Ping. Bookmarked.
The First Amendment matters not to the left on this or any other issue. In their minds, The First Amendment should only apply to “approved” speech. And, you know who gets to pass on “approved.”
btt
bookmark
I lived through the silenced majority era when JFK/LBJ shills, et al lined up to file FCC complaints that threaten radio station owners' broadcast licenses. Never again.
Our free speech has been protected by the blood of citizens past against foreign enemies.
Our free speech must be defended by blood (if necessary) against domestic enemies; our free speech, their blood.
Bump!
The history of journalism and the First Amendment has long been a particular interest of mine. This article is excellent for its summary of the legislation and the court findings relevant to the "Fairness Doctrine."Apparently journalism was provincial and openly partisan until the advent of the telegraph. The telegraph was revolutionary in its ability to disseminate information across the continent and around the world. Indeed, the conservative American South saw the revolutionary implications of the telegraph - and actually prevented the propagation of long-distance telegraphy and rail lines in the South (and that obviously had a major effect on the ability of the South to wage war against the heavily wired and rail-interconnected North).
But in comparison with the modern broadband Internet connection, telegraphy was unimaginably expensive. Hence, the advent of the Associated Press as a way of sharing the expense of news gathering and dissemination. I take it that it was the homogenizing effect of AP which unified the perspective of journalism. In any case, journalism now is just as partisan as ever but, being unified in its perspective and claiming "objectivity" for its output, much more arrogant. There are many outlets, but they are competitive only in the way that the Yankees and the Red Sox are competitive. The big picture is that, when it comes to promoting their games and their league, they are in league with each other.
Essentially, "liberal" and "progressive" are simply code words for people who agree that the public interest, and the interest of journalism - which is to interest and impress the public - coincide. Just as "objective journalist" is a code for a person with same opinion as a "liberal," who happen to be employed as a reporter. The "liberal" and the "objective journalist" are in agreement that NOTHING actually matters except PR. And the "liberal" and the "objective journalist" accordingly agree that "objective journalists" should define what is "fair" for their opponents - whom they label "conservatives" or "right wingers" - to be able say on the radio. They also agree that "objective journalists" should be able to exercise free speech during election season - but that others should simply shut up.
The First Amendment looks better - and the Fairness Doctrine looks worse - as technology progresses.
Funny how Mr. Epperson's company is one of the largest benefactors of that repeal.