Antismut versus antitrust
The issue of moral hypocrisy over the Janet Jackson "Nipplegate" scandal ahs been well covered by the press. The oligopoly angle is the outrage of FCC chairman Michael Powell over the incident. That's the same FCC commissioner who has been happy to expand the power of the oligopolies in controlling the US media. It seems that "getting the government off our backs" does not extend to "getting the government off our chests." There a curious mix of economic laissez-faire combined with righteous indignation at a pasty-covered nipple.
But the true irony is that Viacom, which owns both CBS, which broadcast the incident, and MTV, which produced the show. And as pointed out by Salon.com's John Ridley,
Viacom is also one of the big fat media companies that chairman Powell and his cronies at the FCC worked so very, very hard to make bigger and fatter just last summer through the relaxation of media ownership rules.
As Ridley points out, the number of companies that owned individual newspaper and TV stations in 1975 was around 1,500. Now that number is 625 and sinking fast, with even more drastic reductions in radio and cable television. And Powell newly enacted regulation gives that trend an extra push.
This was an event Viacom praised at the time by saying it would 'help ensure that free, over-the-air broadcasting continues to be available.' Apparently along with free, over-the-air broadcasting of a pop star's naked breast, which, by the way, was not fully naked. And now, after trying to hand the media companies nearly unlimited power, chairman Powell is shocked, shocked to find out that they're doing whatever they want to get ratings and attention? Maybe after he gets rid of exhibitionism in sports Powell can start working on hypocrisy in politics.
And the horrible fine Powell is threatening to place on Viacom and its affiliates is $5.5 million, a pittance to a $6 billion company that Powell has done his best to make bigger and more profitable. The FCC now takes its role as regulator as a chance for moral posturing, not actual regulation.
