It's coming up on seven month's since the FCC issued an indecency fine, after a year in which they issued more fines than in the previous fourteen years combined. While I welcome this silence on one of the most burning issues of our great republic, it does make one wonder exactly what the hell is going on. Did the FCC get gun-shy when a few broadcasting behemoths (Fox and Viacom) threatened to take the Commission's illogical and inconsistent rules to the Supreme Court? Or is the FCC simply in disarray following the departure of Michael Powell? And what ever happened to the Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act, the congressional act that would've increased by ten fold the fines that stations face for uttering dangerous phrases like "Sit On My Face."
The Center For Public Integrity just issued this report which speculates that the FCC feels it has already accomplished its mission of airwave cleansing. The CPI report also has new handy-dandy charts showing the levels of fines for the last 14 years, and the most fined programs. (Bubba The Love Sponge checks in at third place.)
My own opinion, expressed in this post last March, was that both the FCC and Congress overplayed their cards in 2004, inviting constitutional challenges they might have lost (in the FCC's case) and tacking on extra censorship baggage which might have doomed the new legislation (in the case of Congress).
Kevin Martin, the new FCC head, has yet to demonstrate where he is taking this issue. He talks a much harder line than Powell did, but the Martin FCC, to their credit, has yet to take a single action on the issue. Let's hope it stays that way.
So does that mean Andy can start saying "Tuff Titties" again?
Posted by: Ed Word | July 05, 2005 at 03:02 PM
I'm surprised you didn't mention the simple fact that 2004 was an election year, which is traditionally the time when politicians 'get tough' and pander to the base instincts of the religious right. And this past 2004 was one of the panderiest panderfests in the history of pandering. True, the FCC is appointed and theoretically non-partisan, but it's never been much of secret which way this particular regime leaned. Not to take away from your points, which are all valid, but I think political climate is probably a contributing factor.
On a similar note, a timeline demonstrating the frequency of terror alert elevations (from 'bert' to 'ernie') during 2004 and after the election would probably look freakishly similar to the timeline of FCC fine issuances, as there have also been... none.
Posted by: scott pilutik | July 05, 2005 at 04:40 PM
A quick look at www.thomas.loc.gov indicates the bill, HR 310 is somewhere in the Senate.
Posted by: Listener Paul | July 05, 2005 at 04:54 PM
Scott - While the election definitely amped up the Indecency issue in 2004, it had been building for three years already. The Superbowl in Feb 2004 didn't create the issue, it was already quite hot and heavy, it just wasn't in the mainstream press until '04.
This issue hasn't gone away, it's just resting, unfortunately.
-ken
Posted by: Station Manager Ken | July 06, 2005 at 02:45 PM
>
A valid case can be made that this has certainly taken place on WFMU where it seems the most tiny potential nuance is censored in the most obsessive- compulsive manner.
Posted by: PeaceNjunkNdrums | July 11, 2005 at 10:35 PM