Michael Powel's Flight Suit

Is indecency really the biggest problem they have to deal with?

The answer is of course 'no.' Hell no. But there has never been more pressure on the FCC to "do something" than there is right now. Everyday listeners are complaining about mass ownership, often citing Clear Channel in specific. I honestly never thought I'd see the day... They're unhappy [though still too often complacent] about the current state of media. Janet Jackson's exposed breast served as an excuse to complain, and the FCC jumped on the opportunity to 'do something.'

But the patient is bleeding out every orifice as the doctor sets a broken toe. Quite frankly, it ain't right.

We know why it happens though: Indecency is a much easier problem to tackle than balancing the desires of big business with the protection of free speech, freedom of the press, and the airwaves belonging to 'we the people.'

Think of Indecency as broadcasting's Iraq.

Tom Ridge alerted the nation today that Al Qaeda is planning a large-scale attack on the United States. He said: "We know they have the capability to succeed." And yet, our armed forces have been focussed on Iraq rather than a full scale international effort against Al Qaeda. Why? It's called a scapegoat. We're now learning that the policy Bush Sr. put into place after the first gulf war [containment] was correct and effective. Similarly, the FCC's policy of fines would be effective if they had teeth. Give broadcasters a set of rules to follow... call it a media "no fly zone."

I'm not going to suggest we don't have a problem with indecency. I worked at a station who's unofficial air staff motto was "what am I gonna say to get fired today?" The PD even had a sign stating this hung in the air studio. Broadcasters will always push the limits - but the FCC refuses to say what the limits are.

"Don't break the rules!"
"OK then. Tell me what the rules are."
"We're not saying!"
"Uhhhhhmmmmmmm... what?"

WNEW taught us all a lesson about indecency and the irrelevance of the FCC. The station came to a screeching halt after the Opie & Anthony Cathedral sex scandal. But isn't it interesting that the station's license was never seriously called into question?

We were once taught that our primary duty is to protect the station's license, but reality tells us that it's difficult to even have a license challenged. And regardless of how we may feel about FCC fines, the truth of the matter is that fines are both rare and irrelevant. What's a $10,000 fine to a station that bills ten MILLION? Irrelevant.

Worst of all, too many speak of fines in regard to air talent even though management sets the tone for their stations. Again, using Opie & Anthony as an example: Did Infinity support their style of radio? Well, let's see. Infinity hired them. Infinity promoted them from Boston to NYC. Then Infinity syndicated them exclusively on other Infinity stations. Can management really suggest they have no idea an air talent is out of control while airing promos talking about how out of control the air talent in question is? Please. But it's all too easy to blame the air talent.

I call that scapegoating the scapegoat. Scapegoating squared.

The FCC badly needs to get back on track. Fine the hell out of stations that step out of line airing indecent material. Absolutely. But before they even consider doing so, the FCC needs to clearly define indecency. They need to establish clear guidelines. How can the FCC blame broadcasters for not following rules they were never given?

And yet I say this as if indecency were the issue the FCC should be focussed on when anyone with any media experience at all knows damn well what the real issue facing media in the United States is.

Indecency is a scapegoat, and I'm waiting for Michael Powel in a flight suit with a Mission Accomplished banner.