Did FCC set 'em up to knock 'em down?
That's what Peggy Charren of Mediachannels.org and Action for Children's Television is saying. Her argument is that media ownership consolidation is the cause of indecency programming. So when FCC Chairman Michael Powell resorts to extreme punishments for purveyors of indecency, he's going after the very same people he empowered in the first place.
"Independent program producers and independent locally-owned stations were once important restraints on the networks' tendency to push objectionable programming to boost their ratings," wrote Charren. "But FCC 'deregulation' allowed media conglomerates to eliminate both independent producers and many locally-owned affiliates. The result is an increase in objectionable programming."
She argues further that Powell's claim in a NYT OpEd piece that the FCC has been clarifying what constitutes indecency since 2001 is refuted by broadcasters' utter confusion as to how the Commission would treat the unedited airing of "Saving Private Ryan." To the contrary, the incident demonstrated the complete lack of clarity.
"Regrettably, Mr. Powell eschews many less restrictive alternatives than censorship to the problem of what some consider objectionable material," Charren continued. "For example, while the FCC's website enthusiastically heralds the advent of digital television, important information about television ratings, the V Chip, and other ways parents might avoid content that offends them is far less prominent. And Mr. Powell evinces little interest in solutions short of censorship that would empower consumers and parents to avoid objectionable content, such as permitting them to not subscribe to cable channels they may find objectionable. Moreover, he exaggerates the numbers of those actually complaining about indecent programming by failing to require that indecency complainers verify they actually saw the offending program."
RBR observation:
Just a couple of quick points. We have heard people, primarily Democratic Commissioner Michael Copps, do some head-scratching on whether there may be a link between consolidation and indecency. Not even Copps, though, has said its a sure thing, at least not that we know of. You can point out that two of the most consolidated owners have paid the most in fines and consent decrees - - thank you, Clear Channel and Viacom - - but we are aware of no study which conclusively links one to the other, or even conclusively defines what indecency is, and that includes the FCC's own documentation on the subject. It could be that five years ago, programs were being aired exactly like those of today, but just weren't being treated in such a high-profile manner.
Secondly, note how muddy this issue is: Charren complains about Powell inflating the complaint total, while at the same time, PTC's Brent Bozell wants to launch a Congressional investigation because he says Powell is under-reporting complaints.
If we can't even agree on the basic 1st grade arithmetic of indecency, how close do you think we are to an overall solution?
Are you reading this from a forwarded email?
