Opinion> Brent Bozell> Farewell To Hollywood S Favorite Bureaucrat

	10 May 2013 Free Speech for Conservative Students? It sounded like a freedom-of-religion case when a Columbus, Texas high school relay-race team was … Read More.
	8 May 2013 Ted Cruz Has All the Right Enemies The Washington Post offered a splashy profile of freshman Sen. Ted Cruz on Tuesday, and the most surprising … Read More.
	3 May 2013 PC and the NBA Washington Redskins quarterback Robert Griffin III started tongues wagging when he posted this cryptic … Read More.

Farewell to Hollywood's Favorite Bureaucrat

Now that it's almost departure time for Julius Genachowski, Obama's first chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, The Hill newspaper has noted one important sign of his priorities. In his four years at the helm, the FCC hasn't issued one fine to Hollywood for indecent content on broadcast television. Now there's a legacy.

Hollywood sends its gratitude, Mr. Chairman, for an absolutely perfect record of inaction. Who says that in Obama's America, your campaign contributions can't buy regulatory paralysis in Washington when needed?

Few media outlets noticed. Communications Daily described Genachowski's perfect zero as a "restrained approach." He wasn't restrained. He was completely inert.

On April 1, a day on which the FCC assumed we were all April Fools, they issued a public notice with the headline "FCC Reduces Backlog of Broadcast Indecency Complaints by 70 percent (More That One Million Complaints)." They did this by simply — throwing them out. Some had insufficient information, some were outside their regulatory purview (like cable TV), and some were outside the statute of limitations. One excuse after another. After you've ignored them for four years, they can conveniently go away — snap! — like that.

The Supreme Court overturned two indecency fines last year, ignoring the nudity and profanity in question because the FCC failed to give the networks "fair notice prior to the broadcasts in question that fleeting expletives and momentary nudity could be found actionably indecent." Lawyers are funny when they defend their clients as dumber than dirt. It's like saying "McDonald's wasn't given fair notice they weren't supposed to sell spoiled meat to customers."

But the second verdict came last June, so to wait another ten months to discuss (lack of) enforcement is a sign that Genachowski was just going to fritter away his last months in office, dragging his feet all the way. See this as the chairman's goodbye kiss to the entertainment industry and kiss-off of the people who wasted the time to file a complaint to the federal agency mandated by Congress to hear their petitions.

The FCC would like to proceed in a way that is "fully consistent with vital First Amendment principles," we were told. Thus the freedom of speech of network executives who broadcast profanity, near-pornography and grisly violence at children is protected. Those who write to the nation's regulators to complain? Well, they have the First Amendment freedom to shove their own complaints into an Internet hole somewhere and have them ignored until the statute of limitations expires.

Take a hike, citizens.

The Hill explained, "The commission on Monday issued a request for public comment on a proposal that would focus on penalizing only 'egregious' cases. The proposal would be a shift away from the agency's past policy, adopted during the Bush administration, of penalizing even 'fleeting expletives.'"

They don't want comment on proposals. Their minds are made up.

Is there anything more ridiculous than the FCC asking for public comment on its newly invented "egregious" standard — which allows it to more effectively dismiss public comment? They didn't ask the public beforehand, or even the professional staff. They provided a new diktat , and then asked for public reaction with all the "sincerity" they've brought to broadcast indecency since 2009.

But the public notice doesn't just use an "egregious" standard. The FCC also wants to avoid ruling on "stale" content. This is another way in which they can sit on complaints until the offending shows get canceled — or just dated.

There is no such thing in the current FCC's purview that would be classified as "egregious." To the Obama FCC, when a rock star yells the F-bomb on a national awards show, viewed by many millions of youngsters, that is "fleeting" and somehow not "egregious." Janet Jackson's deliberate Super Bowl breast flash of 2004? That was apparently not "egregious," just "fleeting." If the networks broadcast the unfunny comedy "Bruno" complete with its penis-twirling scene, that would probably not be considered "egregious." It's merely "fleeting" nudity.

The traditional-values argument is simple. Doesn't it stop becoming "fleeting" when it happens repeatedly? Multiplied incidents of "single" F-bombs or other curse words add up, but the FCC would like to isolate them and ignore them individually.

And does it matter how "fleeting" it is when it's deliberate?

Reporters on the FCC beat have a bad habit of ignoring how Hollywood insists there should be zero public accountability for broadcast indecency. Last year, when Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer told former Clinton solicitor general Seth Waxman, who conveniently represented ABC, that he couldn't find Hollywood's idea of what they wanted the content regulations to be, Waxman shamelessly argued, "It's not our burden." Obama's FCC clearly feels the same way.

L. Brent Bozell III is the president of the Media Research Center. To find out more about Brent Bozell III, and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

Comments

1 Comments | Post Comment

Sir;... Do you know what is indecent??? Do you know what is obscene??? I think it is funny that the class that wants children to go to bed hungry does not want them to learn to cuss about in on tv...
I think it is funny that the class that perpetually wants war, and all the more so it it can be framed as a Crusade does not care whose ass gets shot off, but refuses to see one on tv...
I think it is funny that that class who lie to the face of America and claim their rights are God given, though they are written into the constitution as plain as day and have the backing of law must witness to the beauty and tragedy of the human body...
The churches are no different than the executives that expose the human body for money... They both ignore the body as the means of experiencing life and learning, and think it is FOR something... The execs think it is for making money, which they can do all the easier because the sight of it is so loaded wisth shame and sin; and the churches think it is for procreation which no one better enjoy, for the sex of it...
I don't believe in entertainment sex; and it is all the more prevelant where people are denied true intimacy, where they cannot reveal or share their bodies except with shame shame, they are more inclined to throw off all regard for moral hypocracy, and have carnal fun being used, and in using others in the process of not really forming the relationships so necessary to survival and happiness...
If you want to see something really obscene; then look into the motives of every church which is full of self serving people praying for their own reward, sooner than later, and not lifiting a finger to help any one or to defend their civil rights... How long do you think the people can afford to tolorate that impediment to justice the church's have been since day one in this land...We would all like tax free social clubs to play our political games in... Maybe the rest of us have the persona of outrage in our bags of faces, too; and it is justly looking at those people with privilage in our land who think their privilages stand alone, while we must stand guard forever in defense of our puny rights...
Those people who own our airwaves own our commonwealth for next to nothing, and we do have a right to demand it be used in the public interest... But those in the churches have their part of the commonwealth free as well, free of taxes, and free of responsibility... Can anyone demand that the churches contribute to all the children that are born by their choice, and out of the want of choice of their mothers??? They want the egg laid, and they want the problem to be some one else's... And it does not matter if it is property or press we are talking about...
The privilages these people own is the privilage to be free of government; but the problems of wealth, and the problems of corporation press, and the problems of religion are all loaded onto the backs of the people who do not enjoy that freedom from government, but must carry the problems made by the privilaged even while they often cannot carry themselves...
Is it too much to ask that the churches, the press, and property have their privilages on their good behavior??? Is it too much to ask that they always stand prepared to demonstrate a pure and good public purpose... We take for granted, that good will flow out of the churches, out of the press, and out of property even in the face of absolute proof that the result of them has been evil... Keep open books... Have open meetings...Show the public the good of what you do, and take responsibility for your words and actions... The churches do all within their power to limit our rights... Well yes, they don't want their lilly ears soiled with obscenity, but they have had too much of opportunity to spoil our rights, and now they need to defend their own...
The tremendous power of the media to entertain and inform, to educate and inspire has usually lost way to its ability to make people rich... Deny that power, and then you see; oh no!!! You have an NPR, where the people can go about freely in their search for education and enlightenment...And if you are property or religion, you want people getting your version of the truth; and not their own...
You are so much on the same side as those who pollute our airwaves for profit... You don't want every little hell and damn to slip though the censor... What are you willing to pay for??? Nothing... You want the public to stuff a rag in the mouth of everyone who might tell them the truth even if it is couched as entertainment, but you do not want pay for it... Why does sex, and especially violence sell???
We are as deprived of intimacy in our lives as we are denied wealth and power... When people see a girl on television drop her panties it is almost always for money... Doing it for free is a crime... If you want the girl, you need the jack; and what is there in that relationship to inspire trust and nurture intimacy???... We are getting the other side of your story, that the only rights worth having that count for anything in this world are the rights above right; the privilages...Do you expect us as allies to come to your defense??? You bastards together have put us on our heels, unable in every regard to demand our most basic human rights and then you want us against those who offend you... You need to grow a brain... You are all the same...
Thanks...Sweeney

Comment: #1
Posted by: James A, Sweeney
Fri Apr 5, 2013 7:52 AM