Flushing the First Amendment - Originally Posted 10-25-09

Net Neutrality, Fairness Doctrine, Media Bailouts, crap! The first amendment protects freedom of the press. That means we are allowed to publish anything we want. That does not mean it has the right to be read, heard, seen, etc. Now, there are some legitimate limits. Such as yelling "FIRE" in a crowded place or knowingly and blatantly lying about someone. Although that second one has been put on hold for now.

The media, as with anything else in our capitalist society, is a commodity. It is bought and sold on the basis of supply and demand. If the New York Times (or any newspaper) is losing subscribers and advertising, then it either needs to change its content or stop publishing. The last thing they should get is government protection or a bailout. We can look at the current situation with GM and Chrysler to see what happens with a government bailout. When I was growing up in Memphis, we had two newspapers. There was a morning paper and an afternoon paper. Eventually, economic conditions no longer warranted an afternoon paper. The paper ceased publishing. That was it. There was no bailout. There were no new laws passed to protect this paper from closing. It just went away. The advertisers and subscribers went to the Commercial Appeal and it still publishes today. If the NYT or any other major media outlet goes under, it will not be the end of the sacred fourth estate. There are plenty of media outlets ready to take on their subscribers and advertisers. And, as long as they give a product that the public wants, it will stay in business.

That brings me to the Fairness Doctrine. I will try to explain the Fairness Doctrine as best I can. I welcome any better explanation. It says if a radio station offers a certain point of view, it must offer an opposing point of view as well. It all sounds fine until you think about it. If I go on the radio and say I do not like the color yellow and give examples of why I don't, the station has to find someone who likes the color yellow and explain why. I know this sounds simplistic, but stay with me. What happens if we can not find someone who likes the color yellow? We have to make a search of the area for this person. We would even have to go on the air and plead for someone to come on who likes the color yellow. Otherwise, I can not go on and give my opinion of the color yellow. Now, let's replace the color yellow with the KKK or Neo-Nazis or child molesters. That station would have to go out and find someone with an opposing point of view or not broadcast. This was why AM radio was so boring until 1988. That was when the Reagan administration abolished the fairness doctrine. They viewed it as back-handed censorship. Make it so difficult to put out an opinion that no one will bother.
What I am saying is the Fairness Doctrine did not promote free speech, it stifled it. It paralyzed radio stations into giving farm reports and apple pie recipes. That's no fun. Anyway, without it we can have Air America as well as Rush Limbaugh. The public then decides which they want to listen to. And, the public and the advertisers made their voices clear. They did not like Air America or the message they were spreading. However, they do like Rush. This is not a matter of politics, but economics. Unfortunately, some in congress wish to bring back the Fairness Doctrine to silence people like Rush, Hannity, Beck, etc. I believe we should let the public and the market decide what they want to listen to. We do not need a Fairness Doctrine to decide for us.

Now, on to the tv. I watch Fox News occasionally. To be honest all tv new bores me. In my humble opiinion, MSNBC has to be the worst of all of them. I prefer to get my news from the internet. I will explain that later. Anyway, take a look at the ratings. You will see the Fox News shows dominate them. Why do you suppose that is? Could it be the manipulation of the results to give a favorable outcome to a right-wing point of view? Or, could it be Fox News offers shows people want to watch more than those on other networks? Take off your tin foil hats and be honest with me. If the networks want to improve their ratings, maybe they should look to their programming instead of asking the government for help. We already have a government controlled outlet, remember NPR? We do not need five or six others telling us what to think. Again, I say let the public and the market decide.

That brings me to the internet. I love the internet. I see it as cable tv was in the 1980's. Remember the SNL skit Wayne's World? That was what cable was like back then. You had all these empty channels and programmers looking to fill them. If you had the money, you could buy time on these channels and do whatever you wanted, within reason. They still had to abide by the rules of broadcasting. But in some cases they were bent a little. It was a great free market of ideas. The only thing was the price of admission. The internet is the same way. Any idiot, including yours truly, with a computer and an idea can publish on the internet. At the same time, you are free to read it or not. This runs the gamut from education and opinion to propaganda and porn. The beauty of this is you can go to those sites or not. No one dictates what you do or see on the internet except you. You can protect your children from the predators on the internet. You can decide what the see and do not see. It is total freedom for your choice. Now the government wants to begin regulating the internet. They want to introduce Net Neutrality. I do not understand the entire law. That in itself gives me enough reason to be against it. But, any law from the government with the word "neutrality" in it can not be good. I would like to see the internet free of any influence. I choose what provider to use, what sites I wish to go to, and when I want to be on. I can also make that choice for my children until the become old enough to make them for themselves.

In summary, here is what I have to say about the First Amendment, keep it. If you do not like what a paper writes, do not buy it or read it. If you do not like what a tv or radio station broadcasts, don't watch or listen. Don't go crying to the government to enact rules and laws over it. Those rules and laws could eventually come back to haunt you in another time. People like Rush, they listen to him. The more that listen, the more advertisers want to be heard on his show. The more revenue Rush and his stations make. In the reverse, not enough people liked Air America, fewer listeners, fewer advertisers, less revenue, eventually, they closed. That is the beauty of the market. You stand or fall on your own merits, not what the government does for you. Therefore I say if you do not like something, don't watch, don't read, don't listen, and don't go asking the government for help.

Once again, thanks for reading and I welcome your feedback, pro or con.