In defense of freedom

On November 27, in a speech titled “Free speech in an age of terrorism,” former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich argued that, in the interests of national security, we need a “different set of rules” for freedom of speech. Since the Bill of Rights is our current set of rules, we can only assume Gingrich wants to ditch the First Amendment.

In a letter to Lafayette dated 1823, Thomas Jefferson proposed another view of the foundations of national security. “The only security of all is in a free press. The force of public opinion cannot be resisted when permitted freely to be expressed. The agitation it produces must be submitted to. It is necessary, to keep the waters pure.”

We are pleased to note that Congressman Maurice Hinchey (D-NY) appears to adhere to the latter rather than the former point of view, as witnessed by his formation of the Future of American media caucus in 2005, to promote “an accountable, diverse, fair and independent media.”

Unfortunately, Hinchey and his caucus face an uphill battle in realizing this goal. The principal problem is the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and subsequent Federal Communications Commission (FCC) rulemakings, which formed the focus of his November 21 forum on media reform (see “Media consolidation sparks protest at forum,” The River Reporter, November 30).

The Telecommunications Act relaxed ownership rules restricting the ability of any one entity to dominate the nation’s information outlets. The result was a wave of consolidation that sharply reduced the number of competitors in the industry. Currently, six giants—Disney, GE, Viacom, News Corporation (Fox), Time Warner and CBS—own the overwhelming majority of television stations and newspapers, magazines, books, and film distribution and production companies.

This consolidation has had a severe impact on the availability and objectivity of news. As huge multinationals have bought up smaller outlets, news departments have been slashed to cut costs and promote profits, with local news coverage replaced by homogeneous regional or national content. In some cases, the vacuum has been filled by so-called video news releases (VNRs), video clips that are created by corporations or the government to look like objective newscasts that promote the agenda of the entity creating them. Frequently, these are aired without disclosure of their source.

Meanwhile, news stories that put the giant corporations that own them in a bad light may be suppressed. For example, after Disney bought ABC, CEO Michael Eisner was quoted in LA Weekly as saying, “I would prefer ABC not cover Disney.” A few days later, ABC killed a “20/20” story critical of the parent company.

Radio, for which ownership limits were almost completely eliminated, was hit the hardest: the number of owners declined by 30 percent, and only two parent companies, Clear Channel and Viacom, now control 42 percent of listeners. Clear Channel ballooned from 40 stations to over 1,200, and owns 60 percent of the nation’s rock radio. It has subsequently used its clout to limit airtime for artists who say things with which it disagrees and is under investigation on payola charges, i.e. charges that it traded airtime for payoffs.

The problem faced by Hinchey and his sympathizers is that the FCC refuses to recognize the problems that have been created by the Telecommunications Act of 1996, and is pushing for rules that will further promote consolidation and reduce competition and local control. So intent is the FCC on pushing consolidation that, according to an AP report in September, it actually destroyed draft reports from its own research department showing that consolidation has adversely affected local news coverage.

With the public attention riveted on national security, it would be easy to shove media reform to a back burner—especially with people like Gingrich arguing that security requires that we should have less, not more, freedom of speech. But, like Jefferson, we believe that freedom of speech, far from being something we should fear, is our strongest defense.

That means that Hinchey’s media agenda is also an agenda to defend the American way of life. Current media ownership restrictions should be tightened, not relaxed, to promote diversity and localism. The Fairness Doctrine, requiring that news outlets present all sides of any issue they present, should be restored. Let the media become once again the conduit through which as many voices as possible compete freely in the marketplace of ideas. In such a marketplace, the bankrupt ideologies of hate and fear on which the terrorists depend can only lose.

Dr. Punnybone

Duck Holiday