The U.S. Vs. Jack Bauer

It always seems laughable when these politicians try to regulate TV when kids can find anything they want on the internet. I've got news for you, Senator -- while you're busy trying to make television safer, your son's playing online poker and downloading porn and your daughter set up a profile on eHarmony.

Anyways, I thought this was the most interesting tidbit from that story:

"Among the chief recommendations was requiring the cable television industry to offer programs on an 'a la carte' basis, something FCC Chairman Kevin Martin has long supported. Such a system would allow parents to avoid paying for and receiving channels that contain content they find objectionable."

Is this even a possibility? It seems like a lot of people make a lot of money because we're willing to pay 100 bucks a month for mostly channels we don't watch.

@BeerBaron,

It's a possibility, theoretically, if not a likelihood. It's actually one area in which I agree with the PTC and FCC, at least in principle:

http://time-blog.com/tuned_in/2005/11/bustin_up_cable_the_decency_po.html

although I have qualms about requiring a la carte through government regulation. On the one hand, I think the market should drive changes like this. On the other hand, I think that the market would have already demanded this change (for reasons like yours) if not for the fact that cable is often a regional monopoly, or at least something close to it.

You'll probably see things differently when Thomas the Tank Engine shows up as a Special Guest Star on 24 next season...

**************

"Is this even a possibility? It seems like a lot of people make a lot of money because we're willing to pay 100 bucks a month for mostly channels we don't watch."

technologically, its easy. Politically, its a lot tougher, because the religious right doesn't want people to be able to get rid of the channels where they beg for money.

Personally, it bugs the crap out of me that part of my cable fees go to stations like FauxNews -- (Fauxnews gets an average of 17 cents for each subscriber to the cable companies.) And I don't watch sports, yet I'm still paying for a bunch of sports stations (ESPN alone charges cable companies an average of $1.81 per subscriber).

Oh, and the cable companies now have a new way to rip you off.... if you want to change your service, Comcast now charges you $2 for doing so. (I recently dropped all my premium channels...and was really annoyed that I was CHARGED because I decided not to buy something from Comcast anymore. )

TV is for adults. Kids should not be watching television, playing video games, watching movies, or using the internet. Kids should participate in sports, board games, and read books for entertainment. Electronic entertainment is for adults only.

I plan on writing letters to my congressman and senator to get a law that bans these forms of entetainment for children.

Are you kidding me? TV has always appealed to the younger audiences. Gee, here's an idea, how about the parents stop using the damn television to keep their kids entertained during the day, and maybe, just maybe, they won't see as much violence.

Maybe Adults should be looking at the amount of TV, Video Games and movies they are watching. they should get outside with the kids in the backyard around the garden shed and start getting some excercise.

"Maybe Adults...should get outside with the kids in the backyard around the garden shed and start getting some excercise."

Forget that!

I'm not going outside to play with my kids when I can be in the house with the AC on watching movies, TV shows, playing video games, and surfing the internet. Electronic entertainment is for us adults. Let the kiddies sweat and get dirty outside. My life requires that I consume at least 6 hours of electronic entertainment a day. Anything less leaves me irritable and cranky.

Kids have to find their own source of enjoyment away from parents. Parents work all day and they need to be able to relax with electronic entertainment until they are content. Kids get irritating when they watch TV with adults. That is why kids should only be allowed to watch TV on the weekeends.

Us adults need to take back the airwaves from these silly "family shows" because they take away time from true adult-oriented material. Shows that have sex and violence are not the problem. It is the nosy and gullible kids who view these shows and imitate them that are the problem. Kids need to be focused on sports, board games, books, studying, and maybe some phone conversation. But definitely not TV, internet, movies, or video games. These things are only for adults!

"I'm a parent of two children, but that doesn't mean my interests or preferences should dictate what other people, or their kids, should get to see on TV."

Here, here! You chose to have kids, and now it's up to you to oversee their TV viewing. I hear there's this amazing new technology called a V chip that parents can buy. But, no--better to limit the choices of all of society.

I heard the head of PTC (a liberal)on NPR recently (http://www.onthemedia.org/transcripts/2007/06/08/06), saying that his views changed once he had kids: "As a father of a 9-year-old daughter, it became abundantly apparent to me several years ago just how impactful the media was on small children, regardless of how diligent a parent is at protecting what their children are watching." Fine, but why should the rest of us have to suffer the consequences of that?

He also claimed that "there are 20 million households that do not subscribe to cable because they don't want to have that kind of material coming into their home." I was curious how he'd managed to quiz them all on their motivation. I'd have thought that it was the cost that was a deterrent--silly me.

Thanks James for another excellent write-up. This issue is ridiculous to me. Parents need to either "protect" their kids from so-called "harmful" material, find them positive outlets for their time an energy, or consume and discuss media alongside their child so that they can help their child(ren) develop a critical awareness of what's going on around them. The government needs to stay the "heck" out of my living room (as well as my car and my emails). And parents need to take responsibility for raising their kids right, and stop trying to blame the media for what is really a childcare crisis in the country - tons of parents both have to work to afford to take care of their kids, and so they are tired and busy when they get to their kids. Economics are definitely not supportive of a nurturing family life with present parents. So I know that many parents are trying their hardest to take care of their kids, and that media is really prevalent in our culture. But that situation definitely does NOT warrant government control/regulation over the airwaves. I am not interested in the government engaging in any sort of "thought control" where they limit what people are exposed to in order to try and control what they do. And, like someone up there (maybe James) said, the links between what kids watch and what they do have yet to even be effectively made, so this is both an ill-conceived and a presumptious (sp?) move, even for authoritarians!

On a side note, though, I certainly wouldn't mind a new way of buying television networks - I don't have cable at all now, but I could certainly choose a handful of channels that do appeal to me, and not worry about having two hundred or three hundred others that I never watch. That sounds pretty reasonable. . .

Agee with you, kids should be out playing. Not inside watching TV