« Home | Web Video Ad Spending to Double in 2 Years »
The Issue of Indecency: "A Very Dangerous Idea" on Capital Hill
Hearings continue on the subject of indecency in the media...and "very dangerous" ideas are being considered. Ideas that could dramatically impact advertisers, cable channel operators and consumers.
The issue: Media content allegedly has pushed so far past social standards that regulations (restrictions) are required since broadcasters and consumers alike can't be trusted to keep within the "standard" of acceptible content. So the government needs to police the content (free speech) and penalize when abuses are found (as determined by the government, not the public or the marketplace).
Recently-appointed Federal Communications Commission Chairman Kevin Martin told a congressionally sponsored forum Tuesday, "The industry needs to do more to address parents' legitimate concerns. Something has to be done."
Is it the "parents' concern" or the government's concern? Complaints to the FCC do not represent even a small percentage of majority for mainstream Americans. Complaints sent into the FCC are computerized, mass-produced letters created from well-funded, well-organized, highly-conservative content factions (like Morality In Media and Common Cause) who understand how to manipulate the system through bulk emails to the government.
The logical adage "That's why there's an off button" and the democratic principal of letting the marketplace decide don't seem to have access into the congressional anterooms.
The dangerous idea: The FCC's Martin said Tuesday during the hearings that cable operators could sell family-friendly program tiers, or offer channel-by-channel choice so families can keep objectionable programming out of homes.
Without specifically endorsing any proposal, Martin also suggested basic cable packages could be regulated for indecent content. Currently only broadcast TV and radio is regulated, under an exception to the First Amendment. Including cable would require congressional action, and for the change to survive challenge before the Supreme Court would be likely.
Kyle McSlarrow, president and CEO of the National Cable and Telecommunications Association, called a la carte programming "a very dangerous idea" that would decrease consumer choice because it would make it harder for new channels to attract viewers.
In essence, it would probably kill many channels (which, depending on your point of view, may or may not be a good idea in this 500+ channel digital cable universe of overwhelming choice). Would you buy channels that are nice to have but you never watch? No. Geraldine Laybourne, CEO of Oxygen Media Inc., which owns the Oxygen channel, said an a la carte pricing structure, if it were imposed on the industry, would put her company "out of business. Unless we had the total possibility of widespread distribution, we could never have raised the money we raised," said Laybourne, a widely admired industry leader.(Oxygen is currently in about 75 million homes.)
McSlarrow, whose group represents large cable operators, said any government intervention in cable programming would violate the First Amendment.
Don't forget. You buy cable channels (you've seen your monthly bill) in order to view the content. You have made the approved decision to allow the content in your home. You have accepted the responsibility to decide what content is acceptable for yourself and for your family and friends. And you can always change the channel or turn it off if you don't approve of some of the content...or even block the channel completely with your remote programming.
The same is true of radio programming. With satellite radio, you buy the receivers and subscribe to hear the content. With traditional broadcast radio (as well as traditional non-cable TV), you buy the receivers in order to accept the content. If something does not meet your own personal standards, the choice (your choice, not a government-required choice) remains the same: turn if off or change the channel...and block the channel if the content remains beyond your standard (V-chip, etc.)
Back on Capital Hill yesterday, the daylong forum was convened in Washington by Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska), chair of the Commerce Committee, which is working toward passing anti-indecency legislation. A House-passed bill to sharply increase fines for broadcast indecency is languishing as the Senate makes up its mind. In all, there are 6 variations of anti-indecency bills being considered in the 2 houses of Congress...President Bush is just waiting for one to make it to his desk for him to approve.
"We want to let Congress have a better chance to understand all of the points of view," Stevens said. He did not say what form legislation might take but said, "Parents have a right to try to protect their children from some of the things they can run into in the media."
Of course, Senator. I believe parents have that right already...and active parenting respects that family responsibility. That responsibility should remain in the hands of parents and not the FCC or Congress.
--Chris Kennedy
posted by Unknown @ Wednesday, November 30, 2005,
