2008 Woodie Awards
Home > Commentary
A watchdog gone rabid
In my opinion
by Tyler Graf | Opinion editor
PUBLISHED ON 11/7/06 IN Commentary
The Parents Television Council, the nanny state-loving organization opposed to "television indecency," is apparently above reproach.
First, it wants to pressure Congress, advertisers and the FCC to excise "offensive" programming from television "to ensure that children are not constantly assaulted by images of sex, violence and profanity on television and in other media." But in doing this - often by underhanded means later reported in the media - it doesn't expect criticism. It's not as if it's violating the First Amendment, its members argue.
It insists that it is simply exercising its First Amendment right, like the NAACP or the Anti-Defamation League; organizations that do not receive nearly as much reprobation for their media campaigns as the PTC does.
Well, allow me to exercise my First Amendment right: That's utter bullshit.
The PTC claims that its critics misrepresent its mission and goals. To argue this point, it trots out its least controversial position: Support for a la carte cable choice. This would allow cable subscribers to pick and choose which channels they want. To most people this sounds great; it sounds wholly uncontroversial; it lends itself to the libertarian, pro-consumer notion of market choice. Hell, I don't want to pay for QVC, or the Hallmark Channel, or Lifetime. Sign me up!
But the PTC's approach to the problem is untenable. For 70 years, telecom regulation birthed, fed and clothed the mushrooming cable industry, with its lobbyists and corporate interests. As Virginia Postrel wrote in a 2000 edition of Reason Magazine, "In the name of the 'public interest,' cable companies were taught, and in some cases required by law, to screw their subscribers. They learned instead to please the powers that doled out their franchises and protected them from competing technologies." These competing technologies, primarily satellite service and the Internet, have gained a foothold over the years as a result of relaxed regulations. The PTC may espouse the consumer-friendly, uncontroversial notion of choice, but it still insists that the best - nay, the only - way to give consumers choice is through Congressional decry. Perhaps the PTC hopes that the shifty political interests of the cable conglomerates will acquiesce to the shifty political interests of its nanny state supporters. Either way, consumers will remain screwed.
First, it wants to pressure Congress, advertisers and the FCC to excise "offensive" programming from television "to ensure that children are not constantly assaulted by images of sex, violence and profanity on television and in other media." But in doing this - often by underhanded means later reported in the media - it doesn't expect criticism. It's not as if it's violating the First Amendment, its members argue.
It insists that it is simply exercising its First Amendment right, like the NAACP or the Anti-Defamation League; organizations that do not receive nearly as much reprobation for their media campaigns as the PTC does.
Well, allow me to exercise my First Amendment right: That's utter bullshit.
The PTC claims that its critics misrepresent its mission and goals. To argue this point, it trots out its least controversial position: Support for a la carte cable choice. This would allow cable subscribers to pick and choose which channels they want. To most people this sounds great; it sounds wholly uncontroversial; it lends itself to the libertarian, pro-consumer notion of market choice. Hell, I don't want to pay for QVC, or the Hallmark Channel, or Lifetime. Sign me up!
But the PTC's approach to the problem is untenable. For 70 years, telecom regulation birthed, fed and clothed the mushrooming cable industry, with its lobbyists and corporate interests. As Virginia Postrel wrote in a 2000 edition of Reason Magazine, "In the name of the 'public interest,' cable companies were taught, and in some cases required by law, to screw their subscribers. They learned instead to please the powers that doled out their franchises and protected them from competing technologies." These competing technologies, primarily satellite service and the Internet, have gained a foothold over the years as a result of relaxed regulations. The PTC may espouse the consumer-friendly, uncontroversial notion of choice, but it still insists that the best - nay, the only - way to give consumers choice is through Congressional decry. Perhaps the PTC hopes that the shifty political interests of the cable conglomerates will acquiesce to the shifty political interests of its nanny state supporters. Either way, consumers will remain screwed.
Be the first to comment on this story