A time for war

I knew it was coming, and of course I feared the worst. It was an election year, and there were some dicey things on TV. But when that wardrobe malfunctioned during the Super Bowl halftime show, I knew there would be a government fatwa on broadcast decency.

Sure enough, Howard Stern came under scrutiny by the Federal Communications Commission, which led to a fine and prompted Clear Channel (owner of 93.2 percent of all radio stations in the United States, Canada and U.S. possessions overseas) to drop his show from certain markets. The FCC then promptly returned to deciding whether using the F-word as an adjective on a broadcast show was all right, or whether it should be banned entirely.

But it's not going to stop there. At least not if a couple of congressmen who appeared at the National Association of Broadcasters convention in Las Vegas Monday have their way. U.S. Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas, seemed to imply that broadcast decency standards should be applied to cable and satellite television as well, where uncensored dialogue plainly rules the day.

"If I can see it on my TV and my grandson can click and watch a channel, whether it's satellite, over-the-air or cable, the same rules in terms of decency should apply," Barton said. Barton, by the way, is chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, a panel that has some oversight into these matters.

Fellow Congressman Conrad Burns, R-Mont., said the federal government might have to interfere in the "creative community" if it doesn't improve decency standards on its own. (I don't think he gets the irony.)

"Someday, they're going to have to do some work too or somebody is going to have to take a good close look at them. I don't know anybody that's as far-removed from mainstream America than Hollywood. I don't know what they're doing about it [indecency] but it's unbelievable."

(I'd suggest that perhaps Congress is farther removed from mainstream America than Hollywood, since Janet Jackson's breast and the words "asshole," "bitch" and "bullshit" occurring regularly in the scripts of "NYPD Blue" don't seem to be the biggest concerns of the American people. Or I could suggest that the biggest indecencies on TV -- President Bush's misleading remarks to justify a war in Iraq that has now cost the lives of 700 American servicemen -- never seem to arouse Republican ire.)

But while we're on the subject of being far removed from something, how far removed is Big Government intrusion into a private business from the Republican party line of small, non-invasive government that lets the free market decide the value of a product? Farther than Hollywood is from mainstream America, I'd guess.

Because the fact is -- as the only sensible guy at the NAB forum, U.S. Rep. James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., noted -- the free market ought to pick off bad shows, as advertisers and audience leave. The heavy hand of government shouldn't have anything to do with it.

Some say it's just an election year, time to fire up the Culture Wars to draw distinctions between gay-marriage-loving, nudity-appreciating, Hollywood-values-type Democrats and morally-upstanding, porn-eschewing, America-loving Republicans. Don't worry about it; the careworn First Amendment will withstand the onslaught of Barton and Burns, they say.

But I say, we have to worry about it. Because what they're talking about is government censorship of a creative work prior to its broadcast to the public. And that is wrong: legally, constitutionally and morally. If we don't say anything when we think they might not really do it, it will be too late to say something when they actually do.

And that's why the industry needs to find its backbone, and stand up to congressional bullies. It's fine for them to convene summits on decency, or appoint study panels. But they should also insist that Congress protect their rights, chief among them the First Amendment. They should tell Barton to take away the remote control from his grandson if they're worried about what he might see, and remind him that no one watches TV at gunpoint (with the possible exception of fans of "Touched By An Angel").

And if Congress continues on a jihad to regulate the "creative community," they should all be advised in a firm voice to go outside and play a vigorous game of hide and go fuck themselves.

I can still write that on the Internet, right?

Correction

In my April 12, 2004, post, I slandered Matt LeBlanc ("Friends") by saying he appeared in the awful 1998 film "Kissing A Fool." That was actually David Schwimmer (also "Friends"). In addition, I incorrectly said Crown Theaters runs "The Twenty," a pre-movie adfest. "The Twenty" appears in Regal and Edwards theaters. Regrets for the mistakes.

Friends farewell

If you get to the movies early these days, at least in theaters owned by Regal, Edwards or Crown, you are treated to "The Twenty." It's a digitally projected pre-movie adfest on crack. Gone are the lame slides with movie trivia questions interspersed with offers for a free Coke if you show your movie stub at the eatery a few doors down the strip mall. Now, you can see previews for TV shows on NBC and TNT on top of ads, just like you were at home (presuming your living room had 200 seats and a giant, rear-projection TV screen).

Last time I ventured into a theater (to see "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind," which I recommend) there was a tribute to "Friends," the long-running NBC sitcom that's ending in May after a decade on the air. There was the maudlin music, scenes from past episodes and the interviews with tearing-up cast members. (I suppose if I was about to lose $1 million per half-hour episode, I'd be tearing up, too.)

C'mon, folks. Bill Shatner said it best on SNL so many years ago: It's just a TV show.

You wouldn't know it from the hype, however. NBC is milking this cow until every udder is sore. We've had "viewers' choice" favorite episodes leading up to the final new shows. We've had cast members show up on late-night talk shows, discussing the end of "Friends." And we're sure to see NBC pull out all the self-promotional publicity stops leading up to the final episode.

Will Rachel move to Paris for a job? What will happen with Ross, and their baby, Emma? Will the gang stay together when Chandler and Monica move to the suburbs? What's in store for Phoebe and her new husband? And -- oh, God, please say it isn't true -- will Joey really star in his own spinoff? (Yes, according to Matt LeBlanc's entry in the Internet Movie Database.)

Alert readers will now notice the joke is on me, since I know all the characters. Yes, I admit I watch "Friends," and have since the show started back in 1994. It's an all right show, although it's declined a bit in recent years. But it's funny. Not "Seinfeld" funny, but better than most of ABC's primetime lineup. (The exception there, of course, is "According to Jim," which is great.)

So if I, a dedicated fan, can let the "Friends" gang go their separate ways, shouldn't we all be able to do it? They are, after all, fictional characters who will be most mourned by NBC executives, and then only for their ability to wring cash out of advertisers.

Then again, freed from the chains of a weekly half-hour show, the cast is free to make movies. Movies like "Bruce Almighty," (Jennifer Aniston) "3,000 Miles to Graceland," (Courtney Cox Arquette) "Fools Rush In," (Matthew Perry) "Scream" and its sequels (Cox Arquette), "Romy & Michelle's High School Reunion," (Lisa Kudrow) "Lost In Space," (Matt LeBlanc) "Serving Sara" (Perry again) and "Kissing A Fool" (LeBlanc).

Hmmm. How about another season after all?

Sad news for Vegas

No, it's not the report in the local Las Vegas newspaper — the Review Journal, which for full disclosure purposes is my employer — that former Clark County Commissioner Dario Herrera was cited for assault at a construction site. The one-time congressional candidate done in by ethics problems great and small, isn't letting a federal indictment on corruption charges stand in the way of his making a living. But allegedly hitting a guy who may someday be a tenant of the under-constructdion condo complex shows that Herrera seems to have lost some of the political skills that got him named a golden boy of the Democratic Party.

No, the real sad news today is the departure of the Deregulator, whose writings are linked on this page. Rick Henderson, mild-mannered editorial writer by day, mad blogger by night, is the one who got me into blogging in the first place. His last day at the Review-Journal's editorial page is today; he's leaving to spread the gospel of capitalism, free minds and free markets at the Riverside (Calif.) Press-Enterprise.

Rick will be missed at the paper. Not least are the many laughs we've shared over the absurdity of politics, whether Vegas style or nationally. We didn't share the same philosophy on matters political or economic, but Rick was always able to offer a credible defense for his stance without ever taking the debate too seriously -- if there were more like him on the right, the rest of us wouldn't consider them such A-holes.

Then again, we didn't disagree on everything, either. Rick's research into the issue of separation of powers, borne out in a lengthy Review-Journal op-ed piece, sparked an intellectual as well as political revolution in Nevada that eventually found it's way to the attorney general's office and, someday soon, the courts. It will be a lasting legacy if Nevada's jurists find, as Rick did, that public employees cannot serve simultaneously in the Legislature without running afoul of the state constitution.

So, good luck to Rick (the link to the Deregulator will remain, so fans can keep up to date on his writings). We hope the next "guy at the next desk" will be as cool.