Democrats’ ‘Values Agenda’ Imperils Quality TV

The independent producer community in the United States has flourished because of the creative flexibility appropriately afforded it by the 1st Amendment. Whether it was programming produced for television or for theatrical release, content was immune from federal regulators. As a result, Hollywood exploded economically as proliferating domestic and international delivery systems created expanded markets around the globe, markets clamoring for the diverse, uncensored, quality programming that is distinctly “Hollywood.”

Hollywood producers, large and small, have generally been relaxed, even mellow, about public policy changes in Washington as long as there was a Democrat in the White House or a Democrat-controlled Congress. Even when Congress turned Republican with the fearsome Newt Gingrich at the helm, Hollywood remained relatively sanguine because Bill Clinton and Al Gore firmly held the reins of the White House’s massive public policy apparatus. Not to worry.

Well, program producers--particularly independent TV producers--were wrong, and the consequences of their indifference to 1st Amendment-hostile policy initiatives from Washington may haunt the creative community for years to come.

For TV viewers, too, the stakes are big. Over the past few decades, we have grown accustomed to diverse and eclectic television programming. Whether it’s “Cosby,” “Law & Order,” “Hunter,” “Murphy Brown” or memorable movies of the week like “Rose White” or “Decoration Day,” U.S. television viewers have had free access to an endless source of programming shaped in large part by independent producers who could tell a network head to get lost if he was being too cautious or myopic. That’s because the networks were regulated during much of the past 25 years, and that regulatory environment nurtured the 1st Amendment rights and creative flexibility of independent producers who prospered and gave us such enriching and exciting programming. Now, with deregulation, studios own networks and vice versa, and fewer outlets exist for the creative genius of independent producers.

Simultaneously, the values agenda is roaring through the corridors of Washington, and the 1st Amendment rights of Hollywood producers are under attack. Does it matter to Joe and Jane TV viewer? You bet. Do you want a group of well-intended bureaucrats in Washington telling you what is acceptable educational programming for your kids or grandchildren? Would the next generation of Big Bird be acceptable to Big Sister or Big Brother in Washington? And what happens to the rich diversity of television programming when well-intended bureaucrats decide on labels for programming--labels that will, in effect, kill off advertising support for shows that otherwise could provide valuable entertainment? Would “Hill Street Blues” be too violent? Or “Roseanne” too raunchy? In this evolving regulatory environment, television viewers are the real losers who can expect increasingly homogenized and less provocative programming.

The basis for this gloomy prognosis is simple. On the one hand, many current leaders of the federal government, particularly those in the White House, have adopted a “values agenda” that seriously erodes 1st Amendment protections that the creative community has taken for granted. The philosophical foundation of this agenda is the belief held by some in Washington that societal ills can be greatly reduced, if not eliminated, by various forms of content regulation of television. If you have doubts about this trend, just look at the Clinton administration’s successes with the adoption of tough KidVid rules and the expanded V-chip ratings system.

With Senate confirmation hearings expected early this fall for four nominees to the five-member Federal Communications Commission, most in Washington see a solid majority of Clinton-Gore appointees controlling that important regulatory agency, which could easily adopt more 1st Amendment-intrusive broadcast regulations.

In addition, the broadcast industry has undergone massive structural deregulation as a result of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, a sweeping law that has led to an unprecedented level of ownership consolidation beyond even Congress’ wildest expectations. In 1996 alone, mergers in the television industry exceeded $10 billion, more than doubling the value of mergers in 1995. The FCC’s repeal in 1993 of the so-called FinSyn rules, which restricted networks’ ownership and syndication rights to programming, already had eliminated significant regulatory hurdles to mergers. Fewer media moguls are controlling more of the outlets for television programming. The result is obvious: It is increasingly difficult for independent producers to successfully air (and own) their programming in this consolidated marketplace.

As a result of Hollywood’s passivity, few in Congress have evidenced any appreciation for the vital nexus between 1st Amendment-based creative flexibility and continued robust diversity of television programming; one who has is Rep. Billy Tauzin (R-La.). To the degree that ignorance persists in the halls of Congress on this key point, more content-based legislation is likely to be enacted.

Based on the federal public policy scoreboard during the past four years, independent producers and viewers who have enjoyed diverse programming should wake up and realize that they are more at risk today than ever before.