Why the Federal Communications Commission is wrong to recommend regulating violence on TV.
the FCC issued a report last week on "violent television programming and its impact on children" that calls not just for expanding governmental oversight of broadcast TV but extending content regulation to cable and satellite channels for the first time.
Despite its sober tone, the study rests on the demonstrably false idea that violent TV breeds violence in reality, and it also fails to take seriously the vast increase in child-friendly programming and parent-empowering viewing tools.
If fantasy violence translates readily into its real-world counterpart, then why have juvenile violent crime arrests dropped steadily for 12 years? The same trend is true for violent crime among the larger population. There seems little question that depictions of violence in media have become more frequent and more graphic since 1994. If Adelstein's thesis were true, the facts on the ground would be otherwise.
The ultimate goal of the report is not simply to empower parents who worry about what's on TV in their house but to change "the media landscape outside our homes" and to increase "the amount of family-friendly, uplifting and nonviolent programming being produced."
It's safe to say that when a quartet of do-gooder, pizza-chomping cartoon reptiles has become a predicate for federal regulation, American governance has gone seriously off the rails. More to the point, the FCC seems to be wholly unaware that, in recent years, cable TV has become jampacked with channels dedicated to the sort of fare Tate demands. Cartoon Network, Disney Kids and others devote most or all of their hours to kid-friendly culture.
At the same time, parents have gained unprecedented control over the tube. Since 2000, all new TV sets have come equipped with a government-mandated "V-chip," which allows parents to automatically block specific programs based on violence, language or sexual content ratings. The typical TV or cable/satellite box includes other controls as well that allow the blocking of channels and restrict access to the set. And, of course, all TVs come with an on/off switch.
Tuesday, May 08, 2007
Toward a Federal Shield Law
When the subject of a journalists’ shield law comes up in Congress, as it has this week, the issue is often framed as an attempt by reporters to give themselves special privileges to the detriment of criminal investigations and even national security.
A shield law does protect journalists. But the real benefit for society is that it protects sources, allowing whistle-blowers or other insiders to expose wrongdoing in government and the private sector. The information they provide is vital to the public’s ability to know what government and businesses are doing and to make informed judgments.
Yesterday, six members of Congress introduced a new, balanced and bipartisan bill that would allow a reporter to protect the identity of a confidential source in most circumstances. The measure, the Free Flow of Information Act of 2007, is supported by dozens of media companies.
It is not a blank check. The bill would set reasonable criteria that would have to be met before unpublished information could be subpoenaed from reporters in a federal criminal or civil matter. Prosecutors would have to show that they had exhausted alternative sources before demanding information. They would need to show that the sought-after material was relevant and critical to proving a case, and that the public interest in requiring disclosure would outweigh the public interest in news gathering. The bill has strong protections for confidential sources but would permit disclosure to avoid “imminent and actual harm” to national security.
The only thing a federal shield law would threaten is the administration’s ability to make policy in secret. This measure of protection is long overdue.
A shield law does protect journalists. But the real benefit for society is that it protects sources, allowing whistle-blowers or other insiders to expose wrongdoing in government and the private sector. The information they provide is vital to the public’s ability to know what government and businesses are doing and to make informed judgments.
Yesterday, six members of Congress introduced a new, balanced and bipartisan bill that would allow a reporter to protect the identity of a confidential source in most circumstances. The measure, the Free Flow of Information Act of 2007, is supported by dozens of media companies.
It is not a blank check. The bill would set reasonable criteria that would have to be met before unpublished information could be subpoenaed from reporters in a federal criminal or civil matter. Prosecutors would have to show that they had exhausted alternative sources before demanding information. They would need to show that the sought-after material was relevant and critical to proving a case, and that the public interest in requiring disclosure would outweigh the public interest in news gathering. The bill has strong protections for confidential sources but would permit disclosure to avoid “imminent and actual harm” to national security.
The only thing a federal shield law would threaten is the administration’s ability to make policy in secret. This measure of protection is long overdue.
Medicare Privatization Abuses
It seems that outrageously high government subsidies aren’t enough to satisfy the private plans that participate in Medicare. Some of these Medicare Advantage plans have been caught using hard-sell tactics to pressure elderly Americans into signing up for policies that may leave them worse off than they would be with traditional Medicare coverage. The unscrupulous sales pressure is one more argument for removing the subsidies that are the only crutch allowing many of these plans to survive.
The abusive sales tactics are particularly egregious among the private fee-for-service plans. These plans receive the highest subsidies and do the least to earn them among the array of private offerings available for Medicare recipients.
State officials are investigating a range of sales abuses. In Georgia, two insurance agents were arrested and accused of signing up unwilling consumers; one beneficiary said her signature was forged by a door-to-door salesman. In North Carolina, the insurance commissioner is investigating complaints that agents switched residents of an assisted-living facility from traditional Medicare into private plans without their permission. At least five other states are investigating complaints about sales tactics.
Defenders of the private fee-for-service plans argue that they often provide better benefits or charge beneficiaries less than traditional Medicare does, a feat they are able to accomplish thanks to their huge subsidies. That is often true, but not always. Some beneficiaries have found that their doctors won’t accept patients enrolled in private fee-for-service plans. Others have been shocked to be hit with much higher co-payments than under traditional Medicare — as much as $100 a day for the first 20 days in a skilled nursing facility for which no co-payment would have been charged under traditional Medicare.
Congress needs to ensure that such abuses do not continue. And it should eliminate these lavish subsidies.
The abusive sales tactics are particularly egregious among the private fee-for-service plans. These plans receive the highest subsidies and do the least to earn them among the array of private offerings available for Medicare recipients.
State officials are investigating a range of sales abuses. In Georgia, two insurance agents were arrested and accused of signing up unwilling consumers; one beneficiary said her signature was forged by a door-to-door salesman. In North Carolina, the insurance commissioner is investigating complaints that agents switched residents of an assisted-living facility from traditional Medicare into private plans without their permission. At least five other states are investigating complaints about sales tactics.
Defenders of the private fee-for-service plans argue that they often provide better benefits or charge beneficiaries less than traditional Medicare does, a feat they are able to accomplish thanks to their huge subsidies. That is often true, but not always. Some beneficiaries have found that their doctors won’t accept patients enrolled in private fee-for-service plans. Others have been shocked to be hit with much higher co-payments than under traditional Medicare — as much as $100 a day for the first 20 days in a skilled nursing facility for which no co-payment would have been charged under traditional Medicare.
Congress needs to ensure that such abuses do not continue. And it should eliminate these lavish subsidies.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
