Just a short blurb here to ask, “Should the feds prop up Air America?”.
It seems they’re in dire straits. If you read my rant below on gov’t media subsidy, then this is the natural result of the marketplace of ideas I am preaching, and the marketplace should not be tampered with by Uncle Sam.
The recent headline in USA Today (here) says that Harry Reid apologized for his “racial” remark. Anybody find it odd that the word “racist” is not used in this article to describe Reid or the remark? I find it interesting that there’s little to no questioning whether Reid is a racist bigot. Instead, the article serves as a platform to communicate Reid’s apology, and Obama’s acceptance of same, without inquiry. I wonder what USA Today would be reporting if some high-ranking GOP Senator had made the same comments?
On another front regarding this same news event, it is being reported that CBS 60 Minutes in a segment aired 1/10/2010 with the authors of “Game Change” (the book which exposed the Reid remarks) the topic of Reid’s remarks were completely ignored. Ask yourself why, and try to answer honestly. Watch clips here and see how obsessed CBS is with Sarah Palin, while having no time for Harry Reid’s racism – and let’s not forget, Sarah Palin is no longer an elected official, and Reid is the leader of the U.S. Senate. View here.
NO, HELL NO.
Think for a moment about what free speech entails. In addition to traditional notions of free religious and political expression, it is the foundation for free creative expression (for creations both good and bad). This is the freedom to create and market a top 10 hit, a box office blockbuster, a wildly successful advertising campaign, etc. It also is the freedom to create and have no commercial success whatsoever, as the vast majority of creative persons do (think: “starving artist”). Free speech carries no guarantee that the message will be heard, liked or purchased.
As a basic premise, the Fairness Doctrine was enacted by the FCC at a time when the concept of “scarcity” was readily accepted with regard to broadcast media. It’s a simple concept – there is only so much bandwidth on the electromagnetic spectrum and only a certain number of radio and television station licenses can be allocated to geographic regions without interference between signals.
MediaFairness.com is dedicated to fighting the idea that fairness must (or can) be imposed upon the media.
For one, this site will serve to argue against re-adoption of the so-called “Fairness Doctrine”, based on the well-founded argument that the Fairness Doctrine is an unlawful prior restraint on speech which, when in effect years ago, was imposed in order to grant rights to broadcasters to editorialize and was technically based on the Federal Communication Commission’s notion of “scarcity”. With new media technology, scarcity no longer exists.
Either November 13, 2008 is an unlucky day for MF or it is an unlucky day for those who would abuse the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. It’s “day one” of MediaFairness.com (a/k/a “MF”). Game on.
MF is not intended to be an ideological “right wing” site. The preference is to make the case for unbridled media (within the reasonable confines of decency and lawfulness) – especially as concerns political and religious speech, letting the market determine what messages the public (or segments of the public) want to hear.
Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting
Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission
This is big. Finally, the McCain-Feingold bill has been rolled back. After review of the highlights below, it is chilling to think that only 5 out of 9 Supreme Court Justices agreed with the majority opinion. Some portions of the majority and concurring opinions (which I appreciate most) are below. Citations are redacted. The full opinion is available here. Comments are welcomed.
Majority Opinion, J. Anthony Kennedy: