From the very beginning the FCC exercised power over content. On one side they claim they do not want and in fact, have no regulatory authority over programming i.e music and political talk. On the other side they claim they dont like bad words. But until recently violence of all kinds was okie-dokie on TV. Comedians have mocked the double standard for decades and apparently
they just noticed. http://www.fcc.gov/At the FCC a report is being circulated that says Congress can change that, without violating the First Amendment. The report says that Congress can craft a law allowing the FCC to regulate violent programming the same irational and uneven way they regulate sexual content and profanity. i.e. in the name of protecting children from reality.
Bush apointees, Kevin Martin, and Micheal Copps gave an interview about this to The Associated Press last week. Martin suggested several options, including creating a "family-friendly" tier of channels that would offer shows suitable for kids. To make this crap appealing he also suggested that cable and satellite providers should let consumers pay for channels "a la carte" Not a new idea, but a system that terrifies cable providers, and big networks but consumers love. Since they have money and we don't, know now that this is bait & switch.
The report cites multiple studies that link violent programming can lead to aggressive behavior in children. remember... they're coming for your videogames next. The report pissed off every sane person that heard a word of it including the broadcast networks, the cable industries, First Amendment advocates most mammals and even some coma patients.
CNN reported that three years ago a group of House Representatives requested the report. It's focus being a discussion of whether the FCC could define violent programming to distinguish what is harmful to children. It also asked whether the agency could regulate such programming "in a constitutional manner."
In the past broadcasters and cable companies have held the position that parents should take responsibility for what their children watch and take advantage of blocking technology, like the V-chip. Legislation in the past has operated with the assumption that censorship is bad idea. Most people voters have agreed with this because it's one of the pillars of our representative democracy. While we may care about freedom most when it effects us directly, in this case it is mutually beneficial.
If you want to stop them call them at work:
Kevin Martin - 202-418-1000
Michael Copps - 202-418-2000
Deborah Taylor Tate - 202-418-2500
Jonathan Adelstein - 202-418-2300
Robert McDowell - 202-418-2200
Posts
You raise some good points in your post. Here are some facts that you might find interesting. An overwhelming majority of Americans (91%) object to government deciding what they are able to watch on television. When activists talk about protecting children instead of parents—here’s what they’re talking about: sixty-eight percent of the country’s 110 million television-viewing households do not include children under age 18 and households with children have different challenges to face due to the varying ages of kids within each family. Currently, there are 11 million households with children age 6-11, 15 million households with children age 0-5 and 9 million households with children 12-17.
ReplyDeleteTV has come a long way from the days of three channels and rabbit ears antennas. Today’s TV audiences are putting to use broadband, DVRs, TV video on demand, iPods and cell phones to greatly expand their choices about what, when, where and how to watch TV. New technology means consumers have more selection than ever and more control than ever over what they see on TV. We all have more choices and parents have more tools to ensure their kids only see what’s right for them. Let’s let parents decide—not government, for all of us.
There is more information to be found at www.televisionwatch.org
I love it when my readers skip right over my sloppy editing and cut right to the part where I am totally right. I have a lot of respect for your advocacy group. welcome.
ReplyDelete