Powell Resigns as FCC Chairman

By Evan Derkacz, AlterNet. Posted January 21, 2005.

Less than a day after the dog-and-pony show of the Bush inauguration, the Wall Street Journal broke the story that controversial FCC Chairman Michael Powell will resign effective in March (his official announcement came this morning). In his four years as chairman, he has consistently "blessed mega-mergers," failing to recognize them as a cultural peril on the order of, say, exposed breasts and dirty words.

Powell's resignation began: "Having completed a bold and aggressive agenda, it is time for me to pursue other opportunities ... During my tenure, we ... [put] more power in the hands of the American people."

Reaction from media reformers has been swift.

Chellie Pingree, president of Common Cause, called Powell's tenure "a disaster for the public." She was careful, however, to point out that "Powell appeared to be an honorable man who simply held to the wrong beliefs."

Robert McChesney, author and founder of Free Press, was somewhat less generous:

"Michael Powell will not be missed by those of us concerned about creating a more democratic media system. His tenure was marked by some of the lowest moments in the history of the FCC – most notably the disastrous decision in June 2003 to further loosen media ownership rules. Powell's record has been one of avoiding the public he was meant to serve. He had to be dragged kicking and screaming to the few public hearings he attended, yet he made countless appearances before industry groups and trade associations.

Meanwhile, Jeff Chester, executive director of Center for Digital Democracy, called Powell's tenure:

"a case study of the consequences of ideological zeal and intellectual bias ... Although hailed by the Journal for his decisions, the public has paid dearly for Mr. Powell's service ... Powell turned the FCC into more of an intellectual Chamber of Commerce than an agency whose duty is to watch the giants under its mandate."

And, despite the Journal's listless praise, calling Powell "one of Washington's better bureaucrats," Powell was not an especially well-loved public figure. Public comments, in fact, have historically run counter to his vision. In 2003, for example, while controversial rules to allow big media to expand their reach were being debated, two million comments were registered by the FCC – 99 percent were opposed. Powell, unsurprisingly, was a big proponent of that deregulation.

Again, Chester sheds some light on the public's concerns:

[H]e led the agency on a campaign to further the role that big media and communications conglomerates play in determining what programming we will see; who will own most of our news outlets; determine how we access the internet; and how much we will have to pay for many of these services. He has overturned critical safeguards on media ownership ... permitting even fewer companies to control our media landscape. Powell's failure to oversee the communications giants under his purview, such as Worldcom, has cost investors billions, setting back the economy and responsible for the loss of tens of thousands of jobs. And by abandoning the public policies that helped ensure the Internet's evolution as an open network, Chairman Powell has likely placed its future into the hands of the cable and telephone monopolies.

By and large the groups were more interested in looking forward than back, however. Criticisms of Powell, rather than lashes used to berate him, have been closer to blueprints for what media reformers hope the next chairman will not do.

Robert McChesney suggests:

"Powell's departure presents an opportunity for President Bush to reach out to the millions of Americans who have pleaded with Congress and the FCC to stop further media consolidation, enforce public interest obligations, increase the diversity of voices in the media, and create policies that will encourage universal, low-cost access to the Internet. President Bush should choose a new chairman who will represent the public, not just the largest media moguls."

Pingree demands that the next chairman acknowledge the dirty little secret of the broadcasting industry:

"[T]he Bush administration [has been offered] an opportunity to demonstrate that it truly believes in the principles of what the president touts as the 'ownership society,' naming as a replacement a chairman who truly believes that it is the public, not corporations, who own the broadcast airwaves."

There are those who will miss Powell, of course. Big media, primarily, who are still drooling over the possibility of hopping the fences that currently prevent them from owning, according to the Associated Press, "TV stations reaching nearly half the nation's viewers and combinations of newspapers and broadcast outlets in the same community."

And, while they certainly had a tumultuous relationship with Powell, L. Brent Bozell III's Parent's Television Council may come to lament his passing. Powell levied more "indecency" fines than any chairman in the history of the Commission, even increasing the commission's ceiling on such fines ten-fold. (While there's no evidence Powell knew in advance, it has recently come to light that well over 99 percent – 99.8 percent to be exact – of the heavily-reported indecency complaints registered over the past year and a half all emanated from one place, Bozell's PTC.)

Chester concludes the Center for Digital Democracy's statement with this appeal to members of Congress: "The tenure of Michael Powell of the FCC underscores why appointments to the Commission should be scrutinized (regardless of the party in power). While discussions of 'good government' may seem hopelessly old-fashioned during an era where lobbyists are frequently hailed as important cultural forces, it's clear that as much scrutiny that goes into the philosophy of judicial nominations should also apply to the FCC."

              

Evan Derkacz is a New York-based writer and contributor to AlterNet.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Media and Technology! Sign up now »