FCC vs. Cable

Despite no definitive causal link between media violence and violence among children, an admitted failure of past regulations to protect children from “indecent” programming, and no viable definition of what merits ‘excessive’ violence, the Federal Communications Commission released a long-awaited report calling for the regulation of television violence. Sen. Jay Rockefeller, (D-WV), is expected to put forth legislation granting the FCC, among other powers, the ability to alter the existing contracts between cable networks and providers to break-up current channel packages so customers may pick channels more suitable for children. This “a la carte” imposition would force the cable and satellite providers to make individual channels available to each home, if the customer so chooses, without having to pay for the other channels which usually come with ‘basic’ cable.
Granted, if I were a parent, I would not want my children to watch TV shows with considerable violence and gore like the ‘Sopranos’ or ‘CSI’, in spite of my thorough enjoyment of both of them. I would imagine that there are many parents throughout America who feel the same way and are taking the necessary measures to limit their children’s exposure to them – you know, by parenting. Yet, legislators like Sen. Rockefeller and presidential hopeful Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) have thrown their considerable political weight behind measures such as this to parent America’s children through regulation.
Politicians and groups who support the “a la carte” regulation should be – according to the theory supporting the FCC report – trying to keep these two shows from the virgin eyes of America’s youth. Yet neither show will probably be affected on its primary network by the “a la carte” provision.
The reasons for these exceptions are two-fold: first, the ‘Sopranos’ is shown on HBO, a premium channel already excluded from ‘basic’ programming packages; second, CBS’ ‘CSI’ – along with other shows with gore, violence, and even torture (such as Fox’s ‘24’) – is broadcast on a local affiliate network which must be carried by cable and satellite providers by FEDERAL LAW. The FCC report shows no indication that the “must carry” provision is likely to be lifted for this new and arbitrary rule. So, what we have here is a regulation that protects standard local and premium channels at the advertising expense of smaller, and often more niche oriented, basic cable channels.
Thank heavens America’s children will be safe from Lifetime!
In all seriousness, smaller networks are often bundled with larger, more successful flagship networks in order to develop programming for smaller specific demographics (and therefore target markets for certain advertisers) which may be squeezed out by this artificial market manipulation. In response to this, advocacy groups such as the NAACP, have come out against forced “a la carte” measures out of fear black-oriented channels will be marginalized.
While no one should be asking for government protection of these networks, it seems fair for them to request not to be squeezed out by capricious regulation either.
This is not the first time “a la carte” programming has come before Congress. The FCC has issued two separate and contradictory reports on the feasibility of breaking-up the basic cable packages. The first report, released in November 2004, found that the imposition of “a la carte” pricing would raise the price of service for the consumers while lowering program diversity. The second report released early last year, (requested by members of Congress to essentially ‘try again’), found that there should be no significant market disruption by mandating “a la carte” pricing and that consumers would not face higher cable rates.
To make sense of the conflicting information, the Congressional Research Service released a report comparing and contrasting the two FCC “a la carte” reports. The CRS report found flaws in the data collection and assumptions in both of the FCC reports, but concludes that the higher transactional costs for mandated “a la carte” services could increase consumer prices, especially among the more than half of current cable subscribers who still receive analog cable services.
Interestingly, the CRS report also shows that the current programming structure will likely give way to competitive pressures from Internet and phone companies that will make video “on-demand” services more common as the shift to fully digital services approaches - thereby increasing selectivity among consumers. This would be a more natural progression of the market to accommodate the particular desires of consumers without additional cumbersome, arbitrary, federal regulation and unnecessary added costs.
While it is impossible to tell at this point what the legislation will say and thus what its effects will be, it is certain that the information the bill will be based on is inconclusive, incomplete, and undeniably arbitrary. In all likelihood, these measures will cause more problems than its backers can hope to solve.

Va. Tech and Guns

I do not appreciate false or otherwise overstated empathy so pardon the lack of deep reflection in this post in regard to yesterday's tragedy in Blacksburg, VA. While it was a terrible and awful event that has had a personal effect on me, I have no desire to engage in the projected mourning of people completely removed from the situation that is now oozing out of television sets across the country and globe. Frankly, I think such empty emotion is a far greater insult to those immediately affected by this heinous act than my dispassionate recognition of it could ever be.
So, as America comes to terms with what happened yesterday, the focus will undoubtedly shift to the type of weapon Seung-Hui Cho used to murder 32 people - a firearm. In between the celebrity journalists seeking stories from and about the victims -- pundits, advocates and others have already begun to blame firearms for the senseless violence. Invariably, this shift will intensify as the network media need to find more angles to keep the story fresh.
I will grant that the number of victims was increased by the use of firearms as opposed to, say a knife or baseball bat. Yet, it could have conceivably been much worse had he been able to create and deploy explosives or poison gas --using materials which could be found in his home, at a hardware store or at a chemistry lab on campus.
It is horrible to contemplate yesterday's act-let alone one with a higher death or injury toll- but if a discussion to the cause of the carnage is to be serious, it must take other possibilities into account. The fact remains that blaming the weapon(s) for the crime in this case would be similar (on a much smaller scale) to blaming airplanes for 9/11. If someone is hell-bent on doing something and can plan effectively enough, more restrictive laws on firearms--the ends pursued by gun control advocates--will hardly be an effective deterrent toward stopping him.
We, as a nation, have to realize that we are products of a gun culture. Whatever your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment leads you to believe, a right to a gun has been ingrained into the nation's collective psyche. Stripping that mentality away will not come with laws - no matter how hard one tries. (if we could effect minds by legislation, racism would have ended with the passing of the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments in the mid-19th century) The effects of widespread gun control take firearms out of the hands of law-abiding citizens while leaving the criminals at a decided advantage. While I think the proponents of gun control are well-meaning, this result is in no one's best interest - save armed criminals.
My point is this: don't get caught up in the emotional coverage of yesterday's tragedy and lose your moorings. Using an aberrant and abhorrant tragedy to guide public policy is destined to result in the punishment of honest citizens while yielding few - if any - positive results.

Losing sight of this principle gave us the Patriot Act. Let's not make the same mistake again...