Two oddly related bits of news landed in my RSS reader this week.
First comes the news that at least one high-ranking Senator thinks HBO, Comedy Central, and other cable networks should live by the same rules as over-the-air broadcasters. Paul McLeary writes in the Columbia Journalism Review:
At a meeting of state broadcasters gathered in Washington by the National Broadcasters Association on Tuesday, [the chair of the Senate Commerce Committee, Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska)] dropped the bomb that he, along with several other senators, are looking into extending “to cable and satellite TV and satellite radio the same indecency regulations faced by broadcast radio and TV,” according to Mediaweek.
This proposal to expand the FCC jurisdiction to include the hundreds of paid cable television and satellite radio stations comes on the heels of the House of Representatives passing the “Broadcast Decency Act” in February — a bill calling for an increase of the basic FCC fine for “indecent” content from $32,500 to $500,000. The Senate is currently working on its own version of the bill, which calls for a minimum fine of $325,000.
Either way, if Stevens’ plan becomes law, cable channels like HBO and Comedy Central would either have to completely alter their programming or be fined into oblivion. If they chose to succumb and live, their appeal as edgy, mature, alternative programming would be tossed out the window, in effect giving rise to a couple hundred more versions of ABC, CBS and NBC.
The MediaWeek story quotes Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas) as approving of the idea.
This is simply absurd. I can somewhat understand the desire to regulate content that is broadcast over the airwaves, which are a scarce commodity and are available to anyone. But HBO? For heaven’s sake, if you don’t want to watch The Sopranos or Six Feet Under, just don’t watch. But don’t stop me from doing so. What’s next? Imposing decency controls on content delivered via the Web?
Meanwhile, Bradley Smith, chair of the Federal Election Commission, is quoted in a News.com interview as suggesting that the Federal government might decide to regulate blogging by defining each blog post in support of a candidate as a political contribution. Sounds absurd? The blogosphere is up in arms over the idea. Fortunately, one of the smartest political commentators around, Mark Schmitt, has deftly analyzed the controversy and concludes that this idea is a non-starter. Thank goodness.
Ed Bott 