[IP] Judging Powell...did WSJ readers get it right?
Title: Judging Powell...did WSJ readers get it right?
------ Forwarded Message
From: Gerry Faulhaber <gerry-faulhaber@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2005 18:04:35 -0500
To: <dave@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Judging Powell...did WSJ readers get it right?
Dave [for IP, if you wish]--
In the uproar over judging Powell now that he's leaving, there seems to be some misunderstanding about the role of the FCC Chairman: it is quite simply to take s**t. Most Chairman start off with high hopes and are popular with Congress. With every decision, they end up offending some group or other, each of which remembers the offense forever. Those who are favored by the decision, or even just agree with it, usually accept it as their due, without giving credit to the Chairman for acting (perhaps) courageously. It's just "Well, that's what he's supposed to do." Net result: the Chairman's political capital depreciates the longer he is in office. This has happened to every Chairman in my memory. It is my view that the two best Chairman in recent times were Reed Hundt (Democrat) and Michael Powell (Republican) (although I'm also partial to Bill Kennard). All left office with a flurry of criticism about how they didn't accomplish their objectives and they had many failures along the way. But this just recaps the political dynamic of this office: losers never forget and forever hold a grudge, while winners accept victory as their just due and forget who made it happen.
Why did conservative WSJ readers give Powell an F? Simple; he came in promising deregulation and forces in Congress, the press, and many intervenors severely limited what was possible. Business people wanted full deregulation, which they were never going to get (in practice, they really wouldn't have liked it, but we're talking ideology here, not real money). Since Powell didn't deliver full deregulation, they felt they didn't get their just due. Result: F. Childish, but that's the way this office works.
Note that most of the news articles about Powell's leaving focused on his tough stand on "decency." He was seen as the nation's media nanny by many, and vilified as such. The truth of the matter is this: Congress gave him laws to enforce, laws that are quite specific in their content and scope. There is little doubt that a majority of Americans support this law and believe the media is too scatalogical (not including me, but I could do without the toilet paper ads with the cute bear cartoons). He is the enforcer of this popular law; that's his job and he takes it seriously. Powell's the cop, not the lawmaker, and not the majority which is demanding more not less censorship. As he has pointed out, if you don't like the law, call your Congressperson. But in the popular mind, Powell is the bad guy because he fines Howard Stern's stations and forces him onto satellite radio (which is pretty much where he belongs, seems to me). Incidentally, I know Michael is not a bluenose personally; he's a free speech kind of guy. But I do know that he takes law enforcement seriously, putting his job ahead of his personal preferences. Seems to me that's what a good public servant does. And civil libertarians give him an F? Childish, but that's the way this office works.
Professor Gerald R. Faulhaber
Business and Public Policy Dept.
Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania
Philadelphia, PA 19104
------ Forwarded Message
From: Barry Ritholtz <ritholtz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2005 11:10:02 -0500
To: <dave@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: WSJ Poll on soon to be ex-Chairman Powell
Hey Dave,
By now, everyone knows that FCC Chair Michael Powell announced his resignation yesterday, effective in March of this year. In addition to reporting on the event, the Wall Street Journal ran an online poll on the Chairman's tenure.
WSJ subscribers can see the results here:
http://discussions.wsj.com/n/mb/message.asp?webtag=wsjvoices&tid=3404&vote=5&submit=Vote <http://discussions.wsj.com/n/mb/message.asp?webtag=wsjvoices&tid=3404&vote=5&submit=Vote>
I took a quick screen shot of the poll results -- if you don't have a WSJ subscription, you can see the results here:
http://bigpicture.typepad.com/comments/2005/01/wsj_poll_gives_.html
Surprisingly, the typically conservative WSJ readers overwhelmingly gave the deregulator turned crusading moralist an "F." Over half gave him very poor marks -- 39% of the over 1000 voters gave the Chairman a failing grade --twice as many who gave him an "A" -- while 18% awarded him a "D."
While these polls are notoriously unscientific, I was surprised to see over half (57%) of the voting WSJ readerswere apparently none to impressed with the Chairman.
Regards,
Barry L. Ritholtz
------ End of Forwarded Message
You are subscribed as roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To manage your subscription, go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ipArchives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/