Judging Powell...did WSJ readers get it right?

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

------ Forwarded Message
From: Gerry Faulhaber <gerry-faulhaber () mchsi com>
Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2005 18:04:35 -0500
To: <dave () farber net>
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 () optonline net>
Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2005 11:10:02 -0500
To: <dave () farber net>
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&amp;tid=3404&a
mp;vote=5&amp;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 interesting-people () lists elistx com
To manage your subscription, go to
  http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/