Cap'ndaddy
08-26-2009, 09:47 PM
From the book "Prelude to a Farce: Communication and Democracy in America" by Mark Lloyd - current FCC Chief Diversity Officer.
"As Newton Minow has observed, all too often Americans use the First Amendment to end discussions of communications policy. It should be clear by now that my focus is not freedom of speech or the press. This freedom is all too often an exaggeration. Harold Innis may have only been slightly exaggerating when he wrote, "Freedom of the press... has become the great bulwark of monopolies of the press." At the very least, blind references to freedom of speech or the press serve as a distraction from the critical examination of other communications policies.
"Ithiel de la Sola Poole's Technologies of Freedom is a good example of this idealization of freedom of speech in America. Although it is one of the best books on the history of communications, its premise, that technology frees while government policy constricts speech, is far too simple an understanding of the First Amendment or democratic deliberation. Perhaps if his editor had suggested the title Technologies of Equality, he might have provided us a broader view of the history of communications policy in the United States. Howard Zinn's A People's History of the US is a good antidote to Poole's romantic veiw of the First Amendment.
"Michel Sandel traces what happened to the political debate about the communications requirements of an engaged citizenry, but like most other commentators who write about communications issues, Sandel overlooks the importance of Postal Service, of government support for citizen speech. Sandel jumps immediately to a discussion about the limits of government censorship. But the shift Sandel traces is useful. Drawing from Alexander Mikheljohn, Sandel notes that the first purpose of the First Amendment was to provide citizens with "the fullest possible participation in the understanding of the problems" a self-governing citizenry must decide. But now, he notes, while "the courts continue to acknowledge the importance of free speech to the exercise of self-government, courts and constitutional commentators alike increasingly defend free speech in the name of individual self-expression." Thus, the purpose of free speech is warped to protect global corporations and block rules that would promote democratic governance.
"As Sandel points out, our current policy debates and the actions that result from them suggest we have traveled off course on a long dark road. Starting as a nation that defined liberty as the ability to join in governing ourselves, we have become a disconnected people who define liberty as the ability to purchase consumer goods. What Sandel misses is that the problem is not only the warp to our public philosophy of free speech, but that the government has abandoned its role of advancing the communications capabilities of real people. The First Amendment limits on government interference with speech, the press, assembly and petitions are of great importance. The First Amendment deserves Poole's, Sandel's and our attention. This book certainly does not ignore the First Amendment. I only seek to place it in a context with other communications policies."
Having read his book, it is a misguided attempt to argue that the government "lost control" of its ability to govern when it allowed the privatization of media, and that information flow to the people became biased by what the monopolistic media owners believed. He argues that the government needs to control information flow to the people in order to facilitate "open and free debate" and to "protect the field where truth and falsehoods grapple".
He is currently proposing a 100% tax on the operating budget of all privatized media, specifically radio, and that tax would go to fund NPR and the CPB. If a private media station fails to pay the tax, their license is revoked and given to a "minority" media station.
Come to your own conclusions.
"As Newton Minow has observed, all too often Americans use the First Amendment to end discussions of communications policy. It should be clear by now that my focus is not freedom of speech or the press. This freedom is all too often an exaggeration. Harold Innis may have only been slightly exaggerating when he wrote, "Freedom of the press... has become the great bulwark of monopolies of the press." At the very least, blind references to freedom of speech or the press serve as a distraction from the critical examination of other communications policies.
"Ithiel de la Sola Poole's Technologies of Freedom is a good example of this idealization of freedom of speech in America. Although it is one of the best books on the history of communications, its premise, that technology frees while government policy constricts speech, is far too simple an understanding of the First Amendment or democratic deliberation. Perhaps if his editor had suggested the title Technologies of Equality, he might have provided us a broader view of the history of communications policy in the United States. Howard Zinn's A People's History of the US is a good antidote to Poole's romantic veiw of the First Amendment.
"Michel Sandel traces what happened to the political debate about the communications requirements of an engaged citizenry, but like most other commentators who write about communications issues, Sandel overlooks the importance of Postal Service, of government support for citizen speech. Sandel jumps immediately to a discussion about the limits of government censorship. But the shift Sandel traces is useful. Drawing from Alexander Mikheljohn, Sandel notes that the first purpose of the First Amendment was to provide citizens with "the fullest possible participation in the understanding of the problems" a self-governing citizenry must decide. But now, he notes, while "the courts continue to acknowledge the importance of free speech to the exercise of self-government, courts and constitutional commentators alike increasingly defend free speech in the name of individual self-expression." Thus, the purpose of free speech is warped to protect global corporations and block rules that would promote democratic governance.
"As Sandel points out, our current policy debates and the actions that result from them suggest we have traveled off course on a long dark road. Starting as a nation that defined liberty as the ability to join in governing ourselves, we have become a disconnected people who define liberty as the ability to purchase consumer goods. What Sandel misses is that the problem is not only the warp to our public philosophy of free speech, but that the government has abandoned its role of advancing the communications capabilities of real people. The First Amendment limits on government interference with speech, the press, assembly and petitions are of great importance. The First Amendment deserves Poole's, Sandel's and our attention. This book certainly does not ignore the First Amendment. I only seek to place it in a context with other communications policies."
Having read his book, it is a misguided attempt to argue that the government "lost control" of its ability to govern when it allowed the privatization of media, and that information flow to the people became biased by what the monopolistic media owners believed. He argues that the government needs to control information flow to the people in order to facilitate "open and free debate" and to "protect the field where truth and falsehoods grapple".
He is currently proposing a 100% tax on the operating budget of all privatized media, specifically radio, and that tax would go to fund NPR and the CPB. If a private media station fails to pay the tax, their license is revoked and given to a "minority" media station.
Come to your own conclusions.