BuzzMachine... by Jeff Jarvis

January 28, 2005

Copps the cop speaks... oh, no

: The most frightening FCC commissioner, Democrat Michael Copps, speaks to TV execs at the NATPE conference. The man is clueless about the state of media -- all media, including the internet; he doesn't understand the real dynamics of the media business today; he's the most eager kneecapper of the First Amendment. A few choice remarks:

...I know that a lot of you in
this audience share my concern about the media track we’re on. Some of you have already spoken out and contributed your creative thought and hard work to the issue of how we reinvigorate the diversity and competition that our consumers and citizens not only deserve, but require....

He wants to do that with regulation when the real solution is innovation. The internet is exploding TV -- changing the business models, opening up competition, driving diversity -- and Copps is too blind to see it.

History shows us that combining distribution with production was how John D. Rockefeller built his stranglehold. I’m not saying that history repeats itself exactly, but often there are enough similarities that we ought to at least pay attention to it. This is one of those times....

What's really happening, Copps, is that distribution is losing its value as the internet increases competition -- for audience, for attention, for advertising dollars, for distribution. The fact that the internet showed Jon Stewart's performance on Crossfire to at least 20 times more than the old network, CNN, proves that distribution and production are becoming separated. Read the news, Copps.

By the way, in contrasting network power now with, say, 30 or 40 years ago, remember that back then they didn’t have their own stable of “owned-and-operated” stations. Plus we had financial interest and syndication rules to check market power. We had a real FCC re-licensing process for stations. We had specific public interest requirements. And broadcasters had a Voluntary Code of Conduct far more disciplined than anything they have today....

Oh, yeah, those were the good old days for monoplists, regulators, and censors. Those were the days of... The Beverly Hillbillies!

Each of us as citizens suffers from the lack of diverse programming. So much of today’s network menu is geared to the 18-34 year old age demographic.... But I think many of you would agree that a case can be made for more programs geared to older Americans—and let’s remember that shows like Golden Girls were independently produced.

I smell a quota coming on: Not enough old farts, damnit: More gray beards. (Hey, wait a minute, maybe that would be good for my career!).

Similarly, there is evidence that younger viewers are being left behind in the new media environment. Children Now examined the impact of consolidation on kids. They analyzed the market in Los Angeles and found that the number of broadcast TV programs for children dropped nearly 50 per cent after independent local stations were swallowed up in media mergers!...

Yo, Copps, get yourself a cable box! Kids have entire channels now devoted to them; they have tons more programming -- good programming, better than the crap I watched.

So it is time—it is long past time—for the FCC to consider and approve a setaside,
like 25 or 35 per cent of prime-time hours, for independent producers and creators....

Man, this guy is enough to turn me into a libertarian. Well, when it comes to the FCC, I am. This is -- and so much more about technology and spectrum and freedom -- is why I want to see the FCC abolished. (Are you listening, George? Go with it, George.)

Big media companies argue that they need the economic efficiencies of consolidation in order to survive. Now, we all realize that we live in a national economy—and a global economy—where the pressures of competition are extreme. We know that we cannot turn back the clock to a simpler past which never was, truth be told, quite that simple. I have never equated bigness with badness, and I have supported mergers and acquisitions that serve the public interest. That being said, we are talking here about a special industry—a very special industry. When we talk about media, we are not talking about just another commodity.

And there's the heart of what's wrong with Coppsthink and FCCthink: Media is special. It deserves to be treated differently. It deserves more regulation, in their view. No, sir, it deserves less because media is speech and -- does this sound familiar? -- Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech.

LINK | Comments (37)

FCC applies supply and demand to freedom

: Ernie Miller passes on the news that the FCC is raising its rates for Freedom of Information Requests. Guess they've had a lot of them, eh?

: When you think about it, the web should make FOIA obsolete: The goverment should put all its documents up online for all to see. It is our government, after all. That's real freedom of information.

LINK | Comments (3)

When the F word was OK

: Coz digs into the past to find that Bono's profane and illegal F word was not the first time he'd uttered it on TV. At the 1994 Grammys:

U2, a band that had been around nearly 15 years in 1994, won the Best Alternative Rock award for their Zooropa album, and frontman Bono accepted it with heavy irony.

"Yeah, alternative all right," he said. "We shall continue to abuse our position and f--- up the mainstream. God bless you."

Did life and society and morality all suddenly change just because Janet Jackson kinda exposed her breast? Apparently so.

LINK | Comments (15)

Sponge Michael, SquarePants

: Timothy Karr at MediaCitizen reveals the unholy alliance of Michael Powell and SpongeBob -- and the coverup.

LINK | Comments (4)

Bush: As confused as everybody else on indecency

: On the one hand, George Bush defends the First Amendment in an interview on C-SPAN this weekend. But then he seems to realize that he has just painted himself in the corner, so he turns around and defends Michael Powell, too. Such is life on the slipperly slope.

But note that George Bush does say that the first and best reaction to what you consider indecent is not government regulation but the remote control.

Go with it, George. Go with it.

From Broadcasting & Cable's coverage, the transcript (full C-SPAN transcript here):

LAMB: ... one of the big issues moving around Capitol Hill is indecency. And I want to ask you, how far do you think government should go in telling people who use the airwaves, the broadcast stations, what can be said?

PRESIDENT: As a free speech advocate, I often told parents who were complaining about content, you're the first line of responsibility; they put an off button on the TV for a reason. Turn it off.

Amen. But he continues:

PRESIDENT: I do think, though, that there can be a -- that government can, at times, not censor, but call to account programming that gets over the line. The problem, of course, is the definition "over the line."

Well, but Mr. President, that is censorship. And, yes, that is precisely the problem: Where is the line and who draws it? Should it be government? No, it should not. You know that, in your heart of hearts. Go with it, George. Go with it.

PRESIDENT: My answer would be, if I were interviewing an FCC chairman, please tell me where the line is, and make sure you protect the capacity of people to speak freely in our society, but be willing to -- if things get too far, call them to account. I think Michael did a good job of balancing that.

Mighty tight corner you just painted yourself into, Pres.

LAMB: There is a bill that if it were passed on Capitol Hill would up the fees, up the fine from $27,000 for using bad language, for instance, to $500,000 as a maximum fee.

Actually, that's only the fine per incident. The maximums go up to $3 million. That is a serious chill on free speech. That is the intent of the legislation: to chill free speech. But to the President, it's amusing:

THE PRESIDENT: Well, they're going to collect a lot of money when some of these TV shows are still on.

I'm not laughing, George.

LAMB: But is that -- I mean, at what point, though, do you have somebody that says, that word can't be used, but that word can be used?

THE PRESIDENT: No, I understand. Look, it's the old -- the classic definition of the Supreme Court -- by the Supreme Court on pornography, you know it when you see it. I think that was Judge Potter Stewart who said that.

That was, I believe, what the court said on obscenity and that's not what we're talking about here. We're talking about indecency on broadcast. He continues:

PRESIDENT: Look, we are a great society because we're a free society. On the other hand, it is very important for there to be limits, limits to what parents have to explain to their children. Nevertheless, I do want to repeat what I said earlier -- the parent's first responsibility is to pay attention to what their children listen to, whether it be rock songs or movies or TV shows.

The poor man just gave himself whiplash flipflopping like that.

Let me help you out here, George: You are a Republican. You believe in small government. You abhor regulation. You should kill the FCC. Go with it, George. Go with it.

LINK | Comments (10)

Whereabouts

: Sorry to have deserted you, my second family. Been busy. Work, you know. Happens. Back soon. Whether you want it or not. Complete sentences to follow. Promise.

LINK | Comments (12)