Keeping politicians' hands off the Net & everything else related to technology
Dan Rather has just announced that he will retire from his CBS anchor position in March of next year. At least that’s what’s being reported. However, I hear the resignation letter was typed in courier font, and is still being examined by specialists.
No word on what either of the remaining CBS News viewers will do now.
Should Michael Powell be the next NFL commissioner? It might make sense, given the amount of time the FCC has spent looking at football broadcasts lately. Only weeks after the commission fined CBS over showing a bit too much of Janet Jackson at the Super Bowl, ABC is now under the microscope for a somewhat tawdry segment aired at the beginning of Monday Night Football this week.
The video–which more people probably saw on cable news than on the actual show–featured a woman from the hit show “Desperate Housewives” dressed in only a towel in the locker room before the game, propositioning a Philadelphia Eagle. The towel drops at the end of the segment, definitely indicating some hanky-panky, although there’s no nudity.
The segment provoked outrage among many–including many conservatives, who found it out of bounds for prime time. Michael Powell dutifully tsked-tsked the segment, saying he found the segment “very disappointing,” adding “I wonder whether Walt Disney would be proud.” A better question might be whether Thomas Jefferson would be proud that federal bureaucrats increasingly decide what Americans get to see and hear.
The FCC has just fined Nickelodeon and ABC Family for the heinous crime of showing too many commercials during kids’ programming.
Apparently FCC regulations say that children’s programming may contain no more than 10 1/2 minutes of advertising per hour on weekends and 12 minutes per hour on weekdays. And apparently Nickelodeon and ABC Family exceeded those limits quite a few times. In promulgating the new fines, the FCC gave them a tongue-lashing and warned all media outlets that the agency, “will continue to take swift and appropriate enforcement action to protect the interests of children.”
Just got word that a new website, “Fairnessdoctrine.com” has been launched in support of a bill by Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY) to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine. The site is co-sponsored by Andrew Jay Schwartzman of the Democracy Access Project, David Brock of Media Matters, and Tom Athens of Democracy Radio.
I’ll refrain from rehashing the debate over the Fairness Doctrine, which managed to suppress political debate on the airwaves for decades, and met a well-deserved death in 1987. I do, however, urge everyone to promptly contact fairnessdoctrine.com to claim equal time on their page for your opposing views. I think I’ll ask for a link to techliberation.org. It is, after all, only a matter of fairness.
Our long national nightmare is over. Under intense pressure from many politicians and other groups, Sinclair Broadcasting has caved in to demands that they not air a documentary critical of presidential candidate John Kerry’s Vietnam War record.
Wheh! Thank God for that. I mean, can you imagine how awful it would have been if this film would have ever seen the light of day. We might have been forced to debate the merits of the film. We might have been forced to exchange passionate views about the issues raised in the film. We might have been forced to.. to… to think!
Thank God our benevolent censors in Congress have our best interests in mind and are protecting us from the airing of such controversial viewpoints. I hope they take steps to make sure that Michael Moore documentaries never get aired before the election either. Perhaps we can put a stop to further distribution of “Fahrenheit 9/11” before anymore people see it and are forced to think about it’s message.
OK, now that this national catastrophe has been averted, I can go back to my easy chair and watch some legitimate, politician-approved programming that is certain to tell me everything I need to know about the candidates and the issues before election day. You know, like those remarkably informative campaign commercials. I saw one the other day in which Mr. Kerry said he believed in our future and wanted to make a better America for our children. That’s nice. Funny thing is, Mr. Bush appears to be airing the exact same ads right now too. They both REALLY love our children. And the future. Good things to love, I guess.
OK, perhaps I should instead go back and watch those exciting debates one more time. I’m sure there’s some really informative stuff in there right after both candidates get past the first 20 minutes of personally thanking every single member of the audience for coming and telling the moderator how much they love him. Boy, these candidates REALLY love people. That’s good, I guess.
Hey, I’m just looking for someone to tell me what to think here. I just want to be part of the “informed electorate.” But please don’t let me see any reports or documentaries critical of these two guys. That might lead me to think that there are alternative viewpoints out there. Or, worse yet, it might lead me and others to think that not everyone loves these guys as much as they supposedly love us. And from what they tell us or allow us to hear, we just know that can’t be true. Right?
The fights over media this year just get more and more bizarre. I got an e-mail the other day from The Nation magazine that began:
“Among media watchdog groups, it’s an article of faith that concentration of power in the hands of massive media conglomerates is dangerous for the public interest. The fear is that these corporate giants could use that power to manipulate the nation’s political process. Sinclair Broadcasting Group is proving these fears well-founded.”
Huh? I repeat: huh? Only hours later, Sinclair bowed to public pressure and cancelled its plans to air an anti-Kerry documentary on its stations. But never mind that. Even if Sinclair had not reversed course, does anyone really that Sinclair or anyone else has undue power over what Americans hear and think? For gosh sakes, most people didn’t even know Sinclair had a news division until a few weeks ago.
FCC Commissioner Michael Copps jumped into the Sinclair imbroglio yesterday, calling the broadcaster’s decision to air an anti-Kerry documentary an “abuse of the public trust,” and decrying the power of media conglomerates.
Casual observers of this teapot tempest may be forgiven for thinking of the FCC as a white knight here, defending robust debate of the issues. In truth, the FCC’s own pot is more than a little black. Case in point: thanks to the FCC, presidential debates were, in effect, banned before 1976. This is because the Commission interpreted the “equal time” rule so as to forbid TV coverage of debates that didn’t include all candidates. Given that there are typically dozens of nutcases running for president, that made meaningful debates impossible.
Some groups and politicians are making a big stink about Sinclair Broadcasting’s decision to air a supposedly anti-Kerry documentary with the presidential election quickly approaching. Critics assert that:
(1) Sinclair is just another big media, pro-Bush lackey hell-bent on influencing the outcome of the election by airing this so close to voting day.
(2) It’s unfair for Sinclair to demand that its TV affiliates preempt other programming to air the documentary.
(3) It might be illegal for Sinclair to air the documentary less than 60 days before the presidential election since it could be considered “electioneering communication.” Under our current post-McCain-Feingold campaign finance election laws, “electioneering communication” refers to any form of communication that mentions candidates for federal office and is distributed within 60 days before a general election. Such forms of communication are banned on the theory that they “corrupt” our political system. News coverage is exempted from this ban, but debate over what constitutes “news” leaves the door open to much interpretation, as is the case here.
I released a short essay today regarding the impact of Howard Stern’s move to satellite radio ont he future of media regulation and First Amendment jurisprudence. Is attached below. Here’s the formatted Cato link.
Broadcasting and Cable magazine is reporting that broadcasters are officially on notice to begin delaying live programs long enough to edit out any possibly “indecent” material. The magazine notes that the recent $550,000 record fine levied against CBS / Viacom for the Janet Jackson Super Bowl incident included a not-so-subtle suggestion that broadcasters start using delay techniques and technologies. Here’s the relevant language from the ruling:
“We urge each licensee to take reasonable precautions in the future, such as employing such delay technology to independently prescreen the network feed to prevent the broadcast of indecent programming over its licensed station.”
One wonders how live news shows will respond. I guess a five second delay isn’t a huge deal–and I know that many broadcasters already use such techniques–but I still find it troubling that this could mean the death of truly live TV and radio.
The Technology Liberation Front is the tech policy blog dedicated to keeping politicians' hands off the 'net and everything else related to technology.
