All products featured on WIRED are independently selected by our editors. However, we may receive compensation from retailers and/or from purchases of products through these links.
Over the past year, a new media meme has begun to take root: Congress and the Bush administration should abolish the Federal Communications Commission.
For some, the last straw was the FCC's post-Nipplegate mission to aggressively police the airwaves, with the FCC proposing more fines for broadcast indecency in 2004 than in the previous 10 years combined, according to The Center for Public Integrity.
This newfound moralizing was prompted by U2's Bono uttering the F-word on the 2003 Golden Globe Awards and Janet Jackson's breast-baring performance during last year's Super Bowl halftime show -- the most TiVo-ed event in history. All of this paved the way for record fines against CBS ($550,000 for the Super Bowl) and corporate radio conglomerate Clear Channel Communications ($755,000 for graphic sex talk on Bubba the Love Sponge and $1.75 million more for Howard Stern.)
It also sent a chill through the broadcast industry when two dozen TV stations refused to air an uncut version of Saving Private Ryan on Veterans Day for fear agency nobs would find some dialogue indecent, even though the film ran in 2001 and 2002 without a peep from the FCC.
Others are concerned the agency will bring its censorious ways to cable and satellite TV, as well as satellite radio and even the internet. Under the guise of protecting children, a bill sponsored by Louisiana Sen. John Breaux has been circulating in Congress to expand the FCC's responsibilities to encompass some cable TV programming. Still others postulate that technological innovation has rendered the FCC wholly unnecessary, while a few claim the commission has been doing a bad job since its inception and the nation would be better off without it.
For example, in April 2004, Lynn Woolley, author of The Last Great Days of Radio, suggested scrapping the agency entirely, because the FCC "in its current form has proven itself to be so destructive to the industry -- particularly radio -- that it would be better to abolish it and start over."
In June, digital libertarian Declan McCullagh argued that the agency was "no longer necessary" and does "more harm than good." He estimates that some technologically backward decisions have cost Americans tens of billions of dollars.
Less than two months later, Ayn Rand Institute writer Robert Garmong called the FCC's very existence "a flagrant violation of the right to free speech." While the agency justifies regulating broadcast content because the airwaves are supposed to be public property, "just as the government does not own -- and so has no legitimate control over -- the presses of The New York Times, so it has no business regulating what may be broadcast over airwaves."
Recently, even FCC chairman Michael Powell has seen fit to criticize the agency he heads. In a December interview, he explained, "When something happens that (the FCC) doesn't understand, kill it. We tried to kill cable. We tried to kill long-distance. When (MCI founder) Bill McGowan starting stringing out microwave towers that threatened AT&T, the FCC tried to stop him. The FCC tried to kill cable because it was going to threaten broadcasting."
Although a great believer in smaller government -- Powell views himself a "Reagan-era child" -- he doesn't call for the end of the FCC. If he were philosophically consistent, though, he might.
So is getting rid of the FCC a good idea?
It may not be as far-fetched (read: fringe) as it sounds. Because the FCC has become so politicized and beholden to big business, it has ceased to be protector of the airwaves, which are supposed to belong to the citizens of this country (but most believe they belong to big business).
Last year, for instance, Powell pushed for greater deregulation of broadcast outlets so major broadcast companies could own even more outlets. Yet, as part of its mission statement, the FCC is supposed to support "media regulations so that media ownership rules promote competition and diversity in a comprehensive, legally sustainable manner." How placing greater numbers of television stations in the hands of a few deep-pocketed corporations accomplished this is anybody's guess. (The Senate overrode the FCC and the rules remain unchanged.)
In the end, it might be necessary for a government entity to oversee the nation's communications. Who else could divvy up the broadcast spectrum so corporate and public interests are served? You could make that argument, though as I see it you could save the $300 million budgeted for the agency and put it to far better use -- like rebuilding schools or providing better equipment to soldiers in Iraq.
But I'm certain of one thing: There is simply no reason for the FCC to regulate broadcast content. By doing so, it is acting as a censor board.
If it were really interested in protecting the public, the FCC would take on the issue of violence on TV, which it doesn't consider indecent, instead of getting worked up over a tit and profanity. After all, even when curse words are bleeped out, it doesn't take a media Einstein to figure what a character is saying. After all, in print is f*ck really all that much better than fuck? One absent a u isn't obscene while the other is?
If Powell would like to emulate Reagan, he should put greater faith in the American people and let them decide what they want to see. Because if they find a show offensive, they have an easy solution. Change the channel. Boycott the show. Write the station. But don't tell others what they can and can't watch.
Why do you think so many people have migrated from the networks to cable TV anyway?
- - -
Adam L. Penenberg is an assistant professor at New York University and the assistant director of the business and economic reporting program in the department of journalism.
