Late Night Chronicles 49: Random Thoughts On Free Speech

Originally published on Facebook, 12/31/09

The Sinclair-Mediacom fight has brought several issues on Free Speech boiling to the top of my not-so-small head. I love the fact that the United States, thanks to the Constitution takes an absolutist position on Free Speech- I think it's one of the most important rights we have and an important in general out there in the wide world of rights, etc. But our absolutist position raises some key questions for me that I think about now and again and try and muddle through in my spare time, because, you know, I'm totally cool like that. And have way too much time on my hands and need some sort of a hobby or something. Anyway, this is a random mish-mash of an LNC, but here it is:

1. Media Conglomeration: how free is speech if the flow of information is controlled by fewer and fewer companies? The main argument against this concern is 'who cares, just use the internet?' but the problem is that the majority of people aren't responsible consumers of information. No one wants to go through the tiresome business of figuring out just what truth is- they just want to read the morning paper or scan the morning headlines on MSNBC.com or whatever. Yet the question stands: how free is speech if the majority of information outlets are controlled by fewer and fewer companies?

Part of the problem is that there's still this vague notion of objectivity hanging over the collective head of American journalism. In the UK, it's different- press laws are tighter and there's less wiggle room and more restrictions on speech, but if you want the government line, you go with the BBC, if you want more left wing news, you read the Guardian, more right wing the Telegraph-- the ideological leanings of media outlets are right out there for consumers to see and they can make choices accordingly. In this country, conservatives (ignoring the internet, Fox News, The Wall Street Journal and talk radio) complain loudly about 'liberal media bias' leading to tiresome arguments about the supposed lack of objectivity in the mainstream media. But! The argument becomes even more irrelevant when you consider the fact that what conservatives consider to be 'the mainstream media' is dying slowly be degrees. (TheQuietman22 informed me that he had run into an old buddy of his from the Daily Iowan, who told him that 95% of the people who had worked with them on the DI had left journalism. Traditional outlets are looking bleak.)

If we can abandon this notion of objectivity and just ape the British model and let consumers see the political leanings of media outlets and let consumers make the choices for themselves, this may become less of an issue. But we don't encourage responsible media consumption in this country and we like to pretend that journalism is objective, but it's not. Dropping that pretense will make journalism more transparent and maybe allow consumers to see just who is controlling the news they read...

2. Tyranny of the Majority: in a country that will bite its own arm off before regulating business one inch more than necessary, it is frustrating to me that the political marketplace remains closed to fair competition. The establishment of the Commission on Presidential Debates in the wake of the 1992 and 1996 elections (fear of Perot) was a blatantly partisan move designed to protect both Democratic and Republican candidates from arguing their positions against other candidates who may have more popular positions than they themselves do. What happened to the League of Women Voters holding a debate? (Remember John Anderson in 1980? I don't, but some of you might...) The two parties hold a huge monetary advantage to the point where they can flood the media markets with blanket advertising and drown out any other points of view.

Here's the deal: say we open our political system to fair competition- we won't end up with a million parties gridlocking Congress because our system isn't designed that way- first past the post, Westminster-style voting systems can handle 3, maybe 4 parties and not much more. So the argument that opening the political marketplace will lead to political chaos is entirely incorrect- never mind the fact that you would have to have several viable third parties waiting in the wings for that to happen, which we don't.

But in the name of fairness, in the name of a healthier democracy, we should open the political marketplace to fair competition. The two major parties shouldn't be allowed to set up rules that benefit them alone- someone needs to take the responsible tack and think of the health of our democracy in the long term. I'm not going to come down on the idea of public finance for elections, but abolishing the FEC and the CPD and recognizing them for the partisan entities that they are is a damn good first step. (Oh and banning all donations larger than $100 would help too- but that is another note.)

3. Pay for Play? The Sinclair-Mediacom fight over the future of Fox and CBS Affiliates in Eastern Iowa (Fox carrying the all-important Orange Bowl this year) has had enough press coverage- but this ties in with the media conglomeration point I made earlier: why don't I, here in Iowa City have access to another cable option? Mediacom holds the monopoly in the area and as a result, can charge cut-throat prices and leave consumers the choice between cable and a dish or even rabbit ears-- with no competition, the invisible hand of the marketplace benefits no one.