What is the Deal with the FCC?
By Jan A. Larson
Last week the House passed a bill that authorizes the Federal Communications
Commission (FCC) to levy fines of up to $500,000 against broadcasters
for airing indecent content. The bill passed by an overwhelming 391
to 22 margin.
The bill does not change the definitions of obscenity, but significantly
increases the amount of money that broadcasters may be forced to pay
for violations. In addition, the bill provides for fines against the
individual performers, not just their employers, and that has many "shock
jocks" around the country running scared.
Opponents insist this measure is an attack on the First Amendment guarantee
of free speech. The guarantee of free speech does not apply to the public
airwaves. Each broadcaster is granted a license to use a portion of
the electromagnetic spectrum. The FCC is the regulator of those airwaves,
responsible to Congress and has the authority to establish
standards for use.
The standards of use have never been definitively established. Other
than George Carlin's "seven dirty words," the restrictions
have been vaguely defined, consistent with judicial rulings, to prohibit
"obscene" and "indecent" material. Of course everyone
has a different definition of obscene and indecent. Those differences
have been exploited by morning radio shock jocks to push the envelope
of acceptability. With modest penalties, there was a greater incentive
to attract an audience than to avoid fines.
Ironically, it was an FCC ruling in favor of singer Bono's use of the
"f-word" during the Golden Globe awards and the well-publicized
Super Bowl halftime show fiasco that finally pushed many Americans to
put their collective feet down and say enough is enough. Congress is
all too willing to cater to this sentiment during an election year.
A morning radio personality in this area has been complaining that
if the bill is passed into law, he will likely lose his livelihood.
Howard Stern, the godfather of shock jocks, has
indicated this bill will force him into retirement. Others have expressed
similar views.
My question is why simply cleaning up the airwaves will cost anyone
his job? Are these people so deficient of talent that they cannot be
entertaining without using gutter language and sexual innuendo?
Some may very well be talent-challenged while others may be able to
adapt, but that isn't the point.
It is obvious from the long, successful career of Howard Stern that
a certain segment, not an insignificant segment, of the population wants
to listen to over-the-top, edgy programming. Some would argue that after
a couple of decades of such programming, the edge is mostly gone. The
audience for shocking material only finds the material shocking if it
is not commonplace and obviously, there comes a point at which people
are not shocked much anymore.
Be that as it may, I don't think it is the business of those in Congress,
sitting on their collective high horses in an election year, to decide
what Americans can and cannot choose to consume on the airwaves. The
problem is really not the content per se, but rather the context in
which that content is delivered. No one turned on the Golden Globe awards
to hear four letter words and no one watching the Super Bowl halftime
show expected a striptease. On the other hand, no one should expect
a radio version of Sesame Street when tuning in to Howard Stern.
Instead of effectively eliminating programming that a segment of the
public wishes to consume, a better solution would be to put ratings
on shows and only impose fines when and if the content is not consistent
with the rating. In other words, if Howard Stern and other radio shock
jocks want to carry R-rated programming, just have them indicate as
such during station identification breaks. The NFL would likely decide
that the Super Bowl halftime show be a G-rated presentation and the
Golden Globes could be whatever the people that run the Golden Globes
want it to be.
Let the marketplace, not Congress, decide the types of programming
Americans can consume.
Personally, when it comes to morning shock jock radio, I can take it
or leave it. The show I listen to in the morning is relatively tame,
although there are times when I cringe at some of the language and subject
matter. However, the solution to that problem is just one pushbutton
away.
No matter how it is spun by the lawmakers or the media, the House bill
does effectively implement a degree of censorship. It is forcing the
Howard Sterns of our country out of business, a business that they have
had the right to conduct for many years.
Congress cannot legislate a sanitized society, but it seems that is
where we're heading. In an effort to "protect" Americans from
themselves, this bill takes another cut at the freedoms of all Americans.
The real question is, how many members of Congress listen to Howard
Stern during their morning limo ride to Capitol Hill?
Jan A. Larson publishes a weekly commentary, "What
is the Deal?" at the Pie of Knowledge (http://www.pieofknowledge.com).
His work also appears from time to time on NewsBull (http://www.newsbull.com),
OpinionEditorials (http://www.opinioneditorials.com),
the Washington Dispatch (http://www.washingtondispatch.com)
and American Daily (http://www.americandaily.com).
