In an effort to prove that it is not just me droning on about the state of our media, I invited BiRZ contributor Dylan McDonnell to be part of the discussion; after all it was an online chat with him that inspired this series in the first place. Enjoy!
***
As a libertarian I am often found walking the thin line between “Safety Nets” and “Freedom”. To some libertarians the idea of safety nets is archaic and, in some circles, immoral. In others, such as myself, we recognize the need for some community programs that will better our nation as a whole.
Enter 1949. It was the beginning of the end for radio and the beginning of the beginning for Television, especially the News. You see, in 1949 our lawmakers had the foresight to understand the importance of accurate media reporting. They saw that free speech, while often considered the most important amendment, must also be regulated to some degree, for if the television stations were allowed to air anything they may be able to say thing such as “This president I think has exposed himself over and over again as a guy who has a deep-seated hatred for white people or the white culture….I’m not saying he doesn’t like white people, I’m saying he has a problem. This guy is, I believe, a racist.” (Glenn Beck) or “I personally hold Blair more responsible for this war than I do George Bush. The reason is, Blair knows better,… Blair is not an idiot. What is he doing hanging around this guy?” (Michael Moore).
Now, that’s not to say that there’s not a level of truth in these statements, but the lawmakers recognized the need for reporting both sides of important issues in order to give a “Fair and Balanced” perspective. Over time Congress backed the doctrine (1954), as did the Supreme Court (Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC). However, in 1974 the Fairness Doctrine took a major hit from the High Court when it ruled that Newspapers didn’t have to abide by the same rule.
Then came the moment we all had not realized we were waiting for: June 1, 1980 CNN opened the first 24 hour television station. While they had a few successes such as covering the Challenger mission and Baby Jessica Rescue (please see Curtis’s previous post regarding these issues), their real success didn’t come until covering the Gulf War. From this time there was something called “The CNN Effect” that was established. The idea that media, especially 24 hour cable news, had a significant impact on policy decisions.
By this time, of course, the FCC had overturned the Fairness Doctrine with a vote of 4-0. They stated “The intrusion by government into the content of programming occasioned by the enforcement of [the Fairness Doctrine] restricts the journalistic freedom of broadcasters … [and] actually inhibits the presentation of controversial issues of public importance to the detriment of the public and the degradation of the editorial prerogative of broadcast journalists.” Meanwhile congress attempted to try to establish it as a federal law backed legislatively but Reagan blocked any bill from passing, seeing it as an infringement on free speech. This paved the way for more controversial stations such as MSNBC and Fox News to be established in 1996.
The real blow to media came in 2000 when the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit ordered that the Equal time Rule and the Political Editorial Rule to be legally justified, as they were the corollaries of The Fairness Doctrine. As the FCC was unable to do so, it effectively no longer required News stations to notify a political candidate when they were personally attacked on a broadcast or editorial program, nor a reasonable opportunity to respond to those attacks.
And so we find ourselves embroiled in the same place our forefathers feared we would be situated. We have many News Channels, in the hope to provide more programming, turning to editorials, which are run by less rules, allowing them to interject (often invalid or unsubstantiated) opinions without any chance for legitimate rebuttal. And what do these editorialists answer when confronted about their less-than-honest mode of communication? They explain, “well, we aren’t the news anchors, we are editorialists”.
Okay, you’re editorialists, on a news channel, that people turn to in order to understand the world around them. They look to this station to form a good portion of their world opinion, and rather than news they get nonsense. But that’s their right to do as Americans, right?
Well, perhaps that answer is left for a future post, but it is my opinion, as guest contributor on a blog, perhaps one of the most editorialized media forms on the planet, that Freedom completely unrestricted leads to practical and ideological failure.
The media has an obligation to report the truth, but we must not leave it up to human nature to decide what level of truth we receive. Just as a kite is held down by one mere string, it is also that string that allows it to soar into the sky. Freedom of Speech wasn’t meant to protect Paris Hilton. It was meant to protect the Media from the government. However, as cable news loses its restrictions, we must begin to ask us who will protect us from the Media?
Click here to read Part I: The Consumers
Click Here to read Part II: The Media and the 24 Hour News Cycle
Up next: Poor Education Policies
