Liberty's Blog: Son of Colin Joins the Blogosphere

Sunday, July 11, 2004

Son of Colin Joins the Blogosphere

Michael Powell Joins the Blogosphere His intent was to open communication between the corporate tech firms and himself. The Comment sections are loaded with complaints about his heavy handed handeling of Howard Stern, and his support of the DMCA. The message to him is that he is supposed to be a servent of the electorate and not big bussness intrest. He isn't likely to respond to charges of unfairness in his treatment of Operah and Howard Stern. He makes it pretty clear that he is intrested in opening up communication with the High Tech Industry's yet shows no interest in opening dialog with the unwashed masses. They comment prodigously. Samples of comments:

Hi Mr. Powell,

I am a business owner in the computer industry. I understand the need to regulate certain frequencies to allocate resources for police and military. However, I am troubled by the censorship of the FCC. I understand that children should be shielded from offensive material, however adults should be able to see whatever they want. Specifically, why does our culture find violence much more acceptable than sexual material? In addition, I am very worried about the consolidation of media into the hands of a few huge corporations. This has horrible consequences, such as lower quality and higher prices and all of the other bad stuff associated with monopolistic behavior. Viacom violated the FCC rules, and instead of being punished they just changed the FCC rules. Who's interest are you looking after, the general public or the elite?

schneidafunk | POSTED: 07.11.04 @02:51
-------------------------------------------------------
Chairman Powell,
I am shocked and horrified at your decision
to start the forum. In truth, this is not a blog.
It is just another attempt by a political
appointee to appear in touch with average
people. As you read through the comments,
you will see the same remarks you get from
the federal register rule making procedure,
often from the same individuals (lawyers,
lobbyers, and hams). This is not a blog.
It's a commercial for the FCC.
I recommend you not bother putting on
pretenses of running a blog. Or, if you are
inclined to keep up this chirade, that you fully
prepare to engage the interent-fad-of-the-week.
I suggest you also put up FCC files using
bittorrent P2P distribution technology, since
that might appeal to other constituencies.
You might want to record your views as MP3
files as well, since this might fool even more
readers into thinking you actually care about
the needs of the public you pretend to serve.
You, sir, are a fraud. Don't waste any more
tax dollars on this effort. Instead, spend your
time truly wasting money by keeping the
airwaves "decent" and free from the
obscenities that everyone hears on a daily
basis in everyday life.

jlo178 | POSTED: 07.11.04 @03:19
-----------------------------------------
Michael Powell,

I too am concerned about the increased involvement of the FCC in the public airways. I don't think it's the job of the FCC to add more bloated government regulations to mass media and have a bureacrat decide what and what not can be seen by citizens of this free country.

It seems contrary to the beliefs of our forefathers and writers of the constitution that censorship be a federally funded practice. The freedom of speech and the freedom of expression is the corner of any free democracy, even if some find this speech or expression offensive. Yet this important value does not seem valued (or at least as viewed as something critical to our democracy) with the current leadership of the FCC. Why?

Bill Waler | POSTED: 07.10.04 @17:04
-------------------------------------------
Chairman Powell:

I'm growing very concerned from what I've seen in Washington lately. How is that you and the FCC continue to use double standards with respect to indecency? Why is Stern being fined and Oprah not? What do you consider indecent? If you and the FCC had your way, I'll bet anything negative posted about you or the Bush administration would be considered indecent. Why don't you clarify some of this for us AO users so we can understand the FCCs view on Oprah vs. Stern. Is it because Oprah is beloved by the people and you think Stern is not? I know millions of listeners would probably beg to differ w/ you on that one. Also, how many kids are actually listening to Stern at 6AM on their way to school? Probably not too many unless their parents are letting them do so. Don't you think it should be my right to decide what I want to listen to?

Please help us to understand the FCC and its polically driven decisions!

Respectfully,
Dallasjhawk

dallasjhawk | POSTED: 07.10.04 @13:20