One recent Friday night at 9 p.m., one of the cable networks ran its new show, "Touching Evil." It is an Americanized redo of a popular British show of the same name, which had, in fact, been shown on the Public Broadcasting System’s "Mystery" series.
The recycled nature of "Touching Evil" is immediately evident. The program’s leading character is a sort of monk whose behavior patterns go well beyond quirky to that area where we might reasonably suspect mental impairment. The character, an FBI agent, has, in fact, had part of his brain removed as the result of surgery following a gunshot wound. And, as a result, he lacks certain human attributes, including such things as shame and fear.
The writers, perhaps to make up for the absence of shame and fear, have supplied a significant quantity of cliches. And in one of these we find the classic scene every cop show has to have where the local police are forced to cooperate with the arrogant federal agents. One of the local officers offers the opinion that one of the FBI guys couldn’t care less, although the language he uses is gutter talk.
And it is understandable why the producers of this used car of a show might believe they could acquire authenticity on the cheap, by substituting obscenity for good writing.
And the show first ran in the evening.
But then they ran the program again on Sunday morning. Granted, it is after 10 at night somewhere in this world, but this cable channel calls itself "USA" and it’s daylight, it’s morning, and it’s Sunday. Don’t these people have any shame? Or perhaps they have had part of their brains removed, too.
Luckily for them, of course, they don’t really have to worry about anyone calling to complain to the Federal Communications Commission. The law that authorizes the FCC to keep an eye on what television is throwing our way — and to penalize people if they break the rules on profanity, obscenity and the like — doesn’t cover cable television, just the public airwaves.
Even the new Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act of 2004, just passed by the U.S. House of Representatives in response to Janet Jackson’s wardrobe malfunction during the televised Super Bowl halftime show, applies only to broadcast radio and TV.
And this is where economics starts to enter the picture. There are two extremely large, interrelated markets involving television viewers: broadcast and cable.
And while the participants in the markets seem to understand just how closely related they are, our antiquated regulatory apparatus view them as if they were not just different animals but different species.
The FCC regulations that apply to cable television are focused not on content but on the traditional economics and competitive aspects of cable service providers — or, more accurately, on what little competition remains in these markets.
The regulatory attitude toward cable television is certainly understandable. Access to cable television programming is a private contractual matter, while broadcasting involves tossing stuff into the radio frequency spectrum, a limited resource with an obvious and longstanding public interest.
But when the economic ties between the cable and broadcast markets are so visible — the infamous Super Bowl halftime program, for example, was produced not by broadcaster CBS but by its affiliated cable organization, MTV — it makes little sense to treat them as entirely different. And even from a basic economics standpoint, when more than 70 percent of a market gets its access to television via cable, it is not reasonable to ignore that fact when attempting to regulate content.
While it remains true that the large broadcast networks — ABC, CBS and NBC — still command the largest ratings, they address most of their viewers today via cable hookups, not over the air. And, since the cable service providers force viewers to contract for packages of programs, that means that the unregulated programming — good, bad and whatever — is sitting there in people’s homes right next to the regulated product of the networks.
This makes no sense at all. Adm. Chester A. Nimitz, who commanded the U.S. Navy forces in the Pacific during World War II, once had some good advice for people placed in positions of responsibility. He said that, "when in command … Command." And it is time for Congress and the FCC, to recognize that "when you regulate … Regulate."
James McCusker is a Bothell economist, educator and consultant. He also writes "Business 101," which appears monthly in The Snohomish County Business Journal.
Talk to us
> Give us your news tips.
> Send us a letter to the editor.
> More Herald contact information.
