Slashdot Mirror
Michael Powell to Leave FCC
Anonymous Slashdotter writes "Michael Powell, chairman of the FCC, will be stepping down from his post soon. 'Powell, who maintained a light regulatory hand as the nation's chief media watchdog but collected some of the largest indecency fines against U.S. broadcasters, planned to issue a statement Friday but was not expected to hold a formal news conference, these officials said, speaking on condition of anonymity.'"
Strategically eliminating the chance for a wardrobe malfunction?
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
of course, his replacement might be even worse ..
I would have gotten FP, but consolidation has forced me out of the market!
(-1, Raw and Uncut is the only way to read)
Just curious, since assholes aren't allowed to be shown on network tv, when they air the press conference will he be pixelated or completely covered with a black dot?
I can only imagine that he will be replaced with someone just as conservative/religious/etc.
... shan't miss him.
Check out his on-air confrontation with Howard Stern from a couple of months ago... riveting stuff.
I'm not wrong. You haven't thought about it hard enough.
That his replacement will be even worse.
Don't celebrate just yet.
Powell, who is a decent and devout Christian, probably objected heavily when both Jeanna and President Bush announced their allegiance to Satan during yesterday's ceremony.
94% of Repubs and 21% of Dems voted to renew the Patriot Act
At least, that was the original design. Someone needs to take them to court over the 1st ammendment. If someone's sign language is governed by free speech, then it follows that the broadcasts should also be governed by the same. They both travel over electro magnetic waves, right?
You need to restart your computer. Hold down the Power button for several seconds or press the Restart button.
I wonder if Colin Powell's exodus is not unrelated to this.
There are 2 kinds of people in this world. Those that can keep their train of thought,
his focus on promoting HDTV and digital communcations, deregualtion of the internet,etc. I suppose there is no point in giving him any credit in any of that since he is a republican. Since this is a tech site, check the Cnet article. I think that is more news for nerds.
The war with islam is a war on the beast
The war on terror is a war for peace
Well, from what I hear that guy can be a real (censored).
Electrons are free; it is moving them that becomes expensive.
What the fuck is an "F-Bomb"?????
I think you all are too harsh on my man Mikey P.
He heads an organization that is ostensibly about regulating new technologies, but employs almost 10 times as many lawyers as engineers, and the average age of the engineers is quite high (in the 40s, if memory serves). He has done a surprisingly good job of staying moderate in terms of amount of regulation. He generally knows when to stay out of the fray, and has been quick to officially adopt standards that have been cemented internationally.
He really has an impossible job, and I think he has been doing as well as anyone could have expected.
I don't mind if they put someone religous in his place.....
As long as that person also realizes that the copy bit is the devil's work!
First... Stern's going to Sirius... that'd be the correct spelling.
Second, the Commission is limited in who it can fine for what reasons. Since Stern is not a licensee, is not deliberately or inadvertantly interfering with other communications and isn't operating radio transmitting equipment without a license, the FCC can't fine him. They can only fine the "person" responsible for the broadcast - the station owner, who *is* a licensee, and as a condition of licensing, agreed to follow FCC rules.
Remember, Infinity chose to employ Stern and broadcast his program. Clear Channel chose to carry his show. Other groups/stations chose to carry his show.
Similarly, Janet Jackson and Justin Timberlake are not Commission licensees, were not operating any type of transmitting equipment and weren't interfering with anything. So neither could be fined by the FCC.
The licensee is the one with the burden of preventing indecent material from reaching the air, not the performers.
Now, I don't personally agree with fining them. My own view is that there are two buttons on a radio or television -- one changes the channel, the other one turns it off. Use them, monitor what your children listen to/watch and don't expect the government to babysit for you.
Hello,
Howard Stern actually called into an interview Michael Powell was doing with KGO radio in San Francisco last October. Interesting enough, one of Howard Stern's main complaints was the FCC was preventing Viacom from buying stations.
More information (MP3, transcript) can be found at Boing Boing.
Regards,
Aryeh Goretsky
Dexter is a good dog.
I don't know whether it's too late to un-do all the damage he has done to Amateur Radio by coating BPL with teflon and ramming it through - but hopefully common sense will prevail and BPL will be shelved...
As soon as the limelight moves on, he'll take a job with ClearChannel.
--
make install -not war
Powell, who maintained a light regulatory hand as the nation's chief media watchdog but collected some of the largest indecency fines against U.S. broadcasters
He didn't do much regulating, but he also did a lot of regulating. If that's not doublethink, i don't know what is.
Th
Close -- but Nixon gave them the power over content.
This
Michael Powell steps down...
to be replaced by John Ashcroft.
"Let the eagle soar...."
Remain calm! All is well!
Last year, Powell repeatedly shielded VoIP services from intrusive government regulation and taxation. The FCC voted in February that Internet-only VoIP services were not subject to FCC oversight and expanded that view in November to protect VoIP from state regulators. ...
"He let us go out and build this new thing without knowing all the issues beforehand," said Jeff Citron, chief executive of Vonage, the largest U.S. provider of Internet telephone services. "He helped the telephone industry transition from the old to the new world."
Cellphone number portability, Do Not Call list, he's pushed hard to free up more spectrum for WiFi.
But he's republican so let's focus on the stuff we don't like.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
They have been taken to court over the First Amendment, and the Supreme Court has ruled that it is within the public interest to have the FCC place reasonable restrictions on content aired within certain times over public airwaves. Moreover, even outside of those times, it is legal to limit broadcast material over public airwaves that is patently offensive. Transmissions over more limited media (cable and satellite) do not fall within the domain of the FCC, as has been determined by the courts on occasion, and which I believe even Michael Powell has stated in declining to get involved in certain satellite and cable broadcast issues (don't recall them specifically offhand).
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
I call bullshit.
The same way that sodomy laws, the war on drugs, and all the other conservative morality laws are "less government."
The chocolate ration has been increased to 20 grams.
. My own view is that there are two buttons on a radio or television -- one changes the channel, the other one turns it off. Use them, monitor what your children listen to/watch and don't expect the government to babysit for you.
The Jackson incident is a glaring example of why that doesn't work, when normally I'd agree.
If I don't want my kids listening to or watching Stern, it's easy enough to lock them out of the E! channel when his show comes on.
But, no one expected to see that kind of shit during the Superbowl half-time show. The problem is the Superbowl was rated for all ages.
It pissed a lot of people off, and don't go off on some "well in Europe its ok.." rant. To many, it would be like going to McDonalds, and having them serve your kids vodka in their Happy Meals. People also knew it wasn't an accident, it was dead obvious that it wasn't. It was some washed up old skank trying to be shocking and prop up her failing career.
I'm all for leaving it up to the people, and a ratings system. If a show says they're rated for all ages, and then start cussing and showing nudity, they should be fined because IMO that's fraud.
The TV industry has been hammering the point that we pay by watching commercials lately. Fine, I accept that. Then if you advertise your program as rated all ages, and I pay for it by watching your commercials, and then you cross the line into adult content, well in the marketplace we call behavior like that a bait and switch.
What they did was wrong, and whether or not you personally were offended isn't the point.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
Don't forget the bill that is sitting on presiden't desk. The one that will allow the FCC to fine 'individual radio personalities'. I'm all for moderate regulation of our airways, but going after the actors/DJ's is a dangerous precedent.
I am the lord of the pun. Dance Knave!
Hence the new reliance on delay systems. It gives the broadcaster a chance to review what's going to air before it does, and if something inappropriate comes along, they can (and should) hit the dump button.
I'm not suggesting that people are too prudish, and I'm not arguing that "anything goes" should be the policy, either.
I agree with the idea that if a show is advertised as for all ages, that's what it should be. But I also understand that things sometimes happen in live events that the broadcaster cannot predict.
If I were king, the solution would have been to propose fining CBS affiliates - all of them - unless they proved that they had installed delay systems and trained operators to use them, within 30 days of the order. So as to help prevent a similar situation in the future.
In other words, people make mistakes, and offering a chance to fix the problem is better policy than simply punishing for the sake of punishment.
Hardly anyone saw it during the superbowl -- her breast was flashed for a couple of seconds.
Most children spend their first months or years sucking on their mother's breast. Its no big deal anyway.
Conformity is the jailer of freedom and enemy of growth. -JFK
On the one hand, people complain about the FCC slapping fines on large corporations for broadcasting media that they deem "inappropriate". Then in the very same breath, they complain about the FCC supporting large corporations.
If the FCC was truly all about supporting large networks, they would allow them to appeal to the ever-increasing moral decadence of our society completely unharrassed. After all, isn't that how large, successful corporations got to where they are today? They are in the business of selling a product that the public wants. If that happens to be smut, then they will push the envelope as far as they can until the free market or the FCC says enough is enough.
But God demonstrates his love for us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us - (Romans 5:8)
Ok so which is worse nakid breast or some guy's head being chopped in. Personally I would rather my daughter see the breast than the chopped in head. The FCC seems perfectly happy with kids watching extreme violence but get's all disgruntled over band language (so what) or a nakid body part. Makes me wonder. Alex
"The Brady Bunch is back...working homicide"
Sexual and profane? I find it ironic that in most developed countries of the world sex and some profanity is not a big deal. In Europe people have been enjoying topless beaches and sexy commercials for a long time. What is wrong with that?
In the United States you can't see a boob on TV. Apparently, it will traumatize our children. However, if kids want to watch something really stupid like "Simple Life," or MTV, people are okay with it. Wake up, America! It is funny how Americans react to nudity and sexual themes on TV. Anytime there is a show / movie that inolves that, there is a lot of mastrubation going on. Christian convservaties are bashing everything from Sponge Bob Square Pants to Desparate Housewifes because of refrences to homosexuals (I have no idea why they think that Sponge is gay) or some horny women with bad attitudes. I am sure there are no women like that in real life :)
We have become so uptight and afraid of human sexuality and desires that our president aims to curb women's rights and replace sexual ed with teachings on abstinence. What a pure nonsense! Perhaps we need to learn that life is not pure and simple. There sex, drugs and rock-'n'-roll among many othr things. Women can be horny, there are breasts and nudity does take place in real life. People of all ages can love, cheat, have sex and enjoy their lives the way the want. There is nothing wrong with that. The world is not perfect and we need to learn how to deal with it. Instead of focusing on profanity and nudity, how about we focus on public education, poverty and ecology?
Here's the thing - I bet your kids (if indeed your kids were watching) didn't even notice her boob.
There just wasn't anything to see. For less than a second part of her breast was exposed. Even if you look at it in slow motion (which, I'll admit, I have), you get just the merest glimpse of her nipple.
The real problem wasn't the boob flashing, it was the insistence of people in the media that it was something worth talking about. It wasn't, and it still isn't.
You say what they did was wrong - in your opinion that's true, and I'm not going to try to change that. But in the scheme of the things TV does wrong, it was trivial.
Does it deserve a fine? Sure, as you said, flashing a boob does not fit into the rating scheme. But the fine should have been a tiny little one, not half a million. It was half a million because Powell (see, I can be on topic!) is a judgemental prude, not because it was in the best interests of our country.
I'm not saying you shouldn't be offended. Go ahead and be offended. Just take a breath and realize that a sub-second flash of a boobie isn't a big deal. Save your energy for something important. You know, like being mad at Randy Moss for pretending to moon a bunch of football fans. Oh wait, that wasn't big deal either.
This "Abolish the FCC" thing is absurd. Without the FCC to allocate spectrum, TVs, Radios, and communication devices would not have come about because there would be no standard frequencies on which to operate.
A better solution is NOT abolishing the FCC, but to limit their powers to be allocating spectrum and making sure accepted equipment does not interfere with one another.
We NEED the FCC. The only abolishment that should happen is the FCC's right to determine what should and what should not be said on the air.
-- I am. Therefore, I think!
On the one hand, people complain about the FCC slapping fines on large corporations for broadcasting media that they deem "inappropriate". Then in the very same breath, they complain about the FCC supporting large corporations. If the FCC was truly all about supporting large networks, they would allow them to appeal to the ever-increasing moral decadence of our society completely unharrassed.
Well, this is only the case if you view the Christian Coalitian as something other than a large corporation, right?
^_^
Anyway, what you seem to be gesturing at is that the FCC is currently in favor of "moral decency" standards on television, and also currently in favor of corporate-owned consolidation in the media market. Whereas the consensus viewpoint on Slashdot seems currently to be that we should have diversity of ownership and diversity of content (i.e., low regulation of 'obscenity') in the media market.
If you oversimplify the viewpoint commonly seen on slashdot to "OMFG CORPORATIONS ARE THE EVIL", then perhaps it doesn't really make sense. The trick here is that "OMFG CORPORATIONS ARE THE EVIL" is not the viewpoint actually being particularly expressed by anyone; it's just a straw man. Back in reality, meanwhile, it's reasonable to be opposed to policies that turn the FCC into a moneymaking scheme for an increasingly small number of corporate players at the detriment of both the citizen and the citizen's good derived from the public airwaves; and it is reasonable to be opposed to policies which allow a small vocal minority of self-appointed morality police to determine how the citizenry as a whole makes use of the public airwaves; and these two things are not in any way incompatible.
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
Rupert frickin' Murdock owns a major piece of satellite direct broadcast, which as a whole is almost a monopoly. Most of the internet content that most people see and hear is owned or controlled by the same faces that own/control existing modes of info transmission.TCP transmission has become very concentrated, as has cellular infrastructure.
So, where's all this competition Mr. Powell talked about? It's nonexistant. It's looking like the stewards of US industry didn't mind the previous Soviet command economy per se, just that it wasn't them in command.
Luke, help me take this mask off
I was never a fan of Howard Stern, and I don't really care for humor based on the ridicule and humiliation of others. However, when Howard Stern speaks, I feel that what he's saying is what he actually believes, that he has no hidden agenda, and that he's not beholden to anyone but himself. I don't feel that way about Michael Powell.
-G
www.g.pix.com
-G
www.pixelstatic.com