Congress cuts through the noise
Posted at 2:59 PM on September 30, 2010
by Bob Collins
(12 Comments)
Filed under: Politics, Tech
Do-nothing Congress? We'll just see about that.
The Senate has passed a bill turning down the volume of TV commercials.
The Commercial Advertisement Loudness Mitigation Act -- get it? -- requires broadcasters to turn the volume of commercials down.
But, wait, there's more! It also permits the FCC to grant a waiver for one year if a broadcast station, cable operator, or other multichannel video programming distributor could demonstrate a financial hardship. Because we all know the financial hardship of turning the volume down.
"I think there is a certain contract when one decides to watch broadcast television that you're going to be sold stuff in annoying ways," Robert Thompson, director of the Bleier Center for Television and Popular Culture at Syracuse University, told the Los Angeles Times when the bill passed the House almost a year ago.
Comments (12)
How dare broadcasters decide on how they are going to provide their service! Thank you government for stepping in where we, the humble populace, were helpless. Next if govt could also stop the broadcasters from also airing commercials (this includes sneaky little thanks to the Woods, MacArthur, or any other foundations) that are also annoying we could just enjoy TV as the free service provided by benevolent networks.
Television is not a service provided to viewers, it is sold to advertisers.
So how are you going to be reminded that you should have dragged yourself to bed a half hour ago? We could see a rash of people with stiff necks who fell alseep in Lazy Boy and were never waken up by the commercials.
Have we really become THAT lazy? We need a government act to turn down the volume on our TVs? Moving your finger on the remote too much effort? Can they pass an act that prevents the stations from putting my favorite shows on different networks so that I don't have to expend the effort to change channels also?
I think this is awesome! The government is supposed to enact laws based on the will and best interest of the electorate, and I would bet anything that the vast majority of people hate loud commercials. Personal responsibility kicks in when it concerns your own interest outside of the collective interest. This is clearly not the case here.
@Josh
It may be a majority opinion that loud commercials are annoying (I myself hold that view), but it is defiintely in our national interests to protect the rights of the minority over the rule of the majority. Rights have to be defended across the spectrum of people, even in unpopular minorites or they lose their status as rights and become priveleges granted by the government. In this case, we are limiting the rights of the TV networks and the companies that advertise with them by setting guidelines as to how they can exchange their own property. Not that either of these groups is typically downtrodden by the majority, but this further entrenches a horrible legal precendent.
A better solution to this problem would be if you, me, and everyone else stopped buying from companies that had commercials that were too loud. They would change their tune in a hurry.
The FCC used to have a regulation that absolutely forbade commercials to be louder than programming. The advertisers responded by artificially jacking up the volume (essentially every sound in a commercial was equally loud).
At some point in time our leaders decided that was unfair to advertisers, and that FCC reg went away.
This is not a matter of rights, this is about basic civility. Not everyone has a remote with a mute button, and noisy commercials can significantly degrade the quality of life in apartment buildings/condos. How many babies do you need to wake up, or peaceful slumbers have to be disrupted before an easily adjusted annoyance breaks the peace?
This *IS* a matter of rights. Commercials are a product sold to advertisers by networks, and that transaction would be protected if our lawmakers respected property rights and economic liberty. I'm not a fan of waking up sleeping babies, but if your neighbor has his TV up too loud, basic civility says he should turn it down for both the commercials and the programming too. You shouldn't have your TV up too loud for your neighbors, either. You are free to discuss with each other about sleeping hours of your respective families. That's civility.
We do not have a right to TV. We do not have a right to be protected from inconveniences. We have rights to life, liberty and to keep what we have legally earned, not because we have been given them by a document or a government but because we are human.
Why doesn’t some television manufacturer gain a competitive advantage by making an audio system that mutes loud signals? I’d pay a premium for that!
Some questions for Topher:
Do I have a right to a phone? Does that mean businesses have a right to call me at mealtime to sell me replacement windows?
Do I have a right to a mailing address? Does that mean I'm responsible for the 10 pounds of junk mail stuffed into it each week?
Do I have a right to a radio? Are my rights infringed when one company owns more stations than the next ten media moguls put together?
The airwaves are owned by the public, not advertisers. The mail is a government service, not a business subsidy. Actually, it is, but that's not my point. My point is that some things need to be regulated to work well.
Topher, do you object to traffic lights? Doesn't that infringe on your right to drive however you see fit?
Nobody's saying the advertisers can't advertise. They just cant blast the volume anymore. Big deal.
And to the "TV is not a free service" argument, that's true -- but what about cable? Wasn't the big selling point of cable that you paid for the service, so you didn't have to deal with ads? So much for THAT premise!
@Mark, these are fair questions. If you actually care about my response see below:
You do not have the right to a phone. You have the right to voluntarily exchange with others to get a phone, and you assume the benefits and drawbacks of this exchange if you choose to make it. However, if you have a cell phone, businesses do not have the right to call you unsolicited at anytime because you pay for the minutes.
Similarly, you do not have the right to a mailing address. Nobody is forcing you to have one at gunpoint. You should have the right to not subsidize junk mail delivery via your tax dollars, but exercising that right will land you in jail.
Nope, you don’t have a right to a radio either. You shouldn’t buy one if you think you’re not going to like anything on the airwaves. Since you don’t have a right to the radio, your rights are not infringed when clear channel buys the radio stations you like and makes them lame.
You have the right to travel, be it by car, pogo stick or hanglider, and not be impeded, and in exercising that right you assume risks in doing so. Other people also have rights to travel, and more basically, to life. You have the right to blow through red lights, but the moment you cause an accident in doing so you have violated other people’s more basic rights.
My point is that freedom of speech is the more basic right in this case. The FCC exists to defend it instead of violate it. By being ho-hum about this particular violation that works in our favor, we open the door to more.
You can, of course, simply not watch TV. Or - buy a Tivo-like product, record the shows, and simply skip over the commercials. awesome!
Topher has a good point about our economic rights. I disagree with some points, but people have concluded they have a "right" to something simply because we should all be equally allowed by buy/sell something.
How about exercising my right to *not* have a TV? :)
| September 2010 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | |||
| 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 |
| 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 |
| 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 |
| 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | ||
Master Archive
Recent Entries
- Foreclosures: Better but still not great
- Minnesota kid falls short in Geographic Bee, still a winner
- The best bee
- When the high school prank isn't so bad
- How to kill a wolf
- Is your appetite killing the ocean?
- Getting the Busy Signal
- Scotty beams up at last
- No small step
- Twins playoff odds? Still bad
Categories
- Add category
- Art or Eyesore?
- Arts
- Aviation
- Bridges and roads
- Coffeeshop Chronicles
- Crime and Justice
- Disasters
- Economy
- Energy
- Five by 8
- Floods
- Floods 2011
- Fresh Eye on the Radio (with Mary Lucia)
- Health
- History
- Icons
- Life
- Marketing and advertising
- Media
- Music
- News
- News Cut on Campus
- Northwest Airlines
- People doing good
- Politics
- Race
- Regional history
- Religion
- Schools
- Science
- Sports
- Surveys and trivia
- Tech
- The jobs we do
- The political conventions
- The Quiz
- The Unemployed series
- Things that are puzzling
- War
- Weather
- What's the Story Here?
- When people do good
- wildlife
- You Should Meet...
Services
In The Spotlight
-
Sound Learning
Looking for ways to ensure your students are doing quality research from credible sources? Sound Learning is a launching point to Minnesota Public Radio's content on the Web. -
The Current Music Blog
Your daily note for good music, news and pop culture. With attempted jokes.
- Become a Member
- Member Connect Accounts
- Leadership Circle
- Sustaining Members
- Member Discounts
- Become a Sponsor
- Tax Information
- Planned Giving
- Vehicle Donation
- Donate Stock