Sense on Media Regulation
In your latest issue of Blueprint you'll find some strange smears directed at yours truly and a really good article from Michele Stockwell that makes me think all this loose talk about the evil media killing America's children may come to a good end after all. The subject at hand is mostly marketing aimed at children and a bunch of reasonable policy proposals to deal with it. Then we get to a proposal about cable bundling that I think is not-quite-right:
Congress should give cable and satellite TV companies a choice: Start offering parents the option of subscribing to family-friendly channel packages, or face the same indecency regulations that apply to over-the-air broadcasters, as some powerful lawmakers are proposing. Family-friendly channel packages could include channels like Nickelodeon, The Learning Channel, Animal Planet, and news channels, but not MTV and other channels that tend to be inappropriate for younger children.
That would be an improvement over the status quo. Still, why should we have a government agency in charge of determining whether or not a given package of cable channels should count as "family friendly" when we could just empower families to decide for themselves which channels to buy? Yes, I speak once again of
First the ratings system wasn't good enough, and now the v-chip is no good? I mean, don't all TV's being sold these days have the capability of blocking channels and/or programs with certain ratings? Why doesn't that work?
July 25, 2005 9:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Congratulations?
I like to read both Marshall Wittman and Ed Kilgore and sometimes others at Blueprint. But I absolutely despise sentiments like this:
"They once again place Democrats on the wrong side of the ultimate issue of our time: winning the war on terror."
The war on terror became an issue because we, that is our current administration made it one.
How much more sensible it would have been after 9/11 to have captured or preferably killed Osama bin Laden. Imagine the dampening effect that would have had on would-be jihadistic terrorists.
Terrorists have always been around in one form or another. rankly, I am more afraid of the rank stupidity and incompetence displayed by both parties in Washington.
BTW, you win the war on terror by refusing to be terrorized.
Maybe its way past time to remember the words of the greatest Democrat ever, "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself."
/rant
July 25, 2005 9:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Likewise, Matt Yglesias, an articulate liberal voice at The American Prospect, who belittled Marshall Wittmann's call for moral clarity as a phrase never used "unironically" anymore."
That is indeed a strange slur.
July 25, 2005 10:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Hard-core social conservatives like it. Liberal consumer groups like it. So, let's do it."
Cable corporations don't like it. Content corporations don't like it. So it won't be easy to actually do.
But it's damn good politically for Democrats. And it would be good policy if it could be made law.
So even if we can't do it, let's push for it.
July 25, 2005 10:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is there any way to express a difference of opinion without it being a "smear"? I mean, he called you an "articulate liberal voice."
July 25, 2005 10:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with Rachel. He smeared Matt all right - with whipping cream.
Furthermore, to be honest, the editor of Blueprint has a point. What makes Matt such a great writer is his sense of irony. But there's more to life than irony. Moral clarity is useful, and Matt has more of it up his sleeve or in his cultural DNA than he is willing to own up to.
July 25, 2005 10:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Once you get into regulating the content of TV programs you are opening the Pandora’s Box of censorship and freedom of speech. I agree that the marketing of children is pretty despicable and it has been going on since the radio days. I was listening to some old radio programs which contained ads aimed at kids. Kids were extolled to tell their parents to by funky frosted flakes and don’t delay, get it today, all this punctuated with gun shots and loud yahoos. Somehow people survived these attacks on their youthful sensibilities.
In the early days of radio the public was basically given a choice between government sponsored radio programming and commercial radio and just as in today’s internet we chose commercial with all of its good and bad points. On the free wheeling commercial internet we have a plethora of pornography but we also have this wonderful website where we get to voice our opinions. We certainly would not have the former with a government based internet but we might not have TPM Café or Talking Points Memo either.
The problem of censorship and children has been an ongoing problem for public libraries. Some of the ways they deal with it are to have computers set up for children that have filters to keep the children from accidentally, or otherwise, going to an adult web site. But for the libraries the final responsibility is always with the parents and I agree with that philosophy. If an irate parent comes in saying they found this objectionable book under little Betsy’s bed and how dare the library let Betsy check out such a book the answer will always be the same, and that is that libraries are simply not in the business of censorship and it is up to the parent to monitor what their children are reading.
I agree with you about programming and commercials aimed at children and toys that are rather strange like the doll owned by a friends seven year old son. The doll consists of a body builder’s body replete with bulging muscles which is topped by a tiny little child’s head completely out of proportion, a veritable pin head. And I think that doll sums up exactly what it is wrong with toys and the values they impart today. So I think that the approach you put forward rather than censorship is a good practical solution.
July 25, 2005 11:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
As much as I despise the words and tactics of the Republican party and conservative right, I have a special place in my heart for hating the DLC.
The DLC spends more effort on attacking liberals than they do attacking the Republicans.
Digby's post tonight is real good reading on this topic, for those so inclined.
July 26, 2005 1:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
I liked that Peter Ross Range article better the first time I read it... in Newsmax.
July 26, 2005 5:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's one where Liberals attack Liberals, right? Must be.
July 26, 2005 7:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Matt's suggestions are reasonable, but a tech fix would work as well. A 'censorship box' set between the wall and the cable box could block out channels using a variation on the tech the cable company uses to filter out the channels you don't pay for. Would be dead simple, order it and indicate your area/cable company and which channels you want blocked, and presto! Would be fairly cheap (<$50) compared to the cost of cable. I wonder why no company sells this, maybe there's no demand for it...
July 26, 2005 7:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Longtime reader, first time commentor, etc.
If I'm following your proposal for a la carte cable, then that would mean that people who want all the channels they can get (or who can control their children) would be paying much more for cable than those who object to everything not on the Disney Channel. I can understand that this would seem fair to some because the control freaks pay less because they get less, but to me, this seems like it would be a huge hassle for people who want more channels. Can you imagine signing up for what we now call basic cable? "Do you want ESPN?" "Yes." "ESPN 2?" "Yes." And on and on for 150+ channels.
For me, the bottom line is that if the control freaks (whose TV and cable box come with parental locks that would effectively do the same thing as a la carte cable) spent half the time monitoring what their kids watch and educating them about it as they do decrying what's on TV, this wouldn't be a problem. If they are so outraged and so concerned about "the children," then they should take it upon themselves to set things right in their own homes. They'd have a much more immediate effect on the ones they care about most and wouldn't bother everyone else who is comfortable with what's on TV (or comfortable enough to change the channel).
July 26, 2005 8:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yet another reason why TiVo rules - my parents and younger brothers used to get in arguments about what my brothers were and were not allowed to watch. That's pretty much stopped since they got TiVo. My brothers no longer flip through channels looking for something to watch and stumble across something my parents think is inappropriate. They just watch the shows they've chosen to record with Season Passes. Everybody wins - my parents get to know what my brothers watch, my brothers don't miss their favorite TV shows anymore, and the shows they fought about are out of sight and out of mind so my brothers don't feel like they're missing out.
July 26, 2005 8:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
For the channels the cable company doesn't have to pay much for (IE, not HBO, Cinemax, and friends), the cost to the company of adding a channel is almost negligible. It is the cost of delivering service in the first place - paying for the wires, the maintenance, keeping the data flowing - that is high. So an "a la carte" system would look something like $45 fixed fee plus $0.50 per channel selected, if the current price is $50. How many channels would YOU buy? 5? 10? You can keep a second TV for broadcast channels, you have to pay for HBO anyway, so how many cable channels do you use often enough to pay for?
The value of a bundled package is that you get a lot more stations than you would otherwise, and so have access to programming you might not have even realized you would want at sign-up time. (Some miniseries on Bravo, Fox kids tribute to world peace, Animal Planet's program on some animal your kids happen to be doing a report on for school, whatever.) (What, you think the current 200 channel digital cable at $50 would become $0.25 per channel? No way. The cable companies would go bankrupt in months.) Rule of thumb, a la carte pricing benefits those who watch very few channels, at the expense of those who want broader access. Offering both packages and a la carte is even less economic. It is a perfect adverse selection problem like those we see in health insurance, where only few channel users pick the a la carte, forcing the price up, causing even fewer people to pick it, etc.
Maybe we should make internet suppliers offer the net a la carte. Pick your websites, up front, $1 each. Matt linked to some newspaper you didn't pick? Sorry, outta luck. Or radios programmed to receive only a few stations, ignoring the others. A friend is on 105.3 today? Sorry, you didn't subscribe.
July 26, 2005 9:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Don't tell the DLC this, but even the Bush administration isn't calling it the "war on terror" anymore.
July 26, 2005 11:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
Forcing cable companies to sell channels <span class="Apple-style-span">à la carte</span> just seems like a really bad idea for all those reasons already given. However, I do believe a user should be able to unsubscribe to any channel he or she chooses to, for parental control, but I don't see any reduction in cost from such a choice.
Politically, though, I see the selling point.
July 26, 2005 11:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
" If they are so outraged and so concerned about "the children," then they should take it upon themselves to set things right in their own homes. "
You mean, take personal responsibility?? Never! :)
Seriously, the V-chip works great. But no one uses it because no one cares. Why do we bother trying to appease these folks? Every time we come up with a practial way to give them more choice in what their kids watch, they find another way to ignore it or move the goalposts. Because in the end, it's about forcing the Democrats to distance themselves from Hollywood's deep pockets. Just like tort reform is there to taint the $$ of the trial attorneys.
July 26, 2005 2:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Kinda OT but related to media regulation -- a friend just showed me the infamous Grand Theft Auto hot coffee mod. First of all, it was totally lame and not so bad that it deserved to get the game slapped with an Adults Only rating.
What stood out for me was the fact that the scene in question was between a white woman and a black man. Nobody seems to be talking about the interracial aspect of the scene but I've gotta think we wouldn't be holding Congressional hearings about the game if we were talking about a depiction of a black man with a black woman or a white man with a white woman. It made me even more upset that Hillary is taking this up as a cause. It's bad enough to pander to the "think of the children" Tipper Gore hysterics but she could have done that without implicitly pandering to racists who fear their little darlings getting defiled by a big bad black man.
July 26, 2005 8:34 PM | Reply | Permalink