PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENTS:
Government has demanded that radio and TV stations broadcast certain ads that promote public well being. These ads take air time that otherwise would be paid for giving profit to the stations. Is it correct to take the profits from these stations for these ads?
This was written mostly because I am often tempted to suggest that government spend its money on such ads rather than make laws that are nearly always detremintal to someone. I agree with Thomas Jefferson that pursuasion (or information) is the only way to go, but my conclusion is that government should pay for such ads, not expect the private sector to take the loss.
1) Why should the stations take the financial loss?
2) Suppose a station like the Playboy Channel or MTV doesn't want to broadcast an anti-drug or anti-promiscuity message if they feel their clientele was opposed to it? Should they be coerced into doing so?
3) Isn't this the equivalent of government media control?
4) Are such ads really advantageous? According to a study by assistant professor Shyam Sundar at Penn State University and doctoral student, Carson Wagner from the University of Colorado (Boulder), students exposed to anti-drug PSAs desired more "experimental knowledge" about drugs, not just "knowledge about drug-related facts." The study found that the "mere mention" of illegal drugs in PSAs created an "everybody's doing it" effect on teens and caused them to "increase estimations" of drug use among their peers. Currently the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy and the Partnership for a Drug Free America spend about $195 million on anti-drug PSAs.
5) "It would be far better to attempt to INFORM the public vs. persuade." --PJ Pullman, my son.
6) What if the government decides to pursuade us to pay more taxes, blackball Communists, approve sex education in kindergarden, etc. It does have the potential for abuse.
7) Since government does have the right to "promote the general welfare", such ads could be Constitutional, but they still might not be the best way to approach the problems.
8) When and if the citizenry decides a message should get out, they can buy programming slots like any other business.
9) Local, private, and charitable organizations would probably do a better job of informing the public on matters they need to know. This would include vices, hazardous products, etc. Doesn't the Weather Channel and local news do a fine job in this area? People who refuse to become educated will rightfully suffer. However, "A fool and his money are soon parted" can be rephrased, "A fool and his life are soon parted."