorrow.

Anderson, James. "Religion in Decline across America: U Students Have Different Theories as to

Why." Minnesota Daily. 04 May 2009. Web. 28 Oct. 2010. <http://www.mndaily.com/ 2009/04/05/religion-decline-across-america>.

Martin, Mark. "New 'Jesus' Cartoon Making Fun of Christianity? - US - CBN News - Christian

News 24-7 – CBN.com." CBN.com - The Christian Broadcasting Network. 04 June 2010. Web. 23 Oct. 2010. <http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2010/June/New-Jesus-Cartoon-Making-Fun-of-Christianity/>

Cline, Austin. "Making Fun of Religion." Agnosticism / Atheism - Skepticism & Atheism for

Atheists & Agnostics. 15 Feb. 2010. Web. 23 Oct. 2010. <http://atheism.about.com/b/2010/ 02/15/making-fun-of-religion.htm>.

Colson, Chuck. <http://www.publicchristianity.com/Videos/ laughter.html>

Evolutionary Metaphysics. "Replacing Religion with Science." Shattering the Sacred Myths. 2005.

Print.

Hardy, John B. "Has Science Replaced Religion As The New Orthodoxy?" Christian Religion. 14

Oct. 2009. Web. 01 Nov. 2010. <http://christian-religion.org/religion-and-spirituality/has-science-replaced-religion-as-the-new-orthodoxy/>.

Gaikwad, By Mukta. "Spirituality Vs. Religion." Buzzle Web Portal: Intelligent Life on the Web.

2009. Web. 01 Nov. 2010. <http://www.buzzle.com/articles/spirituality-vs-religion.html>

Grossman, Cathy Lynn. "Most Religious Groups in USA Have Lost Ground, Survey Finds." USA

Today [McClean, VA] 17 Mar. 2009. Print.

Kripke, Eric. "My Bloody Valentine." Supernatural. Dir. Mike Rohl. The CW. 11 Feb. 2010.

Television.

Laughing at Religion. Perf. Eric Metaxas. CPX Vodcast Travel Series, 2008. Laughing at

Religion. Centre for Public Christianity. Web.  <http://www.publicchristianity.com/ Videos/laughter.html>

Parker, Adam. "Spirituality vs. Religion: Many Americans Don't Practice a Faith but Believe in

Invisible Force." The Post and Courier 27 June 2010. Print.

Pettinger, Tejvan. "Religion vs Spirituality." Biographies of Inspirational and Famous People. 10

Jan. 2007. Web. 01 Nov. 2010. <http://www.biographyonline.net/spiritual/articles/ religion_vs_spirituality.html>.

Religious Tolerance. "Religious Identification in the U.S." Religious Tolerance: Ontario

Consultants on Religious Tolerance. 15 Dec. 2001. Web. 09 Nov. 2010. <http://www. religioustolerance.org/ chr_prac2.htm>

Religious Tolerance. "Trends among U.S. Christians." ReligiousTolerance : Ontario Consultants

on Religious Tolerance. 18 Oct. 2006. Web. 24 Oct. 2010. <http://www.religious tolerance.org /chr_tren.htm>

VandeBerg, Werner, and Gronbeck. (2004). Critical Approaches to Television. Houghton

Mifflin, Boston MA.

Weiss, Jeffrey. "Religion in America in Delcine." Politics Daily. 11 Sept. 2009. Web. 05 Nov.

2010. <http://www.politicsdaily.com/2009/09/11/religion-in-america-in-decline/>.

International Communications Association Conference Paper

Last spring I took a research methods class at Marist. Through this I had the intense assignment of conducting an innovative research project in the field of communications. I paired up with three other classmates at the time to determine preferred communication media between students and professors.

At the end of the semester, Sarah Parsloe (one of the other co-authors) and I decided the paper had potential so we spent the first half of this year editing it further with the help of our Professor, Cochece Davis. After a few months of long nights of revision we felt our paper was ready to be submitted to the ICA. It was a long-shot we knew because only 40% of papers were accepted and undergraduate papers were unheard of.

To our elation however, we received an e-mail in February congratulating us and asking us to come to Singapore this June to present our findings. I myself cannot attend due to the costs of a plane ticket and a hotel room, but I am proud to announce that both Professor Davis and Sarah Parsloe will be attending this year's International Communication Association conference to present our paper "Preferred Communication Channels Between Students and Faculty in Extra Class Interactions".

As the paper encompasses many theories and goes in-depth into our study, it is much to long to post here for your perusal. You are invited, however, to read our abstract:

The present study explores how different communication theories can explain student preferences in their communication with authority figures, specifically professors. Using convenience survey methods, we selected 350 students and professors at a small liberal arts college in the northeastern United States to answer questions regarding their communication preferences. Further information was gathered from a student focus group to ascertain the reasoning behind student communication preferences. In order to understand medium choices based on task needs, cognitive ease of use, and cultural preferences, responses were analyzed in the context of several communication theories. These theories include the media richness model, the schema alignment proposition, the media naturalness proposition, and the cultural element of power distance. Results support that while students are more comfortable communicating via face-to-face and telephone communication with their peers and family, they prefer asynchronous forms of communication when contacting professors. It was found that students are less comfortable using newer media with their professors based on perceived cultural norms and a disconnect between students’ and professors’ technological knowledge.

If you would like further details, or an opportunity to read more merely let me know and that can be arranged.