Connect Four

Well, there's really nothing connecting these four items, they are simply a few of the stories and blogs that have caught my attention this week that I wanted to comment on.

1) When I first read that the FCC was going to look at issuing new regulation regarding so-called "net neutrality" I planned to write a lengthy blog post on it.  But then I saw this posting over at RedState.com and I decided that there is no use parroting what someone else has already said so well.  The fundamental question is this:  Do you really want to put the federal government in charge of the Internet?  Because that's what this is.  It's about giving the government the authority to decide the right way and the wrong way to manage the Internet, it's about allowing the government to pick winners and losers among Internet companies and service providers, and it's about the government limiting your choices as a consumer.  I don't understand how anyone could think this is a good idea.

2) Hollywood celebrities have taken on a new urgent cause with the arrest of Roman Polanski in Switzerland and his pending extradition to the United States over 30 years after he fled the country.  Lest anyone feel sorry for this man, here is a stark reminder of exactly what he did to put him in his current situation.  Do not give this man your sympathy.  Hollywood knows no shame.

3) I hesitate to put too much stock in unproven, unattributed speculation, but this item suggesting that Disney may attempt future "Pirates of the Caribbean" films without Johnny Depp raises interesting issues given Depp's reported disappointment with the firing of Dick Cook.  As I've said before, Depp is to Pirates what Harrison Ford is to Indiana Jones.  It just won't work without him.  Remember when George Lucas launched the "Young Indiana Jones" tv series?  You probably don't.  It flopped.  I'm personally a big fan of that show, but audiences just weren't interested in Indy if Ford wasn't the guy on the screen.  Disney needs to understand that there is no chance that a big screen Pirates movie will succeed without Depp.  He appears to still be commited to number four.  Let's just take it one at a time and not get too far ahead of ourselves, okay?

4) Finally, there's a couple of interesting looks at the business of big media.  A NY Times piece previews an upcoming book positing that media companies have embraced rapid growth in pursuit of short-term gains and trends while in fact losing long-term value.  The AOL-TimeWarner merger is the obvious example of this, but News Corp's purchase of MySpace is another example.  Disney has experienced their own headaches of this sort, notably the acquisitions of Infoseek and the Fox Family Channel.  Then there's this interesting speech given by Bill Mechanic, former studio chief at Fox who was also once an executive at Disney, regarding the state of the motion picture industry.  His remarks contain a certain amount of self-aggrandizing pats-on-the-back, but he articulates a pretty compelling grasp of the challenges that face the studios.  I can't help but think he would be an attractive candidate for Disney's new studio vacancy.

This blog has been approved for all audiences

The always volatile issue of ratings for media content is once again in the spotlight.  On August 13, Ted Baehr, founder of the Christian "Movieguide" website, called upon the MPAA to abandon it's "failed" ratings system for movies and replace it with an objective "Code of Decency."  Baehr laments so-called ratings creep that seems to stretch the limits of the "R" and "PG-13" ratings into arbitrary meaninglessness.  He even calls upon readers to sign an online petition that will be submitted to the Federal Trade Commission, presumably so they can investigate and regulate the matter.

But on August 31, the Federal Communications Commission went even further when it released a report to Congress on the effectiveness of parental control technologies which states that the FCC will begin an inquiry into the issue of a universal ratings system that would cover all media platforms, including television, video games, and wireless devices such as cell phones.  Because motion pictures are eventually distributed to televisions and portable devices, such a ratings system would necessarily apply to movies as well.  Members of Congress appear to be open to the idea.

The MPAA, for its part, decided to inadvertently throw some more fuel onto the fire with its unheralded decision to replace its previous green-band system for movie previews.  In short, the previous banner stating that "This preview has been approved for all audiences" has been replaced with "This preview has been approved for appropriate audiences," (emphasis added) which is just all kinds of confusing.

As a parent, I am sympathetic to the frustration here.  I know of people who took their youngsters to see "Land of the Lost" (rated PG-13) following the relatively sensible notion that it was a family film based on the Saturday morning show of their childhood.  What they got instead was Will Ferrell dropping f-bombs.  Quite an education for the kids!  And I myself have cringed at some of the previews that show before children's movies.  There was a period of time when I wouldn't even take my children into the theater until the movie was actually starting because the previews were so unpredictable.  And now my kids are old enough to send me text messages on their mother's phone and to get online to play with their Webkinz, and it just gives me the willies thinking about what lies ahead.

But do we really want to ask the government to solve this problem for us?  I think I can safely say that I have absolutely zero confidence that a federal bureaucracy is going to come up with a standard that matches my own values.  Is the President supposed to appoint a new Czar of Good Taste?  And what about the inevitable enforcement of such a new ratings system?  Are we going to see new civil penalties or criminal penalties?  Oh, I know, the government just wants to make sure parents have tools that they can use.  Uh, no thank you.  I don't want the government having any role to play in making moral judgments about what I choose to watch and what I choose to allow my children to watch.

And honestly, the intrusion is unnecessary.  The current ratings system is certainly flawed, but any new system would also have its flaws.  If nothing else, the current MPAA ratings system at least gives you an idea of who the intended audience is (it seems to mostly function as a marketing tool these days).  It's up to you to decide if you agree with their assessment.  Parents today have plenty of resources to help them discern whether new movies or other media are appropriate.  But it is incumbent upon parents to be proactive in their children's lives -- acting as the filter when kids are very young and teaching them to make wise choices as they grow older.  No amount of hand-holding from Big Brother is going to change the ultimate responsibility of being a parent.  Call me old fashioned, but I tend to think I can do a better job than the government when it comes to deciding what's best for my children.