Pyramid Schemes
Expanding on Mr. Malone's "government treats Americans like idiots" theme, I'm taking aim at the FCC. The Feds in their ever growing desire to parent the rest of us want to increase indecency fines. While I think it perfectly appropriate that you can be fined more for saying a naughty word on the radio than for medical malpractice or product liability that causes death, I have to wonder is this necessary? The whole notion of a few people deciding for the nation what's appropriate is typical of the Feds. I'm fine with a rating standard, but fines and censorship? I can handle this for myself. Just as its silly that I need the Feds to tell me that a Big Mac is unhealthy, I find it equally silly that folks are surprised that someone known as a "shock jock" may be... shocking. I thought the GOP was the party of the free market. If the market doesn't like naughty words, then the market will penalize those shows that use them. I also like the feds think us so incompetent that we are unable to take the mighty step of changing the channel if we find something offensive. So while we're able to use credit cards, drive, vote, take out home loans, get jobs, fight a war, etc, we are apparently flummoxed by the idea of pushing a button.
Posts
6 comments:
The free market is an amoral environment. It is not equipped to say what "should" sell, only what does. Now keep in mind, a free market can only function in societies governed by the rule of law. Which means its freedoms exist because of its limitations. This is what Chromo was saying about liberty and it holds true in the free market.
Perfect freedom is anarchy. The free market is a powerful tool and we should strive to error on the side of freedom without becoming its slave. Decency standards make sense. I'm not comfortable with porn shops being set up next to schools or Janet Jackson flashing my family at the Super Bowl. In a perfect world decent producers would self regulate, but since they don't someone else must. I wish there were another solution, but I can't think of one. Regulation is arbitrary and will be ineffective or laughable as often as not, but it seems it beats the alternative.
This is where I get so confused. Conservatives and the GOP are always lauding the power of the free market to solve everything, and regulation is bad. Healthcare, the environment, education, whatever, it's always "let the market decide." Unless the market is telling them something they don't want to hear. Then its "the market is an amoral environment," and "I wish there was another solution." While I have often argued that the "free market" is used to determine things it’s not geared to handle, this is pure economics. TV/radio/cable will react to market forces. This is EXACTLY what the free market is designed to handle. If enough people turn out, then those shows will go off the air. It’s very, very simple. What the market is telling both Mr. Malone and Chromo is that their view of American morality is off. Much like if I open business selling something that I think is of utmost value to the world. If no one buys it, then the market is telling me that I'm wrong. But these shows are popular because people watch them. There's nothing simpler than that. Desperate Housewives may offend you, but the ratings say America likes it. Now take the backlash against CBS from Mrs. Jackson's actions. Before the FCC did anything, the market told the producers that that display was too much. Lots of complaints from viewers and advertisers, and this years show was much tamer, and it would have been even without the FCC, or its silly fines. The market worked.
Also, I remember a comment by a conservative, whom I happen to like, about schools. The comment was about prayer is school and was along the lines of "if you don't like that people are praying in one school, move to a different district." The same could apply to the porn shop. If you don't like it, move. (Before this gets out of hand, I'm all for "no-no" zones around schools for bars, strip clubs, etc. I'm pointing out what I hold to be a hypocritical statement.)
Finally, Mr. Malone is exactly right. The market doesn't say what should sell, only what does. Command economies tell you what should sell. This is one of the basic and most important tenants of a free market. Apple should outsell Window's, beta should've outsold VHS, I would have bet wrong both times. This is the free market. You don't always get what's best, and nothing's perfect. If that comment bothers you, then you cannot be a free market guy.
American doesn't need the feds to tell us to change the channel, or right a letter. Consistantly, writing a letter to an advertiser has real impact on what's on TV. Don't sell out and "wish there was a better solution," hold to your beliefs and use the market to get your way. And if the show stays on the air, hold to your beliefs and accept that, this time, you lost.
Also, and just for fun...
"In a perfect world decent "x" would self regulate, but since they don't someone else must."
x=Pharmacutical companies would keep prices affordable for all and...
x=car compaies would keep emissions low and...
x=manufacturers would not produce faulty equipment and then not recall to avoid cost and...
x=companies would pay a living wage and...
lets see how many "x's" everyone could name
The Janet Jackson case is a good one for UBlo. The people did speak and CBS was shamed. The market worked. The argument for "seedy" businesses near schools does not work. If there is a consesus that kids shouldn't pass Pete's Porn Palace to get to class, then it should be illegal. Is this regulation or a political form of free marketeering? From one perspective a ruling is a regulation, from another it is a free market mandate. Things are often unclear...sorry for the sell out.
Neither party is for a completely free market, and neither party is for a completely regulated market. To say so is to create an unfair caricature that only feeds stereotypes. Unless you are just mad and ranting to blow off some steam. Something that I enjoy very much, in which case I withdraw the criticism.
The correctives you promote are purely reactionary. If you take your son (assuming you have a son) to a concert and the mosh pit turns into an orgy den, the damage is done, your son was exposed and I assume you would be upset (maybe not, you've always enjoyed a good orgy). Your corrective is to not go anymore, and if lots of people don't go anymore then the concert promoters would decide to discourage this behavior. Is there a benefit to a more proactive approach to that which is patently offensive? Or perhaps nothing is patently offensive, and there should be outdoor orgy concerts for some, bestiality BBQ's for others, and chamber music for the uptight. Welcome to the slope, now slide.
Rats, I was just in the process of editing out the "school/porn" point; I knew it would lead the argument astray. It has nothing to do with the FCC, or the ability to change a channel.
Also, I don’t know how to address the orgy pit. Perhaps the best way to shield everyone from bad things is to lock them in basements. Just let the leaders tell us what’s going on and what’s ok. I think we’d all be happier that way. Without being sarcastic, which is hard, who decides what is “patently offensive?” Sure orgy pits are easy, but I’m sure it gets more subjective going down the list. If only there was some way for the viewing audience to decide…
Back to the FCC. My point on regulation is not that either party is purely for or against it. But one has clearly taken the platform that free markets are preferable to regulated ones. A point, by the way that I agree. I'm more concerned that this party abandons that platform when its telling them something they don't like. To me its very similar to enviro's being so confused that SUV's are selling like hotcakes. They shouldn't be given high gas prices and the fact that oil directly funds terrorists, but they do. While I don't get it, I'm not in favor of outlawing SUV's just because the free market is telling me what I don't want to hear. I would have great respect for anyone who thinks saying a naughty word on Joey is wrong, but rather than let a few people appointed by a President decide for the nation, they wrote a letter to CBS, Kelloggs and talked to their friends about doing the same. I'm sorry but I view it as a complete sell-out to abandon something one believes so easily. Also, this is not a particular dig against the current administration. This is wrong even if a wacko-lefty appointed a small group of people that decided what words are bad for the nation. Any statistician will tell you, the larger the sample the more accurate it is. There's nothing larger than the whole thing. Again, not to be rude, but it might just be that you view of bad words is just wrong, today. May be right tomorrow, who knows? But to say, "I'm in the minority on this, so I need the Feds to bail me out," is just wrong.
The FCC's naughty word fine just seems like a no brainer for anyone with even a smidge of free market ideal.
As a wise man once said about the problems with a particular opinion, "The tyranny of taste is all that is left when objectivity is deemed antiquated.*"
*As noted on the ACLU post, I have no idea what this means, but it sure sounded cool.
You sold me on the FCC point, but then sarcasm has always been the only language I understand.
I am still wrestling with some other distinctions. My quote (that Unk so generously singled out) was an attempt to say that without objective standards anything goes. What should we do about public lewdness? We make it illegal because the majority of citizens want it illegal (free market). Ok, it appears to work better than I thought. Which brings up the next point, what of the minority?
The majority of Americans reject gay marriage. Does that settle the issue? Is there any difference between the FCC imposing its tastes on the Super Bowl or a court in Massachusettes imposing its tastes on its citizens? Both would be corruption of the free market. And as we know, having the Feds bail you out when you are in the minority is wrong.
Post a Comment