Why FCC Chairman Michael Powell may have been a blessing in disguise

Even at the risk of sounding like a desensitized, stereotypically über-liberal college student, I’d like to reiterate what the rest of the civilized world has been saying since last year’s “wardrobe malfunction” fiasco: Americans need to lighten up. In spite of recent headlines addressing FCC Chairman Michael Powell’s resignation, I fear that this judgmental sentiment will only be solidified in the years to come.

Bill Clinton nominated Powell to the FCC in 1997, and George Bush appointed Powell Chairman in 2001. Powell resigned after having served only four years of an expected six-year chairmanship, explaining that he had completed his “bold and aggressive agenda” and was looking forward to spending time with his wife and sons.

At face value, Powell’s resignation might appear to be a fortunate shift of power — not an unreasonable conclusion, considering that fines for indecent programming exceeded $7.7 million last year, a notable rise from the $48,000 levied the year before Powell’s chairmanship designation. But keep your shirts on, ladies. As distasteful as it may seem, Powell’s resignation might in fact lead to an even more stringent regulation of indecency that, in the words of The New Republic’s Keelin McDonnel, “could be enough to make you miss the good old days” when CBS was fined a mere $550,000 for that split-second shot of Janet Jackson’s right breast. Oh, the horror.

But why the sad look, Charlie Brown? After learning of the resignation, shock-radio legend Howard Stern celebrated by exclaiming, “Thank God he’s gone.” Strangely enough, however, another pleased faction of Powell’s enemies was none other than the Parents Television Council, a watchdog group whose complaints comprise more than 99% of all the indecency reports to the FCC in any given year.

During a press release issued in response to Powell’s resignation, L. Brent Bozell, president of the PTC, said that “Michael Powell has brought us four years of failed leadership at the FCC.” He further claimed that “during [Powell’s] term, bestiality, masturbation, oral sex, anal sex and pedophilia became FCC-sanctioned topics on prime time network television.” (Note to self: I have got to start watching more television).

It is not particularly disconcerting that these two opposing interests both agree that Powell was a disastrous FCC chairman. However, the fact that the PTC strongly supports current FCC commissioner Kevin Martin’s bid for the Chairmanship because he “is a stalwart leader on the issue of indecency,” especially in comparison to Powell, is frankly terrifying. In a testimony before the House Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet, Martin stated that he intends to fight on-air indecency with higher fines and “more explicit prohibitions.” Additionally, Martin’s definition of “indecency” very often differs from the other members’ of the FCC. For example, he formed of the dissenting opinions to the recent dismissal of 36 complaints of indecency about shows such as “Friends” and “NYPD Blue.”

Currently, there are three indecency tests used to judge the validity of any complaints received. According to the official FCC website:

“The principal factors that have proved significant in our decisions to date are: (1) the explicitness or graphic nature of the description or depiction of sexual or excretory organs or activities; (2) whether the material dwells on or repeats at length descriptions of sexual or excretory organs or activities; (3) whether the material appears to pander or is used to titillate, or whether the material appears to have been presented for its shock value.”

Basically, no explicit, repetitive, and titillating sex scenes or poop jokes. And especially no explicit, repetitive, and titillating poop-sex jokes or scenes (I know, in poor taste and decidedly “presented for its shock value,” but so far the FCC hasn’t been able to regulate internet postings, so I’d like to take advantage of this legitimate form of free expression while I still can).

The obvious problem with such a subjective system is that subject matter one chairman considers acceptable can easily be considered indecent and Enron-fine-worthy by another. If the PTC is correct in its assumption that Kevin Martin will succeed where Powell purportedly “failed” — in the regulation of on-air indecency — then we can kiss our already heavily regulated on-air raunchiness goodbye. Oh, right, and possibly our First Amendment right to freedom of expression, as well.

Several journalists have speculated that television networks have not had any aneurysms over the ever-growing attack on on-air indecency because under Powell’s leadership, monitoring indecency standards took a back seat to his pro-big-business stance concerning media ownership. In June of 2003, Powell led the FCC in a 3-2 vote split along party lines to change FCC rules so that limits on media ownership would be relaxed. Due to this relaxation, broadcast networks are now allowed to own TV stations that reach 45 percent of the U.S. audience, as opposed to the previous limit of 35 percent, and the ban that prevents a media company from owning both a newspaper and a TV or radio station in the same market has been lifted.

The new FCC regulations caused trouble in Washington and resulted in the House and Senate working with the White House to lower the 45 percent limit to a 39 percent cap. Additionally, a federal appeals court similarly rejected many of the other new ownership conditions. Not all revisions were vetoed, however.

The fear, as Keelin McDonnel states, is that the broadcast companies will prefer to “battle over media ownership rules” than over their First Amendment rights, and as a result, Martin’s inevitable war on fellatio and feces will go unchecked. Really, I’m not sure which is worse—relying on only a handful of big-business-run broadcast organizations to deliver a “fair and balanced” assessment of the news, or being forced to watch “True Life: I’m Amish” to get my MTV-delivered raunch fix.

In response to this woeful future outlook, all that this desensitized, stereotypically über-liberal college student has to say is, “Thank God for the internet.” For now, at least.