Why Don't We Rate Commercialism?
Slate Asks, We Answer

If movies and television are rated to warn potential viewers they contain foul language, drug use and/or boobs, why can't they be rated to warn potential viewers they contain not so subtle ads for crap like Old Spice, also? This is the central question of a new piece in today's Slate. A piece in which Alissa Quart slowly unravels an argument, asks a lot of questions and then never really approaches a conclusion, as writers at Slate are wont to do.

Here's the story in a nutshell: The FCC has said that it would like a way to make sure the public is "informed of the sources of program while concurrently balancing the First Amendment and artistic rights of programmers." Quart proposes a rating of B for "branding." The problem is that the FCC currently has no control over cable and film and to get control would take an act of Congress. The end (surprisingly without any discussion of the concerns a rational person would have about the FCC having control over film and cable). Time for Quart to ponder:

But why not go further and include the same list of sponsors on signs in theater lobbies-and perhaps even a full disclosure of what the filmmakers or television producers received in exchange for their placements? What if film tickets and cable subscription rates were prorated based on how much product-placement revenue these films and shows earned? Consumers would pay less for films or cable channels that heavily depend on embedded advertising.

Good questions and suggestions, huh? The problem though, and the answer to Quart's "why not," is in a later paragraph Quart had intended to use to make the case for the necessity of excessive commercialism ratings:

…our period is one of inexhaustible consumption and materialism, and the collapse of personality and aspirations into a culture of brands and logos. We are bankrupt and filling our seas with plastic. Yet we have no method by which to regulate-or even measure-the hidden ads the fill all of our many screens.

How fucked up is that?! The reason we need to warn people that they're about to be exposed to rampant advertising (because it's contributing to the ruination of our world) is the exact same reason no film or television company will allow their media to be rated for commercialism (because our world is now "one of inexhaustible consumption and materialism"). HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! It's so funny that we can't stop crying and thinking of how simple death would be.

Sep 19, 2008 · posted by cord · Link · Respond
Related Posts

• 11.22.08: Blind Item: Peeping Editor-in-Chief (Comments: 0)
• 11.21.08: Mickey Rourke is the Comeback Kid (Comments: 2)
• 11.21.08: Neil Feldman's Battle with AOL's Tech Service Team (Comments: 1)
• 11.21.08: Newspapers Receive Temporary Monetary Reprieve (Comments: 0)
• 11.21.08: Blind Item: Cheating Editor-in-Chief (Comments: 2)

Comments (0)

There are no comments yet. Post yours!

Leave a Comment

It's easier to leave comments when you register for an account. It's quick.

Already have an account? Then log in!

Scroll Posts