take on hollywood

Democrats vs Hollywood.
In light of some recent discussions on O.R., I found David Callahan's piece in The New Republic especially delightful. He argues that Democratics ought to challenge Hollywood and big media. Moreover, and this is where the article is of most service, he makes the case that such a challenge is natural and obvious to the left. Important read.

Here is the thrust, from TNR:

Once you get past the issue of free speech--more on that in a minute--attacking the entertainment industry is a natural fit for Democrats. Republicans court charges of hypocrisy when they bash crass popular culture, since it is a relentless focus on the bottom line, typically an unquestioned good on the right, that propels the entertainment industry forward, as anyone who works in Hollywood can attest. For Democrats, the connection between an unfettered market and toxic values is exactly the point--and a point that can serve as the linchpin of an authentic new progressive moralism.

The argument here is simple: When financial self-interest is touted as one of society's greatest virtues, as it has been lately, individuals will behave badly. The recent paroxysm of greed and dishonesty at places like Enron, Tyco, and scores of other companies is evidence of this point. So is the terrible ethical climate in law and medicine, where a money culture is increasingly subverting professional ethics. The epidemic of cheating in schools and even the steroid problems in sports also show how today's outsized imperative to get ahead can bring out the worst in people.

Ditto for what goes on in the entertainment industry. Why do well-educated professionals in television expose our children to some 18,000 visual images of murder by the time they are adults? Why do record executives market misogynist and violent music that they wouldn't want their own children to hear? Why do the producers of reality TV shows try to turn contestants into depraved social Darwinists? Why do makers of video games like Grand Theft Auto promote criminality? Why do daytime talk show hosts seek out the most pathological examples of human interaction to spotlight on national television? Money, that's why. The bottom line reigns supreme in the entertainment industry, and the more frantic the chase for dollars has become, the trashier our culture has gotten. Here, as elsewhere, extreme capitalism and moral decline go hand-in-hand.

None of this is to say that there aren't great movies, fantastic TV shows, and fine record albums. There are. But just because an industry makes some great products doesn't mean it shouldn't be criticized for polluting. In stepping forward with such criticism, Democrats should speak from their own core values--affirming the sanctity of free speech while arguing that our popular culture shouldn't be so heavily shaped by market forces. Steering clear of anything that smacks of censorship, they should demand more aggressive voluntary steps by Hollywood to clean up its act by strengthening and enforcing content ratings, and by building on the V-Chip concept to give parents more ways to control what their children see and listen to.

Far more importantly, though, Democrats should outline a bold vision for expanding the sphere of publicly supported culture and mass media. This could include much more funding for public broadcasting, new support for independent film (as in Europe), and a revival of the regulatory vision behind the founding of the Federal Communications Commission in 1934--namely, that broadcasters must serve the public interest in exchange for access to the airwaves. Among other things, this would mean forcing television stations to give free air time to candidates and to broadcast educational programming for children.

Few of these ideas are new. Today, though, the public's intense concern about values gives liberals a new chance to push for alternatives to market-controlled culture. The catch is that this effort won't succeed without attacking the industry that now shapes that culture.