Almost three years ago a bipartisan group of 39 members of the House asked for a report to determine whether the FCC could offer a definition of "exceedingly violent programming that is harmful to children." Alongside of that definition the additional inquiry was put forth on whether the programming could be regulated "in a contitutional manner."
The FCC is now taking up that issue saying that they believe they could regulate TV violence in the same way it does indecency if they are given the power by lawmakers.
FCC chairman Kevin Martin along with Democratic commissioner Michael Copps are working on getting the report approved.
The result would be that in the same way indecent material is kept off of the 6 a.m. to 10 p.m. time slots, they could use that same format to regulate violent content as well.
Another interesting aspect of the report would be that the regulatory powers would go beyond broadcast television and extend to cable as well.
Included would be the battle over a la carte which would give customers the chance to choose which programming they want to spend their money on and reject the violent channels they don't want to pay for. There's also the possibility of a family tier similar to what is being offered by cable and satellite TV providers now.
Also in the report is the linkage between TV violence and the "short-term aggressive behavior" in children.
"What this is is government control of creative content, and we have a real problem with that," said Jonathan Rintels, executive director of the Center for Creative Voices in Media.
Concerning the a la carte issue, Brian Dietz, spokesman for the National Cable and Telecommunications Assn., said it is an "unnecessary government intrusion in a vibrant marketplace that would result in higher prices, fewer choices and less diversity in programming."
This particular comment I take issue with as far as the government intrusion part because I've heard of a lot of people that wish they could have the a la carte option, but are refused to be served in that way by the cable companies.
As far as the few choices part of it, that doesn't make any sense, as the purpose of a la carte is to reject the large amount of programming content that is irrelevant to you, and narrow down our options to what we personally desire. So yes, it is few choices; that's what many want. Why should consumers pay for what they don't want or even believe in?
Even taking all of that in, there will be First Amendment issues that will have to be sorted out if and when this goes to the House.
I think Brian Dietz has a point. Cable networks are generally paid by the cable company per subscriber. If a la carte was available, many subscribers might deselect certain networks to the point that the drop in revenue would put them out of business. That would result in fewer choices for all, but isn't that the way the free market works? Why should I have to subsidize content that I don't want? Uh-oh, I envision a slippery slope where we end up subsidizing them anyway through tax dollars.
Posted by: Michael | February 17, 2007 6:45 AM | Permalink to Comment