Media Matters
A Free Press Means Free From Government Control
If journalism needs “government help,” it’s not journalism.
In a new interview with Rolling Stone magazine, President Obama admits that media bias is a problem. “The golden age of an objective press was a pretty narrow span of time in our history.”
Obama was addressing a question about Fox News, but it’s the rest of the old media that are the problem. And that problem begins even before journalists get out of school. Since so many in the media have supported the president, perhaps they will heed his complaint and learn from it.
Columbia University President Lee Bollinger’s July 14 commentary in the Wall Street Journal is a classic example of how bad things have gotten in journalism. Bollinger actually confused freedom of the press with freedom to oppress. The man who heads up a college with one of the most well-known journalism schools actually argued against freedom of the press.
A free press is a foundation of a free society. For any university president to argue against it would seem unusual. When it’s also the head of the Columbia School of Journalism, then people on both left and the right have reason to scratch their heads in bewilderment.
Bollinger has called for federal funding of the media in a piece with the terrifying headline: “Journalism Needs Government Help.” He advocates for the creation of an “American World Service that can compete with the BBC and other global broadcasters.” And he wants government to pay for it.
This is not just a bad idea, it’s a dangerous one. Bollinger naively thinks that government can serve the roles of guardian and supporter of the free press without endangering the very freedom he claims to regard.
To make his case that the U.S. needs to “strengthen our public broadcasting role in the global arena,” Bollinger cites state-run operations in Communist China, Qatar’s al Jazeera and the BBC, all with their own biases. State control, propaganda and spin are the new models for American journalism according to the man in charge of one of the most prestigious journalism schools in the United States.
But Bollinger’s commentary piece was only a hint at his disturbing agenda for the news. His book Uninhibited, Robust, and Wide-Open: A Free Press for a New Century is actually far more alarming. It is a treatise on how government should control media. That’s a position also embraced by the current administration, from the FCC to looking at the future of the entire news industry.
In furtherance of a “free press,” the book calls for an “end to the regulation of ‘indecent’ languages and images in broadcast programming.” He is a social libertine, perfectly comfortable to have full nudity or foul language at any time on the broadcast networks with millions of children in the audience. The overwhelming majority of parents object to this smut on the airwaves they own. Bollinger wants the networks to be free… of the public.
At the same time he wants to end regulation that protects families, especially children, Bollinger calls for the Fairness Doctrine to be restored. Any attempts to resurrect that failed and censorial doctrine should offend a press advocate like Bollinger. But his intent is clearly designed to inhibit speech with which he doesn’t agree. He adds that “we need a renewed national debate about how to help make broadcasting more of a medium for meaningful public discussion.” Apparently, talk radio and TV aren’t performing to the Bollinger standard. Radio especially is driven entirely by public demands, and public tastes. These, however, are not “meaningful” enough. So again: The public be damned.
His book goes further into governmental control of content, adding that “the FCC should now also require or encourage broadcasters to cover international and global issues.” It’s up to the FCC to tell ABC, CBS and NBC or even cable TV and radio networks what news they need to cover? In the old Soviet Union perhaps — but not here.
That’s where Bollinger truly goes off the tracks — government control. Along with content control, he wants government to have funding authority over the media. “First and foremost, we must develop a better system of public funding of the press,” he wrote. Then Bollinger chastises journalists for daring to oppose such a plan:
[T]here is a perception that the press is not publicly funded and, at least among print journalists, a sense that government funding is antithetical to the spirit of an independent press. This view needs to change…
He wants government “to create public funding grants to help finance the operations of foreign bureaus.” Those grants would be so extensive, they’d even include money for security.
To keep the tradition of separation between the business side and news alive, he proposes the possibility of a “system for peer review.” The same peers who have guided journalism down a path of economic disaster would get to decide on billions of dollars in new taxpayer funding. The public’s voice is no longer important. It is what this Star Chamber of “peer review” elites deem to be important. It is the antithesis of a free press.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (28) | Leave a comment
More Articles From Media Matters
http://spectator.org/archives/2010/10/04/a-free-press-means-free-from-g
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Booger| 10.4.10 @ 6:45AM
From the desk of President B. Hussein Obama:
Dear Mr. Sanchez,
As you may have heard, my great friend and supporter Charlie Gibbs is feeling a bit worn out and is considering taking a hiatus from his job as press secretary. While I was pondering whom I should appoint as his successor, it came to may attention that your services are now available, as you have severed your ties with CNN. Thus, I would like to ask you to consider the position of White House Press Secretary. Quite frankly, I think that you would be perfect for the job.
First of all, I would like to point out that many of the difficulties that led to poor Charlie's exhaustion will not be a problem much longer. As you are only to well aware from your time at CNN, the Great Satan Fox News has been making life quite difficult for honorable journalists such as yourself as well as honorable public servants such as myself. Hence you can see how we might have a common enemy, as Rupert Murdoch's cancer cuts into your profits and my popularity. Fortunately, Tim Geithner, a true genius if there ever was one, has assured me there will be no Constitutional problem with providing funding for some of Fox's competitors, to even the playing field, so to speak. Additionally, my people at the FCC assure me that there isn't any REAL reason they cannot begin to regulate cable and satellite news broadcasts to make sure there is more fairness in the system, both for CNN and MSNBC (who will receive more "broadcast credits" than Fox in the new rationing system) and for the public, who will be guaranteed a REAL fair and balanced newscast as we here in Washington resurrect the Fairness Doctrine.
In reviewing your resume, furthermore, I see that you understand many of the problems facing our country on a deep, personal level. You understand that if you are a minority you can never get a fair shake. Good, good, I can use you here. You understand the Jewish conspiracy. Yes, I know, they forced you to apologize. Well don't worry, once you're here in Washington you won't have to do that anymore. My good friend and mentor, the Rev. J. Wright, has warned me quite well about " 'dem Jews" as he loves to put it. He's also offered to let me borrow a new book he's been reading, something about Protocols and Zion. Maybe we could make it our next pick for the White House Book Club.
I also see that you have the right nose for truth. I see that you were willing to out Rush Limbaugh for the racist bigot he really is when few others dared to do so. The fact that your comrades in the press corps failed to fully back you just shows how much work we have to do. But at least you understood the truth, and were willing to present it, even if you had to do some editorial work with Limbaugh's comments to make it work. But that is just the kind of real journalism we need here in Washington, and for the rest of the country. Which is why I think you, Rick Sanchez, will make the next great White House Press Secretary. I'm prepared to make you an offer you can't refuse. See you soon.
Your President for Life,
B. Hussein Obama
Vern Crisler | 10.4.10 @ 12:31PM
Brilliant parody.....
Petronius| 10.4.10 @ 7:46AM
This is too much. The MSM has dirty diapers and wants the administration they control to change them and hold their hands just like their electorate.
The adults quit giving them credence long ago.
Average Infidel| 10.4.10 @ 7:47AM
So in an other words, he's a loser communist and damn proud of it. Why am I not shocked coming from a person who never had a job. Opinions are not jobs, they are like arse holes, everybody got one and they all stink. Freedom from the opinion press is what is needed, not a bureaucrat.
Jim O'Brien| 10.4.10 @ 7:48AM
I imagine that Bollinger would like to see some restrictions (infringements) applied to the First Amendment, just as they have been applied to the Second Amendment. How about registering all journalists with the federal government, and requiring an FBI background check before they could publish? Maybe they should be licensed by the feds? How about a five day waiting period before editorial opinions could be published, to allow for government approval? Ditto for letters to the editor, or posts like this one on American Spectator. The same standards could be applied to broadcast journalists by a new federal law requiring that a tape of news programs be submitted for review before appearing on TV, et cetera, ad nauseum. A whole new Department of Journalism Safety could be established, employing 12,000 comrades.
Bollinger is just one example of course. His kind fill the halls of academe, and the White House. Book smart but low wattage.
JP| 10.4.10 @ 8:16AM
A Free Press is not necessairily a robust press. The government has absolutely no say in whether a news organization(s) prospers or fails. The only role the federal government has to play is in enforcing the 1st Amendment. If CBS, CNBC, ABC, CNN, and MSNBC go belly-up, so be it. Ditto for Fox, Rush Limbaugh's EIB, or Glenn Beck. Ditto for the J-Schools.
People always have opinions, and consequently there will never be a shortage of people who will express them. In the old days, a printing press was needed. Funny, how no one demanded that the federal government provided subsidies for printing presses. In the bad old days, running a newspaper required huge amounts of capital. Today, anyone with a Typepad account can hange thier shingle.
And I never tire of hearing our elites demand that we have what other nation's have. The BBC News is highly vetted and run by Progressives who ensure that only the Progressive slant gets air time. The Muslim's media arm is not different. Ditto for the Chicoms.
The Left's so-called dedication to Free-Speech, despite what they claim, has always been paper thin. The Left never tolerated dissent and never will. If you want to really watch a Progressive's head explode just offer a dissenting opinion. It is quite amusing. Before I got banned at the site Little Green Footballs I use to post comments that were designed to get the host (Charles Johnson) upset. The amount of vitriol was something to behold.
Ned| 10.4.10 @ 2:52PM
banned at Little Green Balls... or whatever...?
If there is an on-line award somewhere for prodding liberals into revealing their stripes, please consider yourself nominated...
Tim*| 10.4.10 @ 8:33AM
We Are In A War With The Liberal Media .
Bankrupt The Liberal Media .
The Tea Party Rebellion Escalates .
Rise Up !
Dave M. (now in S. Korea)| 10.4.10 @ 8:35AM
Two things:
1. What the heck happened to Ted Olson?
2. The First Amendment states "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom . . . of the press." It seem to me, based upon the clear words of that Amendment, federal funding of the press is unconstitutional. Conditions always come with federal dollars . Any conditions placed on the press would abridge its freedom. Ted Olson once knew that. Now he's just another useful idiot who has exchanged his virtue for the siren song of "popularity."
Ken (Old Texican)| 10.4.10 @ 8:40AM
Folks,
There IS going to be an accounting.
The communists, (pardon the shorthand), have indeed slipped in the shiv in a "time-lapse" fashion in order to separate cause and effect in our minds.
The accounting WILL come...soon.
Anthony| 10.4.10 @ 9:41AM
As noted in another TAS story today, there are some ideas that are so stupid, that only intellectuals could believe them.
Bollinger is just another example of the sclerotic '60s radicals that infest the MSM. Like his fellow totalitarianians in government, Bollinger and his fellow Leftist elites are hand and glove with government control. They are two sides of the same coin. They have the same goals, which is why Obozo has problems with media outlets that don't do the party line.
Besides, when leftist policies fail miserably, their solution is never to examine the product being produced, or examine why the general public has repudiated them, no, rather, the solution is to have their leftist government pay for their continued failure with tax payer dollars. It bears repeating, the MSM no longer do news, they do the bidding of their fellow leftists.
As a result, the establishment media are dying. They have rendered themselves on life support due to their gross failure to adhere to their basic Constitutional function in a free society.
They have come full circle, they failed in their duty because they really do hate free societies. The people are not to be trusted with their own decisions, only the elites can make these judgments.
Anyway, Bollinger and the '60s gang are soon to have their life support plugs pulled. Adio. And not a moment to soon.
Eric Damon| 10.4.10 @ 10:17AM
My one quibble here is including Diane Rehm in the criticism of PBS. I happen to like the DR Show when I get to hear it, because it is not passing itself off as a news show; she does interviews with authors, actors, and the like that are usually very interesting. Friday is the only day she does anything resembling news, and that is a news round-up program with lots of different reporters giving their analysis of the big stories of the week.
But we don't want to see the G giving any more money to the press than it does already, because we are not being well served by the press we already fund. And it is truly strange that so-called journalists would ever even think of allowing the government to be involved with their work, because that would almost automatically destroy what little credibility they have left.
c. j. acworth| 10.4.10 @ 10:20AM
Obama has taken over banks, autos, health care, why wouldn't he also want to take over the press. We've always had a partisan press, right from the first days of the republic. So what? Once you know where a particular newspaper or TV commentator is coming from you simply factor that knowledge into your own opinion of whatever they say. Amspec. is conservative, Newsweek is liberal, and if Obama wants to start a magazine of his own, let him. Just don't let him take over the whole industry with subsidies and regulations. That would mean war.
Anthony| 10.4.10 @ 11:01AM
The more I read this article, the more I believe the thinking of Bollinger and his leftist ilk truly demands a call to arms. Kudos to Mr. Bozell for this insight.
Wow!! How far have we gotten away from the basic founding principles of America. Of course a dedicated leftist and elitist like Bollinger would admire the BBC and al-Jazeera; they are the totalitarian journalist's dream models. No pretense of objectivity, and more to the point, no need to even pay lip service to the views of the majority of Amerians, whom they deal unworthy of informing with objective information. On top of that, the government writes the checks, no need for messy market forces to interfere with doing the agitprop of the "man". It also keeps a steady supply of Bollinger's students employed. All is well in Lefty land; government and academia hand in hand.
Our product stinks? Who cares? Eat it and like it!!
Even the title of Bollinger's book is an Orwellian masterpiece. Bollinger is no different from his counterparts in Washington that dream up similar Orwellian titles for legislation that does the precise opposite of what is intended.
The Left has truly infected America. The four corners of corruption have reached epidemic levels. We really need to rid our institutions of these warped people before we all live in their Alice-in-Wonderland world.
Redstateboy| 10.4.10 @ 11:31AM
Bollinger.. a Liber-ul creten - sure would've made Joseph Goebbels proud.
Tim| 10.4.10 @ 11:36AM
"A well regulated media being necessary to the life of a free state, the right of the people to speech SHALL be infringed."
Anthony| 10.4.10 @ 2:31PM
Good one Tim. They'll be sure to invite you to their anti-constitutional, constitutional convention. Brush up on your Newspeak.
Oldefarte| 10.4.10 @ 1:44PM
Brent's and Dan's excellent article sunshine the deplorable state that journalism and the media business has now reached. It all starts with the liberalism that exists within acedemia [and journalism schools], and if/until that problem is solved, the MSM will continue to produce the typical radicalism/extremism within our daily newspaper articles and viewed TV news that we have today. The immediate solution is for seekers/consumers of news to obtains same from alternative sources such as TAS, Fox, Newsmax [and the other numerous sources] instead of reading their local newspapers [which obtain their news stories from the NYT, the wire services,etc that are all liberally slanted]. Consumers should cancel their newspaper subscriptions and simply not view ABC, NBC, CBS etc. As to government's financing MSM, same could not possibly increase the liberally slanted news stories any more than what is currently presented, since the MSM is already in the liberal community's back pocket of influence. The idea of seeking government financing of MSM is only because same is losing readership and therefore adverising revenue constantly because of consumer-readers disgust of what they are forced to read/hear/view on a daily basis. The public simply does not like what the MSM presents and is slowely turning away from same and to alternative/non-biased truth for their news!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Anthony| 10.4.10 @ 3:57PM
Too bad for Obozo's pal Bill Ayers that he didn't remain teaching at his alma mata, Columbia.
Had he remained, Ayers would have received his distinguished emeritus award desite what a Kennedy had to say.
Bollinger would have delivered it in person, with gratitude from a fellow radical leftist. Had Ayers demanded it, Bollinger would have delivered it on his knees.
This is what $60,000K a year gets you at Columbia.
Mimi| 10.4.10 @ 4:36PM
For the life of me, with a 70-30to 67-33 electorate out there ...just what is the MSM thinking? The fact that they haven't seen this coming is amazing. They have a choice...get rid of the 2008 ers and put some liberty lovers in there or GO-DOWN ! At the very least show the public some fairness. Hey TOP DOGS from MSM...The LIBS are 20% is that how your numbers are running? It would be grossly against the CONSTITUTION to take $ from the Government. Your job is to be their WATCH-DOG!!
RedMindBlue State| 10.4.10 @ 8:44PM
In Obamerica, news reports you.
Jason| 10.4.10 @ 8:49PM
I read an appeal the other day that the pornography is feeling ill effects from the economic slump. Maybe they should benefit from a tax on internet users.
Yosemeti Sam| 10.5.10 @ 12:44AM
My fellow Red, White and Blue - Americans!
There's an old posit: a tree falls in a forest and you're not there to witness the event - does it make a sound?
Metaphor alert:
Columbia University President Lee Bollinger excitedly shouts of TIMBERs in the Leftoids' communal (PEN1) ever-self-deforesting erstwhile Media Ponderosa.
Opine alert:
Strange - I don't hear no sounds!
But then again I'm not, as I'm certain many are also no longer - 'camping' in that there erstwhile Media Ponderosa.
Of course one may intuit/infer from the vestige of scant Media Ponderosa trees that something indeed is sanguinely afoot - to the advantage of the citizenry!
CITIZENS' CHOICE, to be exact - EXERCISED!
Saving trees no doubt!
I.E. - the PEOPLE have 'progressively' SPOKEN with their wallets!
Truism:
CITIZENRY monies denied from erstwhile Media Ponderosa propaganda TALK - relegates the
erstwhile Media Ponderosa BS to WALK the WALK of a dirt road!
The erstwhile Media Ponderosa is 'progressively' driving themselves into a ditch - and they're looking to the Congress to offer them tow trucks to - BAIL them out!
What's LEFT to them except to panhandle/hitch-hike their BS - at taxpayer EXPENSE?
Kenneth Wood| 10.5.10 @ 8:55AM
Liberty in journalism is a must. There cannot be true journalism without the independence.
http://purecleansepro.net/
Lawler Nicoteri| 10.5.10 @ 9:39AM
Yosemeti Sam, Ponderosa this:
Lee Bollinger falls in the forest
No witnesses
Who gives a ****??