Over the past century there has been a sweeping alteration to how Americans receive their news. From the printing press to the advent of radio and TV, to the creation of the internet, they all have had great impacts on how Americans express themselves. by Self Made Man
(libertarian)
Wednesday, March 3, 2010
The first amendment of the Bill of Rights provides for the freedom of the press for the American people. Traditionally, the press was a watchdog for Americans, keeping citizens informed of politics and local and world events. This has always been instrumental to maintaining freedom and creating a critical balance between the people and their governments.
Over the past century there has been a sweeping alteration to how Americans receive their news. From the printing press to the advent of radio and TV, to the creation of the internet, they all have had great impacts on how Americans express themselves and how they receive news and opinion. American history has shown that the freedom to express ideas can have a far-reaching effect on a state and its people. A prime example would be the letters written by Thomas Paine in 1776. His printed letters called "Common Sense", were distributed widely across the American colonies in support of independence from England and proved to be instrumental in America's struggle for self-governance. Presently, in America and other countries, such freedom has been scrutinized as being unfair or detrimental to the exchange of ideas. Such freedom in media has also caused some governments' great anxiety and generated roadblocks to achieving their agendas.
Various governments around the world work effortlessly to control the media as a muse for propaganda. The most recent example would be the president of Venezuela, Hugo Chavez, who has been shutting down news and media outlets that have voiced criticism of his presidency. This has stirred a great deal of dissent among private and local media businesses in the country. A more extreme example of government media control would be China. Their state has complete control over TV, radio, print and the internet and any deviation from regulations can be met with severe consequences. With government in control there is zero opportunity for diversity or opposing opinion. This is a typical strategy by those wishing to keep or obtain political power. The United States on the other hand, has tried to develop laws that purposely broaden media diversity, even though they walk a fine line by infringing upon the First Amendment.
During the early nineteenth century with the growing media of radio, the American government created the Radio Act of 1912 and later a revision in 1927. These Acts were primarily designed to limit the overlap of station broadcasting and greater use and efficiency of the minimal number of broadcast frequencies. Later in the century the government created the FCC which led to the creation of the Fairness Doctrine. This doctrine was designed to create greater diversity of opinion on the air. The primary reason for doing so was based on the idea that the limited number of media outlets was creating a monopoly of one-sided views and a greater reflection had to be permissible.
The Fairness Doctrine, while well intentioned had a dramatic result on the freedom of speech in America. Broadcasters stated that it had a (Chilling Effect) on the industry and felt the government had no place in its regulation. In the1980s, President Ronald Reagan asked the FCC to remove the doctrine from practice. With the creation of cable and the larger number of media options for Americans, the doctrine was deemed out dated and ineffective.
Recently there has been a resurrection of interest in reinstating the Fairness Doctrine. Arguments have been made that due to the explosion of conservative talk radio in the last decade that other points of view have been unable to gather equal representation. The argument against its reinstatement has concentrated more on economic market forces and the inability of progressive talk radio to bring in listeners and therefore advertising for it to be sustainable. The internet has also become a tremendous media giant and has been the topic of discussion for greater regulation. The future of freedom for America and the world depends heavily on its ability to allow the people to speak freely. Today's media outlets are critical in the exchange of ideas and the ability of Americans to stay informed and any government interference would be detrimental and unfair itself.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 3
thumbs so far
The views expressed
in this article are those of Self Made Man only and
do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates.
Self Made Man is solely responsible for the contents
of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated
with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Posted By: Jake Towne, the Champion of the Constitution
Date: 2010-03-05 10:01:09
Welcome to the Chart!!
I'd be interested in your thoughts on the recent Supreme Court ruling that left corporations free to advertise for candidates.
While corporations are not people - and I believe its false to give rights to entities that can't walk, talk, etc. so are the media corporations, and they can heavily influence the amount of exposure a candidate receives, so in some way select corporations - the media - already had the ability to advertise freely.
Posted By: Self Made Man
Date: 2010-03-05 12:40:20
Hi Jake, I think you’re absolutely right on the reality of the situation. Special interest groups will always find away to promote their agenda in politics. The Supreme Court ruling on campaign contributions from corporations and other entities just makes it easier for them to do so.
The best argument I have read concerning McCain, Feingold and Cochran campaign finance reform legislation was a policy analysis performed by John Samples of the Cato Institute (Making the World Safer for Incumbents; The Consequences of McCain-Feingold-Cochran)
Ultimately I’m 50/50 on the subject. As a voter I would like to know who provides money to the candidates and what their interests are. Regrettably, each situation is different and thereby creates a level of reform and accountability that is unattainable. The substance of the situation leaves us always wanting more.
Want to comment on
this article? Leave your comment
here. Your email address is required to track your
comment. However, we will neither publish your email
address nor distribute it to other organizations or
persons. The only reason we might use it would be if
we needed to contact you regarding your comment. All
comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
