Sunday, January 30, 2005
1.30.05
As hard as it to believe, I agree with President Bush. Not on Iraq. Not on Social Security reform. Especially not on abortion.
But on free speech. At least, his one comment about the future of the First Amendment.
In an interview broadcast on C-SPAN, Bush 43 says parents hold a responsibility in protecting their children from indecent material. Now, while a definition of indecent remains elusive, this admission by the president is a breakthrough for broadcasters. One year from now, the Parent's Television Council and other groups will have moved back to the fringe of society.
Bush's statement is important because the last time I checked, televisions and radio didn't automatically turn on when a child walked into the room. And, the channel didn't instantly go to a Howard Stern conversation with a porn star when Red State Rhonda's kid was in the car. There's an off button and a seek button on almost all factory-installed radios in today's cars. There's also a remote control that allows parents to block programs deemed unsuitable for their children. Individual parents make that decision, not the government.
Bush's statement goes against what some of his biggest supporters in the conservative Christian world want to hear, but it goes along with a Republican view of business and economics.
The conservatives want to manage the programming on broadcast and cable outlets. They'd probably like to manage the satellite airways too. If the gay Sponge Bob character isn't let into their house, their son might not develop feelings for another guy. After all, a cartoon character influences biology as much as an individual's DNA.
For Bush to say that indecency protection starts with the parents is a slap in the face to Bob Jones and the other members of the anti-Howard war tribunal. Yet, his comment will probably get glazed over since it's on the weekend of the Iraq elections.
But Bush's comment doesn't stray far from his Republican economic background. In the Red State world, the markets would decide what's indecent.
If Red State Rudy could convince enough people to not tune into a broadcast program, the show - whether it's on radio or television - would get no ratings.
That leads to no advertisers.
No advertisers means no money and it's onto the next show.
The market takes care of the so-called indecent material.
People are naturally curious. By drawing attention to Sponge Bob or Howard Stern, the "interested quotient" comes into play. The "interested quotient" can be seen in the all areas of culture.
From retail to entertainment to Scientology.
If there's enough communication about something, people begin to talk about it in the backyard, the church annex, or on a blog. If it's about a broadcast show, people might tune into the program to see what's happening - to find out what the buzz is about. People like Jack Thompson (the anti-Stern crusader in Florida) and Michael Powell provide free advertising and promotion for shows they deem indecent. By ignoring it, the show goes away. That's what the market tells us and always has told us.
Instead of allowing the market to do its thing, people bringing attention to the show provide it the critical nutrients it needs to survive - attention and audience. And, efforts to define indecency will never stand up during a First Amendment challenge. Sorry people, porn is here to stay.
It's not common for me to agree with Bush 43 on anything. I need to point out the second comment where we agree. He's said the government needs to stop paying (tax dollars) media people - talk show hosts and columnists - to promote a political agenda.
He's absolutely 100-percent correct on this point. Writers do not need a government subsidy. Their talent should keep them employed.
It's been revealed that three media types received money to promote the current Washington agenda - from No Child Left Behind to Marriage Definition. It'll be interesting to see if anymore payments become public.
These disclosures made me think about the Soviet Union.
As a high school student, we learned about the flawed Soviet system. Life was harsh under Kremlin rule and the brutal Moscow winters. The people drank vodka and received their news from government owned and operated newspapers.
It was called propaganda. According to the people who wrote the textbooks, it was an evil practice. Free voices were key to the future of the world. After all, where would Richard Nixon be without Woodward and Bernstein?
But, is their a similarity in paying media types to promote an agenda and the propaganda system of the Soviet Union?
...
Coming up next, Paid Programming - by a food chopper with three easy installments of $39.99 plus shipping and handling. Broadcasting has come a long way - but that's for another day.
-30-
But on free speech. At least, his one comment about the future of the First Amendment.
In an interview broadcast on C-SPAN, Bush 43 says parents hold a responsibility in protecting their children from indecent material. Now, while a definition of indecent remains elusive, this admission by the president is a breakthrough for broadcasters. One year from now, the Parent's Television Council and other groups will have moved back to the fringe of society.
Bush's statement is important because the last time I checked, televisions and radio didn't automatically turn on when a child walked into the room. And, the channel didn't instantly go to a Howard Stern conversation with a porn star when Red State Rhonda's kid was in the car. There's an off button and a seek button on almost all factory-installed radios in today's cars. There's also a remote control that allows parents to block programs deemed unsuitable for their children. Individual parents make that decision, not the government.
Bush's statement goes against what some of his biggest supporters in the conservative Christian world want to hear, but it goes along with a Republican view of business and economics.
The conservatives want to manage the programming on broadcast and cable outlets. They'd probably like to manage the satellite airways too. If the gay Sponge Bob character isn't let into their house, their son might not develop feelings for another guy. After all, a cartoon character influences biology as much as an individual's DNA.
For Bush to say that indecency protection starts with the parents is a slap in the face to Bob Jones and the other members of the anti-Howard war tribunal. Yet, his comment will probably get glazed over since it's on the weekend of the Iraq elections.
But Bush's comment doesn't stray far from his Republican economic background. In the Red State world, the markets would decide what's indecent.
If Red State Rudy could convince enough people to not tune into a broadcast program, the show - whether it's on radio or television - would get no ratings.
That leads to no advertisers.
No advertisers means no money and it's onto the next show.
The market takes care of the so-called indecent material.
People are naturally curious. By drawing attention to Sponge Bob or Howard Stern, the "interested quotient" comes into play. The "interested quotient" can be seen in the all areas of culture.
From retail to entertainment to Scientology.
If there's enough communication about something, people begin to talk about it in the backyard, the church annex, or on a blog. If it's about a broadcast show, people might tune into the program to see what's happening - to find out what the buzz is about. People like Jack Thompson (the anti-Stern crusader in Florida) and Michael Powell provide free advertising and promotion for shows they deem indecent. By ignoring it, the show goes away. That's what the market tells us and always has told us.
Instead of allowing the market to do its thing, people bringing attention to the show provide it the critical nutrients it needs to survive - attention and audience. And, efforts to define indecency will never stand up during a First Amendment challenge. Sorry people, porn is here to stay.
It's not common for me to agree with Bush 43 on anything. I need to point out the second comment where we agree. He's said the government needs to stop paying (tax dollars) media people - talk show hosts and columnists - to promote a political agenda.
He's absolutely 100-percent correct on this point. Writers do not need a government subsidy. Their talent should keep them employed.
It's been revealed that three media types received money to promote the current Washington agenda - from No Child Left Behind to Marriage Definition. It'll be interesting to see if anymore payments become public.
These disclosures made me think about the Soviet Union.
As a high school student, we learned about the flawed Soviet system. Life was harsh under Kremlin rule and the brutal Moscow winters. The people drank vodka and received their news from government owned and operated newspapers.
It was called propaganda. According to the people who wrote the textbooks, it was an evil practice. Free voices were key to the future of the world. After all, where would Richard Nixon be without Woodward and Bernstein?
But, is their a similarity in paying media types to promote an agenda and the propaganda system of the Soviet Union?
...
Coming up next, Paid Programming - by a food chopper with three easy installments of $39.99 plus shipping and handling. Broadcasting has come a long way - but that's for another day.
-30-
