BuzzMachine

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

Michael Powell, earthbound

6 comments on Michael Powell, earthbound

Michael Powell, earthbound

: I actually believe that in his heart of hearts, Michael Powell — once a friend of the First Amendment — is embarrassed that he turned himself into the national nanny for cheap political gain. Call me an optimist.

At CES, Powell gave a Q&A and said again he’d keep his hands off satellite.

Michael Powell had a rare bit of good news Thursday for shock jock Howard Stern, saying the government had no interest in censoring satellite radio.

Engaging in a question-and-answer session at the Consumer Electronics Show, the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission dismissed notions that broadcast radio operators will suffer unless the growing satellite radio business is subjected to the same content restrictions that forbid “the seven dirty words.”

“I think it’s a dangerous thing to start talking about extending government oversight of content to other media just to level the playing field,” Powell said….

Broadcast radio operators have made several unsuccessful attempts to restrict satellite radio content. But Powell said the merging of media formats and the Internet and changing attitudes favor minimal oversight.

“At the end of the day, I think we’re going to move in the direction of the Jeffersonian free-speech tradition,” he said.

At the end of the day. Which day?

6 responses to “Michael Powell, earthbound”

  1. Stan Avatar
    Stan

    This is in relation to the Stern-Citadel situation.
    Somebody who knows what they’re doing should look into this. I don’t know what I’m doing. In short, I wasted about an hour wondering what possible motivation Farid Suleman would have alienating his company’s audience.
    I googled him. Here’s what I found out in about an hour. It’s sloppy, but it’s a start:
    http://www.livejournal.com/community/howardsternshow/58432.html
    The TV Guide version:
    Suleman has financial ties to neoconservative organizatrions.

  2. John Thacker Avatar
    John Thacker

    The day when broadcast becomes completely irrelevant. Which ties in nicely with your post above, I think.
    More choice leads to less censorship, and less justification for it because of things “coming over the public airwaves, unrequested.”

  3. Greg Piper Avatar
    Greg Piper

    Michael Powell wouldn’t be terribly unique for promising to not regulate satellite. The whole point of regulating broadcast, dislike it though you may, is that it is “uniquely pervasive” – anyone with a TV and a decent set of rabbit ears can tune in, even little tykes. Cable has been delicately testing the limits for years without recrimination – see Comedy Central’s “Secret Stash” that shows unedited content with the full seven dirty words starting at 1 a.m. The subscription wall eliminates the “pervasive” character. I wouldn’t expect Powell to express enthusiasm for regulating satellite any more than he’d want to regulate phone conversations for salty language.

  4. submandave Avatar
    submandave

    Jeff: I have always got the impression that Michael Powell, rather than seeing himself as a champion of decency and nanny of the State, sees himself more as a public servant, and what the majority of the public he hears wants is tighter control. He may not personally agree, but in his role as a public servant he sees it as his duty to run the FCC as the public desires.
    Stan: I’ll take your point under consideration and increase my tin-foil portfolio accordingly.

  5. John Avatar
    John

    Greg,
    If I remember correctly, the rationale for regulating broadcast stations and not cable stations (or for that matter broadcast radio and not satellite) is that since there is only a limited amount of spectrum on which to broadcast, the public owns that spectrum, and thus the government has more justification/leeway to regulate the broadcast media as opposed to cable or satellite since cable and satellite don’t have the limits on the total number of content providers that the spectrum puts on media outlets that broadcast (or used to put—I don’t know if the technology has changed, but I do know that my radio still goes from ~87.7 to 107.9). I don’t think the Supreme Court has backed down from its holding that “the First Amendment has a special meaning in the broadcasting context.” F.C.C. v. Pacifica Foundation, 438 U.S. 726, 741 n.17 (1978). Also, take a look at Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 395 U.S. 367 . Pp. 742-743. for more on the background of the Court’s reasoning for differing between broadcast media and the rest of the media. The uniquely pervasive rationale is there, but I always thought the issue turned on the limited nature of the broadcast spectrum as opposed to the pervasive nature of TV.

  6. Richard Avatar
    Richard

    A bit off topic, but your boy L. Brent Bozell, III has his panties in a bunch at CATO.
    http://www.parentstv.org/PTC/publications/lbbcolumns/2005/0106.asp