By: Matthew Lasar

Matthew Lasar — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 18:43:26 +0000

I appreciate Andrew Feinberg's response to my article, which appears to focus primarily on this paragraph:”All these commentaries grapple with the complex questions swirling around the product placement regulation issue. Does the FCC have statutory authority to make new rules? Does the First Amendment restrain the agency's hand? Does the Children's Television Act already guard children's TV shows against embedded advertising?”These questions are legitimate or illegitimate depending on your perspective. If you are media industry, they are indeed “new” rules in that immediate disclosure could significantly curtail the amount of embedded advertising that appears on television programs. And while consumer groups argue that the First Amendment does not come into play here because, in the case of broadcast TV, the advertising has a deceptive quality to it (it pretends not to be advertising), industry spokespersons and their allies argue otherwise. And reform groups are saying that the CTA already offers a strong precedent for further action, especially in regard to televised movies, so that is a question. These are some of the issues that are in play, and I generalized them as such. As for the criticism that I have oversimplified the matter as “consumers versus media.” Well, frankly, it sure looks that way, judging from the filings. As the opening paragraph of the story suggests, this article was about the filings that have come in so far on the product placement question, not what the Commissioners think. The consumer groups all want more restraints on product placement, the media groups don't, because they contend that the 30 second ad has been significantly weakened by TIVo technology. I think that the most significant contribution that the story makes is that it indicates the extent to which the media industry sees product placement as central to the future of broadcasting. Sometimes debates actually are quite simple. I stand by that perception of the moment.Feinberg urges me to speak to people, rather than just summarize filings. Anyone who reads my articles on Ars on a regular basis knows that I often speak to people: industry executives and spokespersons, aides to Congressional reps, public safety providers, FCC spokespersons, and even the Commissioners when I can. But sometimes there's a real virtue to focusing on the statements that various entities send to the government. They often make plain desires, intentions, and perspectives that both industry and reform group spokespersons tend to play down in interviews and public statements. I think that that is very evident in this case.Matthew Lasar

By: Aaron Brazell

Aaron Brazell — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 17:55:14 +0000

Its an IE7 problem I haven't fixed yet. Apologies. In the meantime,feel free to use a browser like Firefox

By: KeeKee

KeeKee — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 17:18:00 +0000

Do you realize there are advertisements going through the middle of your article making it impossible for me to read it? Is this just happening on my computer or is there a secret to getting those darn things to go away? Your 'Recent Posts' (site admin I guess you would call it) is in the middle of the article too. I hope you get if straightened out soon so I can read this or is it a problem with me??? Wouldn't be the first time. KeeKee

By: Jared Goralnick

Jared Goralnick — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 16:51:35 +0000

I always admire your candor, Andrew. Thanks for offering us much more perspective on this issue.

Comments on: Don't ask questions, give them answers.

By: Matthew Lasar

By: Aaron Brazell

By: KeeKee

By: Jared Goralnick