BuzzMachine

The media pundit's pundit. Written by NYC insider Jeff Jarvis, BuzzMachine covers news, media, journalism, and politics.

The Daily Stern

12 comments on The Daily Stern

The Daily Stern

: THE DANGER OF GOVERNMENT MEDDLING: It’s dangerous on so many levels when the government starts meddling in content.

After Sinclair Broadcast decided not to air the Nightline on which Ted Koppel recited the names of the American dead in Iraq, a senator asked the FCC to investigate:

Sen. Mark Dayton, D-Minn., called on federal regulators Friday to investigate whether one of the nation’s largest owners of television stations, Sinclair Broadcast Group Inc., unfairly denied the public access to ABC’s “Nightline” program….

In a letter to Federal Communications Commission Chairman Michael Powell — son of Secretary of State Colin Powell — Dayton said Sinclair’s action “highlights the growing danger of media consolidation in this country.”

Dayton said it concerns him that a single company can use its public airspace to prevent eight major U.S. markets from seeing politically controversial programming.

Many have criticized Sinclair for what it did. I didn’t like Koppel’s political act but I also criticized Sinclair, saying the right thing to do would have been to air Nightline along with a counterweight statement from Sinclair, giving us in the electorate/audience the opportunity to judge for ourselves. The market will decide whether to side with Nightline or Sinclair.

The government — FCC or Congress — should not be meddling in what content is aired on news programming — one way or another.

But once the line is crossed, once government — FCC and Congress — decide they can regulate F words or farts, it’s a small step to regulating political speech. And that is obviously dangerous to any citizen with sense… except this senator.

12 responses to “The Daily Stern”

  1. jbk Avatar
    jbk

    hmm yeah, that’s right..there’s absolutely no difference between the government using its powers to try to shut down a dissenting voice like an anti-Bush Stern, and a Senator asking why a broadcasting group that owns the public airwaves – and isn’t the public airwaves rationale the one usually cited by the morality police – asking why that group (that gives 80% of its contributions to Bush and the GOP) suddenly decides to censor an episode of a show (that it normally airs 5 days a week ) that could be seen as troublesome for Bush? Ok, let’s see – shutting down a dissenting voice…questioning why a dissenting voice is being shut down – oh yeah, morally equivalent! What a real douchebag you are sometimes in your effort to continue to try to make the Iraq war legitimate and anyone who raises questions about it somehow anti-American.

  2. Walter Wallis Avatar
    Walter Wallis

    If the democrats want to run a commercial on Sinclair, they should ask for a rate card.
    I seldom listen to fart boy Howard, but I doubt that many people are surprised by his content. I believe that the FCC’s role should be to eliminate signal interference with licensed users. Beyond that, every station manager should be required to have his mother listen to his station all day and night.

  3. Trump Avatar
    Trump

    The Times won’t print any editorials I write. WHY ARE THEY CENSORING ME?!??! Why can’t someone force the Times to run my editorials??
    Sinclair determines what their equipment is used for. PERIOD. If they violated their contracts with the parent network, that is a matter for the courts to settle.
    If you think that Sinclair should be forced to carry something they didn’t want to, I ask you just who is being unamerican here.

  4. Trump Avatar
    Trump

    By teh way, use better terminology. Nightline was not “censored”
    They did their program the way they wanted, and those that wanted to broadcast it did so.
    Nightline has the right to make their program. Nightline does NOT have the right to be broadcast anywhere they want.
    Freedom of speech means you have the freedom to speak. There’s nothing in there about forcing others to convey your message to the nation.

  5. Andy Avatar
    Andy

    Commercial Speech is not Free Speech. ABC can make what they want. Howard can say anything he wants. They do it for money.
    When they jeopardize the terms of a license or wish to use the license owned by another, then they must comply with the terms of access granted by the license and airways owner.
    If Howard (and all who support him) is serious the solution lies in Congress. They are the ones who write the laws placing restrictions on the use of the public airways. The Executive Branch only enforces the laws. (This latest bout of enforcement came from Letters to Congress, not the President) A President is not a King.
    Howard’s rights to commercial expression are limited and specific… ABC is seeking to raise ad rates (despite the producer claiming not to know it was sweeps week). This also is commercial speech.
    Nobody’s personal rights have been violated.
    Message to Howard: Stop whining and get over yourself.

  6. Doc Searls Avatar
    Doc Searls

    “Content” from a “producer” that is “loaded” into a “channel” for “transmission” or “distribution” through a “pipe” or a “path” or a “conduit” or a “medium” to a “receiver” for an “end user” or a “consumer” can only be conceived in terms of shipping. And shipping isn’t speech. That’s why we have so little trouble rationalizing the restriction of it.
    So let’s call speech what it is, whether it’s Koppel, Sinclair, Stern, Searls or Jarvis doing the speaking. *That’s* what’s protected by the First Amendment.
    Otherwise we don’t stand a chance.
    And keep up the great work. Yours is one of my favorite voices (not “content sources”) out in this wilderness where over-regulation of damn near everything comes way too easily.
    Doc

  7. TC-LeatherPenguin Avatar
    TC-LeatherPenguin

    Um, Jeff? Your own Media Overlords, the Newhouse clan, allow the squashing of columnists and comic strippers regularly featured in their chain of newspapers if those content producers deliver product local editors don’t agree with.

  8. Paul Zrimsek Avatar
    Paul Zrimsek

    Let’s see if I’ve got this straight. Sinclair is an example of media consolidation and ABC is not?

  9. Mike Avatar
    Mike

    what does Sinclair’s decision not to run this program have to do with the government anyway? There was no violation of the Constitution here. There is no guarantee for the people to receive all broadcasts from ABC or nightline.
    Call it a political decision by Sinclair, but is that a crime?

  10. Andy Freeman Avatar
    Andy Freeman

    > But once the line is crossed, once government — FCC and Congress — decide they can regulate F words or farts, it’s a small step to regulating political speech.
    We can’t have that. Political speech should be regulated by the FEC….
    Thanks in no small part to the media class, we already have regulation of political speech. And, as long as the media class doesn’t feel too constrained by that regulation, their only real objection is that said regulation doesn’t go far enough.
    The “next they’ll come for you” angle is a huge farce – they’ve already come for me, and media folks led the charge.

  11. h0mi Avatar
    h0mi

    Andy- its worse than that.
    All this handwringing over censorship and controlling what is done on the air ignores issues like you’ve mentioned with the FEC and the “broadcast flag” and the impact of the DMCA and similar laws on simply playing things you’ve recorded on old equipment or things you already own and don’t want to buy in the new “Super good video/audio format” in a few years.

  12. Ebb Tide Avatar
    Ebb Tide

    Sinclair should pull Nightline altogether and start airing “Simpsons” re-runs. More people would be happy with that decision!