Your TV Is Not Your Babysitter

Plenty of folks stopped by the Spin Board to roast my last column (login required). Funny how people seem to see only what they want to see. It appears no one read the last half of the column about the risks that an increasingly-censored broadcast media puts on advertisers. What if you're the advertiser who wanted to support the airing of Saving Private Ryan on Veteran's Day and you found out that half the stations refused to air it? Moreover, what if TV is a cornerstone of your marketing plan and network TV ratings continue to decline over time, partly because of increasing government control over content makes TV uninteresting to certain audiences?

But instead of talking about that, folks wanted to complain about my description of the situation. Some of the more interesting quotes follow...

I think the fine for the sexually suggestive material shown on the program "Married By America" is heavy but if that's what it takes to get the content of our TV's cleaned up then so be it!!

I, for one, and sick and tired of the garbage that passes for TV entertainment these days. You cheapen the First Amendment by mentioning it in the same breath as this trash. Get a life!

I love how conservatives, who want the rest of the world to think that they believe in small government that stays out of our lives, would rather look to a regulatory body to control the content they consume in broadcast instead of doing the reasonable thing - voting with one's eyeballs. If no one watched Married By America, would the networks run it? If the network itself received complaint letters, might they reconsider? Evidently, there are plenty of folks who would rather have the government perform the function of content control than let the free market decide.

Have little kids? Try protecting them.

I don't have little kids. But if I did, any protection I might give them would involve something called parenting. Parenting involves knowing what your kids consume through the media so you can determine what's appropriate for them and what's not. The answer is NOT to sanitize the world to make it safe for kids at all places and all times. After all, some of us like a little excitement in our lives, thankyouverymuch. The answer is to watch your kids, give them some guidance and not simply plop them in front of the television every time you don't feel like interacting with them. Oh, and here's another thought for the "won't somebody think of the children?" crowd. If you're so concerned about TV's effect on the values of your children, what are your kids doing up at 9 PM on a school night watching a program about folks who let people they don't know determine who they'll marry?

So thanks to many of the Spin Board commentors who want the government to control their content, want the mass media to babysit their kids, and completely missed the main point of my last column.

First Casualty: Fair Use and Consumer Rights

Screw the consumer. They must not share their files, they must not have a "fair use" provision and, above all, they MUST not be able to skip ads. There are so many things wrong about this bill, my head is spinning and I'm wondering if maybe I should just go home, crawl back into bed and hide under the covers. If this passes, then the recording and movie industries have successfully lobbied Congress to employ the U.S. Government as their law firm and ultimate protector of their hopelessly outdated business model.

My Eyes Are Burning! Must...Write...Letter...

Who are these people who write letters to the FCC about sexually suggestive programming that's aired after their children are supposed to be in bed? Read this now. Put all First Amendment issues to the side for a minute. If broadcasting over the public airwaves is going to be held hostage by a vocal microcommunity of people who are offended by the mere suggestion of sex, add this one to the top of the pile of reasons why terrestrial television and radio are DEAD, DEAD, DEAD.

Okay, now let's talk about the First Amendment issues...

One of my biggest fears is that, under the guise of "protecting" us from offensive or indecent material, the federal government turns the public airwaves into a "substance-free zone," in which broadcasters are afraid to disseminate information of any sort of value, or host any sort of debate about public affairs. Clearly, the government has exercised no prior restraint of content, but this scenario can easily become reality even in the absence of prior restraint. Levying huge and unreasonable fines will suffice. And that's exactly what we have here. Network affiliates are afraid to broadcast "Saving Private Ryan" out of fear of the mere possibility of being fined. Everything's being tape-delayed in case someone says or does something offensive. Shows like Howard Stern's may be offensive to some, but the bigger offense, to me, is that such a show can't exist on the public airwaves because it might end up paying out more in FCC fines than it gets from advertisers. Our content is being sanitized.

Before we all get up in arms and declare democracy dead because of the usurping of the power of the press, let's put some thought into this. Yes, Michael Powell (last seen trying to remove the Invisible Conceptual Idiot Baton from his forehead) and the FCC enjoy too much influence over content carried on the public airwaves. But why?

It's because the concept of "public airwaves" is completely outdated. Let me say that again, because it's very important, with appropriate emphasis:

The concept of "public airwaves" is completely fucking outdated.

You see, back in the day, terrestrial radio and television stations had only a narrow strip of bandwidth on which to broadcast. So the federal government had to issue a limited number of licenses in each terrestrial market to ensure that the signals didn't interfere with one another. Since a limited number of broadcasters could exist at any given time in any given market, the feds took it upon themselves to ensure that each station was serving the public interest. In other words, give us the time and temperature, test out the Emergency Broadcast System every so often, and give us a holler if there's a tornado coming over the horizon.

From there, the concept evolved into this notion of "community standards" with respect to indecency and obscenity. But the FCC's mandate stems from a need to have only a limited number of broadcast outlets serve the public interest. That's where it comes from.

Does this apply in a world where bandwidth is limited to a much lesser extent? Hell no! Consumers have all sorts of other media choices available to them: Cable television, satellite television, satellite radio, the web, the Internet, video on demand, etc., etc., etc., ad nauseum. The only thing the FCC's influence has succeeded at is placing stations that still occupy the "public" airwaves at a commercial disadvantage in comparison to all these other media.

So, really, it's time to put the FCC in its rightful place - issuing and maintaining broadcast licenses. If we don't do this, not only will we see continued erosion of First Amendment rights, but we'll also see broadcasters losing shitloads of money as more people opt to pay $5.95 a month to see boobies at the Bada Bing on HBO than watch Ted Koppel for free.

The FCC should be in the business of licensing, and that's about it. And if we can't solve the problem through exerting political pressure on Michael Powell and his crew, maybe we should take it to Congress.

We need an FCC. After all, if we were to completely privatize public bandwidth, we'd have so many crossed signals that nothing electronic would work. But the FCC needs to stay out of the content business. It should stay in the bandwidth licensing business where it belongs.

You Call THAT Customer Service?

Just a couple weeks after taking my car in for MAJOR service, I turned the key on Tuesday morning and was greeted by nothing but a series of electronic-sounding clicks. My battery was clearly dead. I knew I hadn't left any lights on the night before, so that couldn't have been it. I didn't have time to deal with it, so I borrowed my Mom's car and came home early from work yesterday to deal with the problem.

Popping the hood last night, I found some interesting things. My car's battery had been replaced with some old crusty AC/Delco job that clearly wasn't the stock battery. A new battery terminal was sitting in the engine compartment, rattling around near my air vents. Something was rotten in Denmark.

I pulled the crusty battery and headed out to the auto parts place in Riverhead to get a new battery. Sure enough, I put the new battery in and everything started right up.

That is the absolute LAST time I take my car to Hustedt Chevrolet. Those guys can screw off as far as I'm concerned. Since some cybersquatter guy obviously had a bad experience with them, I'll link to the non-fan site: Hustedt Chevrolet.