McCain vs the religious right on pay-by-channel cable

[tag]John McCain[/tag] is obviously anxious to make the GOP’s far right base happy for 2008 purposes, but he’s apparently willing to take on some high-profile TV preachers when it comes to legislation on [tag]cable[/tag] television programming.

[tag]McCain[/tag] is expected to unveil a bill this week that would give cable companies regulatory incentives to offer their customers content on a channel-by-channel basis, which is known as “[tag]a la carte[/tag]” programming because of its resemblance to restaurant menus that price entrees and side orders separately.

But large [tag]Christian[/tag] broadcasters are strongly opposed to the approach because they fear that many consumers will skip over their channels when custom-ordering a cable programming package. [tag]Religious[/tag] programming, they concede privately, though good for you, is not always the most enticing fare — at least for many consumers.

As I explained in March, clowns like Pat [tag]Robertson[/tag] and Jerry [tag]Falwell[/tag] are in a genuine panic over this. The FCC says that the average household watches only 17 channels — and apparently, evangelical right-wingers aren’t pulling in the viewers. To help lobby against the per-channel pricing, Robertson’s CBN, Falwell, Benny Hinn Ministries, Trinity Broadcasting Network, Robertson’s American Center for Law and Justice, and FamilyNet TV — a motley crew, to be sure — have teamed up to save the costly and impractical cable system that helps keep them on the air.

The interesting thing, aside from the possible ramifications on the presidential campaign, is how far-right groups that don’t have any stake in cable broadcasting are fighting their allies who do.

One group that strongly supports McCain’s approach is the [tag]Parents Television Council[/tag].

Dan Isett, the director of corporate and government affairs at the group, said there is little evidence that a la carte would hurt Christian broadcasters and that a “wide swath” of family and consumer groups support McCain.

And on the other (right) hand, Colby May, the director of the Washington office of Robertson’s ACLJ, noted that religious broadcasters believe McCain’s measure “will cause a significant dent in their ability to fill the great commission: to go into all the world and share the news that Jesus is Lord.”

McCain is moving ahead with his proposal and will offer it as an amendment to telecommunications legislation that Commerce Committee Chairman Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) plans to markup in June. Stay tuned. (no pun intended)

It’s so amusing that parents who want to exclude channels filled with sexual content won’t be able to because of religious broadcasters that no one wants to watch anyway.

  • I cannot wait until this becomes the standard way to subscribe to cable programming. I watch even fewer than the average of 17 channels. I don’t even care about most of the local Phoenix broadcast channels that are included on the basic package. This proposal by McCain is a reason I still have the teeniest, tiniest bit of respect for my senator.

    Of course, I have to wonder why he’s pushing this legislation in the first place. He is, after all, a Republicant sell-out to the corporate world.

  • Damn. So what you’re saying is that the televangelists want socialism? Cable welfare, we could call it. Further, we could infer that the televised message of Jesus is so uncompelling that it requires force-feeding to the hapless couch potatoes everywhere in order to make money. Put another way, we just can’t trust the consumer in our Great Christian Nation to actually choose to listen to religious blather all day long.

    I always had a hunch that channels like the 500 Club couldn’t survive in a genuine free market. Who but some old geezers not long for this world wants to watch that shit. It has to be put on artificial life support.

  • McCain typically plays both sides, and I’m inclined to support or oppose him on a case by case basis. On this one, I would love to drop 2/3 of the channels that come with our package. As for the religious right loonies, welcome to the free market. Yeah, it’s dog eat dog out here. If you want money to spread your hateful venom, dig deeper into the pockets of your flock. You’re already tax exempt and on the government dole.

    How can he speak for the Prince of Peace
    when he’s hawk-right militant?
    He’s tax free!
    — Joni Mitchell, Tax Free

  • The Religious Right is afraid we might skip over their programming when making our selections in an a la carte system. We’ve been waiting for this for some time. I hate that my 3 children have been subjected to the crap they put out (even if for only seconds at a time). We’ll also be opting out of Fox News, Speed, BET, MTV and QVC. I’m also looking forward to whatever else is out there. I’m disabled and I need more cooking, animals, real news, history, concerts, arts and classic movies. Fox will end up with only the 70 year olds who find Fox the most trustworthy network (all 11% of them).

  • Anything which puts the lid down on televangelists is fine by me. The so-called Christians already have far too much influence in our civic life — prayers before legislative sessions, bibles during swearing in ceremonies, “in god we trust” on our money, control over entry into the Boy Scouts, baccalaureate sessions with graduation ceremonies, a bevy of radio and TeeVee channels dedicated to such claptrap, “Good night and God bless” from the Regal Moron, etc., etc., etc.

  • I wonder what the other cable channels are up to as well . I mean who is seriously going to sunscribe to QVC. I can’t even name a qurter of the bazillion channels I get. I would guess that a lot of info-stations are going to join the chri$tians.

  • I like this idea (and wish we had it north of the US border).

    From what I understand, most of the “pro nudity” stations like Skin-e-max and HBO are subscriber requested anyway so this measure really won’t affect them.

    Ah the irony of it all. The Xtian stations can’t boost ratings thru the traditional methods such as skimpy clothing, boobs, guns and rough language (like Fox did in the 80s) without appearing to be hypocrites although it never stopped them before. One thing they could do is show the very things they abhore in order to decry it.

    Possible New Religious Programming
    1) Duke Cunningham Story: Foxy Two
    Documents the rise and fall of a great Xtian. Highlights include an extended scene with fallen women and a lava lamp on a boat
    2) Hairy Palms and Abstinence
    A show on the horrors of self gratification
    3) Stripping for God
    4) Christian Cathouse: Saving Souls at a Nevada Brothel
    5) Degay for God
    Saving gays one sweaty encounter at a time (it’s not gay if you’re the man)

    Yup, pretty stupid…

  • While I’m certainly not a fan of the televangelist channels (although I do watch them from time to time for a laugh), I’m not a huge fan of the a la carte pricing as it shuts out a lot of smaller channels from ever getting off the ground because they’re sold with a package of other channels. Like any of the history or discovery channel offshoots? ESPN ? The We or Oxygen channels (ugh)? These channels couldn’t make any money from a la carte schemes (but can if they are sold as a package- History Channel plus History Channel International, TLC, Discover Channel World, Animal Planet, etc.) and so would never be created in the first place.

  • Dangit, UeberBill, you make an excellent point. Rats. But maybe cable companies can put new potential offerings up for a vote among the customer base and if enough people vote for the concept it can get support.

    I don’t know, I’d love to be able to give the fundie channels the boot but not if it meant I would never see something else that I’d really like.

    Phooey…….

  • A la carte helps speed along the transition to digital, too, because for the cable companies to allow that for every channel, they will need an easy way to turn them on and off.

    Al la carte dosen’t actually stop the cable company from offering packages, it stops them from forcing them. I’m sure they would still offer things like basic calbe, the eductational lineup, or movie channel super packages, etc.

    I think there will be some bumps, but it is a natural progression. It will be hard on advertisers. Coupled with blossoming DVR technology, they will definately have to find new ways to reach consumers.

    That said, I definately think the capacity for reduced choice is a looming possibility as channels loose viewership and their numbers dwindle.

    Increased choice for consumers is good, but will this result in increased chioce, I’m not so sure.

  • Do the cable companies pay QVC to carry their so-called programming? Or does QVC supply their “feed” free? Logically, QVC’s overhead is built into their product pricing.

  • I think the ironic part is this initiative was at least partially spearheaded by parents who don’t want their kids watching MTV.

  • If it weren’t for UeberBill’s comment below, I would truly love this idea.

    I’m not a huge fan of the a la carte pricing as it shuts out a lot of smaller channels from ever getting off the ground because they’re sold with a package of other channels.

    I might even get cable if I could only purchase the few that I want. Also, I would have a lot of fun telling them that I don’t want Fox News, any of the religious or buying channels etc. I would like to have C-Span, ESPN, Discovery and a couple movie channels without financially supporting the more obscene channels that offend my morals like Fox. Oh well, I’ve lived without cable for decades, I guess I’ll save my money to spend on necessities like campaign contributions to select Democrats.

  • My wife has blocked two channels on our TV. Pass the Loot Club and the 700 club or whatever it’s called. She doesn’t want the grandkids watching crap on TV.
    Anyway, McCain needs to quit. After the way Bush trashed his wife and him sucking up afterwards, I have no respect for him.
    I guess the Vietnamese did fuck him up when he was their prisoner.

  • I agree with Binky — that pun was clearly intended.

    I actually disagree with McCain on this. Easy jokes about Pat Robertson aside, I think that this will lead to fewer channels and higher prices. Rush Limbaugh did a segment on his show about this yesterday, and while i rarely agree with him, I agree that the reality is that it’s not economically realistic to expect cable providers to deliver three channels to one house, 17 channels next door…
    But an even bigger reason why I’m opposed to a la carte is because while I only watch a small handful of channels, few of those channels would’ve survived under an a la carte structure. Take ESPN as an example. ESPN didn’t have much of a financial backing originally and if you watch early clips it looks incredibly rudimentary. But it built an audience and before you know it there was ESPN 2, ESPN Classic, ESPN Deportes, etc. Also, a lot of the channels I watch I found because I can channel surf. I can flip around hundreds of channels when I’m bored or just want background noise and find the Colbert Report on Comedy Central, a documentary about JFK on the History channel, a show about John Daly getting drunk on the Golf channel, etc. Once we blow up the current structure, I wouldn’t be able to watch these shows unless I wanted to pay a lot more money.

  • Comments are closed.