Tag: Netflix

Categories
First Amendment rights general freedom ideological culture Internet controversy

Two Thumbs Up for Netflix

Netflix, Dave Chappelle

Although a new “Artistic Expression” section in Netflix’s culture memo could be improved, I’m giving it two thumbs up instead of the customary one and a half accorded to promising but imperfect credos.

In these censorious times, why not applaud any sincere testament upholding freedom of speech?

Even if called “diversity,” in Netflix-speak.

According to the revised memo, the company supports “a diversity of stories, even if we find some titles counter to our own personal values. . . . If you’d find it hard to support our content breadth, Netflix may not be the best place for you.”

This is probably not about Netflix’s willingness to rent The Wizard of Oz no matter who objects to the spectacle of weepy tin men or broom-riding green-faced women in pointy hats.

Recently, Netflix has been roiled by employee protests against videos they find annoying, especially Dave Chapelle’s comedy special “The Closer.” Chapelle, who appears to lean more left than right, turns out not to be the type to run his riffs by a lefty censorship board.

Now let’s see how Netflix follows up on its delicate suggestion that working for Netflix “may not be the best place” for employees demanding censorship. Will Netflix show the door to all sullen saboteurs of speech-diversity?

Also, will it more fundamentally diversify its own original content?

In any case, good for Netflix for resisting the mob, for now. Until further notice, it’s two full thumbs up.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

—

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts

Categories
incumbents political challengers term limits

Knock Down the Incumbency

Knock Down the House, socialism, term limits,

Over the weekend, I suffered through Knock Down the House . . . so you don’t have to. 

While the documentary heralding four inexperienced Democratic women running for Congress in 2018 cost Netflix $10 million, I did not have to spend a dime — beyond my regular monthly subscription.

The award-winning film, directed by Rachel Lears, who wrote it along with her husband, Robin Blotnick, is expertly crafted. Unfortunately, it is geared to democratic socialists predisposed to adoring the subjects. 

The star is now Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), who defeated then Rep. Joe Crowley, a ten-term, 20-year incumbent . . . the Number 4 Democrat in the House of Representatives.

In addition to Ocasio-Cortez, the movie follows Amy Vilela, seeking to replace a retiring Nevada Democrat; Cori Bush, challenging the Clay Family’s hereditary congressional dynasty in Missouri’s 1st district*; and Paula Jean Swearengin, battling incumbent Sen. Joe Machin in West Virginia’s Democratic Party Primary. Of the four challengers chronicled, all of whom received extensive support from two progressive groups, Justice Democrats and Brand New Congress, AOC was the only winner.

“Let’s assume all the energy in this room can get you on the ballot and into office,” offers a fellow at one of Ocasio-Cortez’s early meetings. “How, then, do we overcome the drop in power?”

“I think we really need to have to look at what that power does now,” AOC responds. “When it matters, [Rep. Crowley] doesn’t stand up for us; when it matters, he doesn’t advocate for our interests.”

Whatever one thinks of AOC’s politics, her point here is not without merit: the idea that we citizens benefit from longtime incumbents who ‘bring home the bacon’ is . . . baloney. 

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

* At the completion of this term, Rep. Lacy Clay, Ms. Bush’s opponent, will have served 20 years. His father, Bill Clay, held the seat for 32 years before that. Together, over half a century. The film alludes to the fact that Clay Jr. gained the seat in 2000 only after the surprise retirement of Clay Sr. on the very last day to file for the office . . . with Jr. filing, instead.

PDF for printing

Knock Down the House, socialism, term limits,

—

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts


Categories
crime and punishment free trade & free markets general freedom media and media people moral hazard nannyism national politics & policies property rights too much government U.S. Constitution

The Studio System: The Sequel

Studio System, antitrust, Netflix, Hulu, Amazon

Evermore virtue signaling, everless virtue — that pretty much encapsulates Oscars’ night. The industry that brought us Harvey Weinstein and the occasion for #MeToo made the 90th Academy Awards two months ago unwatchable for most of us.

Now, as the Academy of Motion Pictures Arts and Sciences loses touch with audiences around the country, Netflix appears to have decided to horn its way into the Oscars. “Netflix will reportedly begin purchasing movie theatres,” informs The Independent, “to help it get ahead in the race for Academy Awards.

The streaming giant has aimed to land an Oscar nod since the release of its first original feature in 2015, Beasts of No Nation. 

I have not seen that film, but I have made time for some entertainment (and a few documentaries) on Netflix. After Stranger Things and Wormwood, I think I can safely repeat a point I’ve made before: this is the new Golden Age of Television.

But Netflix wants more prestige than the TV industry’s “Emmys.”

Whether the company succeeds with the Oscars, notice: Netflix is becoming a major studio — complete with “vertical integration.” Just what the Supreme Court tried to kill in 1948 when it ruled against the studio system’s “monopoly” status.

That decision, plus the rise of broadcast television, dealt a death blow to the studios — and arguably movie quality.

Maybe a new studio system (also courtesy of Amazon Prime, Apple, and other players) will make for a renaissance.

For feature-length films.

If we can just keep government out of it.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

 

Categories
First Amendment rights free trade & free markets too much government

Unfree Financial Speech

Can you get in trouble with the law — or at least a government agency’s unlimited regulatory power — for peacefully telling the truth?

You can, despite the protections articulated in the First Amendment and the greater respect sometimes accorded to freedom of speech than to other constitutionally protected rights.

It is possible because when they assault speech, government officials claim to be opposed not to the right to speak freely but to something else. They say they’re combating lung cancer, the influence of money on politics, or the unequal distribution of information to investors.

This summer, Reed Hastings of Netflix committed the sin of boasting on Facebook that monthly viewing of Nexvids “exceeded one billion hours for the first time ever in June.” Sounds innocent enough.

Come December, though, and the Securities and Exchange Commission has threatened to bring civil charges against Netflix for allegedly violating “public disclosure rules.” SEC Regulation FD requires public companies to make “full and fair disclosure” of “material” information that is not already public.

The SEC still thinks that 244,000 Facebook subscribers don’t fully and fairly constitute the public, but the communication cannot by any reasonable, modern construal be a case of offering “insider information.” How much more “outside” from the back rooms of a corporation can you get than Facebook?

The absurdity, here, lies in the SEC’s rules and its interpretations of those rules — and in the blind, confused, bankrupt way bureaucracies, which don’t go bust as the companies they oversee can, enforce their rules.

That is why Bernie Madoff slipped through the SEC’s fingers for years, while Netflix finds itself in hot water for a Facebook posting.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.