|
|
BROADCAST WORDS DO MATTER IN A FREE SOCIETY
by Steve Binder
American thought and American politics will be largely at the mercy of those who operate these stations, for publicity is the most powerful weapon that can be wielded in a republic. And when
such a weapon is placed in the hands of one person, or a single selfish group is permitted to either tacitly or otherwise acquire ownership or dominate these broadcasting stations throughout the country,
then woe be to those who dare to differ with them. It will be impossible to compete with them in reaching the ears of the American people.
-Rep. Luther Johnson (D.-Texas), in the debate that preceded the Radio Act of 1927 (KPFA, 1/16/03)
Everyday millions of American citizens are listening and watching a 24/7 cycle of information spewing from the mouths of anyone who can get themselves on radio or television let alone have a blog on the Internet.
Some are credible; most are not. When I was asked to write this article on "Broadcast Words Do Matter In A Free Society," I took for granted that free speech is guaranteed every American citizen on our broadcast
outlets. But with the recent incident that occurred in Tucson, Arizona and the senseless death of innocent Americans, including a precious nine-year old, I immediately wondered if certain broadcast personalities might
have been in some way responsible for the tragedy in Tucson by the words they speak over the air. Words themselves can actually be powerful enough to influence people's thoughts and feelings even to the point of
inciting violence. Does the freedom of speech need to be limited when not handled responsibly?
When I was a youngster and visited London for the first time, I was amused and sometimes entertained by those that would get on a soapbox in Hyde Park and express their sometimes radical views regarding the
government. Yes, there were the crazies predicting the end of the world, but only a handful of amused people paid any attention to what they were saying. Most speakers, surrounded by an audience of small and
sometimes large gatherings of people, were there to protest something they didn't like about their government. They were exercising their right of free speech in a democratic society.
Today's 'soapboxes' aren't just taking place in parks or small gathering halls like when I was a youngster. The soapboxes of today are multi-million dollar salaried personalities who broadcast their 'opinions'
on major broadcast networks owned by huge corporations and under the rules and guidelines of our government's Federal Communications Commission (FCC) whose job it is to regulate the public's airways. Though
the commission is supposed to be non-political, the FCC is comprised of appointed Republicans and Democrats, usually depending upon which party at the time is in control of our government. Part of the job of the
FCC, defined by Congress, is to police any private citizen who applies for a broadcast license and to insure they would serve the public's best interests. The FCC mission statement reads,
"To promote robust competition and innovation in the telecommunications marketplace by strictly enforcing the Communications Act and the FCC's rules." In simpler words, license
holders would service the public interest, necessity and entertainment. This begs the question, is the FCC doing their job?
The new 'soapbox' of the 21st Century has a potential audience of over 300-million Americans. Does it need to be regulated and if so, where is the line drawn between free speech and censorship?
Does the public's communication system belong to individual entrepreneurs or do we allow our airways to be bought and controlled by a handful of huge corporate conglomerates with international interests?
Many of these corporate giants have specific political viewpoints which support their own self-interests that could, when misused, be labeled as propaganda tools when using the airways to their advantage. If
they own and control a broadcast monopoly consisting of television, radio and cable outlets, their news and public interest programs can be manipulated to express their corporate opinions rather than broadcasting
unbiased hard facts or presenting both sides of any story.
Today, Americans are in the midst of fighting two wars, facing grave unemployment and unrest in our society and polarized by two political parties with extreme left and right viewpoints of their respective
parties. They are literally pulling at each other in a virtual tug-of-war over who will determine the direction and future of our country.
The question at hand is: Should our government, with the 1st Amendment of our Constitution guaranteeing every citizen the right of free speech, have the power to censure anyone in front of a microphone
for the words they speak or have the power to pull the broadcast license from the licensee? Being an advocate of free speech and with great reservation and only under extreme circumstances, I have to say YES.
If the broadcaster uses inflammatory words by distorting the truth and speaking lies that could possibly incite violence, then in my opinion, the FCC should step in and threaten removal of the broadcast
license from the license holder unless the situation is corrected immediately. Broadcasting untruthful words that could incite a violent incident in a news or opinion format is more dangerous than yelling "FIRE" in a
theater. I think we all agree that it's against the law to yell "FIRE" in a theater and I haven't heard one Republican or Democrat say this is unconstitutional or a threat to our democracy.
I declare to the readers of this article that I do strongly advocate free speech for all of our citizens; I consider myself in any political discussion an American first and foremost, but my political leanings
are admittedly left of center if the center is pushed too far to the right. I was brought up in a family that believed when you gave your opinion at the nightly dinner table you had to back it up with proven facts,
not hearsay or lies. When our family listened to or watched a newscast with Walter Cronkite, Chet Huntley, David Brinkley or other major newscasters, whether we agreed with them or not, we believed with all our
heart that they were truthful and took for granted that their news staff had done their due diligence checking facts before broadcasting any story.
In the history of America, there have always been controversial broadcasters expressing their opinions about American politics, especially in difficult times. Controversy and difference of opinion are an
American tradition as long as it is civil and truthful. This is what a democracy is built on. But there should always be someone on the other side to repudiate or argue those views on the same broadcast outlet. News
programs were sacrosanct when I entered the industry with independence and autonomy from the other divisions of the networks, especially to be separated from the entertainment division. The past presidents of
the news divisions never intended that the news division had to compete with entertainment shows for ratings and sponsors. The public eagerly watched the news everyday because they wanted to be educated and
informed and it wasn't available on a 24/7 news cycle on cable like it is today. Because of the necessity to fill the air in a 24/7 news cycle, much of the so-called news is now trivial filler, or worse, slanted news with
unsubstantiated facts.
I abhor the thought of broadcast censorship while at the same time I believe in federal government regulations that could prevent abuses of our democratic system that could cause harm or damage to
our citizens and to our democracy. One has only to look at closed societies who vigorously control what their citizen's can see or hear. In a perfect democracy, it is the responsibility of citizens or corporations to
police themselves, but if broadcasters themselves fail to do so, the government has, in my opinion, the right to step in and stop any abuses that would endanger free speech among its citizens or intentionally
misinform them and should be considered a criminal offense regardless of political affiliation.
As mentioned earlier, in recent weeks, Americans have experienced grave sorrow by tragic events such as what happened in Tucson, Arizona. Some say it was because the gunman was driven to this
heinous act by listening to hate filled messages filling the airways that turned him against our government and one particular Congresswoman in his district. This is not a proven fact and we will probably never
know what really motivated this sick mind. We do know that negative thoughts, fed to an already anxious public, can illicit strong emotions. Most people don't act on these emotions. Unfortunately, we know by
experience that some do.
I personally have no problem listening to strong personalities like Rush, Rachel, Glen, Keith or many others who express strong personal opinions on the air. I have the choice to tune them
in or tune them out. I do object to any of them when they broadcast blatant and intentional lies to incite fear and distrust of our government to their followers. I feel it's the responsibility of the license holders to
keep their broadcasters honest and to present two sides to every story. I especially expect all shows claiming to report the news to give me real facts and not their personal opinions. When they do stray from their
hard news copy, there should be a chyron superimposed on the screen with the simple word "OPINION", or for the show to be identified before the broadcast, using a disclaimer, that the following is the personal
opinion of the broadcaster and not of the stations'.
Another possible solution is to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine that had two basic elements: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest,
and to air contrasting views regarding those matters. Stations were given wide latitude as to how to provide contrasting views: It could be done through news segments, public affairs shows or editorials.
In summation: If given the chance and there were no speed limits on our national highways, I'm sure some Americans would choose to drive as fast as their cars' horsepower would allow them to go.
But as a collective society, we decided to place speed limits on our highways to protect our citizens as a whole. I think the same applies to broadcasting. One has only to realize that the cable and television
broadcast industry grosses 8-billion dollars a year with sponsors cashing in on the vitriol of controversial personalities who feed off their audience's emotions and beliefs. Sponsors who pay for commercial
time must have proof that their investment in their commercials in these programs has a powerful influence on viewers who are viewing and buying their products. Let's make sure the product all of us are
investing in is protecting our public airways and our democracy.
I submit to you that Broadcast Words Do Matter In A Free Society.
|
|
