MTV DEBATE IS FRUITFUL, NOT OFFICIAL INTERVENTION

The furor over a local group's request that a channel devoted to rock music videos, MTV, be removed from cable service has subsided, at least for a while. Though the matter may not be settled in some minds, the controversy has given rise to a wide range of opinions on lofty subjects such as the enforcement of community standards and the abrogation of free expression. We are not put off by the fact no tangible result has come from the discussion; the debate itself has been fruitful. And the system that allows such debate is working as it should.

MTV is a decade-old enterprise that prizes itself, like the music it exhibits, on rebellion. Its "look" has been the vanguard of many other types of visual expression. There are few venues of popular culture from movies to fashions to advertisements that the music channel has not affected in some way. In this trend-setting manner, MTV has also pushed outward the boundaries of community standards and morality. To be sure, MTV is not for all tastes; anyone who watched Prince's choreographed orgy during the recent MTV awards show would attest that the channel carries the mantle of outrage proudly.

Unimpressed by all this is a local chapter of a national organization called the American Family Association. Members of the group believe MTV is cynical manipulation of American young people and destructive to family life. Petitions have been circulated by the organization (at churches, the district fair and other locations) in an effort to get Cape Girardeau Cable TV to remove MTV from the service's lineup.

(It is interesting to note that in a survey taken here in 1983 concerning expansion of cable service, one of the most requested channels by 78 percent of respondents was MTV.)

Not long after the petition drive was announced, the manager of the local cable service said MTV would not be lifted from the lineup because of pressure from a special interest group. A minority of viewers, the company insisted, would not make viewing decisions for the majority. Fair enough.

Yet, one can not fault the association for calling attention to the issue. Consensus often has its origin in very small voices. There is no way for the cable company to know or the family association, for that matter how many people support or abhor MTV unless the issue is raised. And the foundation is as free to continue its campaign against MTV as the cable company is to continue carrying the channel.

The association has squandered its time in trying to impress the City Council with its ability to collect signatures. Freedom-of-expression issues raise questions too fuzzy for most local officials to handle. Far more formidable would be a marketplace approach; despite the statement issued in defense of MTV, cable companies are in the business, not of safeguarding freedoms, but of making money. Those who feel strongly on this subject have a recourse available; the service and its fee are not mandatory. If enough subscribers choose this route, the cable company suddenly would have a compelling reason not to hang on to the channel.

The debate is an interesting one. Asking government officials to become involved in the evaluation of cable television programming is not the best course of action.