More on the article, it's nice they're doing this and all, I don't care so much since I don't watch t.v., but I don't think a simple facepalm expresses my feeling that this is about the best our government can do over the past few years when it comes to making the lives of its citizens better.
A few problems with this statement:
- Many people probably feel you are discounting some of the work the government has done over the past few years. The stimulus and healthcare (depending on who you ask) both significantly improved the lives of large sections of the citizenry. And there are probably countless minor laws that fixed various problems that weren't quite as important to you.
- I don't like the assumption that the government's primary role is to make the lives of the people better in ways it is not already doing. This leads to government expansion and often fiscal irresponsibility and economic inefficiency. To put it concretely: a lot of the things you probably believe would "make the lives of [the country's] citizens better" cost money. That is, other people's money, people who might not value these things as much as you do. The government could I'm sure give every citizen a pair of roller skates, and that would "better" the lives of the citizens, but it also has a cost.
People are free to feel I'm discounting the stimulus and the healthcare package, personally I believe those to be insufficient and a mess, whether they will ultimately really improve everyone's situation is still to be seen and debated (elsewhere). I admit I'm likely ignorant on many minor laws that were passed that are useful to certain groups of people.
My assumption on the government making lives better is not that it should come up with more ways to do so, or less ways, but that it should simply focus on the big things and not these little things, which would include giving everyone some rollerblades. I'm also aware that everything has a cost, I don't see how stating that is an argument for anything. Of course government should weigh costs and benefits before rolling out some plan.
More concretely and with respect to this specific problem, it's something the government should keep its hands out of. This problem is easily solved by a free market solution of buying a sophisticated (i.e. capable of distinguishing commercial from program) device to do this for you without failing on the obvious cases (as the top comment suggested), the lack of which suggests it's not all that important a problem in the first place. (And in fact, it seems like advertising is the more significant complaint, which is why things like Netflix and TiVo exist.) Plus a good-enough solution exists already: the mute button. If government should be providing any sort of service to better people's lives, it should be weighted such that only those services which provide the best improvement for the best costs should be implemented. Let's talk about the costs of eliminating national poverty, not making sure everyone with a scraped knee can go to the store and receive a free bandaid.
Edit: (Yes, I also realize that a failure of the free market doesn't mean there's no problem, but in this case, I think there really is no big deal and the government can stay away.)
EditEdit: On the other hand, the government nearly controls public broadcast anyway. Not straight-up censorship controlling but e.g. the recent force-upgrade to digital over analog, the list of words you can't say on public t.v. There are so many issues with this that it's hard to get a clear picture.
Personally, I would try both. Get big things in the pipeline but get as many quick wins as possible. To do as you suggest leaves you in a position of having accomplished literally nothing after years in office.