« Pagels on The Passion | Main | My Architect: A Son's Journey »
March 12, 2004
Media Deregulation in the Rhythm Nation
Just a quick link and comment on the current Congressional effort to craft tougher indecency standards in response to Janet Jackson's halftime performance. I don't want to get into whether or not JJ's actions were "appropriate," but it seems clear that the folks in Congress are overreacting to this one.
What I find interesting is the way they've begun to blame so-called "Big Media" for the declining standards. I strongly support stronger rules against media consolidation (as my FCC comments last summer suggest), but I have to admit, I find the logic here a little strange. I recognize that local control will allow stations to refuse to broadcast "offensive" television shows, but it might also encourage local broadcasters to take more chances in an effort to boost ratings. Still, if Trent Lott wants to prevent further deregulation, I won't stand in his way.
Washington Post articles here, here, and here.
Posted by chuck at March 12, 2004 1:32 PM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.wordherders.net/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.fpl/1582
Comments
They may indeed have part of the logic right. As I see it, there is finally a recognition that "synergy" may not always be a good thing.
Part of the problem with Janet was that the whole show was planned by MTV for a Superbowl airing on CBS. The argument since then goes: of course it was indecent, it was MTV. What else did CBS/Viacom expect? In fact, they wanted it.
What is now being recognized is the extension of that question: Of course CBS had MTV plan the show. What else should we expect, that they ask Disney? In fact, this is what is wanted when more conglomeration is allowed.
I think this may be part of what is fueling the reaction to "Big Media."
Posted by: Tim at March 12, 2004 10:58 PM
I was probably being a little coy when I wrote that. I do think that the JJ incident might illustrate to a certain audience that "synergy" isn't always beneficial.
I guess my thought was that a large corporation such as Clear Channel stands to lose more as a large corporation than they would if they were smaller and less consolidated.
Posted by: chuck at March 13, 2004 11:26 AM