Cynical Nation

F the children!

As I said of the Imus thing, so I say of this one: the media is very responsive to the marketplace and media is one of the places that should definitely be left to the marketplace to decide what is and isn't acceptable. The reason there are a million cop and doctor shows on the air is that they attract an audience. The reason there are violent programs is that they attract an audience. If parents are concerned, then let the parents control it. Government is good at regulating threats to the public health, but controlling the images we, or anyone, see is not an appropriate use of government. That goes for violence, Janet Jackson's tit, and those awful Japanese cartoons on Nickelodeon (though I loved the movie Tonari No Totoro (My Neighbor Totoro), which was as sweet and charming as anything imaginable, and reminded me very much of the film In America).

As a parent, I'm more concerned about some of the commercials that are shown during so-called "family friendly" shows and time slots. And it happens too often to be just a programming mistake.

Like when networks show ads for the shows coming on later, like gory teasers for CSI or a provacative scene from another show during the "family" programming. I mean, come on already, a v-chip isn't going to protect against that. And the networks obviously do it on purpose.

Here's the bottom line.

No one is compelled to own a TV. Buying one is your own damn decision, and whatever particular variety (cable, broadcast, satellite) you decide on, it is no one's choice but your own.

Why the hell do we even need FCC regulations, like, at ALL? If parents are so concerned with the stuff on TV then they can go without. If they aren't, then this is just a case of goddam conservatives getting into intrusive government because they've realized how fun a tool for moralizing it is.

Adam, you may feel differently when you have kids.

My son is now almost 36 and is truly the light of my life.

When he was an adolescent, we limited his TV (pre-internet) to 2 Hrs during school days with Saturday morning allowed.

As to discipline, it really is up to us, not the government or the kids. I hated getting phone calls from his friends who disregarded the etiquette I was brought up on.

I warned him that if, after a week of warnings to his pals and girlfriends, I received any call call that started "Can I speak to Steve? or "Is Steve there?"" without even acknowledging who I was or identifying who was calling would be a goner.

Steve didn't believe I would just say "No" and hang up.

Steve was wrong.

His friends got the message very fast.

I don't know if TV is more or less violent or sexual than when I was growing up. I got to see probably a hundred thousand killings on TV as a child. Hell, there used to be a real market for war shows (anyone else remember The Rat Patrol? Now THAT was television!) Now we get lots of doctor and cop shows on TV, and the children's programming is sooo mild compared to when I was a kid. I have no idea why, but whenever anyone wants to blame something, they blame television for violence among children. They don't blame poor nutrition for the poor quality of education, even though I know teachers who will tell you that, in poor areas, kids have a harder time concentrating and doing their work because they are eating garbage instead of nutritious foods. They don't tell you that a culture of violence is to blame for violence. Heaven forbid they say anything about the easy availability of guns! Nope. It's TV. Johnny can't read because of TV. Suzy hits her sister because of TV. And if Janet Jackson's saggy, forty-something tit pops out and is seen by a child in Oshkosh the world falls in.

I think we need far less protection from television and far better standards for parenting is what I think. If we force TV to do anything, make the networks produce quality programming regarding nutrition and health and conflict resolution, then let the fantasy shows have at it with their stupid crap.

By the way, Heroes was excellent last night.

Adam: "Why the hell do we even need FCC regulations, like, at ALL? If parents are so concerned with the stuff on TV then they can go without. If they aren't, then this is just a case of goddam conservatives getting into intrusive government because they've realized how fun a tool for moralizing it is."

First of all, most of what the FCC does is technical regulation. By "most" I mean like 95% of what the FCC does is regulate broadcast operations and engineering. You think of the FCC as a morals regulator because that's what makes the headlines.

Second, the FCC doesn't actually police morals; they enforce civil law related to broadcast communications. If congress enacts legislation saying that programming content must be properly labeled, then the FCC is obligated to enforce that legislation. If you have a complaint about that, you need to take it up with your congress-person.

Contrary to press reports, the FCC doesn't really care much about Janet Jackson's boob or Howard Stern's scatology. However, if CBS says there will be no bare boob in their Superbowl half-time show, then they are legally obligated to honor that statement because there are, in effect, labeling laws for program content, and viewers have a legal right to rely on that labeling to decide what they want to watch.

Similarly, Howard Stern can say or do whatever he wants, but not on broadcast radio spectrum programming. Since 1934 the holders of broadcast radio licenses have agreed that their program content will be "suitable" for anyone who might accidently tune into their broadcast frequencies. Again, Howard can be as gross as he wants on any broadcast medium that requires a decoder and subscription. These are not difficult rules to follow.

You have the right to watch or listen to anything you want, but you don't have the right to have anything you want to watch or listen to delivered to you on the public airwaves. Why is that a problem in an age of cable, direct satellite, podcast and readily accessible optical (e.g. CD, DVD) media?

Adam, you may feel differently when you have kids.

Or, I might just not own a TV. We could have one for DVDs or something and choose not to get any service. It's not like that would be a devastating loss.

Second, the FCC doesn't actually police morals; they enforce civil law related to broadcast communications. If congress enacts legislation saying that programming content must be properly labeled, then the FCC is obligated to enforce that legislation. If you have a complaint about that, you need to take it up with your congress-person.

I need do no such thing. I'm well aware of the fact that the FCC is an administrative body and not a legislative one--I simply asserted that there was no need at all for these regulations.

Am I allowed to make that criticism, or should every debate about the law be forgone in favor of "taking it up" with our "congress-person"? :p

Similarly, Howard Stern can say or do whatever he wants, but not on broadcast radio spectrum programming. Since 1934 the holders of broadcast radio licenses have agreed that their program content will be "suitable" for anyone who might accidently tune into their broadcast frequencies.

My point is precisely that there shouldn't be said "agreement" as a prerequisite for holding a broadcast license. It constitutes the regulation of expression in a private industry.

My feeling is that the right to broadcast on a given frequency ought to be treated no differently than any other property right. It shouldn't be about "licensing" like you do with a car, it should be about ownership like you do with land.

What possible justification can there be for Congress to set up a bunch of arbitrary agreements on how to use a particular medium? It would be like requiring a license to blog, and instituting the same fines and penalties that have been made a part of broadcast.

You have the right to watch or listen to anything you want, but you don't have the right to have anything you want to watch or listen to delivered to you on the public airwaves.

Phrases like "public airwaves" are thrown around with so many assumptions just sort of ingrained and never addressed. How is broadcasting over a particular airwave any more a "public" matter than determining property rights for the ownership of land? Is land any less "public"? If so, then why?

No, I personally find all of this indefensible. You ask why this is a problem when other mediums are readily available--well these regulations existed long before the new mediums, and so historically have far more effectively restricted what could be said than they do now.

My belief is that the prevalence of alternatives now does not make these regulations any more justified than they were originally.

"How is broadcasting over a particular airwave any more a "public" matter than determining property rights for the ownership of land? Is land any less "public"? If so, then why?" (Adam)


Actually, there is no "private ownership" of the airwaves, Adam. The government merely leases use rights and holds the right to rescind that lease if leasees don't hold to certain standards.

The reason given for that is that there are only a limited number of broadcast bands and the government has the right to regulate those finite bands for "fair use."

The argument that "they should be completely "privately owned" is a very different agrument than who regulates them - NOT the FCC, but as WF said - Congress.

The FCC, like the IRS, the FDA, etc., only do what Congress directs them too.

Adam: "Phrases like "public airwaves" are thrown around with so many assumptions just sort of ingrained and never addressed. How is broadcasting over a particular airwave any more a "public" matter than determining property rights for the ownership of land? Is land any less "public"? If so, then why?"

Because broadcast spectrum is a constrained resource and programming "channels" within that spectrum is prohibitively expensive.

Broadcast spectrum must be regulated for technical reasons or the use of the spectrum would be practically impossible. That makes it a "public" matter and very, very different from land ownership or blog licensing. A better analogy would public roads and highways. Speed limits are arguable, but I think you will agree that everybody has to travel in the same direction in each lane.

The reason for content regulation may be a little less obvious, but it is no less real. The cost of producing and broadcasting programming is so expensive that it can only be done by entities with substantial resources.

The purpose of content regulation is actually to constrain natural monopolies that arise in broadcasting. The only practical way to accomplish that is by codifying "community standards." That is: Broadcasters are required to provide what the public wants to hear and see on their airwaves.

Your historical perspective is completely backwards. Community standards were particularly needed when technical and practical constraints meant that most Americans were limited to three broadcast television choices (plus, an additional one or two regional choices in a few metropolitan areas) and five or six broadcast radio choices. In those days it was not reasonable to tell people to "change the channel" if they were offended.

Things have changed significantly now that technology now permits (practically) about two dozen broadcast television channels in most markets, as many as 100 (including AM and FM) radio channels, and hundreds of cable and satellite channels -- and the change in what is now considered acceptable on broadcast channels reflects that. You can now hear and see things on television (like David Caruso's ass on the first episode of NYPD Blue) that would have never been allowed only two decades ago.

Although the situation has improved dramatically in the last three decades, broadcast spectrum is still a constrained resource, prohibitively expensive to exploit and freely accessible by consensus. The choice isn't between regulation or no regulation, the choice is between regulation or non-existence.

Actually, there is no "private ownership" of the airwaves, Adam. The government merely leases use rights and holds the right to rescind that lease if leasees don't hold to certain standards.

I'm aware. I'm stating that this is a bad system.

The reason given for that is that there are only a limited number of broadcast bands and the government has the right to regulate those finite bands for "fair use."

There's only a limited amount of land and resources. By this logic, shouldn't congress regulate who owns anything by "fair use" standards?

Because broadcast spectrum is a constrained resource and programming "channels" within that spectrum is prohibitively expensive.

Everything is a constrained resource. To be otherwise, it would have to be infinite in abundance.

The market exists precisely because of scarcity. To argue that government is needed because something is scarce is absurd. To argue that it is needed because it is "prohibitively expensive" makes no sense--certainly, high entry costs will lead to a lower level of competition than otherwise. But where does the need for government enter this? There are high entry costs for entering the oil industry, does that mean that Congress should start deciding who should be allowed the opportunity in the first place?

Broadcast spectrum must be regulated for technical reasons or the use of the spectrum would be practically impossible. That makes it a "public" matter and very, very different from land ownership or blog licensing.

I disagree. If you build a house on your land, and then someone comes and tries to build something else without your consent, then it becomes a matter of property rights.

Likewise, if someone has the right to broadcast at a certain frequency, then interference by someone else would constitute an infringement of property rights (although I'll confess that I may be way off in my understanding of the technical stuff here)

That is: Broadcasters are required to provide what the public wants to hear and see on their airwaves.

Mind explaining to me how the arbitrary standards of a few congressmen have anything to do with "what the public wants to hear and see"?

That faceless, anonymous "public" of which you speak can determine what it wants to see for itself--by deciding how to spend its money. If what broadcast TV has to offer doesn't compensate for the cost of what one's children might see, then one can simply opt out of it entirely.

Likewise, the market is already helping people have some say over "what they want to see and hear" through devices such as parental controls and digital recording devices.

Community standards were particularly needed when technical and practical constraints meant that most Americans were limited to three broadcast television choices (plus, an additional one or two regional choices in a few metropolitan areas) and five or six broadcast radio choices. In those days it was not reasonable to tell people to "change the channel" if they were offended.

You speak of "community standards" as if a federally imposed regulation is in any way a decision of a particular community. What if the people in a little Maryland town want to be given the choice of seeing what the people in New York City tend to oppose?

With federal guidelines there is no compromise. In the market, there is.

Moreover, you talk about things as if they were static. Sure, people only had a few alternatives available to them. But the high profits of an industry with low competition is a big incentive for companies to find a way to get the foot in the door.

One way of doing that would be to lower entry costs by refining the technology.

In a free market situation it would depend upon your ability to pay the costs of getting in, as well as provide something that attracted enough consumers to make a profit.

Under government regulations, insofar as they go beyond the basic right to broadcast on a certain frequency without interference, all they do is make it more difficult for potential competitors to enter to market. The "natural monopoly" justification is a self-fulfilling prophecy.

The choice isn't between regulation or no regulation, the choice is between regulation or non-existence.

I would argue that this is not at all the case where content is concerned.

Adam, I almost don't know how to respond to you. There's some essential stuff that you're just missing. "Constrained" is not a synonym for "scarce." It has a specific meaning that does not apply to land or houses. As you yourself admitted, you are way off on the technical stuff. I assure you that broadcast frequency is not the only constraint on delivering a signal to a consumer receiver.

Frankly I don't have the time or inclination to even go into such rudimentary concepts as wave shaping and band packing. It's not simply a matter of frequency interference, every broadcaster in a given system (NTSC for the U.S. and Canada) has to cooperate in order for signals to be reliably delivered. And that doesn't even touch on industry standards for program production -- all of which is coordinated by the FCC to prevent a repeat of the Dumont fiasco in the early 1950s.

Prohibitively expensive also has a specific bearing on the broadcast industry. Local broadcast stations are relatively inexpensive to build or buy, that's not at issue. Establishing a national delivery system is now so expensive, that it would be virtually impossible to establish a new one (Fox and CW piggyback on existing facilities). This creates a natural monopoly (another term with a very specific meaning that you don't seem to grasp) that is not in the interest of broadcast consumers.

If the people of Maryland want to see something different from what the people of New York prefer, they have a number of options including direct (satellite) TV, a cable channel or an unaffiliated local channel. There constraints on what they could openly broadcast, because the U.S. uses an open channel (non-encoded) system. I don't think you are quite getting that concept.

You also don't seem to understand that the current open channel, commercial broadcast system in the U.S. was not imposed by the government, it was agreed upon by the broadcasters and public consensus. You have to admit, there is no clamor for more sex, nudity and scatological talk on broadcast television. If every programming regulation were removed tomorrow, I guarantee you that there would be little difference in what you see and here on broadcast TV and radio. The broadcasters know what their audiences want and what they want is pretty much what they are getting now.

It's not that your argument isn't cogent, it's that you don't seem to have bothered looking into the history or technical constraints of broadcasting. Don't you wonder why the networks aren't lobbying for deregulation?

Prohibitively expensive also has a specific bearing on the broadcast industry. Local broadcast stations are relatively inexpensive to build or buy, that's not at issue. Establishing a national delivery system is now so expensive, that it would be virtually impossible to establish a new one (Fox and CW piggyback on existing facilities). This creates a natural monopoly (another term with a very specific meaning that you don't seem to grasp) that is not in the interest of broadcast consumers.

this makes the very basic assumption that you need to promote national broadcasting.

Let the chips fall where they may, "natural monopoly" or not, and if the national broadcasters don't meet people's standards, then they can just turn to their local ones for the majority of their entertainment.

If the people of Maryland want to see something different from what the people of New York prefer, they have a number of options including direct (satellite) TV, a cable channel or an unaffiliated local channel.

But what choice did they have back before those alternatives were available? During the time that you said that the need for government regulation was more pressing?

You also don't seem to understand that the current open channel, commercial broadcast system in the U.S. was not imposed by the government, it was agreed upon by the broadcasters and public consensus.

We're not talking about the content-regulation any more, right? Because you'd have to explain to me how that was arrived at by "public consensus" (if such a thing indeed exists).

It's not that your argument isn't cogent, it's that you don't seem to have bothered looking into the history or technical constraints of broadcasting. Don't you wonder why the networks aren't lobbying for deregulation?

I admit to ignorance on the technical aspects of broadcasting, and I'll stop making those sloppy attempts to address broadcast interference when it's rather obvious I've no clue what I'm talking about :D

But economics is my field of interest, and the "natural monopoly" argument is something that I frankly do not buy, particularly for a media outlet.

As for why the networks don't lobby for deregulation--I would say that it's the same reason a labor union wouldn't lobby to get rid of minimum wages.

It's because the established forces are the ones that have the most to lose by deregulation; what regulation does is increase the costs of being in an industry. Within limits, regulations benefit the networks because it gives them yet another edge over those who haven't already paid off the entry costs to the industry.

Adam, you are ignoring history. We know exactly what locally based programming will look like: Cheesey and boring. And have you given any thought to news reporting? Do you think every -- or any -- local station will be able to cover national let alone international news on its own?

Your argument on the people of Maryland is puzzling to me. In the 1950s and 60s (let's stick to television for a moment) there is little doubt that the vast majority of viewers were quite satisfied with the choices they were being offered. There is little or no change that any local television station would have offered anything other than what the mainstream wanted to see even if the industry was completely free of regulation. That station would have gone out of business almost immediately with little or no ad revenue. In the 1960s it was encoded, over-the-air subscription TV was offered in some markets and it was a failure.

The public consensus regarding content is pretty clear: The public watches what it wants to watch, and when the public is offended by something, they have never hesitated to flood both the offender and the FCC with angry letters and phone calls (and telegrams if you are old enough to remember those). The networks themselves constantly push the envelope by adding words, "adult situations" and themes to programming to see what will cause their viewers (and the FCC) to push back. NYPD Blue's pilot episode was a very conscious effort to determine just how far the public and the FCC was willing to let ABC go in opening up later hours on the schedule. The response was so decisive that it changed programming for every network.

The reason the networks don't object to content regulation is because it has no effect on their business. The networks are all distributing exactly the kind of shows that the advertisers (the true customers in commercial television) want which in turn are reaching the audience that the advertisers want. Everybody in the industry likes the regulations just the way they are because they provide a level and lucrative playing field. The vast majority of viewers are clearly satisfied with the regulations or they would be clamoring for change -- and that clamor is nowhere to be found.

It's hard to see how regulations gives the networks "yet another edge over those who haven't already paid off the entry costs to the industry." In order for radio band broadcasting to work at all, everyone must coordinate their efforts. Regardless of cost, there is practically no possibility that, for example, a European upstart could initiate a rival PAL network because every television set in North America is NTSC compatible. No amount of deregulation is going to change that.

I don't understand how you can say that you don't buy the "natural monopoly" argument. You've already conceeded that even if networks were to be completely eliminated, natural monopolies would exist in local markets because of technical constraints.

The way I'd envision de-regulation and a REAL private ownership of the airwaves workig would be with the rich (hopefully folks more like Rupert Murdoch, than Ted Turner) controlling those airwaves.

Most of the current regulations have been put in place to regulate those with the resources to lease those airwaves, from delivering their own social, economic, political, etc., agendas unfettered.

Now I think private ownership could work and actually be, to the good.

People like Murdoch and even Turner, etc., have a "vision," while the "rabble" (the bulk of "the people") have merely momentary wants and desires - nothing at all wrong with that. Vision doesn't make a person happy, but feeding wants & desires often does.

For instance, I'd like to see the Left-wing viewpoint shown in its proper perspective - about 16% of the news media, in line with their 16% of the population.

I believe it's the viewpoints, not the "violence," or the "sexuality" that most people have a rightful complaint over, regarding the broadcast medium.

Now, I've been called a "deluded workingman," who "wrongly believes that Capitalism is in his best interests."

But I've been able to earn about 75% of what I earn in income from investments the past decade or so and hope to one day soon, earn more from investing than I do from work-income.

What's more, and I have nothing much to base this on (since I don't go around asking people), I don't think I'm at all unusual for a contemporary worker. I do notice an awful lot of "regular people" studying stocks, etc.

So, in my experience, the more free and open the markets, the better off working people are.

Similarly, a heavilly regulated, semi-closed market is GREAT (not just good, but great) for those who're already rich. It cements their position in place by making it harder for newer, hungrier, more competitive enterprises to enter the marketplace via a maze of government regulation.

Hmmmmm, now THAT would be something I'd legitimately worry about - if those with the means to buy the airwaves all shared that common pro-regulation, often pro-socialist viewpoint that most wealthy people share?

OK, now that would NOT be good for America's working people and especially not particularly good for its investing class either.

Yes, that would indeed be worrisome.

I'm of two minds on this, I'd say I'm more concerned with the "right" (no pun intended) kind of people owning those airwaves, more than anything else.

JMK, One option would be to model radio spectrum broadcasting after the cable industry in which there is a fairly strict delineation between distribution and origination. The networks could become distributors of signal reselling bandwidth to independant content originators.

That sounds like a good idea, WF.

Still, I think no matter how such things are delineated, you're always going to have the problem of some people being unhappy about the make-up &/or the content of the media.

I guess I'm sort of funny in that old fashioned way, in that I find Liberal views, when voiced by extremely wealthy people to be....well, at least not that offensive...I mean, at least they're sticking up for their own self-interest. It's like them saying, "We got here foist and we don't want any a you two-bit also rans in the mix, so our pal government here is gonna keep you guys out of the market."

Much as I dislike that kind of overt denial of opportunity and the "me first" ethic it espouses, I have to admire people who stand up for their own naked self-interest above all else.

However, I do find it obscene, not just "offensive," but literally obscene (I know it when I see it) when regular, working people, especially teachers and College professors (and others who should know better), spouting those same Liberal views, not merely because it's such an obvious sell-out on their parts, but because it seems that some of these folks seem convinced that if they lick enough boots they'll derive some tawdry benefit for themselves.

And that's why no one will ever be happy with the way such things are parceled out. Many folks, like myself, have always had a huge problem with the sachrin-Liberal domination of both the MSM and the education establishment, while others have equally legitimate problems with other content (smut, violence, etc).

I just kind of find it ironic that so many self-proclaimed Liberals, who feel that, "People who find the entertainment industry too violent or inappropriately sexualized should opt not to own TVs," feel that inocuous venues like FoxNews and Talk Radio (venues that merely reflect a majority viewpoint) are doing some kind of "harm," and thus should, for some odd reason, be put off the air.

In their case, they don't even have to opt not to own TVs....if you revile FoxNews and Talk Radio, merely tune in another station or turn the dial...to Sports Talk.

Adam, you are ignoring history. We know exactly what locally based programming will look like: Cheesey and boring. And have you given any thought to news reporting? Do you think every -- or any -- local station will be able to cover national let alone international news on its own?

Both of these statements can be boiled down to value calls on your own. You are saying, in essence, that you don't like local programming, and you feel that national news stations are necessary.

I don't much like reality television, but that doesn't mean that I would argue for regulations that would favor competitors to the genre.

As for national news, I find that hardly a compelling reason to prop up an industry. If people want to get their news, and it isn't cost-effective to provide it over broadcast, they have always had the option of getting it through the printed word.

Moreover, the quality of the information that has been provided by the news is one that I would question; but that's another discussion.

In the 1950s and 60s (let's stick to television for a moment) there is little doubt that the vast majority of viewers were quite satisfied with the choices they were being offered

Well, I suppose that if you do not doubt that there was any deviation in how millions of people felt on the matter, then that's good enough for me.

There is little or no change that any local television station would have offered anything other than what the mainstream wanted to see even if the industry was completely free of regulation.

Again, you seem to be arguing by blunt assertions that you cannot substantiate. I believe that you believe these things, but that's hardly persuasive.

The public consensus regarding content is pretty clear: The public watches what it wants to watch, and when the public is offended by something, they have never hesitated to flood both the offender and the FCC with angry letters and phone calls

I doubt that the minority of the population that engages in this activity constitutes a representative sample.

If a small group of Firefly fans floods the Fox mailbox with demands, do they represent the "public consensus"?

The vast majority of viewers are clearly satisfied with the regulations or they would be clamoring for change -- and that clamor is nowhere to be found.

What exactly would constitute a "clamor"?

I don't understand how you can say that you don't buy the "natural monopoly" argument. You've already conceeded that even if networks were to be completely eliminated, natural monopolies would exist in local markets because of technical constraints.

What I'm saying is that I don't buy it as justification for content regulation. Of course there has to be the technical regulation; as you say and as I admit, broadcast could not exist without it.

But so there will be a natural monopoly--or better put, a limited number of competitors in the industry at a given moment due to the constraints of the technology.

So what?

This isn't something like a road or a subway--you don't need broadcast to get to work or feed your kids or even, ultimately, to be entertained or informed.

You don't need to bend the will of the broadcast networks to whatever legislators decide constitutes the invisible "public consensus" of the moment, because people can decide for themselves whether or not they want to watch particular shows, channels, or even to own a television at all.

I don't understand this being a Liberal/Conservative issue.

It was Al & Tipper Gore who led the initial charge in lyric labeling back in the 1980s.

Some religious Conservative groups like Focus on the Family and The Family Research Council have joined in on supporting broadcast "decency" standards.

Liberal groups are engaging in one of the most offensive, ideologically based campaigns of content regulation via the "Fairness Doctrine."

I don't see where there' any way to support one, withoput supporting the others and likewise opposing one, without opposing all those attempts at content regulation.

I don't think people realize how little impact the FCC has on what you watch on television. The major driver -- and I mean 95% or more -- of what you see on commercial television is what the customers -- i.e. the advertisers -- want to have surrounding their ads. That, in turn is driven by what will attract the largest, most receptive audience.

If audiences change their minds about what they want to see on television, the advertisers will follow them, dragging the networks and local broadcasters along behind, and Congress will accomodate with a new mandate to the FCC. There is just no evidence that audiences want anything different from what they are getting now.

If audiences change their minds about what they want to see on television, the advertisers will follow them

With blunt instruments of measurement like the Nielson ratings, I have a hard time believing that advertisers are really all that responsive to shifts in consumer behavior.

After all, if I stop watching certain shows, there's really no way for them to know at all--is there? Unless I've misunderstood their method of approximation