Cable choice splits Christian allies

Posted: 6/09/06

Cable choice splits Christian allies

By Piet Levy

Religion News Service

WASHINGTON (RNS)—Evangelical Christians are on the front lines in the battle over indecency on cable television, calling for a pick-and-choose pricing plan that would allow viewers to keep certain channels out of their homes.

But on the opposite end of the battlefield is an opponent familiar to and even respected by evangelicals—Christian cable stations.

The fear among Christian broadcasters is that a proposal to allow consumers to reject MTV or Comedy Central also would allow them to unsubscribe from the Trinity Broad-casting Network or Pat Robertson’s Christian Broadcasting Network. Cutting off that access—not to mention a potential profit plunge—could hurt religious broadcasters as well.

“We do not believe that a la carte is the cure for the disease,” said Colby May, attorney for the Faith and Family Broadcasters Coalition, which represents Trinity and CBN, in addition to other stations.

“In fact, it is a cure that may very well kill the patient.”

Evangelical and family groups support the concept of “a la carte” cable legislation, which would allow cable users to subscribe solely to the networks of their choice.

The plan, endorsed in an unofficial Federal Communications Commission report and likely to be proposed by Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., is billed as a way to avoid paying for stations like FX, Comedy Central and MTV, which rack up high ratings with risque shows like The Shield, South Park and The Real World.

May argues an a la carte cable package will drive up the cost of individual stations per subscriber to compensate for their lower subscription numbers. The viewer’s cable bill could rise even if the number of stations went down.

In other words, there will be less bang for more buck.

But the Christian networks’ main concern is that the only ones willing to subscribe will be Christians, and people in need of inspiration won’t stumble upon religious programming if it isn’t available on their TV. If a la carte were already in existence, May argues, conversion experiences for alcoholics and people contemplating suicide, or suffering from a crumbling marriage, never would have happened. “If you obligate viewers to pre-select religious service, you are essentially going to find yourself witnessing to the choir,” May said. “In combination, all of these networks have literally thousands and thousands of anecdotal stories of people who were channel surfing that came across one of their services, and it changed their life for the better.”

But Christian groups like Concerned Women for America say lives will be better with the a la carte plan.

“Unfortunately the number of inappropriate programs far outweighs the number of good,” said Lanier Swann, the group’s director of government relations. “Our issue is to protect families.”

Dan Isett, director of corporate and government affairs for the conservative Parents Television Coun-cil, argues religious broadcasters on localized cable services will not be affected by a pick-and-choose cable choice plan. He said the policy may even grant more opportunities for fledgling networks not owned by the six major multimedia corporations.

“If consumers have a choice, it opens up a new range of diversified programming that doesn’t exist today,” Isett said. “If I were (Trinity Broad-casting Network), I would look at this as an unparalleled opportunity to reach people.”

In an effort to appease critics, the two main cable providers, Time Warner and Comcast, announced “family tier” packages late last year that carry only what they construe to be family-appropriate stations, such as the Disney Channel, Discovery Kids, the Food Network and CNN Headline News. But the critics still are upset.

“The ‘family tier’ system is a straw man designed to fail,” Swann said. “This is a scenario where they assume the calls for choice will be squelched. … I don’t think we need the same individuals who promote, produce and air the type of programming we’re trying to avoid to be allowed to define what is ‘family-friendly.’”