Reverend Al Sharpton hosts Saturday Night Live tonight, but they won't be seeing it in Iowa. [STORY] All four local NBC affiliates in Iowa have decided not to run the live program, citing fears of getting tangled up in FCC Equal Time provisions in advance of his participation in the Democratic presidential caucuses in January.
Sharpton's campaign manager Charles Halloran had a clever retort. "Their lawyers must not have finished law school because NBC went through all sorts of research to make sure that it was appropriate."
Halloran had a cute remark, but it doesn't alter the underlying issue: all these FCC content rules stifle free expression. This makes a perfect example.
Sharpton's appearance on SNL may or may not be a violation of equal time provisions. It might be that none of the other candidates would complain. It might be that they would, but that the local stations would prevail in front of the FCC or in front of a court. Sharpton's manager might be exactly right.
On the other hand, screw it. The stations don't need the hassle, the possible liability or expense. They might well be judged not to be in any violation- after spending tens or conceivably hundreds of thousands of dollars defending themselves.
If it was my station, I would be inclined to put the show on as a matter of principle. This is a news event, even, besides a regularly scheduled network program, and voters who are interested absolutely SHOULD see this before making up their minds. Which might be a good argument against having me as a station manager, as my idea of principles would interfer with the most rational business judgment for what to do in such a situation.
The station managers have made what in fact looks like the best reasonable decision from the perspective of their job responsiblities. They are running businesses, not crusading for truth, justice and the American way. They are responsible for maximizing returns for stockholders. That is their principle job, and they don't need to be courting expense and problems over an episode of a late night comedy show.
It's hard enough to get businessmen to do the right thing by the community often times, and the more difficult you make it, obviously the less likely they are to do it. Fairness doctrines and equal time provisions and other content regulations actively turn the interests of business against open debate and thus against the true interest of the public.
Article comments
1 - Eric Olsen
Al, no one likes excessive regulation, but you left off the reason there are these fairness regs in the first place: what to do about a particularly fervent, not to say unscrupulous, station owner (back when stations were actually owned by PEOPLE) who was out to push one candidate, or party, or whatever, and didn't particularly feel like giving the other side the time. This would be particularly detrimental in a local or regional election. How do you address that without some kind of fairness requirement?
2 - Al Barger
How would you address the "problem" of a local newspaper that pushes "unfairly" for one candidate? Perhaps there should be fairness provisions for the New York Times.
Democracy ain't pretty, but I'd rather let the newspapers, tv, radio stations, web sites and every other kind of media say what they want, and trust the voters to figure it out.
In any case, I'm much more concerned with giving control over such things to the very government and officials that we are selecting. Life isn't "fair." Fox tends to like Republicans. PBS likes pinkos. None of them favor my Libertarians. Them's the breaks.
Why would you assume that government bureaucrats are more fair than station owners anyway? At least there are other tv or radio stations to take up the slack even if one of them is a stilted dirtbag. If almighty Federal Government steps down on you though, that pretty much Settles It.
3 - Jim Carruthers
Is Al Sharpton Tracy Morgan's dad?
I don't know, coming from a land over top, but anything that gets that rather funny fellow back on the televideo screen is worth celebrating.
4 - Al Barger
Morgan DOES have his own NBC sitcom now- The Tracy Morgan Show. They showed the first two episodes last week, and it looks fairly promising to me.
5 - Natalie Davis
"Is Al Sharpton Tracy Morgan's dad?"
No, but the SNL MO is to pull out all the melanin-enhanced players it can whenever a melanin-enhanced guest is on the show. [Another recent example: The Halle Berry ep featured an Ashford and Simpson skit (leaving 75 percent of the audience going, "What?"), a BAPS piece (ditto), and a Klymaxx skit (you guessed it) -- all crappy]. You see, melanin-enhanced actors can only play melanin-themed skits, for the most part, according to SNL writers and producers; I assume that to be true because SNL has always operated from that hideous standpoint. It's better now than it was during the Garrett Morris days, but not by much.
Anyway, there was another bonus for the NBC jerks to have melanin-enhanced former player Morgan on with melanin-enhanced guest host Sharpton (who can't read cue cards -- no presidency for you!): It gave those fuckers an opportunity to pimp his (IMO sucky) new melanin-focused sitcom.
Good to see Brian Fellow, though.
6 - Eric Olsen
Nat, though I don't disagree with the overall assessment, I got the impression that Rev Al had made some requests about using the appearance to make some serious points about race in America, which I thought they did pretty well with the "wisemen profiling," and the stereotyped film production from the '30s.
I forgot to watch Tracy's show last week - he seems to be able to make outrageousnes seem normal, I wonder if he can do that in a family sitcom.
7 - Al Barger
Ah, the real Natalie comes shining through. The extreme hateful racist bile you display in comment #5 shows the true spirit underlying all your frequently expressed fake nonsense about not noticing race, and your pretensions that you are somehow morally elevated above such things.
There's no way for whitey to please you. It's not even just that you hate any kind of right winger such as myself. No, even the good liberals of SNL are evil racist bastards oppressing you as well.
SNL has a long history of black cast members doing all kinds of sketches. Often times black cast members play black characters, granted. I've also noticed that men are usually cast as male characters. Some oppression going on there. Often, however, sketches involve, say, office workers, and the ethnic background of the characters is simply irrelevant.
Your complaints about stuff like the Ashford and Simpson sketch reflects some serious personal patholgies of some kind, cause it ain't anything SNL has done. They are constantly doing parodies of past-their-prime entertainers. They parody Robert Goulet and Neil Diamond and Klymaxx and Ashford & Simpson- and anybody else that crosses their path.
If you were absolutely determined to keep stoking racial animosity- as you obviously are- then perhaps you might could reasonably choose to have been pissy about the original cast of SNL. Morris was somewhat the weak end of the old cast, and perhaps you could take that as some kind of tokenism. Whatever.
Over the years, however, they've had numerous cast members (as well as guest hosts and musicians) of color. Some have made a big splash, some have not. Ellen Cleghorne had her own show after leaving SNL, but it didn't quite work. Personally, I think Tim Meadows work has been underappreciated- but he was probably one of the three or four longest lasting cast members ever. Tracy Morgan now has his own sitcom, which the network seems to have high hopes for. Then of course there's Eddie Murphy.
SNL rolls merrily along, year after year, cast after cast. They're doing just fine. Thanks.
8 - Natalie Davis
You know, Al, I have a rule to ignore you at all costs. And after this posting I will get back to that. But it is so obvious that you are stalking me and baiting me all over BC. Part of it is funny, but more than anything, I find it pathetic. Don't waste your time, dear. I don't intend to reply to or read any of your comments, so what is the point of addressing them to me? Ciao, and have a better life.
9 - Natalie Davis
Oh, and stop with the private emails, Al... they just underscore that you are a desperate, attention-seeking stalker.
10 - Craig Lyndall
Hey Nat, despite what you think of the source, he has a point about the differences in some of the things you have said and some of your observations in this post. Is there some difference with noticing and acknowledging "melanin-enhanced" people on TV and you saying you don't pay attention to those things?
I am not trying to attack you and I am not trying to be a smartass, but it appears to be true to me too and I have no animosity toward you.
11 - Al Barger
What, I'm "stalking" you on my own post? I'm "stalking" you by defending myself from your sideways snipes on other posts? Don't flatter yourself to think that you rate the level of attention implied by your accusation. It's not all about you.
We all have our different perspectives so I could be wrong- but looking out MY window, conjuring up completely ridiculous charges of racism over the silly Ashford and Simpson sketch looks pretty pathetic.
It's a free country, so you're welcome to read and or respond to my columns and comments if and as you will. I'll just note that smug little prouncements of superiority do not in fact constitute evidence of actual superiority.