Slashdot Mirror
Reason Interviews Michael Powell
Phlinn writes "In the Reason interview with Michael Powell, it is possible to develop a clearer understanding of the FCC's recent actions. It would appear that despite recent actions, he's not the pro censorship icon many people think. Beware of actions based on a "greater good" however."
He is known for saying one thing that he thinks you want to hear, then doing the opposite that he had intended to do all along.
"May the days be aimless. Let the seasons drift. Do not advance the action according to a plan."
From Star Trek TNG 4x21 - The Drumhead
Picard: You know, there are some words I've known since I was a schoolboy. "With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably." Those words were uttered by Judge Aaron Satie as wisdom and warning. The first time any man's freedom is trodden on, we're all damaged.
Picard: We think we've come so far. Torture of heretics, burning of witches, it's all ancient history. Then, before you can blink an eye, suddenly it threatens to start all over again.
Worf: I believed her. I helped her. I did not see what she was.
Picard: Mr Worf, villains who twirl their moustaches are easy to spot.Those who clothe themselves in good deeds are well camouflaged.
Worf: I think, after yesterday, people will not be so ready to trust her.
Picard: Maybe. But she, or someone like her, will always be with us, waiting for the right climate in which to flourish, spreading fear in the name of righteousness.
Vigilance, Mr Worf, that is the price we have to continually pay.
Im dreaming ofa big bndwdth, That can resist the
I used to really respect his dad and would have loved to see him as president. OTOH I had great disdain for michael powell when I first saw the direction things were heading and the way the right seemed to embrace him.
Then his daddy went in front of the UN and lied through his teeth rather than stand his ground and resign. Because he was so widely respected that act alone could have raised enough stink to both prevent us entering this stupid war so soon and possibly even have prevented the re-election of the potted plant in the white house.
In the same time I've seen powell jr take a principled stand toe to toe with both sides of the aisle. Lots of people screamed about the broadcaster deregulation, fact is if the corporations make broadcast such a wasteland that's just more beer for this "new media" thing. If they lock up their signals behind encryption so people get frustrated just trying to use their tvs the way they're used to they'll find alternatives. In every action where he's taken the most vocal stand I've agreed in principle 100%. I don't like the crackdowns re: censorship, but you can thank talk radio and a housefull of pandering politicians for that nonsense. On matters where it came down to actual leadership, michael has shown twice the cojones of retired soldier daddy.
So there's the irony. I've lost all respect for dad, but likewise would throw my otherwise very old school liberal vote for jr. in a heartbeat if he proved even reasonably knowledgable on presidential matters. I doubt he'll run, but I'd love to see it. I'd love to be able to help put a geek in the whitehouse.
In October Michael Powell was on a call-in radio show. Stern called, here's what transpired...
http://www.jimgilliam.com/audio/2004-1-26_stern_po well.mp3 - MP3 of Stern vs. Powell
Transcript from Buzz Machine - http://www.buzzmachine.com/archives/2004_10_26.htm l
Stern: Ronn, hi.
Owens: Is this who I think it is?
Stern: Yeah, and I want to say hi to the commissioner and a friend of mine told me the commissioner said he was going to be on the show....
The commissioner has fined me millions of dollars for things I have said and consistently avoids me and avoids me and I wonder how long he will stay on the phone with me.
Owens: Go ahead and ask your questions.
Stern: Hi, Michael, how are you?
Powell: Hi, Howard, how are you?
Stern: Does it make you nervous to talk to me?
Powell: It does not....
Stern: All right, so well, I've got about ten zillion questions for you because you honestly are an enigma to me.
The first question being: How did you get your job? It is apparent to most of us in broadcasting that your father got you your job. And you kind of sit there:
You're the judge, you're the arbiter, you're the one who tells us what we can and can't say on the air and yet I really don't think you're qualified to be the head of the commission. Do you deny that your father got you this job?
Powell: Well, I would deny it exceedingly. You can look at my resume if you want, Howard. I'm not ashamed of it and I think it justifies my existence. I was chief of staff of the antitrust division, I'm an attorney, I was a clerk on the court of the United States I was a private attorney I have the same credentials that virtually anyone who sits in my position does and I think it's a little unfair that just because I happen to have a famous father and other public officials don't that you make the assumption that is the basis on which I sit in my position.
Owens: Caller already asked this question so move on....
Stern: So out of all the people that sit on the commission, you were moved to the head of the class. I don't buy your explanation but OK.
You know, the thing that amazes me about you is, you continually fine me but you're afraid to go to court with me and I'll explain myself if you give me a second:
Fine after fine came and we tried to go to court with you to find out about obscenity and what your line was and whether our show was indecent, which I don't think it is. And you do something really sneaky behind the scenes. You continue to block Viacom from buying new stations until we pay those fines.
You are afraid to go court. You are afraid to get a ruling time and time again.
When will you allow this to go to court and stop practicing your form of racketeering that you do by making stations pay up or you hold up their license renewal?
Powell: First of all, that's flatly false.
Stern: It's not false. It's true.
Powell: I'm afraid it is. There's no reason why Viacom or any other company who feels that they have been wrongly fined can't sue us in court. We have no basis whatsoever to prevent them from going to court.
Stern: You're lying. I've lived through your fines, Michael. And Mel Karmazin came to me one day and said, Howard, we're gonna have to pay up some sort of cockamame (sp?) bunch of fines that we don't we're wrong because we can't get our paperwork done. We are finding it increasingly difficult to boy radio stations. I know you're not telling the truth. And I question why you are selected to be one who is the FCC commissioner....
I'm going to Sirius satellite radio....
Owens: That's the question I was going to ask. Now he's going to go to satellite. One of the things that I read is that there are people who said cable TV, satellite rad
Know what I like about atheists? I've yet to meet one that believes God is on their side.
without regard of the greater public good.
What does that mean exactly? People trash Wal-Mart all the time because they sell non-American-made stuff and extort their suppliers, but they provide generally good merchandise at cheap prices. So do they serve the public good or not?
Microsoft has helped lure many a non-techie into the tech world, stoking broad markets that many software engineers and support people make their living on. Do they serve the public good?
And what about radio/TV? People (At least those without Tivo) complain about commercials and the corporations that sponsor them, but by and large, you have enjoyed years of essentially cheap/free entertainment. Isn't that in the public interest?
So what do you define as doing things for the public good? As far as I'm concerned, people vote every day with their dollars. They can use that vote more effectively than voting for any politician.
Yeah? Well I think you're overrated too.
The original remit of the FCC was to regulate "non-Federal Government use of the radio spectrum". Most notably, this meant the issuing and revoking of licences permitting broadcasting and ensuring that electronic equipment did not interfere with other electronic equipment owned by someone else. However, laterly (and this predates the Powell regime) regulation of the radio spectrum has been interpreted to mean regulation of the content of any messages broadcast over the radio waves. There is no democratic remit for this, it is simply how the original remit is now interpreted.
Whether this is good or bad is but a point of view but clearly it is a position that has evolved over the years and not one that has been arrived at as a result of democratic debate. It is my opinion however, that this is an example of how seemingly innocuous regulation can be usurped to an authoritarian government's advantage, resulting in a official scheme in which free speech can be controlled and consequently, how thought can also be controlled.
As far as I can see the FCC's push to penalize "indecency" on the airwaves has two motivations. It pleases right wing X-tians, who are too fucking stupid to change the channel on their TV or radio or turn the thing off, and it transfers money out of the pockets of broadcasters and into the coffers of the FCC.
You're missing something here. It's also encouraging the obsolescence of broadcast TV and radio, which the FCC regulates, in favor of cable/satellite TV and radio, which it doesn't.
What better, and more politically palatable, way to deregulate than to obsolete regulated industries?
There's a method to the madness here.
Progressivism: Parasites helping parasites to help themselves - to other people's stuff.
Actually, a Supreme Court decision has everything to do with whether we consider such an occurrence to be in violation of the constitution; if they say it is, it is. Until their decision has changed, it is not. If you think it's wrong, you have every right to go argue with the Supreme Court, but it won't make it any less the law of the land.
Were they correct to hold "seperate but equal" to be constitutional? Fuck no. However, between Plessy and Brown, was saying "seperate but equal" is constitutional correct? Yes. Because it was, until the decision was changed.
As to prior restraint, it's the same as saying "Well, nobody spraypaints graffiti on public buildings because they would probably be fined for vandalism". Yes, this is true. But it isn't prior restraint; the broadcasters are free to broadcast what they choose, they are simply aware of what's likely to land them in trouble. Despite the similarity in the ends, the means aren't the same, which is why it isn't a prior restraint issue.
---
Mod me down, you fucking twits. Go ahead. I dare you.
(I read with sigs off.)
cheap labor conservatives - they want to keep you hungry enough to be thankful for minimum wage.
Unbeknownst to many, the greatest attack on free speech under Bush wasn't related to terrorism or "homeland security," or even nipplegate, but the CFR bill which outright bans many forms of political speech before an election.
While I'm not knowledgeable enough on the specifics of the CFR bill, something along those lines is desperately needed in the US. The problem is that, in the name of "free speech", we are allowing corporations to buy votes.
For CFR, I'd suggest making it illegal for corporations to donate funds or services to candidates, and that all major media services would have to allow all relevant sides of an issue equal access (define this in such a way that it applies to ABC/CBS/CNN/FOX/NYT/CC/etc and not to SciFi channel or your local non-major papers. Similarly, they have to provide equal access to Bush and Kerry, and maybe Nader if he (or someone else) is an equally serious contender or issue-holder).
Yes, this requires someone to "decide" which person or corporation falls under which rule, which is subjective and open to abuse, but with proper oversight and openness, it's possible. Without such reform, however, it puts democracy into the hands of the wealthy and out of the hands of the people where it belongs.