When Michael Powell announced in January that he was stepping down from his position as chairman of the FCC, few shed any tears. Powell, through his ad hoc policy of slapping larger and larger fines on broadcast outlets for allegedly indecent content, fostered an environment of fear and uncertainty in which it was anybody’s guess what content would be fined, or how big those fines might be.
Enter President Bush’s new pick for FCC chairman, Kevin J. Martin, who took office in mid-March. A Republican FCC commissioner since 2001, Martin is widely regarded as a vast improvement, at least in terms of working style and consistency, over the divisive and secretive Powell.
Martin’s take on media consolidation rules still appear to be a work in progress, with signs pointing to a pro-consolidation stance with an emphasis on local autonomy. When Powell proposed in 2003 that the national media ownership cap be eliminated, Martin told Congress: “I believe the affiliates made a compelling case as to why a national limit needs to be retained. I agree that a balance between the affiliates and the networks is important to maintaining localism, and thus I did not support proposals in the record to eliminate the cap altogether.” Martin also repeatedly defended local broadcasters’ demands for more say over their contracts with the major networks.
As for the more headline-friendly issue of fines for indecent content, Martin has traditionally taken a much harder line. As a commissioner, he frequently criticized Powell’s fines as being too lenient. The New York Times noted recently that Martin “has taken the most aggressive approach in indecency cases, dissenting from a series of opinions in which the agency either found no violation or did not issue what he believed was a significant enough punishment.” This, of course, has made him popular with a vocal minority of conservative activist groups, particularly the Parents Television Council (PTC), which in 2003, according to Mediaweek, accounted for 99.8 percent of all indecency complaints, and through October 2004, represented a full 99.9 percent of complaints.
In a disappointing attempt to explore Martin’s position on the indecency issue, the New York Times today ran a story that makes harsher indecency fines and the institutionalization of the PTC’s agenda seem like a foregone conclusion. Relying exclusively on quotes from the PTC’s president, L. Brent Bozell, Martin, and a few pro-fine Congressmen, the Times ignores any hint of opposition to the proposed new rules.
There’s little question that there is a significant movement afoot to increase indecency fines, but the Times fails to report that an equally passionate movement has arisen to resist the proposed expansion of the FCC’s mandate. As the Washington Post outlined this weekend, the opposition is actively pushing back. The Post focused on Rep. Bernard Sanders (I-Vt.), who recently introduced a bill aimed at preventing the FCC “from extending its authority” and fining policies.
In addition, Mediaweek wrote last week that “Some network officials and artists’ rights groups are uncomfortable with Martin’s indecency stance,” and there are numerous groups who have come out against higher indecency fines. Chief among these are the Center for Digital Democracy, the Center for Creative Voices in the Media, and the Center for Public Integrity, all of whom have been cited in numerous press reports as opposing the Powell/Martin fining policy.
Just a day before the Times saw fit to write its lazy story about issues that are far from settled, media critics Robert McChesney and Ben Scott published a well thought-out counterproposal in the Detroit Free Press. Deftly combining the issues of media consolidation, a concern for the First Amendment, and the market logic of consumer choice, their proposal reads, in part:
We should look at indecency as a symptom of a larger problem: the lack of consumer choice and control over what they see on television. The answer to concerns over indecency, then, is not less speech, but more speech.
We should pursue public policies that expand the diversity of content on television to offer more choices, reflecting the reality that different households have different media preferences. Families should be able to choose from a wide variety of independent, alternative and noncommercial programs and channels.
To achieve this goal, we should reduce media concentration and require more independent and noncommercial content on broadcast, cable and satellite TV.
We should pursue policies that ensure that families can select and pay for the channels they want from a vastly expanded and diverse set of options, including more programming serving minority communities.
A policy mandating materials to educate consumers on channel-blocking technologies also would further empower parents without undercutting the First Amendment.
Reasonable, mature, reflective and democratic. Ideally, these should be the hallmarks of our media, but with people like Bozell and Martin uninterested in allowing discerning citizens to make their own choices, and politicians interested in scoring cheap points to “protect” us from ourselves (wake me when shows like “Desperate Housewives” begin to slip in the ratings), there’s a real danger that we will get merely the media we’re allowed, and not the one we deserve.
–Paul McLeary
Paul McLeary is a former CJR staff writer. Since 2008, he has covered the Pentagon for Foreign Policy, Defense News, Breaking Defense, and other outlets. He is currently a defense reporter for Politico.