BuzzMachine

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

When the First Amendment is ‘the other side’

3 comments on When the First Amendment is ‘the other side’

When the First Amendment is ‘the other side’

: CJR Daily goes after The New York Times, as I did the other day, for writing about new FCC National Nanny Kevin Martin and the so-called Parents Television Council without going to anyone — anyone — who defends the First Amdment against them. The Constitution is now the unheard other side.

Relying exclusively on quotes from the PTC’s president, L. Brent Bozell, Martin, and a few pro-fine Congressmen, the Times ignores any hint of opposition to the proposed new rules.

There’s little question that there is a significant movement afoot to increase indecency fines, but the Times fails to report that an equally passionate movement has arisen to resist the proposed expansion of the FCC’s mandate.

[via SpeakSpeak]

3 responses to “When the First Amendment is ‘the other side’”

  1. Angelos Avatar
    Angelos

    First CNN tries to out-faux Fox.
    Now the Times wants to out-stupid the Journal.
    Must be the Liberal Bias I’ve been hearing about!
    Then again, the Times was harsher on Clinton re:Lewinsky than the WSJ was. Not that criticism for such stupid behavior was unwarranted…

  2. David 2 Avatar
    David 2

    I actually have suspicions about the Times article myself. Much like Time Magazine did with the infamous (and inaccurate) “Cyberporn” article of 1994, I suspect that the NY Times is being used to spark support for this new unconstitutional invasion on our freedoms by the PTC and the FCC. If you read near the end of the article, it mentions bills that are sponsored but have not yet been passed. The whole purpose of the article was to lead people to believe that the solution to the “problem” rests with the passage of these bills, thus it encourages the public to put pressure on their people for passage. If the Times was being fair and accurate, they would have made mention of the counter-movement against both the PTC and the FCC, and it would have questioned the will of “the people” and taken strength away from the proposed action.
    Sound familliar? Yes it does. This was exactly how Time Magazine was used to pimp Senator Jim Exxon’s Communications Decency Act a little over ten years ago.

  3. robyn Avatar
    robyn

    Please stop calling that group the “so-called” Parents Television Council. That is their name, not their so-called name. If you want to call them the “so-called defenders of family values,” that’s fine. But their name is what it is.