Plan Could Ensure Moral Safeguards

With the arrival of exposed flesh, graphic gore and obscene speech on ABC’s new “NYPD Blue,” (“Too Blue for Prime Time?” Calendar, June 11), I have a suggestion for the cable TV industry.

It has been understood that basic cable channels will adhere to a more “wholesome” broadcast standard than is required of pay channels (such as HBO) because basic cable channels are not requested but come with the package. As independent stations and Fox broadcasting lead the way with low standards, now followed by the networks, the distinction between basic cable standards and pay channel standards will soon be so blurred as to be nonexistent. The economic motive here is demonstrated by ABC’s earlier, transparent attempt to inflate the ratings of “Civil Wars” with the introduction of mere skin.

The problem is that not everyone is pleased with this move. As a parent, and a believer in decency, I reject it. The response to any criticism of moral failure on TV is: “You don’t have to watch it if you don’t like it” and “you should monitor what your children watch.” Both are true, of course, but then no parent can easily monitor every moment their children are alone with the TV set.

The appeal of nudity and sex in entertainment is the appeal of a vice. This has been understood by purveyors of flesh for ages, and it is what underlies the programming decisions of pay cable channels. Boys hooked on flesh grow into men hooked on flesh, hence more viewership, hence big bucks. Since the flesh vice is legal in America, it would seem nothing can be done but to continue to slide into more degenerate (or as ABC puts it, “tasteful”) entertainment. But I believe something can be done.

I propose that the cable industry offer channel choices within the basic service program. (Some cable companies already do this, and some TV sets are manufactured with the technology that makes it possible to block certain channels, but neither option is widely available yet.) TV signals come into my home, and I may not want them available to my children. Yes, I should teach my children what is right and wrong, and I do. But it also matters to me how available a vice is to my children. If concern over the issue of availability means I have to drop television all together due to a lack of choice (as some families have), then I must lose the Family Channel, CNN, AMC, C-SPAN, ESPN, Discovery and things we can all enjoy. Why such a limited choice? By choosing to be “more explicit,” ABC has placed itself beyond what I will accept in my home. This is my choice.

People should have the choice of what channels they want to receive with basic cable. A reasonable approach, I believe, would be as follows: 1) Whenever someone signs up for basic cable, they should be allowed to select the channels they want to receive. For example, I might look over a list of 40 channels and say no to ABC, MTV, Fox, etc., and my box would be fixed to blank out those channels. 2) I will pay the same basic service rate as everyone else, but will eliminate the availability of those stations that have violated the standards of conduct for my home. No one else is limited or censored, no one must bear another’s cost and I’m a happy consumer. 3) If after some time I wish to add or subtract a channel from the list, I will have to pay a nominal fee to cover the cost.

As I see it, this scheme allows everyone to win. Parents win. Libertines win. The cable company should win as well. The plan does not diminish profits but may even increase them with switching fees and attracting people wary of cable excesses. No one is censored, no one is offended and no one is forced to make the hard choice of having to lose it all or put up with it all.

If such a plan is not implemented there will indeed be censorship campaigns, boycotts and the like. But under such a plan, choice prevails and the restriction of such vice-oriented programming will fall to the ability of its opponents to persuade others to reject it voluntarily.