what country do we live in?
i want to thank Shawn Polito for passing this along . . . ---------- FCC eyes role as cop of cable By Joanne Ostrow Denver Post Media Critic Grab a shovel. Both sides are digging in for what promises to be a long fight. In Las Vegas this week, Michael Powell, chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, told a convention of broadcasters that he would like to extend his regulatory powers to cover cable as well as broadcast TV. What he sees as indecency, that variable offense that shifts over time and refuses to be pinned down, keeps popping up on cable these days. He's determined to stamp it out. Powell acknowledged that he doesn't have the authority to tackle cable but expects to ask Congress to give him the muscle. Meanwhile in Washington, D.C., a group of broadcasters and activists filed a petition saying they've had enough cowering in front of the FCC, the Congress and the nation. They're mad as hell and they're not going to take it anymore, that phrase famously coined by "Network's" Howard Beale. Viacom, Fox, the writers' and directors' guilds, the union representing actors and an array of anti-censorship groups joined the cause, asking the FCC to reverse its decision in the Bono case. (The rock star picked up his award at the 2003 Golden Globes and said, on live TV, "f---ing brilliant." His utterance was first considered innocuous, then deemed offensive.) NBC, which telecast the Bono incident, separately filed for reconsideration. While the network faces no fine, NBC this week argued that the broad impact of the ruling - declaring that airing the "f-word" or, potentially, any other profane word is punishable by fines or worse - "raises serious constitutional, policy and regulatory concerns." This comes after the networks scrambled to institute a five-second delay and have been leaning hard on the bleep button since Super Bowl Sunday. Broadcasters are finally starting to show some backbone. Nobody expects the FCC to change its mind on Bono, but the demands for a review will force the issue higher, perhaps to the Supreme Court. It's come to this: At the annual National Association of Broadcasters confab in Vegas, a panel debated whether a landmark miniseries like "Roots" could even get on the air these days. With opening scenes depicting topless African women and the moment of childbirth, the film would be nixed by today's morality police, according to the First Amendment lawyer representing the groups petitioning the FCC. The commissioners regularly decline to get into this sort of hypothetical debate. But they're asking for trouble by attempting to expand their reach. The government will now restrict "profanity" among other types of speech, the FCC announced in March. The regulators define profanity to include "blasphemous" speech. You can imagine how that sits with First Amendment advocates. "It is astonishing that a federal agency would take unto itself the authority to punish speech it considers blasphemous," said People For the American Way Foundation President Ralph Neas. "What does the First Amendment mean if federal bureaucrats can decide which public discussions are too irreverent? Which religious authorities will the FCC consult in deciding how big the fines should be for comments that offend someone's religious sensibilities?" It's slippery-slope time. So far, there's no way of knowing if the FCC can set itself up as the profanity monitor. Broadcasters have tried to pin down the FCC regarding its definition of indecency/profanity, to no avail. When a radio station planned a live, round-the-clock reading of James Joyce's "Ulysses," the programmers asked the FCC to rule on whether the broadcast would violate the indecency standard. The FCC declined to issue a ruling. The power grab by the FCC may not be the most prominent issue in the raging culture wars this election year. Gay marriage probably has that distinction. But it is at the heart of the larger debate. "If I could show you the transcripts of some of these cases," FCC Chairman Powell told the broadcasters, "very few of you would rise to defend them." I'm sure the material is ugly. But there are off-buttons, V-chips, an array of healthy alternatives and parental responsibilities, too. An activist FCC must not trample the free-speech provisions of the Constitution, even if Powell thinks he is a hero, saving America from itself. Joanne Ostrow's column appears Sunday in Arts & Entertainment as well as Mondays and Thursdays in The Denver Post's Scene section.
posted by ron @ 9:53 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home