Drew posts a response to my response and so I'll respond to his... well, you know.
I will concede that the Jackson/Timberlake incident could conceivably fall under federal jurisdiction because of the feature of interstate commerce. (I received a call this morning from a dear friend of mine who read my post and made a similar argument. He used the highway system as an example. I like the road system and I expect the Federal government to take my tax dollars to regulate the speed limits and make repairs. I don't expect there to be Federal agents in my car as I drive).
What is interesting to me is that CBS was fined for a stunt that Jackson herself stated the network was unaware of. Also, the fine was levied not at CBS itself, but on the 20 stations that CBS owns and operates. So, unless I'm way off base here, all the other affiliates that are not owned by CBS got of Scott free.
I'll take these two points separately.
First, Jackson admitted that "MTV was completely
unaware of it. It was not my intention that it go as far as it did. I
apologize to anyone offended — including the audience, MTV, CBS and the
NFL" So CBS is now in the position of being fined for broadcasting the offending spectacle, not of conceiving, planning, producing and disseminating it. Imagine a live newscast wherein some crazed nudist takes his clothes off and runs past the camera. Is the station or network now liable for indecency? If it is a national broadcast do we now invoke the Commerce Clause and fine the bejeezus out of the network? Will we in fact have morality police trolling the airwaves searching for smut? And as for violence (does the legislation address violence? I don't know) if a news organization would report another terrorist attack, would they be obligated to turn the cameras away from the scene? Someone, maybe millions might be offended. Is that a reason to censor?
Secondly, the fact that there where more than twenty stations that carried the Super Bowl but the FCC only fined those owned by CBS shows me that the agency isn't the least bit interested in decency but in taking money away from private citizens and corporations.
Drew brings up a great point about a study done that showed that family-friendly movies were much more popular and much more profitable. He cites the study as illustrative that "[t]he entertainment industry simply doesn't listen very well to profits." That is not what I get from the study. What I get is that this is a prime example of the market determining what is to be seen:
The home video market is where the family fare makes most of its money, but even if you look only at box office revenue, G-rated movies still outperform all others. As you move up the ratings scale from G to R, movies make less money the more sex and violence they contain. PG movies make more money than those with a PG-13 rating, and they in turn make more than R-rated films. According to Sirico, "This bears repeating: Family movies are the biggest moneymakers."
Presumably there are more people in families who watch these movies together than there are those who would like to see more sex and violence. So what this story tells us is that the market is determining who the winners are. That's a good thing. Families are voting for family oriented fare and they're driving profits towards those productions that fill the bill. Government has had nothing to do with the strong performance of G and PG rated films. Film-goers, on the other hand, have.
I also agree with Drew that Hollywood in dominated by leftists. (Incidentally, I appreciate you labeling them "leftists" instead of "liberals." To me, there is a big difference) I think that almost everybody would agree. Some say that's good, some say it's bad. I say it's what it is. I have more faith in the profit motive. I think that if Hollywood found out that they could make more money showing tape loops of stars going to church they would do it.
There has always, and will always be those who wish to incite, shock and titillate for the sake of doing it. Most are charlatans and usually enjoy a short flirtation with fame before retiring to car shows and late night shopping channels. I contend that Hollywood's problem isn't so much an issue of politics as that of a dearth of talent and creativity. That said, some films that contain violence or sex have actually been worth the ticket price. I would miss Saving Private Ryan and Last Tango in Paris and I don't think that they're unworthy because they were made by liberals. I suspect that you don't, either.
I think I understand how some of my fellow citizens feel that their values and families are under attack. At least I hope that I do. And I feel it is your right and responsibility to speak to anything that provokes you. But who in fact gets to define decency? Isn't that subjective? I just don't trust the government in areas that you rightly point out are difficult to define.
Thanks, Drew, for taking the time and energy to have an opinion. I enjoy the back-and-forth and look forward to many more conversations in the future.
Comments