I disclaim any expertise in this, but have been wondering about the subject since it's become news lately.
The objection to one person, small group, or company, owning too much of the media market in an area, or across the country, as I see it, is that such a person, small group, or company controls too much of the viewpoint. This favored viewpoint becomes "an orthodoxy," similar to the kind of orthodoxy condemned by Justice Robert Jackson in West Virginia v. Barnette, when he made his famous statement that "If there is one fixed star in our constellation, it is that no official high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or deed or act their faith therein." This was in the context of an official requirement to salute the flag or be expelled from school, so I agree it's not exactly the same problem. However, it does appear to be close enough to suit me. Why? Through today, the internet notwithstanding, the major tv networks, coupled with their local affiliates, have controlled the public agenda and the discussion of it. There is close to an orthodoxy of opinion on such things as the proper reaction to Bush v. Gore, 9-11, criticism of Pres. Bush, A-G Ashcroft, and the detentions thereafter, the war in Iraq, economic policy, race relations, and affirmative action to list a few examples. See Bernard Goldberg's 'Bias' (2002,3) Perennial/Harper by way of Regnery. He cites chapter and verse concerning what he describes a being no less than a liberal orthodoxy in the major tv media that brooks no dissent. It happens that I feel comfortable with a liberal viewpoint, as it means to me a willingness to make change at an acceptable pace as reason overcomes prejudice and stereotype. I hadn't realized, until I read Goldberg, that the view I tended to favor in general had been institutionalized to the degree he describes. That concerns me. If one world view risks becoming orthodox today, what happens tomorrow, when some other view, less palatable, takes hold? Through today, when a candidate wishes to 'get his message' across, (s)he buys tv ads or otherwise gets his face on tv. Freedom of the press, as A.J. Liebling is said to have said, belongs to those who own one. TV, it is also said, is different than print media, being broadcast on airwaves that you and I own. The only dividend WE can collect from this 'ownership' is in the diversity of viewpoints presented. We don't get that when one guy like Rupert Murdoch owns all the marbles and can tell us which ones we can play with, when, and for how much. For then it's no longer our game, it's his. He's free to treat us paternalistically, through the editorial decision of what to cover and what not. We become as mushrooms, kept in the dark and fed you know what. His mushrooms. The FCC, which is supposed to protect us from becoming mushrooms, may not be doing such a good job. That's what I thought the problem, and the controversy, was about the proposed rule change. When I read in today's Times about the politics of the matter, and an expected consolidation of news and opinion outlets into even fewer hands, my guess is I won't have to be concerned about a liberal bias in the mass media for very much longer. Bob Sheridan SFLS -----Original Message----- From: Discussion list for con law professors [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Scarberry, Mark Sent: Monday, June 02, 2003 8:24 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Limit on publishing newspaper and owning TV stations News reports say that one of the restrictions eased by today's FCC decision has to do with ownership of both a newspaper and a TV station. Regardless of whether TV broadcasting is entitled to full first amendment protection, it seems to me that it is a violation of the old-fashioned freedom of the press to penalize a person for owning/publishing a newspaper by denying that person any privilege available to others. Thus the rules that (it seems) conditioned TV station ownership on nonownership of a newspaper were unconstitutional in my (admittedly not very expert) view. Comments? Does anyone think there is a compelling interest involved here that would justify penalizing a person for ownership/publication of a newspaper? Mark Scarberry Pepperdine
