Media Fairness

NO, HELL NO.

Think for a moment about what free speech entails.  In addition to traditional notions of free religious and political expression, it is the foundation for free creative expression (for creations both good and bad).  This is the freedom to create and market a top 10 hit, a box office blockbuster, a wildly successful advertising campaign, etc.  It also is the freedom to create and have no commercial success whatsoever, as the vast majority of creative persons do (think: “starving artist”).  Free speech carries no guarantee that the message will be heard, liked or purchased.

With that set of essential background information out of the way, it was to my absolute horror what I read in an article in Variety which proposes a BAIL OUT of the TV Networks!  I hate to say it but: “OMG”!

If there is any lesson that needs to be taught and taught well, it is the lesson that the major television networks and newspapers need to learn some accountability for the garbage they propagate.  If noises begin to be made in Washington of a bail-out of the networks and newspapers, the crap needs to hit the fan.

It would be deplorable to spend taxpayer money propping up the very beast that continuously works to mold society into the image of its liking, that lies and conceals the truth from the public on matters of great national import, that fawns over candidates of their liking, that maliciously tars and feathers those they disagree with, and that constantly portrays violence as a primary dispute resolution method.

If the anti-social message of network television or shoddy newspaper reporting is worthy of a gub’ment bailout, then we are indeed in a dark era in American history.  Think about this double standard:  For years the networks have said “If you don’t like it, turn the channel.”  What good is it if we turn the channel, if the government comes along and props them back up?

Compare the notion of propping up gub’ment-friendly media to the restriction on establishment of a government-sponsored religion by the establishment clause of the Constitution (whereby government institutions are prohibited from establishing a state religion) – it seems to me we should be free from the government meddling in either aspect of society.

In sum, if the message is so poor that it is not sustainable, the government has no business in stepping in to prop it up – especially when the overtones are so politically charged.