As the controversy surrounding Howard Stern?s radio show and the post-bursting-bust period of governmental nervousness about broadcast indecency continues to grow, we now have emerging another example of why markets so often address contentious social disputes more effectively than state action. Stern?s immediate problem has been not FCC fines but the decision of a private company to remove his rauncy show from some of its radio stations in key markets. Stern?s proposed response is to take his show off of broadcast radio entirely to a satellite radio network, a move which would automatically move the programming away from governmental oversight and from the general radio-listening audience that big-time broadcasters wish not to offend while helping to build a nationwide subscriber base for a promising entrant into the marketplace. As we have seen in past technological revolutions, controversial programming that is intensely interesting to some viewers willing to pay for it ? pornography in the case of VCRs and various kinds of paid programming in the cases of cable TV, satellite TV, and now digital cable ? often serves as a leading edge that establishes a business model for future, more broad-based success.
It’s a case of ?both-and? rather than ?either-or? solutions to disputes. Markets excel in the former, which makes multiple parties better off. Governments specialize in the latter, zero-sum game.
