April 13, 2003
 April 8, 2003
 Mar 23, 2003
 Mar 18, 2003
 Feb 24, 2003
 Feb 18, 2003
 Feb 10, 2003
 Feb 3, 2003
Jan 29, 2003
 Jan 20, 2003
Jan 13, 2003
Jan 8, 2003
Dec 30, 2003
Dec 24, 2003
Dec 16, 2003
 Dec 3, 2003


..Gary Dretzka
..Noah Forrest
..Leonard Klady
..R.J. Matson
..David Poland
..Douglas Pratt
..Ray Pride
..Michael Wilmington



LAS VEGAS -- For the last four Aprils, at least, the annual NAB gathering in Las Vegas has produced far more question marks than exclamation points. The continuing uncertainty over the transition to digital broadcasting made this year’s convention no different.

Despite the presence of hundreds of exhibitors, most of whom were hawking the latest technological marvels, very few of the 97,000-plus registrants evidenced much conviction that American television viewers will go digital by 2006, 2009 or any other time soon. Unless consumers begin buying these advanced appliances at a faster rate than is anticipated, it isn’t likely Congress will force the digitally illiterate masses to rush the process. Thus, many broadcasters reasoned, why throw good money into systems that might become obsolete by the time a critical mass is reached?

Why, indeed? Next question.

How, given the pathetic state of newsgathering at local television and radio stations, can so many purveyors of cutting-edge equipment stay in business?

Well, judging from the number of helicopters and mobile studios on display, local newsrooms will always need faster and more efficient ways to track car chases and go “live” to the scene violent crimes and meteorological anomalies. At the RTNDA -- a concurrent convention of broadcast news directors -- panelists debated such esoteric topics as ethics, campaign coverage and better news writing. Out on the selling floor, however, the emphasis was on cutting costs, virtual sets and finding new ways to out-source information gathering.

Next question: Did RTNDA honoree Ted Koppel make a dent in the numb skulls of the assembled news directors when he observed:

"We have been alienating many of our older viewers by skewing our coverage toward the young. Young people, meanwhile, are leaving us in droves and getting at least their first take on the news from the Internet and their analysis and commentary from the comedians.

"I can't prove it, but it seems likely to me that when we began processing news for the young and treating news as an off-shoot of the entertainment business -- when we began taking our journalism more lightly -- people began taking us less seriously …"?

Answer: probably none. Many of those in attendance went home to oversee newscasts that led with car crashes, team coverage of street fairs, family picnics disrupted by acts of seemingly random violence, Michael Jackson’s decision to fire his lawyers and Kobe Bryant’s legal problems. This, instead of focusing on the impending bloodbath in Fallujah or the ripple effect on the local economy caused by skyrocketing gasoline prices, and the non-OPEC interests, in their own back yards, that might be profiting from them.

Next question: If Koppel is such a genius, why is a major player in broadcasting (the Sinclair Group) blacking out his reading of the names of war dead on the April 30 broadcast?

Media conglomerates, such as Sinclair, love to hide behind the First Amendment when it comes to the freedom to dumb down newscasts and editorialize for more federal constraints on potential competitors. They are equally willing to piss on the Bill of Rights when it doesn’t suit their corporate agendas.

In questioning Koppel’s patriotism, within days of the RTNDA’s honoring him for his integrity. only encourages more anti-media cyncism from wiseguys like me. Here’s what other folks had to say about the Koppel, before NAB:

“Ted Koppel is an outstanding journalist who has covered every important story in more than decades with distinction and insight,” observed Barbara Cochran, RTNDA president. “Ted has traveled to dangerous places to highlight neglected stories and has confronted world leaders with questions they’d rather not answer. RTNDA is proud to present this stellar broadcast journalist with its highest award.”

“Ted Koppel is one of the giants of our field and this is a perfect time to recognize him,” says Dave Busiek, RTNDA past chairman and news director at KCCI-TV in Des Moines. “He did such a great job reporting from Iraq during the war. It was appointment television each and every night. And that’s just a more recent example of the outstanding work he has done for many years, both in studio and in the field.”

Compare this to Sinclair’s nitwit response to criticism of it blackout, including that from notoriously wishy-washy liberal and former POW, Sen. John McCain:

“The ABC Television Network announced on Tuesday that the Friday, April 30 edition of Nightline will consist entirely of Ted Koppel reading aloud the names of U.S. servicemen and women killed in action in Iraq. Despite the denials by a spokeswoman for the show, the action appears to be motivated by a political agenda designed to undermine the efforts of the United States in Iraq (bold faced on statement, http://www.sbgi.net).”

Then, in a classic example of misdirection and pretzel logic, “We understand that our decision in this matter may be questioned by some. Before you judge our decision, however, we would ask that you first question Mr. Koppel as to why he chose to read the names of 523 troops killed in combat in Iraq, rather than the names of the thousands of private citizens killed in terrorist attacks since and including the events of September 11, 2001. In his answer, we believe you will find the real motivation behind his action scheduled for this Friday. Unfortunately, we may never know for sure because Mr. Koppel has refused repeated requests from Sinclair's News Central news organization to comment on this Friday's program.”

That program, natch, was counter-programmed against Koppel’s show. In effect, Sinclair was demanding Koppel compete against himself, and abide by traditional fair-play guidelines the broadcaster doesn’t adhere to itself. If Sinclair was so sure of its position, why not run its special program after Koppel’s, instead of assuming its audience will misinterpret the objective fact of who died?

The mind boggles.

Next question, this one for National Association of Broadcasters president and CEO Edward O. Fritts: FCC chairman Michael Powell is pushing initiatives that, in effect, would leave policing of the First Amendment up to media conglomerates that live in constant fear of being fined or losing their licenses. Is “indecency” the biggest issue facing your membership?

Not, really. According to Fritts, in his opening address: “In 2004, broadcasting's biggest issues revolve around how government balances technological forces ... with economic forces ... with the public good. When I say technological forces, I mean digital. When I say economic forces, I mean the clash of broadcast, cable and satellite.

“And when I say the public good, I mean us. I mean broadcasting, which is not only free but exceedingly generous, providing more than $9.9 billion a year in public service announcements and funds raised for local charities and disaster relief.”

By equating the “public interest” to “broadcasting,” Fritts appeared to saying that the continued generosity of the American people, in times of disaster and otherwise, somehow hinges on keeping competing information-delivery systems out of the broadcasters’ henhouses. The NAB chairman did not offer his opinion on the role played by highly restrictive radio playlists, insipid reporting and the hiring of helmet-hair nitwits to read the news, in driving consumers to cable, satellite and Internet services. Or, why consumers willingly pay a monthly subscription fee for something they’ve been getting for free for decades.

In the name of “public interest,” Fritts asked the FCC to keep the XM and Sirius satellite-radio services out of the business of delivering local weather and traffic reports to subscribers; force cable providers to carry all of the digital streams offered by local TV stations, even if those streams are sold to telemarketers and data-stream services, and not used for HDTV or community-interest content, as intended; and maintain a local broadcaster’s lock on local coverage, even if it is garbage (“leading-edge localism is how broadcasting will keep our advantage over the flashy and the fleeting …”)

Instead criticizing CBS or Viacom for not anticipating Janet Jackson’s decision to flash her boob during the Super Bowl, Fritts blamed cable for creating an atmosphere that might sanction it.

He argued, “If a similar incident had happened on any of the hundreds of cable or satellite channels, it would have been greeted with a collective shrug by the American public and by public policymakers. Why? ... Because ‘wardrobe malfunctions’ are part of the cable and satellite landscape Monday through Friday, 24/7.

“Some would say that what happened at the Super Bowl was: cable television standards being foisted on an American public expecting broadcast standards.”

Nonsense. It was simply a matter of CBS being asleep at the switch, after encouraging sister-property MTV to find exciting new ways to keep viewers in front of their sets during halftime. Jackson is a notorious exhibitionist, and, if she thought it would boost album sales, she’d bite the head off a chicken and whistle “Dixie” in her Victoria’s Secret britches. NBC seemingly had no problem with Jackson, when it rewarded her bad behavior by asking the diva to host SNL.

Indeed, with the exception of its premium channels, cable generally is far more conservative about what airs, especially during primetime. It was ABC executives, not the mongrel hordes at Spike or MTV, who, last week, allowed one of the characters on NYPD Blue to utter, “bullshit.” Cable reruns of the same show, on TNT, blur patches of skin and bleep epithets even ABC censors didn’t find objectionable. There’s no way “bullshit” will be heard on cable reruns of last week’s episode of NYPD Blue.

And, what exactly is the monetary value of a PSA that airs at 3 a.m., after the infomercials for penile-rejuvenation creams and exercise machines?

Next question. So, what exactly is the NAB’s position on the FCC chairman’s indecency crusade?

Again, according to Fritts, “As an industry, we are working through this difficult issue, mindful that voluntary initiatives are preferable to government-imposed mandates. In that regard, NAB is forming an Advisory Committee on Responsible Programming. …

“You'll be hearing more on this in the near future. Self-regulation can be flexible, adaptable, and can be tailored to each station's unique circumstance ... everything that government regulation is not.”

In other words, the broadcasters understandably are scared shitless, and can’t decide if they should collectively challenge the FCC’s ambiguous guidelines (www.fcc.gov/eb/broadcast/opi) -- and capricious use of fines to silence shock jocks and Irish rock stars -- or they should lay low, hoping for a change in the White House. Many broadcasters would love to have the FCC list the words not permitted on radio and TV -- and in what contexts -- but they’re afraid of incurring the wrath of FCC Chairman Michael Powell.

Let’s see if the FCC fines ABC for allowing “bullshit” to be aired in prime time, or if it ducks the question, by determining it was said in an acceptable context (like the graphic sex talk on “Oprah”). Penalizing Howard Stern and Mancow Muller is one thing, going after Sipowicz is quite another. ABC might be itching for a fight on the issue, just as NBC appeared to testing the waters in its suspiciously apropos anti-FCC subplot in last week’s episode of The West Wing.

Next question. Why wouldn’t the FCC want to detail what constitute indecent and obscene material?

For one thing, ambiguity keeps everyone off balance and more likely to err on the side of caution. If one unhappy soul wants to bring a hotshot jock to his knees, that listener is free to write a formal letter of complaint. If that jock already is persona non grata at the FCC, it’s likely to be read with increased interest. Instead of wondering why 100,000 listeners took the so-called indecency in stride, the FCC can elect to make an example of him and play God with his career. For the American Taliban, broadcasting isn’t about choice, it’s all about money and power.

Powell, however, denied that personal pique or selective prosecution motivated his crusade. In his comments to conventioneers, he cited the growth in complaints over indecency, noting they’ve risen from 14,000 in 2002, to 250,000 in 2003. This year already, the FCC has received 540,000 indecency complaints.

"This increase in enforcement efforts is in direct response to public concern," he insisted.

Powell didn’t say how many of those complaints came in response to Jackson’s indefensible behavior during the half-time show, or why millions of other Americans don’t object to what they hear and see everyday on publicly owned airwaves. In fact, by all indications, Stern’s ratings are on the up-tick since his last fine.

Powell continues to resist issuing more explicit guidelines, than the time-honored “community standards.”

"I don't want the government to write a red book of what you can and cannot say," he said.

As much of some broadcasters would appreciate having some firm guidelines from which to work, they’re equally fearful of having their most valuable properties pick up their tents and move to satellite radio or premium cable. It would only add one more nail into the coffin of broadcasting.

Not that some of the Taliban in Congress want to limit their crusade to over-the-air entertainment.

In his remarks to the convention, House Energy and Commerce Committee chairman Joe Barton pretended to speak for the tens of millions of Americans out there, who, apparently, see little difference between broadcast and cable channels. The Texas Republican suggested that indecency standards apply across the board, and predicted that such legislation would be necessary in three or four years.

Barton also indicated that he might be open to a system that would rate cable channels in a manner similar to movies. If he ever bothered to watch HBO or Showtime, he’d know that premium-cable networks already provide more information to parents than the broadcast networks or MPAA. Likewise, if he watched the Comedy Channel for more than 10 minutes, he could count the words being bleeped and applaud the Viacom subsidiary’s great restraint. (Las Vegas odds-makers are missing a bet by not setting an over/under line on the number of bleeps heard during some Comedy Central programs, especially the celebrity roasts.)

But, then, why confuse 100-percent-pure American demagoguery with facts?

Perhaps, instead of grilling presidential candidate John Kerry about things he said and did 30 years ago, some enterprising reporter might consider asking what he would do with the FCC, if elected. Or, if he and the missus even watch much television.

Like the Supreme Court, commissioners are appointed, and, therefore, don’t answer to the public. Unlike the Supreme Court, these five government servants pretty much define the word, “bland,” and the media has almost no interest – or patience -- in covering what they do. Until it’s too late, that is.

- by Gary Dretzka

April 28, 2004


Home | Movie City News | Contact Us
Report broken links and other web problems to Webmaster
©2008. Movie City News, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Movie City Indie and MCG are trademarks of Movie City News.