Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Friday, November 03, 2006
Brent Bozell :: Townhall.com Columnist
Nobody runs against Hollywood
by Brent Bozell
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Do you feel the leaked information from a global warming alarmist organization is meaningful?



Looking back at the fall campaign, it's yet another cycle in which the Republican political brain trust sidestepped the issue of America's growing concern for indecency oozing out of almost every perfumed pore of Hollywood. This time, it may have been the fatal mistake.

The number one issue of importance coming out of the '04 elections was "moral values," thus presenting the GOP with the opportunity to pounce on the indecency issue during the '06 campaign. I visited with one Republican incumbent running for re-election and suggested that this would be an ideal theme for his campaign. He responded that in all his years in the Senate, he'd never received as much constituency mail as what landed in his mailbox, his email and his voicemail following the Janet Jackson Super Bowl striptease. But he also left me with the clear impression, validated later by his campaign performance, that he'd do nothing on this front.

Republican strategists pull muscles just thinking about Dan Quayle scorning the "Murphy Brown" single-mom plot in 1992.

Here and there were exceptions. In TV ads in Pennsylvania, family-values stalwart Sen. Rick Santorum told voters, "I'm even working with Hillary Clinton to limit inappropriate material in children's video games, because it makes more sense to wrestle with America's problems than with each other." I'm sure a few other candidates had throwaway lines in their stump speeches. But there was nothing of substance, nothing serious coming out of this crowd.

And it was a lost opportunity in another way. The biggest rap against the GOP from its conservative base has been its do-nothing approach to governance, yet on the issue of decency the Republicans could point to a smashing legislative accomplishment. Still, no one could seem to locate the fact that on June 15, President Bush signed the Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act, which increased tenfold the potential of FCC fines to those who continue to violate the public trust by pouring garbage on the public airwaves. The House version of the bill passed in June by a 379-35 margin, and the Senate passed it by unanimous consent -- no roll call vote. It was a smashing success, exactly in line with the sentiments of the vast majority of Americans.

So why the campaign silence? Maybe it's because, as with so many other "values" issues, the Republican leadership was never enthusiastic. It's important to note that it took the Republicans in the Senate two and a half years after the Janet Jackson breast-baring to pass their version of the bill -- and they did so only after massive constituency pressure.

And there's the rub. The problem is that lawmakers in Washington, D.C., face two constituencies with wildly differing levels of enthusiasm. Continued...

1 2
| Full Article & Comments | Next >
Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Founder and President of the Media Research Center, Brent Bozell runs the largest media watchdog organization in America.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Be the first to read Brent Bozell's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
 
©Creators Syndicate
To jander ...
I have no problem with Bozell's proposals about cable choice as long as people would have the right to exclude ANY channels they wanted to exclude. You are right - people shouldn't have to pay for channels they find offensive. They also shouldn't have to accept into their homes any free channels that offend them. Cable customers should be able to treat the channel lineup like a buffet, selecting any combination of channels they want.

Now, my problem with Bozell is his insistence on having the FCC hand out ridiculously high fines just because a relatively small number of people (mostly members of the PTC) complain about a given show. I call that censorship because it would be allowing a minority of people (some of which never watch the shows they complain about) to dictate what the majority can see on TV.

By the way, I think people like Bozell are ultimately going to rue the day that new fines became law. As soon as the FCC hits a station or network with one of them, they will immediately take the FCC to court on the grounds that it violates the constitutional prohibition on excessive fines. Think about it - a $320,000 fine for one naughty word! Get real, man! In most states, a fine for felony assault doesn't go near that high! A first-grader could see that this is excessive.

Of course, the argument goes that these high fines are necessary to get broadcasters' attention and make them take indecency seriously. Okay, but why don't we use this same rationale with drivers? Current fines for speeding stop very few people from doing it anyway. Why not make the fine, say, $500,000 for doing 70 in a 55 mph zone? I bet that would put an end to most of that stuff. Of course, we all know the reason - fines like that would soon be shot down by the Supreme Court - the way the new indecency fines are ultimately going to be!

Also, as a previous poster has already pointed out, the FCC will likely be required to write minutely detailed guidelines defining exactly what is and isn't indecent. Most groups like the PTC prefer to keep things the way they are now, with vague, inconsistently-enforced guidelines that function to steer broadcasters away from even borderline material that might not actually be considered indecent. They also know that the more detailed a set of rules are, the more loopholes one (in this case, the broadcasters) will be able to find. They will also be able to push right up to the limit more often, without the fear of a penalty.

Going back to the speeding analogy, the current rules are like having highway signs that say, "Don't drive too fast", instead of having actual posted speed limits. "Too fast" is enforced so inconsistently that no one knows how fast they are really allowed to drive, which scares some drivers into sticking with 25 mph - even on a super highway!

Laser_Breath
"you mean they are cowards?.... lazy?... conditioned?.... content? afraid of the media"

I mean they are incompetent, because what they built won't work.

Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.