Just got word that a new website, “Fairnessdoctrine.com” has been launched in support of a bill by Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY) to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine. The site is co-sponsored by Andrew Jay Schwartzman of the Democracy Access Project, David Brock of Media Matters, and Tom Athens of Democracy Radio.
I’ll refrain from rehashing the debate over the Fairness Doctrine, which managed to suppress political debate on the airwaves for decades, and met a well-deserved death in 1987. I do, however, urge everyone to promptly contact fairnessdoctrine.com to claim equal time on their page for your opposing views. I think I’ll ask for a link to techliberation.org. It is, after all, only a matter of fairness.
Our long national nightmare is over. Under intense pressure from many politicians and other groups, Sinclair Broadcasting has caved in to demands that they not air a documentary critical of presidential candidate John Kerry’s Vietnam War record.
Wheh! Thank God for that. I mean, can you imagine how awful it would have been if this film would have ever seen the light of day. We might have been forced to debate the merits of the film. We might have been forced to exchange passionate views about the issues raised in the film. We might have been forced to.. to… to think!
Thank God our benevolent censors in Congress have our best interests in mind and are protecting us from the airing of such controversial viewpoints. I hope they take steps to make sure that Michael Moore documentaries never get aired before the election either. Perhaps we can put a stop to further distribution of “Fahrenheit 9/11” before anymore people see it and are forced to think about it’s message.
OK, now that this national catastrophe has been averted, I can go back to my easy chair and watch some legitimate, politician-approved programming that is certain to tell me everything I need to know about the candidates and the issues before election day. You know, like those remarkably informative campaign commercials. I saw one the other day in which Mr. Kerry said he believed in our future and wanted to make a better America for our children. That’s nice. Funny thing is, Mr. Bush appears to be airing the exact same ads right now too. They both REALLY love our children. And the future. Good things to love, I guess.
OK, perhaps I should instead go back and watch those exciting debates one more time. I’m sure there’s some really informative stuff in there right after both candidates get past the first 20 minutes of personally thanking every single member of the audience for coming and telling the moderator how much they love him. Boy, these candidates REALLY love people. That’s good, I guess.
Hey, I’m just looking for someone to tell me what to think here. I just want to be part of the “informed electorate.” But please don’t let me see any reports or documentaries critical of these two guys. That might lead me to think that there are alternative viewpoints out there. Or, worse yet, it might lead me and others to think that not everyone loves these guys as much as they supposedly love us. And from what they tell us or allow us to hear, we just know that can’t be true. Right?
Much as we complain about government interference in the Internet here at home, its sobering to take a look at what’s happening abroad–most notably in China. Heritage last week released a Backgrounder by research fellow John Tkacik on “China’s Orwellian Internet,” outlining the situation there. According to the paper:
“The Internet once promised to be a conduit for uncensored information from beyond China’s borders, and for a brief, shining instant in modern Chinese history, it was a potential catalyst for political and human rights reform in China. However, for China’s 79 million Web surfers–the most educated and prosperous segment of the country’s population–the Internet is now a tool of police surveillance and official disinformation”.
It’s worth a look. And, if you missed it, you also should take a look at Adam’s excellent post on China the other day.
Some groups and politicians are making a big stink about Sinclair Broadcasting’s decision to air a supposedly anti-Kerry documentary with the presidential election quickly approaching. Critics assert that:
(1) Sinclair is just another big media, pro-Bush lackey hell-bent on influencing the outcome of the election by airing this so close to voting day.
(2) It’s unfair for Sinclair to demand that its TV affiliates preempt other programming to air the documentary.
(3) It might be illegal for Sinclair to air the documentary less than 60 days before the presidential election since it could be considered “electioneering communication.” Under our current post-McCain-Feingold campaign finance election laws, “electioneering communication” refers to any form of communication that mentions candidates for federal office and is distributed within 60 days before a general election. Such forms of communication are banned on the theory that they “corrupt” our political system. News coverage is exempted from this ban, but debate over what constitutes “news” leaves the door open to much interpretation, as is the case here.
Continue reading →
I released a short essay today regarding the impact of Howard Stern’s move to satellite radio ont he future of media regulation and First Amendment jurisprudence. Is attached below. Here’s the formatted Cato link.
Continue reading →
Well, it was bound to happen. Howard Stern announced today that he signed a five-year deal with Sirius Satellite Radio, jumping ship from Infinity Broadcasting. The move frees Stern from from the radio nannies at the FCC, who have long hounded the shockjock for on-air indecency.
Personally, the change won’t change my listening habits. I’ve always found Stern more boring than shocking, at least since I left junior high school. But the move is significant–rather than stamp out indecency, the FCC has merely pushed it to new media the FCC doesn’t control (thanks to that pesky 1st amendment). Along with Rathergate, just more evidence that the media world has changed, and that broadcasters (and the FCC) no longer enjoy a bottleneck on what Americans see and hear.
This morning, the U.S. Supreme Court announced it would let the FTC’s “do not call” registry stand. It had been challenged on first amendment grounds–the basic problem being that it gave special exemptions to political candidates and charitable groups–even though their calls can be just as annoying at dinnertime than those from businesses. It was an uphill battle legally, and the Supreme Court didn’t agree with the argument. As the election approaches, then, batten down your phones for a flood of unsolicited calls from you friendly local candidates.
Broadcasting and Cable magazine is reporting that broadcasters are officially on notice to begin delaying live programs long enough to edit out any possibly “indecent” material. The magazine notes that the recent $550,000 record fine levied against CBS / Viacom for the Janet Jackson Super Bowl incident included a not-so-subtle suggestion that broadcasters start using delay techniques and technologies. Here’s the relevant language from the ruling:
“We urge each licensee to take reasonable precautions in the future, such as employing such delay technology to independently prescreen the network feed to prevent the broadcast of indecent programming over its licensed station.”
One wonders how live news shows will respond. I guess a five second delay isn’t a huge deal–and I know that many broadcasters already use such techniques–but I still find it troubling that this could mean the death of truly live TV and radio.
Attached is the text of a new Cato Institute newsletter I released today on the possibility of a congressional investigation into the “Rathergate” controversy. Fellow TLF blogger James Gattuso has also been sounding off on this in recent blogs. My take on it follows…
Continue reading →
As part of their continuing effort to censor political speech in America, several “campaign reformers” in Congress have won an important case in the U.S. District Court regarding FEC interpretations of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (“BCRA”).
I’m not going to go off on a rant about this disgusting piece of political censorship, but if you want to understand just how despicable this incumbent protection legislation really is, then I encourage you to read “Campaign Finance Reform: Searching for Corruption in All the Wrong Places” by Brad Smith and “Making the World Safer for Incumbents The Consequences of McCain-Feingold-Cochran,” by John Samples.
It just makes me sick to think that politicians can just throw around the word “corruption” so loosely and then ban all sorts of legitimate political speech and advertising before an election as a result. Amazingly, we now live in a country that affords more constitutional protections to Internet pornography than political speech before elections. While I’m happy the courts apply such strict scrutiny to other forms of speech, one wonders what our Founding Fathers would have thought about a state of affairs where you have an absolute right to view porn online but not see certain types of political advertising 60 days before an election. Bizarre.
Continue reading →
The Technology Liberation Front is the tech policy blog dedicated to keeping politicians' hands off the 'net and everything else related to technology.