BuzzMachine

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

Doesn’t the public know what is in the public’s interest?

11 comments on Doesn’t the public know what is in the public’s interest?

Doesn’t the public know what is in the public’s interest?

: Gawd, I cannot abide Michael J. Copps, the Democratic member of the FCC and the one most likely to tear down both the free marketplace of both ideas and commerce.

Today, he writes an op-ed in The Times that perfectly illustrates his nannyfied philosophy of government: He knows what we should know, he knows what we shouldn’t hear hear, he wants to take care of us … even if we don’t want anybody to take care of us.

Copps argues that the networks should be airing the political conventions because we, the people own the airwaves and lend them to the networks, airing the conventions is in the public interest.

Well, let’s examine those assumptions:

First, is it in the public interest to air the conventions? Well, I’d say that the public is in the best position to judge what is in its interest … and the public doesn’t watch conventions! So who the hell are you, Copps, to tell us what is in our interest?

Second, you assume that there is value in watching the conventions. But as we all know, no news happens there. They are merely overlong commercials that give absolutely no real sense of what the politicians and parties are all about. So what is the public good in airing them besides giving your politician buddies face time on TV?

This from the same guy who would fine Howard Stern off the air — telling his milions of listeners that they should be listening to him, just because Copps says so — and who would give government a role in deciding who cannot own broadcast outlets and thus who cannot have free speech.

Copps: Those are our airwaves, not yours.

11 responses to “Doesn’t the public know what is in the public’s interest?”

  1. Karl Avatar
    Karl

    I may not always agree with Mr. Jarvis, but at least he has the integrity to note that Commissioner Copps, who he considers the worst of the lot, is a Democrat. In contrast, Mr. Jarvis’s poster boy, Howard Stern, seems to think it’s all about Bush (8 years of fines during the Clinton era notwithstanding).

  2. anne.elk Avatar
    anne.elk

    The conventions may be rotten TV for the moment, but they are unfortunately, what we have. And we may have to work with what we are given. Like the networks in general.
    How do you feel about the networks decisions to air more of the RNC convention than the DNC convention? Isn’t that an admission by the networks that they misjudged their market? That the people did want to see more of the DNC convention?
    Or are you saying that the RNC convention is more newsworthy?
    Can you define market failure? Do you believe market failures occur, and if so, what can or should be done about them?
    Can you define the “tragedy of the commons?” How do the roles of the networks and fox and the radio talk shows and OUR ownership of the airwaves create a new tragedy of the commons?

  3. Mike Avatar
    Mike

    anne, if they misjudged the market than so what, they are adjusting for it now. But then, if Copps had his way their would be no market to judge now would there.
    Besides, if people want convention coverage they can get it through other mediums. You don’t have a right to watch the conventions. Go buy a paper or listen to the speeches on the radio.

  4. Erwin Lewis Avatar
    Erwin Lewis

    More mindless FCC-bashing from Jarvis. Strangely, he doesn’t apply his anti-government views to other government agencies.
    Your obsession with the over-the-hill Stern is becoming truly scary.

  5. tony Avatar
    tony

    that dude is a democrat in name only.
    what stances has he ever made as a commish that would align himself with the dems?

  6. tony Avatar
    tony

    plus where was Copps and his op-ed columns when the Dem Convention was only getting a few hours of prime time tv?

  7. Mike G Avatar
    Mike G

    Why is the only answer that ALL three networks must show it? Why couldn’t they trade off? Because even then someone might watch something else? Maybe you could jam my VCR, and burn all my books, and take away my Playstation…

  8. Dave Avatar
    Dave

    hdtv will make this moot. once network affiliates are able to offer wall-to-wall coverage, using other than their primary channel, networks will be pushed into providing such coverage; the local numbers (viewer stats) will then reveal the real appetite for such wall-to-wall. A safe prediction is viewership of the c-span magnitude (i.e., practically nothing). the romantic notion of “the people’s airwaves” is fundamentally at odds with the reality of viewer preferences. Any NBC affil that dumps Fear Factor to run RNC coverage would be inviting, encouraging and prompting tune-out and viewer rage.

  9. Chris Josephson Avatar
    Chris Josephson

    I dislike anything that smacks of ‘Nanny statism’. However, I’m not sure about the points brought up in the piece. For me, it depends on how much the airwaves are actually owned by the public.
    If the airwaves are owned by the public and leased to the broadcasters, then the broadcasters *could* (not should) be made to supply X hours/day to broadcasts in the public interest. Depends on the contract the broadcasters have signed in order to lease the airwaves from the public.
    I could imagine one provision of the contract stating something about coverage of the DNC and RNC conventions. Wouldn’t bother me that much if something about convention coverage were written into a contract.
    I agree the conventions are just week long commercials for each party. Not much happens. I don’t think people miss much NOT having gavel to gavel coverage.

  10. Pete Avatar
    Pete

    Jeff, what he says seems pretty reasonable to me.
    If he is to be believed, there are 35 million people who don’t have cable. And because of the networks’ program choices, they cannot effectively participate in our democracy because of the tyranny of a majority of viewers who are not interested in politics. To address this issue, a requirement for public good broadcasting was put into their very lucrative licenses and now the requirement is not being either followed or enforced.
    The lack of free convention coverage further disenfranchises a population that is already underserved because they don’t have a lot of money. All other forms of media require costs such as subscription fees for magazines and newspapers, expensive equipment for the internet, or the ability to travel to a facility such as a library where the materials may not be available. On the other hand, televisions are now almost a commodity and almost everyone has one in their home. Most importantly, because of broadcast networks, tv is the best source of political information for our poorest voters. Isn’t that important? Isn’t it a valid aim of our government to protect a minority from a majority?
    If there was a media for political news that was as cheap and available as broadcast tv then I would agree with you. But until everyone has cable, the internet, or free news publications, at least one of the broadcast networks should be serving the political interests of everyone by broadcasting the conventions in their entirety. Even if there are very few people actually watching.

  11. James Stephenson Avatar
    James Stephenson

    The good news for Jeff is, if Kerry is elected there is a good chance Copps could become the leading member of the FCC. After they dump Michael Powell.
    BTW Copps was a primary member of Fritz Hollings staff. Fritz is a South Carolina Senator, who is a Democrat. Although he is retiring and it looks like the Dems are going to lose that seat.
    Again this looks hypocritical of Jeff. He has accused Bush of doing this time and time again. And that was the reason he was going to vote for Kerry.