TodaySmall decision illuminates big ones
Print
Share
Email to a friend
Add This
Article Rating
Sometimes it's the little decisions that shine the most light on how big decisions are made.
A lot of the Bush administration's big decisions have been second-guessed in the news lately, from the rush to war in Iraq to the willy-nilly tax cuts that are estimated to have caused at least 30 percent of the record-level federal deficit.
So let's look at one of the little ones.
After conferring with an unspecified advisory committee, the Department of Education recently issued a list of some 200 television programs for which it will not fund closed-captioning. The department has long had a rough guideline that it would fund captions for "educational, news or informational programs," but legislation like the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) calls for captioning to be made available across the board.
The act's intention is that the hearing-disabled should have the same wide access to media available to Americans whose hearing is fine.
Keep in mind that closed-captioning of television broadcasts doesn't depend on the Department of Education. Many broadcasters are able to provide it themselves, and you probably have noticed local TV news programs run a short message saying "Closed-captioning for this program is paid for by..." followed by the name of a commercial sponsor.
The only reason the department is involved at all is because it has a program to issue grants to broadcasters that can't pay for closed-captioning on their own. This situation probably doesn't apply to the majority of popular programs.
Nevertheless, the National Association for the Deaf is not happy with this decision, since it will lead to fewer programs being closed-captioned. Following an Internet tip about this story, I wound up on the association's site - which turns out to be the only place I could find any information about the decree. The department's own website has nothing about this.
According to NAD, the program blacklist, handed down in October, was not advertised as a proposal, and no public comment was solicited - a standard procedure for new rule-making by Cabinet-level agencies.
Lex Frieden, chairman of the National Council on Disability, a federal commission appointed by the president, wrote to Education Secretary Rob Paige asking him to withdraw the blacklist. No dice - but this letter is one of the few indications the program even exists.
Programs ineligible for captioning funds include such current favorites as "Law & Order" and "The Simpsons," golden oldies such as "Bewitched" and "I Dream of Jeannie," not to mention the vast majority of sports broadcasts and animated programs.
To give you an idea of how ill-considered this list is, here are some more banned programs, as given by the NAD: "5 BET Classic Movies (Titles TBD)" and "AMC Documentaries TBD - 9 Titles." In other words, five movies on Black Entertainment Television and nine documentaries on American Movie Classics are ineligible. Which five or nine? Do they even know?
Not only did the department issue a blacklist, it also issued a "whitelist" - another 200 or so shows that can receive grants. And the whitelist makes the blacklist look even more ridiculous.
"Andy Hardy" is approved. "The Cisco Kid" is not.
"Blue's Clues" is approved. "Bed Bug Bible Gang" is not.
"Inside Edition" is approved. "Catherine Crier Live" is not.
"DeGrassi" is approved. "Lizzie McGuire" is not.
Neither of these lists is comprehensive, so there's no indication whether "Will & Grace" is eligible or "Joan of Arcadia" is not. Fox News Channel and MSNBC are listed as approved, but CNN is not listed at all, except for its Spanish-language programming, which is also approved. Dozens of local television channels' news programs are listed as eligible, but hundreds of others aren't on either list.
There's very little to recommend or even justify a boneheaded initiative such as this one. But there are some familiar strains to this tired old song.
Here's an unpublished government decision made in concert with unnamed individuals and only made public through the efforts of a nonprofit advocacy group. Just like Vice President Cheney's "secret" energy policy.
It's an edict of dubious constitutional validity that infringes on the rights of Americans - just like the Patriot Act.
Putting this whole initiative together was a colossal misuse of federal resources - just like the war in Iraq.
And finally, anybody who thinks this low-rent version of censorship is a good idea in the year 2004 is suffering from the kind of intelligence failure no congressional committee will ever be able to straighten out.
---
