So millions of conservative Americans were upset at seeing a breast, and the FCC had to come screeching in to protect decent folk from a nipple. And Howard Stern’s racy dialogue and sex-laden schtick is offensive and indecent, so much so that the FCC must come save the people from having their airwaves polluted with such things as the favorite sexual practices of porn stars. So the pattern you might infer here is that sexually explicit images or talk are verboten by Michael Powell’s FCC, and that it’s time to tone things down… right?
Unless you’re a pharmaceutical company with an erectile dysfunction drug, I guess. In that case, you can go ahead and ratchet up your advertising, making it even more explicit than ever before.
Before, you could only talk about four hour erections during the Super Bowl. Now, you get to have a pretty woman on screen, talking about how her husband’s taking the drug and is friskier more often. Yep, you get to sell your product by having an attractive woman brag about how much she’s gettin’ lately… and Powell’s FCC won’t raise (no pun intended) an eyebrow at you.
So, to recap: Breasts during the Super Bowl are bad; talk of four hour erections during the Super Bowl is okay. An ugly guy selling his show by asking porn stars how often they have sex is bad; a pretty actress selling a drug by talking about how often she’s having sex is okay.
Hmm… seems to be a double standard there, doesn’t there? I wonder why that is? It couldn’t be because pharmaceutical companies have deep pockets and give lots of money to the campaign coffers of Mr. Powell’s boss, Mr. Bush, now would it? Naaah, it couldn’t be that! You don’t really think that Powell’s FCC will turn a blind eye at some content just because they’re Republican contributors, do you? Why, you’d have to be a total cynic!
Or just an astute observer. I forget which.Powered by Sidelines