Top blogs often too one-sided [Free Republic and Drudge dwarf all others but are unfair]

T here's been a lot of excitement about blogs since they broke into public consciousness during the 2004 election. They are now growing at an astronomical rate. The blog search engine Technorati now tracks almost 20 million of them, and various estimates of the number of blog users range from 32 million to 50 million Americans.

Blogophiles see blogs as a new way for citizens to express themselves and, especially among the political bloggers, a new way for citizens to talk back to the "MSM" -- the mainstream media. According to Mike Godwin, legal director of a First Amendment advocacy group called Public Knowledge, "A.J. Liebling famously commented that freedom of the press belongs to those who own one. Well, we all own one now."

But in all the excitement and hype, it's easy to overlook the fact that in some ways political blogs are not so different from or even separate from the MSM they often love to hate.

One similarity is found in emerging patterns of Web traffic. Blog abundance creates a paradox: Given more information choices than ever, most people economize, trying to find efficient ways to tame the information tide. So most regular users rely on a few blogs for most of their information. That's one reason why a handful of political blogs gets the lion's share of traffic. A recent study of 2 million Internet users found that the top four blog "hosts," such as blogspot.com, are visited by more than 5 million visitors per quarter. Unique visitors to the Drudge Report and the conservative blog freerepublic.com number2 million to 3 million per quarter, twice as many as their nearest competitors and dwarfing countless smaller blogs.

Well, I'll cede the point - if you can show me any press that runs for free. Newspapers have to buy paper and ink, and buy and maintain the presses, and operate the presses, and distribute the papers. That all costs money. You will say, "but that money comes from the sale of the paper." And I will reply, "not really - the newspaper lives and dies by advertising revenue - and not only so, but a newspaper may be started up by an entrepreneur who got his money making sausage or something."

Hmmm. That's a really good argument. But is advertising the same as journalism in terms of the founder's intent for freedom of the press? I'm not sure. Did they intend to protect the right to advertise anything? Can the government put limits on advertising? If we argue that spending, in the form of advertising is press then there are a lot of practices that will become protected, not just political ads.

The Supreme Court ruled in 1976 in Buckley v. Vallejo that spending money for political campaigns IS a part of First Amendment freedom of speech. That is what makes the Court's decision in McConnell v. FEC, 5-4, upholding the Campaign Finance "Reform" Act an illogical and dishonest decision.

It is such a dishonest decision, and the result was so appalling, that I resigned from the bar of the Supreme Court in disgust. This is one of the decisions that I think can and will be reversed by getting one or two more Justices on the Court who take their oaths of office seriously, and will protect and defend the Constitution.

Logically, it isn't even close, to argue that spending money for advertising, printed materials, phone calls, and such is anything but part and parcel of free speech on political campaigns. It is contemptible that five Justices on the current Court voted to wipe their feet on the Constitution.

I hope I wasn't too harsh. LOL.

Congressman Billybob

Latest column: "Reporting on the 2,000th American Death in Iraq"

But is advertising the same as journalism in terms of the founder's intent for freedom of the press?

Well, for one thing, the government shouldn't have the right to ccensor advertising becauuse that gives government the power to choke off advertising revenue to the printer.

Did they intend to protect the right to advertise anything? Can the government put limits on advertising?

To me advertising is a mere matter of renting a press instead of buying it. Why should the government have authority over a press merely because the operator rented it instead of buying it??

If we argue that spending, in the form of advertising is press then there are a lot of practices that will become protected, not just political ads.

If by that you mean that present-day First Amendment jurisprudence is a royal lashup, you will get no argument from me. I refer you to this long-running thread for further discussion of this topic.

First, thanks for that link.

"To me advertising is a mere matter of renting a press instead of buying it. Why should the government have authority over a press merely because the operator rented it instead of buying it??"

Putting your arguments together... if advertising and spending are given the same level of protection as journalism because they are speech and press, respectively that would appear to give tremendous advantage to whatever person or party is wealthier since the could spend as much as they wanted however they might want.

Is that really consistent with founder's intent? Did they intend to create a system with unlimited spending and so large of an advantage for the wealthy?

if advertising and spending are given the same level of protection as journalism because they are speech and press, respectively that would appear to give tremendous advantage to whatever person or party is wealthier since the could spend as much as they wanted however they might want.

Is that really consistent with founder's intent? Did they intend to create a system with unlimited spending and so large of an advantage for the wealthy?

Unambiguously, my answer is yes. The First Amendment lays no restrictions on the people in their capacity as (present or future) speakers and printers; it lays restrictions only on the government.
The mistake we are encouraged to make is to think of freedom of the press as protecting our "right to know." We don't have any such thing as a "right to know." That would be inconsistent with our right to our own opinion - the speaking and printing of which the First Amendment so clearly protects. What is the point of a right to speak, if the only thing you can speak is what the government says that I have a right to know? What if you say something which contradicts what I "have a right to know?" Are you violating my rights by preventing me from "knowing" what I have a "right to know?"
Propaganda promoting a so-called "right to know" is of a piece with the promotion of the conceit that mass market journalism is "objective." Not only does the First Amendment not assure us that journalism is objective, it protects the journalist from any government prosecution on any such ground as a failure to be - by the government's lights, or yours or mine - "objective." The Constitution certainly says nothing about requiring that "opinion" be confined to an "editorial page" - in the founding era Hamilton and Jefferson sponsored competing newspapers in which to conduct their partisanship. A situation in which the entire newspaper would be what we now think of as the editorial page . . .
Indeed, sponsorship of a newspaper by a political party can scarce be said to differ in kind from "political advertising," now can it? One might just as well have a political party and a newspaper joined at the hip. Indeed that is what we now do have; as I noted earlier the Democratic Party adopts no principles which prevent it from associating itself with the leftist slant which inheres in journalism which is arrogant enough to proclaim its own objectivity.
It is convenient for both the Democratic Party and "objective" (really arrogant) journalism to protest the independence of journalism from Democratic politics, but neither of the two has any incentive to actually seperate themselves. So what we see in practice is not merely advertising in newspapers by the Democratic Party but the mutual coopting of all of "mainstream" journalism - print and broadcast - and the Democratic Party. Only thus is it possible for CBS to attack the Republican candidate for POTUS on a Democratic (Lt. Bush skipped out on the National Guard whereas Lt. Kerry brought home medals from Vietnam) theme and adducing as "proof" amateurishly fraudulent documents - and subsequently investigate itself and give itself a clean bill of health as being "objective." And see the entire MSM report that risable fraud straight. Not a single member of the MSM laughed when they reported it!

"Unambiguously, my answer is yes. The First Amendment lays no restrictions on the people in their capacity as (present or future) speakers and printers; it lays restrictions only on the government."

I follow yor constitutional argument perfectly. It really doesn't say the press has to be owned to have freedom of the press. I no longer feel ambiguous about that - I appreciate you walking me through it.

This argument would not just free up soft money but individual contributions direct to the campaign. Should the SC ever take this (really logical) position it sure would make the individual large donor more important. That would make for very interesting politics.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.