|
1. This fiction of public airwaves is just that -- a fiction. How are airwaves owned by the public, other than simply stating that it is so?
Well, who owns the airwaves then? Were they naturally granted to any entity, however defined? May I broadcast from my backyard? It's already been "simply stated." The government stated it was so, and then proceeded to award exclusive broadcast rights on given frequencies to given private companies, and to arrest anyone who thought to use the frequency otherwise.
2. I believe in free speech. The more the better. I do NOT believe in shutting down opposing viewpoints as so many on here are in favor of.
Again, strawman: Who said "shut down"? Why do six to twelve media conglomerates get to control all of the TV and most of the daily print? I believe in access for all - perhaps the broadcaster model needs to be replaced by what one might call a "speaker" model. Instead of NBC getting 24 hours on Channel 4, maybe that should be divided among different speakers.
3. There are so many outlets now for expression with the Internet, cable, mags, etc. that it is difficult to say that Dems need to be given more air time. A good show will attract viewers (as a general proposition).
Please. The most important medium of TV, including cable, is not at all an "outlet for expression" as you describe, it is a top-down dispensary that sometimes creates the illusion of debate between artificial viewpoints on non-existent issues.
A good show that doesn't get the network nod will attract NO ONE. A show that attracts "merely" thousands of viewers will be off the air. And I'm not talking about "Dems." I'm talking about time for viewpoints outside the elite consensus of D vs. R.
4. The government should not be in the business of deciding the CONTENT of what is broadcast, i.e., deciding on which political ideology should get voice.
The government IS in this business. Formally, it is all over this business, it decides who broadcasts. In terms of the real power relationships, however, you cannot so cleanly distinguish between big corporations and the government. They are the government. One small example: a contractor in symbiosis with the Pentagon owns NBC, which in turn is conditioned over time (mainly through personnel decisions) to maintain the ideological justifications for the military-industrial complex in general, and whatever the next war is in particular. (Critique after the fact ain't worth a bucket of spit, as they say. All that counts on this aspect is what they do when the next war is announced.)
So the government is in this business, and the corporations who own the networks might as well be the government. The question is, what do you want to do about it?
5. The Fairness Doctrine is so vague and mushy that it is impossible to enforce. What does equal time mean? Does it mean Air America needs to air the Sean Hannity show to be fair?
Indeed. Fine point. The answers aren't simple, but you can't pretend there isn't a problem with media control. Perhaps the future really will bring a market solution: an integration of Internet and TV into one giant free-broadcast space where the viewer always decides. I don't know if that will be better, because we haven't seen the nature of that medium and what it does to us. (Did you ever read McLuhan, you'd know what I mean.)
|