According to my morning paper, two Republicans are trying to estabnlish broadcast standards for cable TV and satellite radio, citing events like Janet Jackson’s “Wardrobe Malfunction” as an example of What’s Wrong with entertainment. They say they don’t want censorship, of course. Placinmg statementys like that side by side almost gives we whiplash.
They tried this in Utah when I lived out there, trying to ban R-rated movies on cable. It didn’t pass.
I’m appalled. HBO, not exactly the most profligate of channels, would be hamstrung by regulations like this – no more Sopranos or Sex in the City. Nothing that breaks the highly restrictive and artificial bounds of commercial TV and lets you feel like an adult. Howard Stern will be muzzled again.
What makes this absurd is that:
1.) People are going out of ther way and paying extra for these services. They aren’t exactly protecting an unexpecting public from being surprised by pop-up porn. If you don’t want it, don’t pay extra to get it. This is like the joke about the woman who complained that she could see her neihbor nude in his house. When the policeman looks and says he can’t, she says that you can if you stand on the bureau and use a telescope.
2.) This is truly bizarre coming from a party that claims it wants to keep the interfering hand of government out of private business.
Yeah, Ted Stevens is an asshat for proposing this.
On the other hand, as your post points out, a similar proposal failed to pass in Utah for God’s sake. If it didn’t pass in Utah, it won’t pass anywhere.
It probably is a bit of an exageration to claim that this is a “Republican” move. I doubt Stevens will get much support from other Republlicans, even rhetorically.
No more Sex in the City and Howard Stern would be muzzled again? Well, two out of three ain’t bad. Apologies, I just couldn’t resist.
Didn’t the pass a law a few years ago that required new televisions to have a V-chip? It’s a magical device that would prevent our children from viewing material their parents might find objectionable. We’re all familiar with the concept of unintended consequences, right? I figured with the V-chip in place that broadcasters would have license to show more raunchy or violent material.
It’s ridiculous because the government shouldn’t be in the business of telling me what I can or cannot watch. About the only thing the FCC should do is make sure braodcasting frequencies are clear and that commercials aren’t fraudulent.
[/quote]
Equally bizarre coming from the party that claims to be free speech advocates. Tipper Gore, Joe Liberman, and Janet Reno I’m looking at you. This isn’t a one party problem.
Which paper? Mine are only reporting on one – Ted Stevens – who has picked up this terrible idea, though I guess one might count Ted Barton’s statement as supportive (I didn’t see it as supportive as the Times seemed to, but I know that he owes the broadcasters a big one, as he’s been beating them mercilessly on every issue since he took over the chairmanship of his committee).
Ah, on preview I take that back. Both of the guys probably want to take up retired Sen. Breaux’ stupid idea.
Happily, George Allen has already spoken up against it and when Barton says “we can work out the constitutional questions” he might as well be saying “if the earth spontaneously stops spinning.”
I said Rdepublican because both supporters cited in the Boston Globe were, indeed, Republican. When they tried (and failed) in Utah it was Republicans there, too. I’m not trying to be partisan in this – the facts speak for themselves.
I certainly won’t object to the characterization that Republicans are mostly taking the lead on this thing, because they are, or that it’s wrong for them to do so, because (IMO) it is. But it’s only fair to note that the most rabid FCC commissioner on indeceny issues is Michael Kopps, the Democrat and that there is no small contingent of Democrats who would just love to regulate cable and satellite as heavily or almost as heavily as Republicans but are content to have Republicans take the PR hit for introducing stuff like this. It’s smart politics, to be sure – make all the speeches you want but let the Republicans acutally introduce the legislation, because 1) you know they will and 2) it’s more likely to pass that way and 3) if it’s going to pass with or without your vote it frees you to vote either way based on politics instead of your desired public-policy outcome. People who oppose stuff like this are more likely to succeed if we all realize that this is not so much a Republican problem as a bi-partisan problem wherein the Republicans have taken at least a temporary lead. That would allow Democrats to say nice things about Republicans who oppose it and vice versa.
Proposals like this may be more superficial than they first appear. When there is political hay to be made, bills that have no chance to pass are introduced. At election time, the legislator can say to his conservative constituents, “I tried my best to impose your morals on the country, but they wouldn’t let me,” and to the liberals, “Well, I wasn’t serious; I made sure it wouldn’t pass, so you have no fear.” To both, he will say “Re-elect me anyway!”
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2005/03/02/decency_standards_sought_for_cable_tv_satellite_radio/ manhattan, I’m not familiar with Kopps’ interference stance. Nothing I’ve found on the search engines speaks of this (although they do report his stance against loosening rules restricting multiple-station ownership in markets). Nor do I know of any Democrats supporting legislation establishing such broadcast standards. It’s all well and good to say that this isn’t a one-party issue, but can you give any examples of Democrats who support this? Especially behind-the scenes ones. I want to know who to vote against.
Yep – I’m not saying all Republicans support it. But it was Republicans who first brought it up out there, too.
Interesting point: the Utah TV Cale Decency Act wasn’t defeated by its largely Republican legislature, but by its largely Republican populace – it was defeated as an initiative:
Yes, there’s always someone bringing some pointless bill. Reps do with with some crap, Dems do this with some other crap. It’s politics and means nothing.
This is most likely a case of Clear Channel goading politicians that are in its pocket to try to “level the playing field” because all of Clear Channel’s terrestrial radio stations will be so devalued once Satellite Radio really takes hold.
Serves them right.
Stevens and his ilk can look at their paymasters and say “We tried”.
I suspect you’re right. I stumbled across Howard Stern talking about precisely this the other day, and making the same assertions. It’s a live issue for him, of course, since it directly threatens his livelihood.
By the way, I have to apologize for the use of “Republicans” (and “Rdepublicans”) in the title. It ain’t right to accuse a whole party for the doings of a bunch of what are probably close to the fringe. Most Republicans are probably steamed about this, too. But it burns me up that this always seems to be proposed by Rs.
Whist I have no doubt that Clear Channel is in favor of this and might be working for it, my industry-insider types are telling me that the main industry proponents are the broadcast TV guys as opposed to radio. They’ve been losing share to cable for years now of course, but now it’s starting to happen right in broadcast TV’s bread and butter – the prime-time drama. Shows like The Sopranos and Sex in the City and even The Shield are just punching the broadcasters in the gut.
Among the broadcast networks, NBC, CBS, Fox and UPN are all affiliated with companies which have a lot of cable programming and would not necessarily benefit from cable regulation. There’s another broadcaster whose cable lineup is smaller and generally family friendly and would benefit. Along with independent broadcasters, they’re said to be the driver here. I’ll leave it to the reader to wish upon a star and determine who precisely that might be.
Ted Stevens is an idiot, and he’s been in bed with certain parts of the entertainment industry for a long time. His name is also on a number of loopy ideas regarding copyrights, file sharing, and the internet. The guy’s a royal pain in the ass. He’s the Republican equivalent of Fritz Hollings.
Nah, the Mouse is certainly capable of pulkling the strings behind the scenes, but they could also just as easily buy up a cable channel and get in the R-rated TV biz themselves.
And they’ve got a bunch of them. The Disney Channel/Toon Disney, ABC Family, Soapnet, ESPN and its related channels, and Classics Sports Networks, and they’re part owners of A&E, Lifetime and Lifetime Movie Network, The History Channel, and E!
Admittedly, none of them are the kind of channels to show R-rated series, but…
While I agree with your OP, I just wanted to point out that it doesn’t work that way.
Around here, anyway, when you get cable (or satellite), you’re stuck with whatever they give you in the package you choose. This is the only reason I don’t have either anymore — I didn’t want to pay all that money when I only watched about 10% of the channels I had, and didn’t want the other 90% in my house. Let’s say that I buy package A for, oh, $35 a month – but I want HBO, which doesn’t come with package A. Instead of just adding on HBO for a few extra bucks per month, I have to buy package C for $60 a month.
My point is that if someone has a problem with what’s on HBO, short of getting rid of their cable altogether, not much can be done. I guess they could block HBO, but the fact that that’s the only solution is pretty crappy IMHO. In that case the customer would be paying for the privilege of blocking a channel that they were forced to pay for. So yes, we can adopt the “if you don’t like it don’t buy it” approach, but we need to acknowledge that the cable companies are forcing people to buy it to begin with when they sign up.
All of this could be avoided if customers were allowed to create their own programming packages.
I disagree. If we want to deal realistically with a problem, we have to know exactly what it is, and both historically and in the present day, it has been Republicans who have been the big supporters of censorship. There have been some exceptions on the Dem side – notably Tipper Gore and Al Lieberman – but for sheer bread-and-butter support for censorship, the Republicans are by FAAAAAR the leaders here. Gore and Lieberman would be considered run-of-the-mill Republicans on censorship issues, if they were Republicans. In the Democratic Party, they stand out like long-tailed cats at a rocking chair party.
Republicans basically ARE the party of censorship, Dems oppose it to the extent their soft, squishy little excuses for spines will permit them to. Thems the facts, jack.
That’s coming, with digital cable. My own provider, Videotron, has a nunber of packages with channels more-or-less grouped by content, but one can also buy a open 20-channel package and take what they like.
I took, among other things, Teletoon, the Space Channel, the Comedy Network and A&E, though I’m thinking about dumping Discovery because they’re getting a bit too “paranormal” for my taste.
Fact is, if you feel your local cable company is screweing you, your best bet is to call them and complain and maybe negotiate a better deal. Just threaten to get a dish otherwise.
