A few days ago, a friend called me, fuming. She had been seeing the television ads being run by a group supporting the President and continuation of the war. You've probably seen them too--heart-wrenching appeals by mothers and wives of soldiers killed in Iraq, or wounded soldiers themselves, imploring viewers to "tell your congressman" to stay the course, not to vote to bring troops home, a vote they all described as "changing their vote for political reasons."

Evidently, one network--I think she said CBS--has refused to run these ads, on the grounds that they are administration propaganda, and contain assertions that are clearly contrary to fact. My friend wanted to know why other networks couldn't be forced to reject them as well.

My inner civil libertarian wanted to explain that news outlets have freedom of speech, as we all do. They have a perfect right to accept or reject content, including advertisements, as they judge appropriate. In the marketplace of ideas, we assume that distortions and fabrications will be countered by others who exercise their own First Amendment rights to counter "bad" speech with better speech.

But. (There's always a "but.") In today's media environment, especially broadcast media, there are many fewer voices. By most estimates, the result of media consolodation--aided and abetted by recent changes to U.S.communications policies--is that virtually all radio and television outlets are owned or controlled by just five multi-national corporations. The results have been disturbing. Information has morphed into "infotainment." Journalism has become less a calling and profession, and more just another business competing for customers.

For those of us who increasingly get our news on-line, the marketplace of ideas still works. For those who still depend upon traditional media outlets, however, it no longer does. Most cities are served by only one daily paper, and smaller towns may not even have that. Broadcast outlets do not provide countervailing views.

Does that mean the government should step in and dictate content policy to television? Absolutely not. (Would any sane person want the state, especially our secretive and paranoid current administration, deciding what we can see?) But it does mean that concerned citizen-consumers need to make our disapproval known to networks that fail to exercise even a modicum of journalistic integrity.

And we need to voice those opinions loudly.

Sheila Suess Kennedy's blog | login or register to post comments