Three Way News
Your Source. For everything. Really.
Contributors
- Hammer
- Jambo
- Libby Mae
Current Poll
Recurring features
Hammer's Favorites
- Dobson v. Sponge-Bob
- Calvin, the nest egg
- Pat's predictions
- Bachmann spins Cupertino
- 205 atheists assume the bench
- Fox spins Oil for Food
- Fact check: highest taxed state
- Gen. Myers v. Reality
- Janice Rogers Brown
- Killing Field
- Kline hates Big Bird
- Vote Luca Brasi!
- Cornyn's Stalinist Supreme Court
- Rumsfeld's hidden metrics
Jambo's Favories
- Dolphin research updates
- We all shine on
- If you have to write...
- Columnist NY Times should have
- Truth about taxes
- Fourth of July
- Movie objects
- Lost in supermarket
- Dysfunctional Farmer Labor party
- Punks you hated
- Some preacher from east
- Winning issues
Thursday, December 01, 2005
Paying for what you want to watch
Kevin Martin, chair of the FCC, has signaled his support for a la carte cable and satellite programming. The cable industry, predictably, opposes such a move. The self-described pro-family advocates support a la carte programming, unless they have cable shows of their own:
Some Christian broadcasters see the issue differently, however. Paul Crouch, Jr., of Trinity Broadcasting Network in Santa Ana feels it is important that cable operators continue to expose subscribers to niche channels, including religious ones, that people might not order on their own. He is quoted in the Los Angeles Times as observing, "We don't just want to preach to the choir; we want to reach the unchurched. The bottom line is that we want to be everywhere on cable."
According to the Times article, a number of Christian broadcasters -- including well-known figures such as Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell -- are worried that changing the current cable marketing system will reduce their viewership. This concern puts them at odds with many Christian leaders who might normally be considered their allies in the indecency debate.
I support a la carte programming because it empowers citizens. A la carte programming gives regular people greater control over what they watch and how much they pay for it.
Both my television and my satellite box allow me to restrict and control what my kids watch on TV. I don't use any of this stuff. The kids don't watch television unsupervised, so it's not a concern.
These parental locks are useful, though, only to control programming I want to watch but don't want my kids to watch. It doesn't solve the problem that I am required to pay for truly obscene programming.
I like PBS Kids (now Sprout). I think it makes kids smarter and I'm happy to pay for it. But there's this other channel, called Fox News, which actually makes people dumber and less informed. Can you believe I have to pay for that? Pay for a channel that would actually harm me to watch?
Here's another example. If I want to watch some good, indecent programming, I have to pay extra for it. I don't know how many hours of Logo I've watched and I've yet to see two chicks really going at it. What a rip!
On the other hand, there's this channel with this guy who calls for the assassination of foreign leaders and blames natural disasters on homosexuals and scientists. (Who knows what damage homosexual scientists could cause?) I have to pay for Pat Robertson's indecency on a monthly basis. It's an outrage.
I suspect that a la carte programming would result in fewer cable channels, but better programming. If ESPN Ocho can't survive in the marketplace, I'll have to watch the tape-delayed dodge ball championships on the Deuce. I can live with that small sacrifice, and I'll be richer for it.
