Freedom is one of the keys to American life, but it obviously must come with some sort of restraint(s). Complete freedom is anarchy, and as with anything else, too much of a good thing can quickly turn sour. Therein lies the question: Where should the line be drawn with respect to freedom? One of the issues at hand in Areopagitica is freedom of speech, but to evaluate this we must first answer the question of how much freedom (in general) is too much. Logically, one should be free to do his will unless it disturbs the safety, dignity, freedom etc. of others. With respect to speech, this line has been blurred. Libel and slander are common, even in publications of national impact. The information provided by media outlets is so thoroughly, even intentionally, biased that to read find true unadulterated news, one must interpret as if reading a foreign language. However, we may someday long for this to return.
The most recent and most pressing freedom of speech issue is that of FCC regulations on political television and talk radio shows. President Obama has at least entertained the idea of enforcing the antiquated "Fairness Doctrine" that requires radio shows to devote equal attention to both sides of an argument. This may appear at first glance to be helpful, but let's look at the underwater portion of this iceberg. This would quickly create a Big Brother-esque intimidating air about the media, which would carefully construct politically correct shows to avoid removal from the air. There is even talk of this policy being expanded: The number of liberally biased shows must be equal to the number of conservatively biased ones. What happens if you are an "extra" show for one side or the other? Bye. What if your show fails to provide the specific amount of bias required? Bye. So much for freedom of speech.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/nov/28/first-media-bias/
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/feb/24/fairness-doctrine-fog/
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This is extremely bothering.
ReplyDeleteThe government shouldn't stick their noses in places that they should stay out of.
Especially the media.
Yes, somethings in the media, I really don't want to see. I wouldn't want my little brothers to watch some stuff, and I wish there were less KY Jelly commercials. I wish there wasn't profanity in commercials. But I put up with it because it's the price we pay for freedom of speech. We cannot just want our own freedoms and not allow others to have theirs.
As Murph pointed out earlier, the media is so biast these days who knows what to believe. The media says that they are expressing their own free will in their publications, yet the media has certain guidelines they must follow within their sponsor. There is no way we as viewers can interpret what we believe these days.
ReplyDeleteI see both sides to this issue. I am in favor of the Fairness Doctrine to an extent. Don't cancel shows or regulate what shows talk about. Add more opportunities for different shows to be aired that present the opposite side. An ideal solution would be to make one more show that all they did was show both sides. That way no one gets fired and the government isn't dictating everyones topics. On the other hand, I do think if you give the government an inch of control it could turn into a lot more control. This is such a hard issue! I am tired of the KY jelly commercials and the genital herpes commercials but too much censorship is like brainwashing- the politicians would only let you see what they want you to see. Too bad there isn't a clear-cut answer.
ReplyDeleteMaybe it's a good thing that I am not watching television these days. I have missed all of the new and obviously fascinating commercials!! :) Isn't the fairness doctrine necessary in an economic environment where many people don't have access to the public airways. Few people can afford the price of a license to broadcast on radio, let alone television. How do the voices of under-represented groups get heard? This echoes back to the discussion about women on the blog and in class. If one or just a few elites controls the medium of communication, that one or few can control what gets discussed.
ReplyDeleteI was struck by Murph's reports. I had never considered possible to sanction what radio shows should say. Freedom of speech grants one the right to broadcast his view and only his view if he so wishes. As long as the program is not government-funded every producer has a right to be in charge of his own content.
ReplyDeleteIf I tune into a liberal station, it is because I want to listen to someone blast the opposition while favoring liberal doctrine. The same thing goes for the other side. This example is extreme and rather generalized but as a listener I would like to hear what's expected on the broadcast. True, some groups might be misrepresented or rather not represented, however that comes from a democratic world. In communist Romania, everyone would huddle around the staircase straining to listen to the broadcast "Europa Libera" because that's what we (they) yearned to hear. If someone would have come on the show to give the pros of communism, my grandfather would have shot the radio.