My solution to everything
Another post on mine from late last week (pre-IBR) I felt sharing:
------------------
I was reading this morning about Social Security, the new FCC fines, lots of things. And I gotta say what bugs me most is people look at things through their little world view and give no credence to any of concerns of other people and tote the party line. And anyone on the opposite view is considered "obstructionist". God in Heaven, people, can't we all just get along? Sorry, I'll step right off my soap box. At least one foot off it for now. :-)
So onto the FCC fines. The House this morning passed a resolution for stiffer indecency penalties for broadcasters. Of course, one side claims it didn't go far enough. "Why should the penalties be any different on channel 5 than channel 105?" arguing one lawmaker that the same rules should apply to cable and satellite. And another side claimed it went to far, that freedom of expression will be stifled and will create a homogenous broadcast, devoid of entertainment.
Some were happy with the bill as written. "With passage of this legislation, I am confident that broadcasters will think twice about pushing the envelope,'' said Rep. Fred Upton, R-Mich., chairman of the House telecommunications panel and author of the bill. "Our kids will be better off for it.''
Indeed. But even without a single increase in fines (although certainly more stringent enforcement of existing fines), it's already having an effect. Many of the same people who fought for the stiffer penalties, complained when many stations would not broadcast Saving Private Ryan, due to the violent content and profanities. War is hell, as they say, and the FCC says we shouldn't show kids hell. After all, even the threat of legislation made the stations do exactly what the lawmakers said it would: think twice. Many stations, especially PBS, balk at even the hint of paying fines that can be in the tens or hundreds of thousands, and steer clear of anything that could remotely generate a fine. They don't think twice, they think over and over about it, and more often than not it means they don't show anything remotely offensive, even with the best of intentions. After all, the law isn't about intent, it's about what is actually shown. And the law is the law, regardless of what the lawmakers intended.
Previous to "boobgate", the argument was simple: change the channel. Monitor your kids. Check what they're watching. Anything less and you're not a parent. Last year's Super Bowl changed all that. The debate was off. The religious right seized the opportunity and ran with it. The babysit-your-kids argument was lost in the noise. They wanted stiff penalties for anyone who would remotely dare do anything that might offend anyone.
But the issue with "boobgate" wasn't that a breast was shown on television. No, I was chose to sit down with my kids to a few hours of watching grown men beat the living crap out of each other, interspersed with commercials about erectile dysfunction. But no boobs. And therein lies the problem: I didn't choose to watch it.
Many of the lawmakers who say the same penalties should apply to cable lose to a single argument: I choose and even pay money for cable. I want to watch westerns where they swear enough to make a sailor plush. I want to watch blood and guts and gore. Shoot, I might even choose to get some soft core porn and see someone of those boobies, even gratuitous ones. If I don't want it, I don't buy it. But I not only chose it, I bought it!
So that's the problem. And here's my solution:
Make them choose. Thanks to President Clinton (I know, most Republicans would rather die than do that*), every TV manufactured in the last 10 years has a V-chip in it. That's over 90% of the TVs in use today. But by default, it's turned off. And most people have no idea how to turn it on. Here's my idea: Have it turned ON by default. When they first turn it on, have a setup screen (like mine does when first powered on) that says "V-chip: ON" and make them go through a selection screen that basically says "I want to turn this off so I can choose to watch Violence, Profanity, Nudity and/or Adult Situations, or that I choose to be a bad parent and want to let my kids watch this stuff too." Cable and satellite receivers do the same thing. Software companies do it all the time to ensure that their customers have read and comply with their agreements. And legislate it, so a single TV manufacturer doesn't have to say be the heavy about a nannying kids when parents won't.
Then, focus the FCC fines on broadcasters those who don't comply. By all means, if someone slips in a boobie on Teletubbies, fine the hell out of them. If someone shows it on a show that is flagged for it, I already acknowledged that I -chose- to watch that. Then instead of just merely having a message at the beginning of the we-all-know "This program contains mature content and shouldn't be watched by anyone" and hope and pray parents catch it before it warps Jimmy's fragile little mind, the V-Chip will block it by default. And you better believe that if an adult wants to watch that show and the V-Chip zaps it, they'll go out of their way to find out how to operate it. It works that way today, but because parents won't do it, make them do it.
And for God's sake, let me get back to watching Oz. :-)
Joe
* Another issue I have. I abhor that people stand behind party lines and say "that's a Democratic idea" or "that's a Republican idea," even if it's not said in so many words. Many people claim that previous to 9/11, the Bush administration ignored Osama Bin Ladin because it was Clinton who suggested he was a threat. Many Democrats refuse to see Social Security as a problem because Bush says it is. It happens on both sides equally. People, it's an -American- idea. Can we evaluate it if it's good or bad on the merits of the idea itself, not who came up with it?
------------------
I was reading this morning about Social Security, the new FCC fines, lots of things. And I gotta say what bugs me most is people look at things through their little world view and give no credence to any of concerns of other people and tote the party line. And anyone on the opposite view is considered "obstructionist". God in Heaven, people, can't we all just get along? Sorry, I'll step right off my soap box. At least one foot off it for now. :-)
So onto the FCC fines. The House this morning passed a resolution for stiffer indecency penalties for broadcasters. Of course, one side claims it didn't go far enough. "Why should the penalties be any different on channel 5 than channel 105?" arguing one lawmaker that the same rules should apply to cable and satellite. And another side claimed it went to far, that freedom of expression will be stifled and will create a homogenous broadcast, devoid of entertainment.
Some were happy with the bill as written. "With passage of this legislation, I am confident that broadcasters will think twice about pushing the envelope,'' said Rep. Fred Upton, R-Mich., chairman of the House telecommunications panel and author of the bill. "Our kids will be better off for it.''
Indeed. But even without a single increase in fines (although certainly more stringent enforcement of existing fines), it's already having an effect. Many of the same people who fought for the stiffer penalties, complained when many stations would not broadcast Saving Private Ryan, due to the violent content and profanities. War is hell, as they say, and the FCC says we shouldn't show kids hell. After all, even the threat of legislation made the stations do exactly what the lawmakers said it would: think twice. Many stations, especially PBS, balk at even the hint of paying fines that can be in the tens or hundreds of thousands, and steer clear of anything that could remotely generate a fine. They don't think twice, they think over and over about it, and more often than not it means they don't show anything remotely offensive, even with the best of intentions. After all, the law isn't about intent, it's about what is actually shown. And the law is the law, regardless of what the lawmakers intended.
Previous to "boobgate", the argument was simple: change the channel. Monitor your kids. Check what they're watching. Anything less and you're not a parent. Last year's Super Bowl changed all that. The debate was off. The religious right seized the opportunity and ran with it. The babysit-your-kids argument was lost in the noise. They wanted stiff penalties for anyone who would remotely dare do anything that might offend anyone.
But the issue with "boobgate" wasn't that a breast was shown on television. No, I was chose to sit down with my kids to a few hours of watching grown men beat the living crap out of each other, interspersed with commercials about erectile dysfunction. But no boobs. And therein lies the problem: I didn't choose to watch it.
Many of the lawmakers who say the same penalties should apply to cable lose to a single argument: I choose and even pay money for cable. I want to watch westerns where they swear enough to make a sailor plush. I want to watch blood and guts and gore. Shoot, I might even choose to get some soft core porn and see someone of those boobies, even gratuitous ones. If I don't want it, I don't buy it. But I not only chose it, I bought it!
So that's the problem. And here's my solution:
Make them choose. Thanks to President Clinton (I know, most Republicans would rather die than do that*), every TV manufactured in the last 10 years has a V-chip in it. That's over 90% of the TVs in use today. But by default, it's turned off. And most people have no idea how to turn it on. Here's my idea: Have it turned ON by default. When they first turn it on, have a setup screen (like mine does when first powered on) that says "V-chip: ON" and make them go through a selection screen that basically says "I want to turn this off so I can choose to watch Violence, Profanity, Nudity and/or Adult Situations, or that I choose to be a bad parent and want to let my kids watch this stuff too." Cable and satellite receivers do the same thing. Software companies do it all the time to ensure that their customers have read and comply with their agreements. And legislate it, so a single TV manufacturer doesn't have to say be the heavy about a nannying kids when parents won't.
Then, focus the FCC fines on broadcasters those who don't comply. By all means, if someone slips in a boobie on Teletubbies, fine the hell out of them. If someone shows it on a show that is flagged for it, I already acknowledged that I -chose- to watch that. Then instead of just merely having a message at the beginning of the we-all-know "This program contains mature content and shouldn't be watched by anyone" and hope and pray parents catch it before it warps Jimmy's fragile little mind, the V-Chip will block it by default. And you better believe that if an adult wants to watch that show and the V-Chip zaps it, they'll go out of their way to find out how to operate it. It works that way today, but because parents won't do it, make them do it.
And for God's sake, let me get back to watching Oz. :-)
Joe
* Another issue I have. I abhor that people stand behind party lines and say "that's a Democratic idea" or "that's a Republican idea," even if it's not said in so many words. Many people claim that previous to 9/11, the Bush administration ignored Osama Bin Ladin because it was Clinton who suggested he was a threat. Many Democrats refuse to see Social Security as a problem because Bush says it is. It happens on both sides equally. People, it's an -American- idea. Can we evaluate it if it's good or bad on the merits of the idea itself, not who came up with it?
posted by Joe Carlin at 3:40 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home