Hearing of the Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet: HR 3717, the Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act of 2004
HEADLINE: HEARING OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND THE INTERNET OF THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
SUBJECT: H.R. 3717, THE BROADCAST DECENCY ENFORCEMENT ACT OF 2004
CHAIRED BY: REPRESENTATIVE FRED UPTON (R-MI)
WITNESSES PANEL I:
PAUL TAGLIABUE, COMMISSIONER, NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE;
MEL KARMAZIN, PRESIDENT & CHIEF OPERATING, OFFICER, VIACOM, INC.;
PANEL II:
MICHAEL K. POWELL, CHAIRMAN, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION;
KATHLEEN Q. ABERNATHY, COMMISSIONER, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION;
MICHAEL J. COPPS, COMMISSIONER, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION;
KEVIN J. MARTIN, COMMISSIONER, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION;
JONATHAN S. ADELSTEIN, COMMISSIONER, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
LOCATION: 2123 RAYBURN HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING, WASHINGTON, D.C.
BODY:
REP. MARKEY: Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, there's a filing over at the commission that would give affiliates more ability to be able to reject indecent programming. It's been sitting there for three years. It's been referenced by Mr. Martin and Mr. Copps in their testimony. You seem to oppose that, otherwise there's-apparently on its face, there doesn't appear to be a good reason why we wouldn't have some action on it. When will you have action on this empowerment of the affiliates to be able to reject the quantity and quality of violence and sexual material that comes into people's homes.
MR. POWELL: I think it's very important to put on the record that whatever the substance of that petition, there is no question whatsoever under the law that a local affiliate has a right as a matter of statue to reject programming, and has a legal obligation to do that.
REP. MARKEY: When will action on that petition be taken, Mr. Chairman?
MR. POWELL: It will be taken this year.
REP. MARKEY: This year?
MR. POWELL: Yeah. I mean, the problem-go ahead.
REP. MARKEY: Before-you mean not three months, not six months, but over the next 10 months, after waiting --
MR. POWELL: The only problem I have with that, Mr. Markey, is one of the reasons it stalled is the commission hasn't exactly figured out the best thing to do with it.
REP. MARKEY: I appreciate that, but I think when you put it on the front burner-and I think right now is the time, Mr. Chairman, to put this issue on the front burner. If you're going to be doing something, that's the issue. Empower the affiliates to say no and you'll get a marketplace reaction from the networks. Don't wait a year, Mr. Chairman, it would be a big mistake.
MR. POWELL: Well, I'll accept it, but I would also emphasize against that they have absolutely --
REP. MARKEY: I appreciate that. Second question is this. There were 375 different programs and 240,000 complaints, but only three notices of apparent liability. Three. Why was that? Why was the number so low, Mr. Chairman?
MR. POWELL: First of all, it's important to note that we're not finished. There are three that have been issued and there are 30 that are pending. And the reason they are the remaining that are pending is because they are the most serious. And I can tell you without revealing the specifics of them that a significant number of them are heading for apparent liability. So we're not done with closing out that year of complaints. We have a significant number of them under investigation.
REP. MARKEY: Well, you closed out 2002 with only seven.
MR. POWELL: No we-the calendar year is closed but there were 14,000 complaints. All but 30 of them had been --
REP. MARKEY: How long does it take to close out a year? Two thousand and two is still open?
MR. POWELL: There are complaints from 2002 that are still under investigation.
REP. MARKEY: We're in 2004.
MR. POWELL: Yes. We're at the beginning --
REP. MARKEY: It's critical for the FCC, Mr. Chairman, to act in a timely fashion to create the disincentive before the programs themselves get canceled. There has to be some punishment that reflects the contemporaneous commitment of this violation of the law. You can't have 2002 complaints still open in 2004 with no point at which you're sure that you've completed all of those actions.
Thirdly, in the 1992 Cable Act, there's a provision requiring cable operators to provide by sale or lease equipment to block unwanted cable channels. So if you don't want MTV, you can request equipment to block that out. And the cable operator is required to block out MTV if you request it. What can you do to mandate that all cable operators notify all subscribers in America that they have this right and that if they request it as consumers, then the cable companies will provide that service to that home immediately. What can you do to provide that immediate mandate to the cable operators and information to subscribers across America?
MR. POWELL: Well, I actually think it's a decent idea. I would have to look at what authority we have to mandate it. But I will note two things. One, in the letter that I sent, the cable industry just yesterday are urging them to take a role in indecency. There was mention of specifically improving the educational efforts for making -
REP. MARKEY: No, I don't want improving educational. I want the cable industry to be mandated to provide this information to consumers. When you reach a level of concern that parents have, I think the least that the FCC should be able to do is to mandate that the cable industry inform every parent that they have a right to disconnect MTV and that the cable company will do it for them. What's wrong with that formula?
MR. POWELL: There's nothing wrong with that if we have the legal authority, and I just don't have confidence right now, without looking at it carefully, whether we do. We don't have legal authority to do everything --
REP. MARKEY: If you don't have it, do you want us to give it to you?
MR. POWELL: Sure.
REP. MARKEY: Okay. And, Mr. Adelstein and Mr. Copps, could you tell us how you believe that media concentration is affecting indecency and affecting the marketplace of ideas.
MR. COPPS: Well, we don't know for sure, but I-it's commonsensical, it's intuitive almost, that the most you take the design of programming and the production of programming away from the local community or the region, and put it in some advertiser's headquarters whose main reason to live is to sell products to 18 to 34-year-old eyeballs, that you're probably going to end up with fare that's a little bit less family-friendly and child-friendly. And we've seen this time and again. I was distressed to say after one of the recent mergers with the DirecTV thing, one of the first things we read about was an agreement to set up a porn channel.
I don't think there's any question that there's a connection, but we need to know for sure. And I pleaded before we voted on media consolidation last June 2nd. We owe it to our children, let's look to see if there's a connection between the rising tide of consolidation and the rising tide of media indecency. Now, we did not do that, and I think that was a disservice to our kids and we need to be serious about this and get on with it.
REP. MARKEY: Mr. Adelstein.
MR. ADELSTEIN: Well, you do see the rising tide of indecency and crassness and the media coarseness, you see a rising tide of consolidation. Is there a connect? Maybe. We don't know for sure. As Commissioner Copps indicated, we should know that before we take any steps to loosen the media ownership rules. The question I have is a market-based question. What do these companies do as they become larger and larger? They're accountable to Wall Street. They have a fiduciary responsibility to make as much money as they possibly can. They are doing everything they can to make as much money. It's an eat or be eaten world.
Just today we heard about Comcast trying to swallow Disney, so it's swallow or be swallowed. How do you avoid being swallowed? You get your stock price up that you can swallow somebody else. How do you do that? It's quarterly results.
You have to make as much money as you can every quarter. How do you do that? If it takes pandering, if it takes crassness, if it takes making people eat worms on TV, if it means having people dance in lewd ways, then whatever it takes. Apparently these broadcasters are willing to do it. So there may well be a connection there.
REP. MARKEY: Thank you. Thank you all for coming here.