Yesterday my wife and I were driving over to Virginia to play Dungeons and Dragons, and on the radio there was a snippet from the local rock station's morning show. In it, the morning lowbrow - who is, admittedly, frequently very funny - was making pleased noises about a news item wherein CBS refused to air a PETA spot during the superbowl. Although PETA was willing to pay two million dollars to have the advertisement aired, CBS nixed it.
Now, the morning talk radio guy (Elliot in the morning) was all for this. But he's nuts. We in the car had an interest split on the issue. My wife felt that it was probably a good thing. I, on the other hand, went ballistic. Which was undoubtedly a bit unfair to my wife, who then had to endure my ranting for the duration of the drive.
Her point was that PETA is generally pretty crazy, and willing to stoop to any level in the service of that craziness. Which is true. They're freaking bonkers. The fact that they had more than two million dollars to throw at this project is a bit worrisome. So my wife, knowing the complete lack of taste that characterizes the organization, assumed that CBS had good grounds to give the ad a pass.
Me, I was dismayed. Because, although PETA is capable of any level of tastelessness, this advertisement sounded no less tasteful than many that already appear on television. Parodying a seventies porn film? Hey, as long as they keep their clothes on, it's less indecent than most music videos. And any station that will air those "Herbal Essences" shampoo advertisements, which blatantly refer to orgasms and have women making all the noises appropriate for such, has no grounds to stand on in disallowing this advertisement on the basis of lewdness.
And they didn't. They disallowed it on the basis of it's being an advocacy advertisement.
That terrifies me. Because it means that CBS is deciding what the American people get to see.
Oh, I knew that was the case already. But that doesn't mean it doesn't upset me. The subordination of the press to big business is a source of worry, because it means that the press isn't free. The press has masters above and beyond the consciences of those who produce it. And, given how integral the press is to modern life, how important it is to the functioning of our political life, the fact that it is enslaved to corporate interests is a big problem.
And CBS' refusal to air this advertisement is exemplary of that problem. I have no love for PETA. But the fact that CBS is the gatekeeper for whose opinions are allowed to be presented to the American public bothers me more than anything PETA could possibly say.
Of course, if not CBS, then who? If it were up to me, I'd say the FCC. Give them the power of arbitration over this sort of thing - after all, they are the body who sets and enforces the decency standards anyway. Let them act as a court of appeal.
Here's how I'd like to see it work:
PETA produces an advertisement, and is willing to pay the rate that CBS has set for a timeslot. CBS refused to air it. PETA appeals to the FCC, who reviews the ad, and determines if it meets appropriate decency standards. If so, CBS is ordered to take the money and air the ad. They can even run a text disclaimer at the bottom, as they do in magazines for advertising sections - 'paid advocacy advertisement - not the opinion of CBS'. If not, it gets canned.
And this isn't just about PETA. If an anti-abortion group wants airtime, they get the same deal. As long as the ad doesn't show dead babies or other such things, they get to present their message.
Of course, this merely makes the FCC the gatekeeper of our public discourse, rather than CBS. But ultimately I have some control over the FCC. I have none over CBS. And I want to be the person deciding what I'm allowed to see.
To those who would argue that, as a private entity, CBS gets to air what it pleases: bullshit. It has never been the case that private entities are allowed to do what they damn well please. Private entities, including for instance myself, act within the public sphere, and as such are beholden to the public to behave in ways that do not act to the public's detriment. And it's to the public's detriment for a major broadcaster to discriminate solely on the basis of advocacy.
To be honest, in practice, I'm not all that riled up about this issue. As far as I can tell, the major networks have historically done a fine job of discriminating against everyone equally, which is really all one could ask of them. But as the media increases its rightward bias, I worry that their principles of fairness will come under increasing strain. And, as they make no bones about their bias towards rampant consumerism, I wonder how much anti-consumerism has been snuffed out through lack of information.
Lets change the guards.
- Sun Ra