FCC chief needs a pacifier, his commission needs a clue

Federal Communications Commission Chairman Kevin Martin reacted to an appeals court decision like an ape gone mad.

There is no other way to describe his press release strongly rebuking the decision by the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals in New York that said the FCC must rework its indecency rules, which the commission has been trying to broaden.

Martin condemns the court and manages to use the words his commission finds so offensive seven times, three more times in quotes.

The FCC chairman must not be worried about his vulgar press release ending up quoted in blogs and Web sites for kids to read?

Information

www.mediaaccess.org/

www.creativevoices.us/

To hear a podcast of this column that includes a Q&A with the author go to: www.seattletimes.com/editorialsopinion/

Martin and the FCC need to take a deep breath, get comfortable on the couch, and turn on something harmless like "America's Funniest Home Videos." Only problem is, the FCC put "America's Funniest Home Videos" through a needless review for a segment about a naked baby sitting on a pacifier. The nerve of some kids.

This bares another problem with the FCC's indecency rules. In recent years, the commission has applied them erratically, and reacted late to alleged infractions only to change its mind many months later.

The case — Fox Television Stations v. Federal Communications Commission — that has Martin in a Puritanical rage revolved around the FCC's conclusion that expletives spoken by Cher and Nicole Richie during the Billboard Music Awards violated the commission's rules. CBS found its way into the suit because of a word used on CBS' "The Early Show," and ABC was tossed in for language on "NYPD Blue."

Fox, CBS, ABC and NBC joined forces for this case because fines have become serious, even for bloated networks. Congress pumped up the maximum fine from $32,500 to $325,000.

For all the networks' bluster, one can bet the monetary loss drove them to court, not a noble desire to protect creative freedom. After all, media consolidation has strangled creativity in favor of cheap content and left local decisions in the hands of a few, enormous companies.

The FCC has shown no interest in stopping, let alone reversing, the consolidation trend. As mega-companies such as Fox and ABC have grown, it becomes more necessary to consume more outlets to keep the investors happy. In an age when Nicole Richie and Paris Hilton sell, celebrities are going to be on television. This means we are going to be left with the lowest and cheapest entertainment the networks have to offer.

Even though network television is a sea of pabulum, the level of profanity is hardly excessive, especially during the hours children watch. Is it surprising that an exchange between Richie and Hilton during a primetime music-awards show contained a couple of vulgar words? Hardly. Most parents know this. My guess is that the majority of parents would not let their wee ones near the television for an episode of "NYPD Blue."

It is not the place of the FCC to monitor or mold the big-four networks into a sanitized Disneyland experience. If some parents let their kids watch shows with strong language or violence, that is their choice, not the FCC's.

The FCC's attempt to expand what is indecent is worrisome. Where does it stop? Arbitrary rules governing speech on television place the FCC in dangerous territory.

Profane and vulgar language has not inundated the airwaves to the point where the federal government should be legislating our creative democracy.

Chairman Martin should redirect his outrage against naughty words and get serious about healing what really ails our media and democracy.

Ryan Blethen's column appears regularly on editorial pages of The Times. His e-mail address is rblethen@seattletimes.com