ASPEN, CO — President Bush’s beleaguered administration can’t seem to make anyone happy these days – and among the latest groups to speak out against its policies and opinions are the Hispanic Federation, the National Congress of Black Women, and Hispanics in Telecommunications and Technology Partnership. The three organizations are among those crying foul about comments made by Federal Communications Commission (FCC) chairman Kevin Martin’s recent remarks concerning a la carte programming at a recent Aspen Institute media conference.“We have not been purchased by the cable industry,” Hispanic Federation president Lillian Rodriguez-Lopez assured Americans, according to BroadcastingCable.com. She chided Martin to be “very, very careful what he quotes publicly.”
At issue are Martin’s comments concerning civil-rights groups that oppose a la carte legislation and hinting that their positions may be due to financial incentives being offered to them by the cable industry. While providing what groups such as Rodriguez-Lopez’ consider to be a “non-apology” styled apology, Martin quoted a Center for Public Integrity study that insists that “The grassroots opposition to a la carte is actually a highly sophisticated lobby campaign where seemingly disinterested third parties – like nonprofits and legislators – are spreading the anti-ala cart message using minority programming as the key issue. In fact, rather than being disinterested, these third parties have much to gain. The Center has identified hundreds of thousands of dollars in donations and other benefits showered by cable companies on some of these nonprofits.”
Apparently unaware of donations and benefits showered upon conservative legislators in support of a la carte programming, Martin insisted in his apology that he has “the utmost respect and appreciation for the work and views expressed by” the minority focused groups.
Instead of appeasing the groups, his explanation only served to further enrage them, inspiring a conference call last week to “express dissatisfaction with FCC Chairman Kevin Martin’s attempt to apologize for publicly questioning their integrity and commitment in opposing federal a la carte pricing rules for cable television.”
Echoing the opinions of those supportive of mature entertainment, the groups insist that Martin’s statements are part of a policy of marginalization inspired by an attempt to curry favor with the Religious Right, which is opposed to diverse cable content. Martin countered by pointing out that the Consumers Union, Free Press, and Communication Workers of America all support a la carte.
Martin and the FCC’s justification for a la carte has been its alleged ability to give Americans – especially socially conservative Americans — greater control over what they watch, at more affordable prices. With television viewing options now in the hundreds of channels, the FCC and other a la carte endorsers appear to believe that being able to completely avoid specific kinds of television programming is an important citizen’s right and that technological advances such as TiVo, On Demand style broadcasting, DVD releases of television programs, iTune downloadable programming, and Web viewable reruns do not meet consumer needs.
Critics point out that niche-focused programming – including minority and religious channels – often are available to consumers as parts of content bundles promoting specialty networks. Without such bundles to held build small channel groups, some fear that cable viewers would find themselves sans a number of currently available channels. In other words, a la carte might result in viewers having fewer options, instead of more.
Making it worse, some, including FreedomWorks’s Peter Suderman believe that the FCC’s actions would ultimately cause consumers to “pay more for less – all while barricading opportunities for the development of new channels.”
In an editorial for News.com, Suderman points out that research firm Booze Allen Hamilton has estimated that a la carte programming would raise the cost of current bundles by as much as 15-percent, likely because much of the cost involved with cable viewing relates to infrastructure and not available programming. “Any a la carte service would likely have to include a flat rate for connection in addition to the per-channel rate,” observes. “And updating the infrastructure and pricing would add costs too, meaning that even those customers who stuck with traditional bundles would likely see their prices rise.”
While Martin and the FCC have insisted that getting tough on television content, particularly that deemed “indecent,” is a priority for Americans, only 9-percent of respondents to a Russell Research survey said that the government should boost its control of television programming. The other 91-percent insisted that doing so is the job of parents. Given that 99.8-percent of complaints to the FCC come from the Parents Television Council, how the government can say its views are indicative of a national trend are uncertain.
Dr. E. Fay Williams, chairperson for the National Congress of Black Women certainly isn’t convinced, insisting that Martin has done little to prove he’s working to promote viewing diversity. Instead, she insists that Martin’s stance on a la carte is “little more than pandering to the religious wing of the far right.”
