BuzzMachine

The media pundit's pundit. Written by NYC insider Jeff Jarvis, BuzzMachine covers news, media, journalism, and politics.

Butt out, Michael Powell!

39 comments on Butt out, Michael Powell!

Butt out, Michael Powell!

: Arrrrggghhh.

Michael Powell, chief censor, opens his yap about the lame Desperate Housewives promo on Monday Night Football that — mind you — showed nothing more risque than a woman’s back. He said:

“First of all, as a legal matter, whether it’s a problem is yet to be determined. We only respond to complaints and evaluate them fairly and make a decision,” Powell said in an interview with CNBC.

“But I think it’s very disappointing. I wonder if Walt Disney would be proud,” Powell added.

Nowhere in the Constitution or in the charter of the FCC does it say there should be a role for a Chief Federal Entertainment Critic. Who gives a damn if you think it’s disappointing? Who gives a damn what you think a corpse would think about this?

This reveals exactly what is wrong here: Powell thinks he has a role in dictating what content — that is, speech — should be allowed in this country.

Reread the Constitution, will you, Michael? It’s none of your damned business.

39 responses to “Butt out, Michael Powell!”

  1. Tom O. Avatar
    Tom O.

    Powell’s not angry, he’s just disappointed. He sounds like he thinks he’s in an episode of Father Knows Best. Pretty soon he’ll be asking people why they don’t consider switching to Sanka.

  2. Kory Avatar
    Kory

    Hey Jeff,
    The big tobacco companies are currently being sued for $280 billion by the Department of Justice (brought in 1999 under Clinton). Kinda makes those puny little $1 million fines look minor, doesn’t it?
    The charge also relates to free speech, with the tobacco companies being charged for targeting minors by advertising in magazines read by adults that were also possibly read by children.
    Why have I not heard you complain for the past 5 years about tobacco companies freedom of speech under assault by the DOJ as it relates to cigarette advertising?
    Or do you only care about free speech when it relates to sexuality?

  3. Michael Avatar
    Michael

    “Who gives a damn if [Powell] think it’s disappointing?”
    Well, who gives a damn if YOU think its acceptable? Powell is a citizen (with access to a large audience) expressing his opinion. Just like you are a citizen (with access to a large audience) expressing your opinion. Lay off. He obviously was separating any official view from the FCC’s perspective from his own personal opinion.

  4. Tom Avatar
    Tom

    Tom – or maybe Tab soda.
    I’m going to reiterate that if this is his stance, then I want to hear what these folks have to say about DAYTIME soap operas. Wanna clamp down on something, start there. It’s almost like you are only in the wrong if something is considered “indecent” by some faction of the population when it’s a bigtime event or showing. If it’s on the down low, then it’s okay, because not that many people are watching/listening. It’s so bogus.

  5. David R. Block Avatar
    David R. Block

    Is this the same ABC whose affiliates pulled the plug on “Saving Private Ryan?” I guess that if it was “Saving Ryan’s Privates” then it would have been just peachy.

  6. carsonfire Avatar
    carsonfire

    Free speech for me, not for thee.
    It seems that in the process of defending the right of vulgar corporations to beam crap on the public airwaves, it’s necessary to muzzle differing opinions. Michael Powell can’t have one because he’s the FCC chairman; everybody else can’t have one because they’re “prudes” or worse.

  7. Ed Rusch Avatar
    Ed Rusch

    Ah, moderation, thy name is not Jeffo:
    “No personal attacks, hate speech, bigotry, or seven dirty words in the comments or comments will be killed along with commenters.”
    Sounds like Jeffo needs to heed his own policy.

  8. Chuck Olsen Avatar
    Chuck Olsen

    JARVIS FOR FCC CHIEF!
    Meanwhile… FCC ‘Censors’ Gay TV

  9. lost soul Avatar
    lost soul

    re: Powell’s Disney being proud quotation…
    Disney maintained as tight a control on the content of his productions as any in the history of Hollywood. Several works of his had nudity that was much more explicit than shown Monday night (Fantaisia, which protrayed a bacchanal, comes to mind.)
    All aimed at general audiences.

  10. Instahack Avatar
    Instahack

    Powell should ask what Walt Disney would think about Jews running Disney, and a Black man running the FCC? Guess what, Walt was a racist and anti-semite, yet we should be worried what he thinks?? The irony.
    Oh well, Jeff, this is the result of W’s election, and this is why a couple of us didn’t feel like taking your lame pledge the day after Kerry’s defeat.

  11. Roxanne Avatar
    Roxanne

    How come there hasn’t been a backlash against the scantilly clad, beer-swilling HOs that pepper about 1/2 the ads shown during sporting events?
    Never mind. I know the answer.
    $$$$$

  12. Justin Kownacki Avatar
    Justin Kownacki

    So the head of FCC is using Walt Disney as the basis for modern American morality, right? The same Walt Disney who reportedly spied on alleged communists, and whose company now owns ABC and ESPN, those bastions of family entertainment? OK, just checking…
    Anyone else find it ironic that the NFL is concerned about airing sexually charged images to its adolescent male audience when it makes a fortune airing supercharged images of violence? (“Saving Private Ryan” notwithstanding…)

  13. Brett Avatar
    Brett

    It seems to me that this is much like the spam arguments. I’m receiving unwanted solicitation (Desperate Housewives promos) through my inbox (TV) and I want it to stop.
    Ultimately, this is going to come down to people choosing to walk from TV. Censors be damned. We’ll find some way to get on-demand content and TV gets marginalized.
    Jeff, you of all people have to know this. The FCC doesn’t need to die. The FCC is irrelevant. Like Dan Rather’s news team, the FCC is dead but doesn’t know it yet.
    Stern is going satellite. People walk from CBS. Ho hum.
    Someone wrote it earlier, but they have the big picture here: TV shows are about money. I’m not going to waste my breath with an email/letter to the FCC. I’m simply going to change the channel/find a different source of entertainment.
    Now, if you show me that Michael Powell/the FCC can impact other areas, then I’ll get worked up about it. But otherwise, why does this matter?

  14. tony Avatar
    tony

    kory,
    people watching terrell owens get seduced by a desperate housewife isnt anywhere along the path of acquiring black lung.
    huge difference between big tobbacco peddling deadly substances to kids and monday night football trying to keep joe sixpack’s attention.

  15. jackson Avatar
    jackson

    Brett,
    It matters because like cancer, it will grow. You let these guys get a foot in the door and you can forget about freedom of choice.
    Ted

  16. MWB Avatar
    MWB

    Look at tony’s response to kory, followed by jackson’s comment.
    tony, kory’s question wasn’t comparing the MNF incident to the tobacco ads. He was wondering why Jeff’s absolutist position–“government has no role in regulating content, period”–hasn’t led him to protest the government’s action against the tobacco ads, which is orders of magnitude heavier. Jeff claims his position on this issue isn’t one of degree, but of principle. If so, the comparative harm of the content is immaterial.
    So, jackson (or is it Ted?), it would appear the government is trying to stick a rather large foot in the door over the content of tobacco advertising. What’s going to happen to my freedom of choice to view whatever kind of ads I want?

  17. Joe Avatar
    Joe

    The WSJ said today that ABC might have pulled a fast one on the NFL. The original promo that ABC showed NFL officials, according to the story, had the five characters from “Desperate Housewives” sitting around wearing Eagles paraphenalia and nattering about the game. It was this promo, reportedly, that the NFL approved, only to be blindsided when ABC put up something completely different.
    If this story turns out to be true, then I have _no_ sympathy at all for ABC.

  18. tony Avatar
    tony

    mwb,
    he infact did compare the two. so i compared them as well.

  19. Kat Avatar
    Kat

    Well, I could care less. If she wants to act like a hootch, let her. The one thing that upsets me is that she is wearing a cross–like saying it’s a Christian thing to ask football guys to screw you. Why couldn’t they have dressed her in a burka and had her rip it off? That could be a message to those islamic nutjobs to loosen up. It is OK to call them nutjobs, I hope, seeing as I see it’s OK to call Christians who are anti-free porn that. Why don’t you guys just buy a porn channel? Sheesh. You must really be hard up at home.

  20. Brett Avatar
    Brett

    Look, I find the whole thing hypocritical.
    Jeff wants the government to stick its big foot into a private industry and assume some measure of control.
    The industry? Health care. For him, it’s a big problem that government needs to address. He’s a liberal, so government in health care is acceptable. Even expected.
    On the other end of the spectrum, some right-wingers want to filter the public airwaves so that they can enjoy a public resource without inappropriate and unwelcome content. For them, government protection is acceptable. Even expected.
    My preference, as Ted alludes above, is that we suffer little government involvement in any area of life. But any opinion that likes government sometimes and not other times will be subject to dismissal by those who miss the big principle that drives the opinion.
    Is it free speech or is it not free speech? If it’s free speech, then why all the angst about Glenn Reynolds’ campaign posts or religious conservatives expressing their views?
    Is it government intervention or is it not government intervention? If it’s no government intervention, then why should the government be expected to “fix” problems in health care.

  21. Richard Moriarty Avatar
    Richard Moriarty

    Yeah, I hate that the government is being allowed to regulate TV. In fact, I hate all the forms of control the government forces upon me.
    I should be free to steal, to kill, to rape.
    Sure, some sexuality or cursing on TV isn’t the same thing, but my point stands: The government should be allowed some control.. the more we fight it, the closer we get to anarchy.

  22. MWB Avatar
    MWB

    tony,
    So, is your position is that “offensive” speech can be regulated if the offense is great enough?
    That might be interesting to know. But I’m wondering (and I think kory is too) what *Jeff’s* position is on this, given his “government has no role in regulating content” stance.

  23. Instahack Avatar
    Instahack

    “Is it free speech or is it not free speech? If it’s free speech, then why all the angst about Glenn Reynolds’ campaign posts or religious conservatives expressing their views?”
    You can be in favor of free speech, and still criticize “Professor” Reynolds for being completely intellectually dishonest, and a mere hack of the far right. I can criticize the Christian right for wanting to get involved in everyone’s sex life. That doesn’t mean I think we should CENSOR them. Big difference. You can be damn sure that I would be against censoring either of them.

  24. Instahack Avatar
    Instahack

    “Is it government intervention or is it not government intervention? If it’s no government intervention, then why should the government be expected to “fix” problems in health care.”
    Is there a portion of the constitution SPECIFICALLY limiting the right of the government to regulate health care? No (and don’t give me some abstract argument about the takings clause or something). That’s the difference. Pretty easy, isn’t it?

  25. Richard Moriarty Avatar
    Richard Moriarty

    I wonder what Jeff thinks of this.
    http://www.hughhewitt.com/#postid1113
    It seems that Hugh Hewitt is curious about the possibility of censorship on the news front. Now THAT is an eerie thought.

  26. Kat Avatar
    Kat

    You’re right, you are a mere hack of the far left, and I wouldn’t want to censor you. Nor would I want to censor that Leftist hack, Garrison Keillor, who believes Christians shouldn’t be allowed to vote. Now if I said that about Jews or muslims all hell would break loose.And then there are all the racist comments from the Left about Condi Rice. Now if I said those things I’d be a racist pig and a bigot. But the Left marches to its own little drum, banning Christmas music, Christmas displays, Christmas greetings, and then howling free speech for all–as long as you think like a leftist. No group wants to control us more than the left–they want to feed us pablum and have us regurgitate it like good little robots doing the goosestep.

  27. Brett Avatar
    Brett

    Instahack,
    Had Jeff been the editor of Glenn’s blog, for all of the posts Jeff made that asked/begged/scolded Glenn to stop, Jeff would have canned Glenn’s posts, by his own words.
    I don’t mind Jeff’s criticism. I don’t mind your criticism. But when Michael criticizes the MNF broadcast, it’s “none of [his] business.” That’s hypocrisy.
    In regard to your musing about the constitution not “limiting the right of the government to regulate health care,” Jeff’s suggestions were not about regulation. He sought providence and access.

  28. Amy Avatar
    Amy

    Possible Russian media restrictions…not sex, but violence:
    “The State Duma is considering a bill that would heavily restrict scenes of violence on television, but which people in the television industry warned could kill the medium. The bill, which taps into the deep-rooted perception in some circles that Western influences are eroding values, would not only prohibit television from showing Hollywood action flicks from 7:00-22:00h, but also everything from boxing matches to terrorist attacks. “The streams of blood that splash today on the screens are destructive for the subtle psyches of children,” said the bill’s sponsor, Deputy Andrei Skoch of the United Russia party. “Society must have reasonable restrictions that protect our children from non-children fare.” The Duma’s Information Policy Committee opposed the bill, but deputies still unanimously passed it in a first reading. A raft of amendments is expected before the bill comes up for a second reading, but the unanimous vote the first time around has set off alarm bells among television executives and media analysts alike.”
    From The Moscow Times, but you need a paid subscription, so BugMeNot doesn’t work.

  29. Eileen Avatar
    Eileen

    Hey, hey, whoooaa now. My life is passing before me very eyes. Sanka. Tab. Fantasia.
    Even though (unfortunately) I know what these ancient words mean, I apparently am not yet old enough to know the ‘7 dirty words’. When I read that in the Rules of Engagement I was too embarrassed to ask. But since we’re on the topic of free speech and censorship…
    Because I don’t know the dirty 7, does that mean I’m a prude (i.e., sheltered, naive, probably never had sex or wouldn’t like it if I did), OR, does it mean I’m Totally Wanton since I can only think of three to begin with (ok, maybe 4).
    Would someone please send me a link to learn the bad words, or whisper them/otherwise tell me without getting yourSelf ‘killed’ before I find myself being friggin’ (is that one ok?) hog-tied and blog-fined?
    Which brings me to this hubbub about whatever the FCC’s been doing – or not – about wall to wall sex and violence on MSM for years now. MNF alone, now that’s surely a gentle walk in the park. You can only click away so many times. Is there any real NEWS here I’m (also) unaware of? I’m not too worried about the FCC ever ‘protecting me’ by limiting the producers’ free speech/content rights. I’d say the agency’s pretty harmless.
    Just longing for the good ‘ole days and Lassie Come Home. But if That makes me a prude, I promise I won’t call you one of the dirty 7 back.

  30. Eileen Avatar
    Eileen

    So, HERE’s the Solution (not to the dirty 7, but to the hubbub). Just ‘do it’ after 10, the FCC says so:
    http://aolsvc.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20041117144709990001&_mpc=news%2e10%2e1&cid=505
    Fine by me. I mean, don’t fine me.
    And make sure we only see naked women. That’s the part I Truly think needs some serious scrutiny…

  31. Abrasivist Avatar
    Abrasivist

    Hypocrite football viewers. We’re to believe we are offended by the Owens/Sheridan bit yet it’s ok if for the rest of the game we drown in a flood of cheerleaders in skimpy costumes and commercials cashing in on male impotence problems.
    Let’s cut through the bs here and face what these idiots were really offended by and that’s a white woman throwing herself to a black man. It’s 2004 grandpa not 1964. Deal with it.

  32. Eileen Avatar
    Eileen

    This from Abrasivist’s blog yesterday, below the picture of a woman:
    “OMG…I’m a doll collector too! Perhaps we can get together sometime and share our collection of dolls. Then we can mangle them with ginsu knives. Stuff them with ketchup and put them in the microwave. Then we can burn them in the street while chanting in strange tongue. That would be great. Please give me a call!
    Another doll…
    Written by abrasivist (Link to this entry)”
    Yeah, Bud. Free speech and all that.

  33. tony Avatar
    tony

    mwb,
    my position is that things should be regulated that cause actual harm to people.
    i havent heard any reports of anyone’s precious angels having their heads explode when janet showed her nipple. and i would hazzard to guess that nicolette sheridans shoulder and side caused even less “damage.”
    my position is also that michael powell’s fcc needs to give up the farce and write down the guidelines and have examples. he was totally on the right track when he explained why he didnt fine bono because he used the f-word as an adjective. finally a standard that could be adhered to.
    and notice, newscasters didnt start saying “…things got f-ing heated in iraq today as the insurgents…”, kids didnt come home saying “f-ing hard day at work today mom? let me make you a cocktail.”
    if anything everyone kept quiet and waited for the other shoe to drop. which it did post-janet when the conservatives finally found a way to exploit the system and powell reversed his decision even though the use of the f-word hadnt happened again on any of the major stations.
    so my position is write the rules, be clear, and if you cant explain what would be determined as sooooooo bad that it would cause enough damage to someone that it was worthy of a fine, then you have no business being in charge of the federal Communications commission.

  34. Eileen Avatar
    Eileen

    So Tony, oh sorry, little t tony,…..
    You completely ignore our latest commenter, Abrasivist’s words just quoted above, as you spout on about “my position is that things should be regulated that cause actual harm to people” How do YOU define harm?? I guess his women sliced up with ginsus don’t fall into your definition of harm. I guess women stuffed – can’t even repeat it…… doesn’t mean a damn thing in your book.
    Yeah, I’m listening to you. Did you even read it or HEAR it???
    tony, you need to go to law school to understand the ‘standards’ and the ‘rules’; the history of the statutes and laws governing us and the 1st amendment AND the constitution, AND the role of the FCC given that 200 years of history. Until then, you don’t have a whit to say about jack shit.

  35. tony Avatar
    tony

    youre kidding… right?

  36. Eileen Avatar
    Eileen

    O how simple a response.
    No. I’m not kidding.
    Good luck, little t tony. Sending love. And hoping that you will go to law school.

  37. MWB Avatar
    MWB

    tony,
    Thanks for the reply. Your position is different–and more honest, in my view–than Jeff’s. You say the FCC should regulate content that does actual damage, and I agree. We might not agree about what is “damaging” but we’d at least be able to debate the issue from the same ballpark (and I’ll add some thoughts about that in my next comment).
    My stronger objection is to Jeff’s means of arguing his case here. He’s abusing his position of influence by manipulating the debate instead of presenting an honest argument.
    Consider the absurdity of his stated position (quoting from an earlier response he made to one of my comments):
    “I believe government has no role regulating speech. Period. The constitution is clear on that. I make the standard caveats on yelling fire in a theater or treason or libel; those are well-established.”
    The last sentence negates the first two. If the constitution is so clear, so black-and-white, how did the caveats become well-established? Jeff is essentially saying the government has NO regulatory role–NONE! …except when it does.
    Regardless of one’s position on where to draw the regulatory line, Jeff is insulting his readers’ intelligence by casting the argument in false terms. He wants to highlight the “absurdity” of the FCC’s actions while expecting us to gloss over the absurdity of his own position. He’d like us to believe this is a battle between flag-draped defenders of the First Amendment and a tiny band of self-righteous “religious nutjobs”.
    Does he really think this is so? That he recasts the real argument (on which side of “obscenity” do we draw the line?) in terms that demonize his opponents suggests that he harbors doubts about the persuasiveness of his case.
    It’s too bad, really. There’s a debate here that we need to have. There are indeed legitimate worries about government overreach in the area of free speech, as there are reasonable concerns on the other side about the growth of a lowest-common-denominator culture.
    But Jeff isn’t trying to persuade us that his First Amendment position is right, so much as he’s working to convince us that any who oppose him are operating in bad faith. This from the man who pledged elevated discourse and work toward unity. I think he can do better. And in the spirit of his pledge, I’d encourage his readers–of every persuasion–to push him in that direction.

  38. MWB Avatar
    MWB

    tony,
    I said above I’d have more comments for you about “what’s damaging” but I’m out of time for now. More later, I hope.

  39. crushkerry Avatar
    crushkerry

    Hey Jeff – We at crushkerry.com (soon to be http://www.anklebitingpundits.com) agree with you – even though you criticized our site a while back. Check out the articled entitled “Hey FCC! Keep Your Hands Off Nicolette’s Towel!” here:
    http://www.crushkerry.com/article-332–0-0.html