|
|
|
Jewish World Review Nov. 9, 2005 / 7 Mar-Cheshvan, 5766 Why do network TV and the federal government pick on some vices and not on others? By Froma Harrop
http://www.JewishWorldReview.com |
"Good Night, and Good Luck" is a movie tribute to CBS news
legend Edward R. Murrow. It's about journalists in the 1950s who were not
afraid of smoking, drinking or Joe McCarthy. The red-baiter is no longer
with us, and other than stomping on his memory, TV is done with him.
But what about the smoking and the drinking? CBS today is more
likely to pay an hour's homage to the demented commie hunter than to air a
30-second ad for Johnnie Walker Scotch, which it is allowed to do. (The 1965
Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act still prohibits tobacco ads.)
A few questions arise. For starters, why do network TV and the
federal government pick on some vices and not on others? Gambling used to be
a vice, and in many minds still is. Yet the airwaves carry lots of ads for
state lotteries and commercial casinos. TV even offers live coverage of the
Powerball picks — a state-run version of what mugs in the '50s called a
"numbers racket."
Tobacco and booze get censored because the censors have changed.
They have long been targets of the puritanical right. But starting in the
'60s, nanny-state liberals joined the fight, purportedly for public health
reasons. That means no is one left to defend the right to use or advertise
these legal products — other than a ragtag gang of libertarians and First
Amendment freaks.
The activists have gone beyond opposing ads for such products.
They now protest even the portrayal of them. Commercial Alert, a group based
in Portland, Ore., has called on schools to ban advertisements of movies
that show people smoking. The ads appear on Channel One TV programs now seen
in many schools.
As a social issue, this is a big onion to peel. First off, the
showing of commercial television in classrooms probably does students more
harm than would seeing their teacher light up. But once you get past that,
you note that the ads Commercial Alert wants banned don't show smoking. They
only refer to movies that do. The damned include "Mr. Deeds," "Charlie's
Angels" and "Pearl Harbor."
Many of the movies display murder, mayhem and the horrors of
war. They include gross sexual references and disgusting manners. But the
appearance of a smoker is deemed beyond the pale. (Actually, movie critics
have complained that "Pearl Harbor" has far less smoking than would have
been expected among soldiers in 1941.) Given the smoky haze that hovers over
"Good Night, and Good Luck," Commercial Alert would give the film a far
lower classroom rating than "Sex and the City."
That's a shame, because the movie covers an important piece of
American history. That journalists back then weren't much into
self-preservation shouldn't detract from their accomplishments. And, if at
the end of the day, they calm themselves with a belt of Scotch, what's that
to anyone else?
Speaking of self-preservation, it seems odd that the networks
don't crusade for the right to run ads for legal products. The states have
the power to prohibit the sale of cigarettes —- or for that matter,
alcohol. None do so, because they tax these products like crazy and want the
revenues. It seems hypocritical to deny broadcasters the revenue from their
ads.
In 1991, the Distilled Liquor Council of the United States
lifted its members' voluntary ban on TV ads. And still the big-four
television networks would not air them. Where's the courage? In December
2001, NBC ventured forth and accepted liquor ads (attached to cautionary
messages). Four months later, it backed down.
Over at satellite radio, meanwhile, executives breathe free. XM
Satellite Radio now runs ads for Jack Daniel's whiskey. Sirius Satellite
Radio will soon be airing jingles for Tanqueray gin, as well as Howard Stern
saying gross things that the Federal Communications Commission wouldn't
allow on broadcast media.
One can imagine the ghost of Edward R. Murrow, cigarette in
hand, urging the network executives to demand their First Amendment right to
free speech, which should include running advertisements for Marlboros.
Sadly, the controversial Murrow, were he alive today, would probably have
been exiled to satellite radio, along with the ads for his Scotch.
Every weekday JewishWorldReview.com publishes what many in in the media and Washington consider "must-reading". Sign up for the daily JWR update. It's free. Just click here.
© 2005 Creators Syndicate |
Arnold Ahlert | |||||||||||
