A journalism bailout is unnecessary and a threat to liberty

November 13, 9:03 PMLaw and Politics ExaminerD. Christian Moore

Previous Next

1 comment Print Email RSS Subscribe

Subscribe

Get alerts when there is a new article from the Law and Politics Examiner. Read Examiner.com's terms of use.

Email Address   Include other special offers from Examiner.com Terms of Use

There has been increasing chatter on the part of the administration regarding a “bail-out” for much of the “traditional” media. There has even been talk, in concert with an openly “progressive” group called Freepress.org, regarding filling AmeriCorps positions with journalists. The ostensible reason for such moves is that the media fulfills a vital public service and should not be left in private hands, or in the purview of bloggers and e-zines. There is much to examine here, including the premise that is being established regarding the value of traditional media and the reasoning behind a government takeover of news and information. This is especially important in light of the Administration’s attack on “opposition” media such as talk radio and, in the words of the Administration, Fox News. It is also more than a little contradictory for the President to say the media performs a vital role in keeping the Government in check, so the Government needs to take over the media.

To begin with, I am not certain the “traditional” media performs any role as vital as to justify using extensive amounts of taxpayer funds prop to up a declining business model. If anything, one could argue the massive explosion of blogs and e-zines are performing the true traditional role of the media as envisioned by the founders. The combined efforts of think tanks, magazines, high level and base level blogs and other publications have created an information environment richer than any that has previously existed. Traditional print media, by contrast, is falling out favor; not only as a result of the changing habits of news consumers, but that much of the traditional media is increasingly viewed as pushing a Democrat agenda while pretending to present objective coverage, or of avoiding serious political coverage completely.

I should pause here to discuss this further; the concept of an objective media is unique to the post World War II era United States. For most of our history, and throughout much of the world, media is expected to have an editorial position and to present the news from this perspective. This helps the user sort through a crowded media market. While it is good to be confronted with challenging and varied points of view, it is generally the responsibility of the consumer to seek out divergent opinion, or not, as they choose.

This brings us to the central issue. Groups like Free Press, founded in part by Robert McChesney, famous for spouting Marxist rhetoric, have been pushing for an end to “corporate media”, claiming corporate interests present only what is best for the corporate managers. In some ways this point has merit, anyone who has watched MSNBC pushing for a “green revolution” via their news programs understands such a move would result in huge profits for NBC parent company General Electric. A more critical point however is that if the media were not in private hands, in whose hands would it be? Would a media completely controlled by the Government not be pushing the Government’s interests?

For the most part the administration has been targeting Fox News and Clear Channel Communications as media companies unduly influencing the national conversation. An interesting thing to note here is that Clear Channel is the Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity radio programs, and Rupert Murdoch is News Corp., which owns Fox News, The New York Post and The Wall Street Journal along with some entertainment properties which often broadcast programs such Family Guy, which are opposed to Mr. Murdoch’s own perceived editorial positions. Conspicuously not mentioned by the President or his fellow travelers on this issue are GE/NBC Universal, ABC-Disney or Viacom. All of which represent much larger media holdings and have shown themselves more than willing to push liberal positions via MSNBC, MTV and Simon and Schuster, just to name a few. This begs the question, is the real issue here corporate media, or corporate media from an opposition viewpoint?

The modern media environment offers more choice for citizens seeking to inform themselves than at any time in our history. Why does the Government choose this point in time to use so called “net neutrality” to take control of the Internet away from users and providers? Why have groups like the FreePress.org been pushing for the Government to take over print media or to use AmeriCorps positions to turn journalists into Government “service” employees? How is all of this tied to the noise coming from the Administration regarding a “bailout” (money in exchange for control) of media entities? Finally, is it a mere coincidence the White House has been attacking news and media sources which do not toe the company line, or which present an opposing editorial opinion.

I find it slightly frightening to hear the President of the United States declaring a media source as not legitimate, or attempting to block an opposition news outlet from the White House media pool. I do not intend to imply some nefarious plot on the part of the White House. However, there is clearly a concerted effort to marginalize opposition media and exert Government control over the major sources of news and information in the United States. The Government already has NPR and public broadcasting, why do some think there is a need for the Government to take control of all voices in the media?

The right to free speech is one of the cornerstones of a free society. This means the right to engage in vigorous and outspoken debates in a free market of ideas. For any Government agency, representative or bureaucrat to be speaking about limiting choices, controlling the opposition or replacing the free market of private media with a Government controlled media is the antithesis of liberty. When the media is free I have an unlimited number of choices, when the media is brought under Government control, my choice becomes limited to only that which meets Government approval, even media not controlled by the Government will be intimidated into going along, as happened in Venezuela.

Liberty cannot exist under such conditions, nor can our Republic.

The YouTube post below is of Fox News personality Glenn Beck discussing this issue.