Your Government at Work: No More Loud Commercials
As you're probably aware, the United State of America is in a pretty serious rut. Face it: We're kinda screwed. But, there is hope: In the coming week, Congress is likely to pass the Commercial Advertising Loudness Mitigation Act (CALM), which "should finally ban TV ads that blare louder than the programs they interrupt." Yeah, on second thought, we're still screwed.
The CALM Act is slated for a final House vote this week, winning precious time in a December lame-duck session alongside issues including middle-class tax cuts and funding the federal government. In September the measure was addressed by the Senate, where dozens of bills have died this year amid partisan strife. It broke the political gridlock long enough to pass by unanimous consent.
Because if there's one thing Democrats and Republicans can agree on, it's the loudness of television commercials? Good thing CALM wasn't a legislative measure about tax cuts or budget considerations, otherwise it would have probably gotten filibustered.
Anyway! If you're one of the millions of Americans who will lose their unemployment benefits on Thursday, at least you can take solace in the fact that TV commercials won't be too loud sometime in the future. U-S-A!
· Well, Hush My Mouth: Congress Is Moving Against LOUD Ads [WSJ]
Subscribe to the new Movieline on YouTube
Comments
THIS IS GREAT NEWS!!! NO NEED TO YELL AT PEOPLE WITH NO MONEY, ANYWAY!!! MAYBE THEY SHOULD CREATE A COMMERCIAL WHICH TURNS PEOPLE UPSIDE DOWN AND SHAKES THEM TILL POCKET CHANGE FALLS OUT!!!!
You make light of this legislation. Why should the government just be focused on big issues. I find it absolutely annoying when stations announce commercials at a much higher level. It is intrusive. So good for the government.
Anywhere that I see an article about this bill, invariably it's covered in this same snarky attitude that this is a waste of time and "taxpayer money" (love that bottom-feeding cliche) when so many other issues are unresolved. It's a good bill that has the best interests of regular people in mind, and it doesn't create a new agency or cost millions of dollars to anyone to implement. (Other than possibly some broadcast/cable operators who will need to upgrade equipment that should have been upgraded already anyway). With so little good news coming out of Washington, must we pee all over the few bits of good news that we do receive?
This is a good thing - especially during Sponge Bob!
When it's about something as meaningless and frivolous as the volume of commercials on television, yes. Yes, we must.
You are being too hard on the government, Chris. They are also protecting us from Mark Ruffalo and are about to pass a big food regulation overhaul!
It's almost like your political agenda influences your reporting.
Back in the day we called that yellow journalism. Stop disguising your editorials as news.
It's a harmless measure that fractionally increases quality of life -- and a unanimously supported one at that.
Not all government's focus must be on big social issues, nor should it be.
Oh wait. Looks like they want to block that food thing. http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/12/01/gop-may-block-food-safety-bill/?src=twt&twt=thecaucus
How about extending UI benefits and I can work the remote myself?
Many TV manufacturers already have the option to automatically lower TV commercial volume. Way to solve an inexisting problem, congress. Maybe tomorrow you could work on using Velcro in kids shoes.
Chris, your sarcasm works better than plain old reporting. Keep it going!
The whole system seems to need an overhaul yet everyone is to afriad to say it. We spend so much time attempting to be politicaly correct or tryen not to affend someone that the important things go unnoticed. The government is getting to fat. And the people are getting to skinny. Well, most of them. Anymore it seems commen sence has been thrown out the window. Just my thoughts.
This is a first step in the right direction. Now if the Government could band stupid commercials .... oh, that would be a relief.
But exceedingly numerous and long commercials are an abuse. I mute them and boycott the products and/or services advertised.
If every body would do the same, we would not need government intervention.
How about starting a campaign against abusive advertisers?
Ugo
If the Broadcasters had not been acting like children, shouting for attention, then the Gov't would not have to step in. I am very happy that this problem might be fixed. Now, stop idiots from honking their horns when they lock the car, and stop blinding everyone with four headlights (the only fog is between your ears, so turn off the fog lights.) Then society gets closer to tolerable.
Well Bless Bess and the Hoss she rode in on. Who said that that bunch of aorgant Blank blanks (tryin to be nice) in Our USA Government didn't have what's best for us U.S. citizens at heart. Don't know your politics Chriss but I sure do love your since of humor. You know, you may have hit on the one and only topic that every body from the Far Far Left to the Far Far Right and maybe even the Tea Party Folks can agree both in a problem that is not much more that an anoyance and tha level of importance.
Mr. Rosen: Just because an issue is meaningless and frivolous to you, it doesn't it is to other people. I think it is pretty arrogant for you to assume that you speak for everyone. People like me, who stay at home as caregivers to an aging parent - one who watches several hours of television each day as entertainment - have to put up with the change in volume or walk around with the remote on hand in order to hit the 'mute' button. Try doing that while taking care of several things at the same time without going insane or wanting to yell at the advertisers. This legislation will give me one less thing I need to worry about during my very busy days. I, for one, will be grateful.
It's about DAMN time !!
If it's so meaningless and trivial, why did you take the story to begin with? Your attitude toward it was predetermined, as evidenced by your MAD Magazine-style snappy answers to all these "stupid" questions. Don't pretend to be some concerned champion of government reform when all you're doing is grabbing a few moments of attention about something you don't seem to give a crap about.
I took it for the same reason I take many stories: To specifically get under your skin!
Oh, no. That's wrong. I wrote about it, with my "MAD Magazine-style," because it's ridiculous and absurd. If you don't think it is, good for you. I'm not a "concerned champion of government reform," I just hate when the government does things that so obviously illustrate how ridiculous they are.
What me worry?