A Sharp Stick In The Eye Would Be Better

The fairness doctrine is dead, but that doesn't mean some other doctrine can't and won't emerge to regulate content. Aside from free speech issues, which are plentiful, the last thing radio needs is the government keeping tabs on what radio hosts are saying or playing. PERIOD.

You may have read the lead story on Tom Taylor's Taylor on Radio-Info this morning:

How fair is this?

“It won’t be called the Fairness Doctrine…”

One D.C. expert is convinced that some leading Democrats have a grand plan to re-institute a rule requiring balance on the airwaves – just the thing that conservative talkshow hosts have made such a boogeyman out of. This may sound like a paranoia alert, but the D.C. guy says “I’ve never seen such communication between the FCC and the White House.” I asked how often they’re talking, and he says “daily.” He describes a constant stream of people from the Portals (the FCC) visiting the White House. He acknowledges that both President Obama and new FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski have waved off a return of the Fairness Doctrine as it existed until 1987. But he believes “they’ll have something like it, under the guise of the FCC’s Localism initiative or something else. It might even be a rider onto some bill in Congress.” Would that be constitutional? Probably not. But more and more folks seem to think there will be an effort from Congress and/or the FCC to “restore balance” to radio – particularly talk radio. If you think the conservative talkers have made a lot of noise about the Obama birth certificate, wait until they see a law or regulation about “balance.”

I am not looking to turn this into a political debate, at least not here in this forum, but the idea of the government telling a station [owner] they have too much or too little conservative or liberal talk on a particular station is chilling. I don't care if it's Randy or Ed or Rush or Sean...keep your stinkin' paws off of free speech. Let the marketplace of ideas sort itself out. It always does.

This is not an issue just for the ideologues to wrestle with. This is an issue for ALL of us to stand together and oppose. We must let OUR government know we don't want nor will we tolerate regulating what can be said and in what amount.

Think it can't happen? Nobody thought General Motors would go bankrupt either.

A Free Press Or A Saved Press?

We are all keenly aware the challenges the newspaper industry is facing. There appears to be no end in sight...or is there?

There was a bill introduced on Tuesday in the US Senate, so far with no co-sponsorship, that would in effect bail out newspapers that needed and wanted help. Essentially transforming any paper accepting assistance into a non-profit entity. I guess that's OK. Reading deeper into the Reuters article I was astounded to read the following:

Cardin's Newspaper Revitalization Act would allow newspapers to operate as nonprofits for educational purposes under the U.S. tax code, giving them a similar status to public broadcasting companies.

Under this arrangement, newspapers would still be free to report on all issues, including political campaigns. But they would be prohibited from making political endorsements.

"This may not be the optimal choice for some major newspapers or corporate media chains but it should be an option for many newspapers that are struggling to stay afloat," said Senator Benjamin Cardin.

What?

No more editorial board, no more op-ed page...say bye bye!

The message: we will help you and you will stay out of the fray of politics. Yes, they said endorsements but you have to believe the net will be cast wider than that. It puts spirited reporting at risk. No different than play-by-play announcers employed by the teams for which they broadcast games--if you see what I mean.

Remember the need for news hasn't died; the delivery and monetization model system has changed. Those who figure it out will survive and those who don't will fade away.

This is probably a long way from becoming reality, but chilling none the less. The Senator admits in may not be an optimal choice--so why make it a requirement? Does it matter the size of the paper? What paper would accept these terms?

Which is it? A free press--one free to endorse, report and investigate stories or a bailed out press tethered to government dictates, rules, and prohibitions?

Free speech shouldn't have a price tag.

You can read the entire article here.

What Selective "Free Speech" Looks Like

I found this account interesting. Makes me appreciate even more the freedoms we have here in the USA.

This was posted on gizmodo and youtube:

How Illegal Satellite Combated the Censorship of Obama's Speech in China

By Elaine Chow, 10:45 PM on Wed Jan 21 2009, 9,459 views

While Americans had millions of ways to watch Obama's inauguration speech, here in China, I'm giving thanks for my one: gray-market Filipino satellite. Without it, I would've missed anything past where Obama muttered "communists."

Right now, satellite television is still technically illegal in China, thanks to a 1993 regulation that said only hotels, media outlets and apartment buildings that are specifically for foreigners are allowed to use satellite dishes. Because of that, there's no China-branded satellite company and most TVs come with just the smattering of local regional Chinese channels and, of course, the CCTV.

There's a way around it though. A gray market has popped up in most cities to provide satellite cable services – including cable boxes and regularly updated encryption cards – for anyone willing to pay. Roughly $300 a year will get you channels like BBC World and CNN, HBO and (my personal favorite) the Discovery Channel.

The cards catch satellite signals from the Philippines, which are usually good at not crapping out and give you the added bonus of occasionally glimpsing a crazy mirror world of good ol' American pop culture. Did you know the Philippines had a Project Runway of their own called... Project Runway Philippines?

But I digress. Illegal Filipino satellite equipment saved me from what local Chinese had to watch: The CCTV's live (up until a certain moment) broadcast of the President's inauguration address.

Oh crap! Did he just say “fascism and communism”?! CUT CUT CUT. Um... so, person translating the broadcast... uh... what kind of problems do you think Obama will be facing with regards to the U.S. economy?

The rest of the address was only broadcast later in government-approved snippets.

I suppose I should also take time to be thankful that I speak English, since translations of his speech also had offending parts edited out.