Powell takes his bully pulpit to NYT

FCC Chairman Michael Powell took to the OpEd pages of the New York Times to explain the FCC's position at ground zero in the broadcast indecency wars. He asked that people on both sides take a deep breath and try to appreciate the balancing act indecency enforcement requires.

"Overheated words, however, obscure what should be an important debate over two American values that are, at times, in tension," Powell wrote. The warring values are freedom of speech and parental concerns over what their children see and hear over the airwaves.

Powell used much of his space to address FYI concerns familiar to most RBR/TVBR readers. He notes that FCC enforcement of indecency regs is a requirement, not an option. However, it does not police the airwaves, relying instead on consumer complaints.

He notes the utter impossibility of constructing completely coherent guidelines. "Words or actions might be acceptable as part of a news program, or as an indispensable component of a dramatic film, but be nothing more than sexual pandering in another context. That context and the specific facts of each program are reasons the government can't devise a book of rules listing all the bad stuff."

He did say the FCC is aware of the proliferation of mass email campaigns, but says that one complaint is enough to potentially trigger a possible action.

He defended the FCC's decision not to provide prior guidance on the prime time airing of an uncut version of "Saving Private Ryan," saying "...the precedent of submitting programming or scripts for government review borders dangerously on censorship. The Communications Act expressly forbids the FCC from banning a program before broadcast, and any such effort might very well run afoul of the First Amendment. This is a step I do not want to take."

In the end, he argues that the FCC has been acting in a balanced manner, and suggests that those who think the FCC has gone overboard "...simply believe that the government should not impose any decency standard at all." He said if they do not want the FCC to enforce the law, they should concentrate on changing the law. He concludes, "Until then, the American people have a right to expect that the FCC will continue to fulfill its duty of upholding the law, while being fully cognizant of the delicate First Amendment balance that must be struck."

RBR observation:
Hot seats don't get much hotter than the one Powell occupies in this debate. He is seen by one extreme as a would-be national nanny; by the other as the government equivalent of Larry Flynt.

The bottom line, as Powell points out, is that the FCC cannot enforce good taste, and it can't do anything about programming in safe harbor hours. A consumers best quick defense is the dial. The most powerful is pressure on the offending program's advertisers. Kill the audience and the cash and you'll kill the indecency. Let's not take down the First Amendment with it.