Would Indecency Save Network TV?

I refuse to pay for television. There are several reasons why: I don’t think I should have to pay for something that I can get free over the air, cable companies are terribly overfunded by their customers and enjoy a monopoly in most cases, there are so many channels that I would hate to get sucked into the mindless idiot box night after night just looking through all the channels and making sure I wasn’t missing something.

Foremost, however, is the issue of content on cable. While there are many good programs out there, there are just as many (if not more) programs with objectionable content that I would not want my family watching. While I acknowledge with the premise of this article that there are a lot of popular TV programs out there that could not be put on the major networks because of the content restrictions placed upon them by the FCC, I think it overstates the importance of cable television as a whole.

For one thing, when you look at overall ratings, cable shows can barely break the network Top 20. For example, in the Nielsen ratings from August 3 to 10, TNT’s The Closer got a 7.9, equal to CBS’s CSI: Miami. Granted, you have to factor in the Olympics right now and the monstrous ratings that NBC have been drawing away from other programs, but the next highest cable show, USA’s WWE Raw pro wrestling show, got a 5.2 rating, which wouldn’t even place it in the Top 20.

There is also the question of coverage. Cable TV is limited to broadcasting to the subscriber base, while network TV has no such limitation. This is an especially important consideration in today’s economy, where cable TV might be declared by some families as a luxury they can do without. Also, while the subscriber base as a whole might be large, the offering of channels is extremely fragmented. As an advertiser, on which of the 700 channels do you place your message? Your target audience might be watching one of 30 to 40 different channels at the same time. With network television, it’s a lot easier to define demographics.

While this might not be true for the vaunted 18-to-35 demographic, the local TV station is still the main source for local news information. I was personally riveted to the television in May and June when all the bad weather was coming through Indiana. I also catch at least one of the local news stations a day for a news report. While I also get a lot of my news from the internet, a lot of that content happens to come from network affiliates, and not from the larger news and sports cable channels.

So, back to the question of whether or not the networks need to become more indecent to survive–honestly, haven’t they already? Any time I see a commercial for Desperate Housewives or CSI:Miami, I generally have to change the channel because I know there will be a half-naked woman on there at some point. I haven’t watched an episode, but I’m pretty sure that Dirty Sexy Money is not about a Dave Ramsey seminar. I’ve even noticed that commercial favorites such as CSI and 24 and House are over-the-top with violence and gore and require a parental warning before the show is aired. I’ve even heard language aired during the 8:00 “family hour” that I would never want my kids to hear or repeat, but there it is.

To me, the networks are already at a point where they have embraced this attitude that they need to get into the gutter to compete with cable. At the same time, there are also compelling television shows on the networks (not naming names) that produce great stories and great entertainment that won’t embarrass you to watch them (most of the time). I think that when the networks realize that shocking their viewers won’t bring them to their offerings, you might see some improvement in this area.

In the meantime, I’ll just watch my free TV, and somebody else can watch The Hills without me.

Are We Listening?

I must admit that many times I wonder why God doesn’t “speak” to me. I don’t mean in the heavens parting, booming voice, fire and brimstone sort of way… that would probably make me run and hide somewhere. Then again, I don’t know if I could deal with this either:

A fascinating film made in 1950, The Next Voice You Hear, tells a story of a family with a typical amount of trials and tensions. Then, one night, the voice of God speaks on the radio. But not just their radio—God’s voice is heard throughout the world on every radio, saying the same thing at the same time. At first people react with disbelief, then fear. After several days of hearing “The Voice,” however, people’s attitudes, actions, and priorities begin to change. The impact of what God is saying directly affects how they live their lives.

I have heard people say, “If only God would talk to me! If He would just tell me what to do, I would do it.” The simple fact is that God has already spoken to us through His Word, the Bible. Do we listen to Him as He speaks? The psalmist desired to obey God’s Word “continually, forever and ever” (119:44). And James warned about ignoring it when he said, “Be doers of the Word, and not hearers only, deceiving yourselves” (James 1:22).

How would you respond if God began to speak to you on your radio? We can be thankful that God does speak to us—not on the radio but in the Scriptures. May we be wise enough to listen and obey.