Author: Patrick Maines

Posted on By Patrick Maines

Evil Is as Evil Does

The search giant Google is attracting criticism from those who see in that company’s business practices a threat to professional journalism, old and new.  The latest such comes in the form of a policy paper written by media attorney Kurt Wimmer, and published online by The Media Institute.

Honored this year by the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, Wimmer has advised journalists and legislators in more than two dozen countries concerning new media laws, protection of journalists, and freedom of information.

The thrust of his paper is that, at a time when there is great concern for the future of the media, much of this concern is misplaced.  There’s no crisis in journalism per se, he argues, but rather a crisis in the monetization of journalistic content, a condition greatly exacerbated by the fact that one company dominates both search and online advertising.

Is anyone monetizing digital content?  Yes.  News and information continues to be monetized – at a rapidly increasing rate – by search engines, content aggregators, and others whose new, targeted advertising models have overtaken the spending that had supported journalism in the past.

Again, the dramatic new feature here is the split between content creation and content monetization – those who create the content are not those who are monetizing it.  Google, for example, had a record $23 billion in revenue during 2009, without producing a word of original content.  Google’s job is simply to monetize the content that others have created, and it has performed that job exceptionally well.  Today, more than 70 percent of the Web searches conducted in the United States (and up to 90 percent of those in Europe) flow through Google’s servers.  By its recent acquisition of AdMob, Google will control the vast majority of the mobile application advertising market as well.

Complaints about Google’s disruptive effect on professional journalism are not new, of course, and this is not the only active concern about Google’s business practices.  Other people have problems with the company’s abuse of copyrighted material (as in Viacom’s lawsuit against Google’s YouTube subsidiary), or with Google’s invasion of privacy, such as seen in the recent “Spy-Fi” affair.

What is new is the degree of scrutiny of Google’s practices by government antitrust officials.  As reported last month in a lengthy story in The New York Times, “the search giant’s decisions on such matters may soon be judged by higher authorities.”  As the Times reporter, Brad Stone, put it: “Almost a decade after Google promised that the creed ‘Don’t be evil’ would guide its activities, the federal government is examining Google’s acquisitions and actions as never before, looking for indications that the company’s market power may be anticompetitive in the worlds of Web search and online advertising.”

It’s become hard to know, in recent years, what the government may deem to be in restraint of trade, but if it happens, sometime in the near future, that it initiates an antitrust review of Google and you find yourself wondering why, read Wimmer’s piece and wonder no more.

Cross posted here on Huffington Post.

Posted on By Patrick Maines

Shedding Light on Title II and the First Amendment

Now that FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski has proposed what Broadcasting & Cable’s John Eggerton artfully calls a “Title II Lite” approach to broadband regulation, it’s a good time to take a second look (or maybe your first) at a recent paper by Robert Corn-Revere.

Bob wrote a Perspectives policy paper for The Media Institute titled “Defining Away the First Amendment,” which we released May 4.

This noted First Amendment attorney makes a crucial point – but a point that has not received adequate attention: “The FCC’s current ability to change the level of First Amendment protection for a medium simply by changing its regulatory definition is quite limited, if not nonexistent.”

Whoa, you mean there’s a First Amendment dimension to this reclassification debate?  You’d never know it by listening to the FCC, or to “net neutrality” supporters like Free Press.  Maybe that’s not surprising, since the First Amendment could very well prove an unwelcome stumbling block for Chairman Genachowski and his net-neutrality ilk.  Easier for them just to ignore it.

But, I would suggest to you, the First Amendment is far too important to ignore here.  In his issue paper, Bob Corn-Revere has shed some much-needed light on a pivotal concern that the FCC has tried to keep in the shadows.  Taking a “lite” approach to Title II reclassification doesn’t absolve the FCC of its constitutional obligations.  If anything, we need more “light” from Bob and others who are willing to hold the FCC accountable for the First Amendment ramifications of its regulatory agenda.

Posted on By Patrick Maines

Congressional (Mal)intent

Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity postulates that it’s impossible for anything to go faster than the speed of light. More impossible still is the ability of Congress to honorably handle First Amendment issues.

The latest example of this dolorous state of affairs can be seen in the so-called DISCLOSE Act. Aimed at curbing what its Democratic sponsors claim are flaws in the Supreme Court’s campaign finance decision (Citizens United vs. FEC), the formal name of this legislation is the “Democracy Is Strengthened by Casting Light On Spending in Elections Act.” Seriously.

Not to put too fine a point on it, the difference between this Act’s intended impact and its stated goal is the difference between flapjacks and flapdoodle. In fact, the difference may be even greater than that. The Act is so dense and lengthy, who knows what’s in there? Could be anything. The only people who are going to know for sure are those communications lawyers who find gaping holes and contradictions in it–and don’t think for a second they won’t.

With this kind of opacity we can’t yet identify all of the Act’s “microflaws,” but its “macroflaws” are easily spotted: It burdens political speech in ways that are intended to discourage it, and it provides for the care and feeding of incumbents at the expense of challengers and the public at large.

We know the true intent of this legislation is to stifle political speech because the sponsor of the Senate bill, Charles Schumer, has admitted as much. As reported in Politico, though the legislation is “billed primarily as an effort to enable voters to determine who is behind ads attacking or supporting candidates, Senator Schumer…acknowledged that part of his goal is to limit the campaign spending newly legalized by the high court.”

“My view,” he said, “is that many CEOs of major organizations will air ads if they don’t have to disclose, but once they have to come up front and disclose, they will not do it…Anyone who wants to hide, will not do an ad after this legislation passes. And I think there are a lot of people who like to hide…so I think there will be many fewer of them.”

Apart from the DISCLOSE Act’s transparently fraudulent claim to a kind of “good government” motivation, the Act burdens business and nonprofit political speech by requiring so many on-air disclosures there would be little time left for a message of any kind, and by requiring CEOs of the sponsoring organizations and their major donors to do a kind of “I stand by this message” statement in the ad itself. The problem with this latter aspect is that this statement threatens to subject all such to retaliation and harassment by candidates, parties, and interest groups who disagree with whatever the message might be.

Another malevolent aspect of the Act, as analyzed by the Center for Competitive Politics (CCP), is that the legislation “would prohibit government contractors and U.S. subsidiaries of foreign companies from engaging in independent political expenditures.” This, from a group of politicians who, until the recent unpleasantness, were among the most fervent supporters of Acorn, an organization that attempted, in the name of “political inclusion,” to register the quick, the dead, and the never were.

A third macroflaw, and the one that shines a bright light on the sponsors’ true motives, is the provision that provides “candidates and parties the lowest advertising rate whenever an independent group airs ads in a given media market.” As the CCP observes, “This is a nakedly self-dealing attempt to punish independent groups for speaking out against Members of Congress.”

In a recent note, attorney Jan Baran, the esteemed election law expert at Wiley Rein, summarized this aspect of the DISCLOSE Act as follows: “The lowest unit rate provision manifests the politicians’ twofold strategy, which is as follows: first, do everything you can to burden and discourage public commentary about them; and if that doesn’t stop the speakers then give the political parties (which the politicians control) cheap TV and radio time at the expense of the broadcasters.”

“As you know,” he said, “the history of ‘reform’ is the history of politicians seeking to control political debate.”

The particulars of this legislation to one side, there is another woeful aspect of the campaign to reverse the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision, and that is the lack of integrity in the debate.

One of the (very few) advantages in growing old is that you get to personally observe a bit of the sweep of history. In my case that history goes back to the Warren Court, and to the frequent conservative criticisms of that Court’s decisions.

Back in those days such criticism was said, by all the right people, to be an attack on the Constitution itself. But fast forward to the present time and what do we find? The New York Times publishing an editorial, in the wake of Citizens United, titled “The Court’s Blow to Democracy;” the president excoriating those Supreme Court justices who were in attendance at a State of the Union address; and the Senate sponsors of the DISCLOSE Act announcing their legislation on the front steps of the Supreme Court, ironically enough in the same week that the Court announced, for security reasons, that the front entrance will no longer be available to the public.

Time will tell whether any or all of the Act’s provisions, if enacted, will survive judicial scrutiny, but in the meantime, and in the interest of “truth in labeling,” the Act should be formally renamed. A more accurate title would be the Hyper-Partisan Old Claptrap Reveling In Temerity Act.

The acronym? You figure it out.

First posted on Broadcasting & Cable, May 6, 2010

Posted on By Patrick Maines

South Park

Many people have commented about Comedy Central’s self-censorship of the "South Park" episode, but none so well as The New York Times‘ Ross Douthat.

Read it.  And think about it.

 

Posted on By Patrick Maines

Cute as a Button: The Schemes and ‘Confessions’ of Reed Hundt

Sorry to say, there are people in public life who, were hubris a lubricant, could forego ambulation and just glide on down the road.  Reed Hundt, the former chairman of the FCC, is one such person.

Hundt is back in the news these days because policies he clandestinely pursued while chairman are now thought by some (including Hundt himself) to be coming to fruition at the hands of his former FCC aides and confidantes, one of whom, Julius Genachowski, is now chairman.

This, and more, was revealed in a speech Hundt gave last month at Columbia University.  The subject of his address was the national broadband plan, then set to be released by the FCC just a week later, and what he characterized as a “confession or admission” of the role he played, years earlier, in using his office as chairman to systematically elevate broadband, at the expense of broadcasting, as the “common medium.”

To quote the great man himself: “The choice to favor the Internet over broadcasting was initially made in first-draft form by some of the people who are now running the FCC.”

One can only imagine how happy this revelation must have made the current FCC chairman since, if we’re to believe Hundt, not only was Genachowski a co-conspirator, so to speak, he was just a tagalong – the horse to Hundt’s Lady Godiva.

Lest you think for even a minute that the gentleman feels remorse about any of this, be advised: He doesn’t.  Quite the contrary, Hundt is pleased as punch with the way he handled things, amused even, and he wants you to see it the same way.  Rather like a school boy pulling a prank on the headmaster, Hundt sees his scheming not only as smart and justifiable but as positively cute in the way it confounded all but those few in the know.

How else to explain his characterization of his efforts to suppress broadcasting – by delaying, for instance, its transition to HDTV – as “a little naughty?”  Or his boast, re the ability of people to use the telephone network, for free, to connect to the Internet, as a case of the government “stealing the value from the telephone network and giving it to society?”

Not everyone sees the humor.  One who is particularly unamused is Gordon Smith, formerly Senator Smith, and now head of the National Association of Broadcasters. As reported in Broadcasting & Cable, Smith had this to say when asked what he thought of Hundt’s speech: “Frankly, I was rather offended, as a former member of the Senate Commerce Committee, that his secret musings were never shared with the elected representatives of the American people.”

Actually, Hundt’s Columbia performance isn’t the first time he’s spoken (what shall we call it?) “candidly.”  Years earlier there was the book, You Say You Want a Revolution, that he wrote not long after leaving the FCC.

Sandwiched between characterizations of some of his fellow commissioners as the “Gang of Three,” and innumerable accounts of the commercial rabble with whom he was obliged to spend time, Hundt wrote some things that are of a piece with his Columbia speech.

One of these describes a meeting he had in 1995 with Bill Gates. Hundt writes:

We had come to appeal to Gates’ self-interest.  As everyone on the West Coast knew, computing was heading directly toward communications….  With Gates as commander-in-chief, the entrepreneurs could win a lobbying war even against the powerful broadcasters….

I wanted Gates to go after the spectrum, because the auction was such a pure and sensible goal.  Later, depending on how the meeting went, we would ask for his help in connecting every classroom to the information highway….

If those who bought the spectrum at an open auction could ignore the networks’ deal with Congress and abandon high-definition television, they could transmit digital information to PCs….

Gates rocked in his chair.  His eyes magnified by his glasses, he stared at me, and asked urgently, "Does anyone else know about this?"

Elsewhere in the book, Hundt describes his attendance at a meeting hosted by the Gores (Tipper and Al), also in 1995, on the topic of Families and the Media:  

Then the President and Vice President each said they would support the children’s television initiative.  I had become part of the Administration’s political agenda – perhaps the first time in history that FCC issues were in the center ring of the political circus.  Al singled me out in the crowd.  I stood up.  The auditorium applauded.  The event made the national news.  It was intoxicating; it was much more important to be there in Nashville than at, say, an NAB convention.

Many people would agree that the Internet already is, or will become, the “common medium.”  And in an age when Saul Alinsky is held up as a role model, and the ends justify the means, views and acts like Hundt’s will almost certainly escape widespread censure.  But there’s this one small problem with the government picking the industrial winners and losers: What happens if they’re wrong?

Of course we know that governmental estimates and projections are never wrong.  But imagine that sometime in the future it happens.  Wouldn’t that be something?  Because, you know, in that case the government would not only have distorted the marketplace, it might have created problems it hadn’t even considered.

As it happens, there’s a claim in Hundt’s book that hints of this very problem.  In the same chapter in which he wrote of his meeting with Bill Gates, Hundt claimed that “big-screen televisions would cost so much that less than one percent of Americans would buy them.”

Imagine our surprise, then, when we check now with people at the Consumer Electronics Association, and are told that, in 2010, almost half (about 47 percent) of all TV sets sold are big screen.  Could this mean, Hundt’s furtive schemes notwithstanding, that the Internet won’t be the only common medium?  Go figure.

Cross posted at Huffington Post, April 21, 2010.

Posted on By Patrick Maines

‘Interest Groups’ and the News Media

From the Pew Research Center/Project for Excellence in Journalism comes the welcome report that newspaper editors and TV news directors are not eager to be, or to be seen as being, wards of the state.  This wholesome sentiment will not come as a surprise to most people, but it has to be disconcerting to the “media reform” crowd, which has been clamoring for direct government subsidies or tax breaks for the news media.

According to the study, 75 percent of the respondents, drawn from the ranks of members of ASNE and RTDNA, had “serious reservations” about direct subsidies from the government, and approximately half had such concerns about tax credits for news organizations.  (Note: These figures do not indicate how many of the respondents had “reservations,” only those who had “serious reservations.”)

It’s in the matter of non-governmental support, of the sort that issues from “interest groups” or nonprofit organizations, that the picture becomes a little murky.  According to the report, a whopping 78 percent of the respondents had serious concerns about accepting donations from “interest groups that engage in advocacy of some kind,” while a little over half expressed either serious or “some” reservations about funds issuing from nonprofit foundations.

Buts what about those groups, like the investigative news organization ProPublica, that are funded and led by people with extensive, and clearly defined, political profiles?  Is ProPublica an advocacy group or just a nonprofit news group?  The question takes on a practical significance in light of the Pulitzer recently awarded to ProPublica and The New York Times for their collaboration on a piece published in the New York Times Magazine.

As reported here, the founder, chairman, and principal financial backer of ProPublica is billionaire Herbert Sandler.  Since selling his interest in the bank (Golden West Financial) through which he made his fortune, Herbert and his wife, Marion, have become big-time philanthropists, with substantial sums going to “progressive” organizations like the Center for American Progress and Acorn.

Along the way the Sandlers acquired an interest in bankrolling a news organization that would create “journalism in the public interest,” as ProPublica calls itself, and hired Paul Steiger, then the managing editor of the Wall Street Journal, to act as editor-in-chief.

As reported in The New York Times, Steiger, who was then nearing the WSJ’s mandatory retirement age, didn’t know the Sandlers well but regarded them as “civic-minded people who were kind of partial to lefty or progressive causes.”

From its inception in 2008, ProPublica has proclaimed its independence and impartiality — a claim that is undermined by its avowed goal of producing journalism that “shines a light on exploitation of the weak by the strong,” and by the looming presence of Mr. Sandler who, rather than donate his money as a lump sum and walk away, installed himself as chairman and is parceling out his contributions over time.

At a recent conference of the American Bar Association, the general manager of ProPublica who, like Mr. Steiger, was formerly with the Wall Street Journal, defended the organization against criticism of Mr. Sandler’s role by suggesting that ProPublica, like the WSJ, is capable of producing journalism that is independent of the political views of management.  Unfortunately, this is an inapt analogy.  In fact it’s worse than that — it positively undermines the argument it’s meant to buttress.

This, of course, because the reason that the Wall Street Journal, or any commercial news organization, can produce news stories that are not a reflection of the political views of management is because they, like all for-profit organizations, operate on the principle of maximizing returns to the shareholders, rather than as a forum for the expression of management’s political or ideological views.

But contrast this dynamic with the very different operating principle of ProPublica, or any nonprofit enterprise.  As Slate’s Jack Shafer asked at ProPublica’s launch, “What do the Sandlers want for their millions? … How happy will they be if ProPublica gores their sacred Democratic cows?  Or takes the ‘wrong’ position on their pet projects: health, the environment, and civil liberties?”

In fairness, most of the reports produced by ProPublica to date do not suggest an organization that is marching in lockstep with the progressive agenda.  For the most part they are ideologically value free.  But that’s only half the story.  The real issue with a group like ProPublica is not the kind of issues it does cover but the kind it doesn’t.  As Jack Shafer asked, what kind of investigative pieces will ProPublica do — not counting the rare expose that proves the rule — that discomfit progressives?  That will be the true test of its independence from its benefactor, and of its suitability as a partnering organization with mainstream news organizations.

In the meantime, close your eyes and try to imagine the kind of reception that would have come to Paul Steiger and ProPublica if, instead of Mr. Sandler, the group’s founder, chairman, and bankroller had been someone who, politically, was Mr. Sandler’s polar opposite — someone who had supported conservative or libertarian causes and organizations.  How do you think that would have gone down with the J-schools, journalism reviews, and grant-giving foundations?

Posted on By Patrick Maines

D.C. Circuit’s ‘Net Neutrality’ Decision

The D.C. Circuit Court’s decision, while obviously correct, will not slake the thirst of anyone looking for intellectual arguments for or against the FCC’s proposed regulation of the ISPs’ network-management practices. Because the court ruled that the FCC lacked the "ancillary" authority it asserted, the body of the decision amounts to little more than a refutation of the respondents’ argument that earlier Supreme Court decisions provided precedent for the FCC’s claims.

The "legalistic" nature of this decision aside, there is something important here. It is widely surmised (and feared) that, thus rebuffed, the FCC will attempt to get to its desired result – network neutrality, as it’s called – by attempting to regulate ISPs, like phone companies, under Title II of the Communications Act.

But look what’s happening here. On the basis of claims of abuse so slim they’re very nearly invisible, the FCC has proposed to expand and codify that agency’s "Internet principles" in a way that guarantees its regulatory oversight of the freest, most democratic, and fastest-growing communications medium in the country. And for what? Because of fears that Internet providers might look for ways to insulate everybody else from the negative consequences of the actions of a relative handful of bandwidth hogs?

One of the intervenors in this case – Free Press, whose sole reason for being is the subjugation of the commercial media and communications companies to the yoke of government – coined the phrase "Net Neutrality: The First Amendment of the Internet." The reality, as someone put it, is that codified net neutrality is more nearly "The Fairness Doctrine of the Internet."

For now, nobody knows for sure what will happen next – whether the FCC, or Congress, will push ahead in the conviction that this too is an issue of such "transformative" importance the only thing that matters is getting it done. But in this, as in so many things, the wiser course would be to rethink the matter entirely. It rarely happens that government acts more efficiently than the marketplace, and net neutrality is almost certainly no exception to that rule.

Posted on By Patrick Maines

The Intrinsic Menace in ‘Media Reform’

Christian theologians refer to the first three books of the New Testament as the synoptic gospels.  This, because of their similarities in content and order.  The new religion of “media reform,” whose principal tenet is that government needs to “save” journalism, is developing its own synoptic gospels – the gospel according to the Knight Foundation, Free Press, and just now rounding into view, the FCC.

For those who, until now, have enjoyed the luxury of knowing little about the handiwork of this threesome, a few words are in order:

The Knight Foundation (the vestigial remains of the defunct Knight-Ridder newspaper empire) is one of the country’s largest grant-giving foundations, with assets in the neighborhood of $2 billion.  Like Glenn Close in "Fatal Attraction" ("I won’t be ignored, Dan"), the Knight Foundation is not going away.

Through its gifts to educational and nonprofit organizations, the foundation funds journalism programs as its “signature work.”  It recently joined forces with the Aspen Institute to create the Knight Commission, the product of whose labor is the recently released report on the Information Needs of Communities in a Democracy (not to be confused with the information needs of community Democrats), an opus that, as reported here, is trivial and irrelevant, about 50-50.

Free Press is the absurd name of a paleoleftist organization that sees government influence over the media as a way to advance its larger political views, a point made both explicitly and inadvertently in the published opinions of the group’s founder and Maximum Leader, Professor Robert McChesney.  Free Press (or its lobbying arm, the Free Press Action Fund) convenes national “media reform” conferences; encourages laws and regulations that aim to increase the role of public media and reduce that of the commercial media; and coins amusingly infantile slogans like “Net neutrality: the First Amendment of the Internet.”

The FCC, of course, is the regulatory agency with sway over the affairs of the media, which, under chairman Julius Genachowski, has embarked on a number of “media reform” initiatives that parallel, if they aren’t in actual collaboration with, those of Free Press and the Knight Foundation.

Genachowski, for instance, was presented with a copy of the Knight Commission report at a publication ceremony at the Newseum, and in an interview with Broadcasting & Cable, the head of the FCC’s Future of Media initiative made explicit reference to the Knight Commission in answer to a question about what form his recommendations would take.

So what “media reform” policy positions do these organizations share?  As shown in their own comments or testimony, that of groups they fund, and/or that of others writing about them, at least three items can be identified.  They favor “net neutrality,” increased funding for public media, and an expanded role, through explicit tax breaks or other changes in the tax laws, for nonprofit organizations.

Looked at one at a time, and from a distance, none of these may seem like an unreasonable objective.  But taken together, and examined closely, they constitute a profound assault on some of our most cherished ideals about the media and its role in our national affairs.

Take “net neutrality,” for instance.  In both the literal and figurative sense of the term, network neutrality is the condition that obtains today.  Nobody is being favored or denied by ISPs of anything worth talking about.  But the proponents of net neutrality don’t want to leave well enough alone.  At the prospective cost of a reduced build-out of the broadband infrastructure (and the guaranteed intrusion of government into the affairs of the hitherto unregulated Internet), Free Press, the Knight Foundation, and the FCC want to codify and extend the Commission’s so-called Internet principles.

But by putting the camel’s nose of government under the tent of the Internet, codified net neutrality regulations would threaten the independence of the freest communications sector in the country, and thereby pose a direct challenge to both the letter and the spirit of the First Amendment, as well briefed by constitutional scholar Lawrence Tribe.

Proposals to change the tax laws so as to permit for-profit media companies to operate, in whole or in part, as nonprofits, or to explicitly authorize gifts to commercial media from nonprofit grant-giving foundations, or (as the Knight Commission recommends) to provide tax credits for investigative journalism, are similarly problematical.

As with net neutrality, the threat in amending the tax laws along these lines is that by doing so one lets the fox in the hen house.  How, for instance, would it be possible to insulate the media from charges of bias, and the concomitant threats to their tax-exempt status, when their political coverage offended one party or the other?  Might this not have the practical, if not the intended, effect of reducing the amount and kind of political coverage, like candidate endorsements?

Calls for greater funding of public media like NPR and PBS, through the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, are not so much constitutionally objectionable as they are ludicrously untimely.  Here we are as a nation, teetering on the brink of insolvency and with millions unemployed, and the recommendation is that we spend more taxpayer dollars on… public broadcasting?  Even without obliging PBS stations to commit suicide by requiring them to reorient their news programming toward local news (as all of the media reform advocates recommend), surely this idea is going nowhere soon.

Nor should it. News coverage by the public media in the United States represents a tiny, and because of that tolerable, adjunct to the vastly more important commercial media, whose independence from government is the sine qua non of its editorial independence.

Whatever one’s qualms or fears about the media of the future, the importance of independent (read: commercial) media is clear.  For this reason, the crisis in “medialand” is no cause to throw the baby out with the bath water, particularly where the “solutions” offered – like those of the media reform crowd – ignore decades of experience in the way the world works.

There are some people who understand this and some who don’t, but should.  An example of the former is FCC Commissioner McDowell who, in obvious discomfort by the direction the agency’s media initiative appears headed, has questioned the “constitutional, legal, and policy implications” of any government effort to “preserve or change journalism.”

Those who, in large numbers, do not get it include much of the “netroots nation” and progressives generally.  But here’s an exercise that might provide a cure for this.  Imagine a time, not too many years in the future, when the GOP controls the presidency, the House, and the Senate.  The Republican president has appointed a majority of the commissioners at the FTC and the FCC, and has, like all presidents, substantial influence with the independent agencies.

In this environment, how confident would progressives be that the Republicans would not attempt to use the FCC’s oversight of the Internet, as established through the years-earlier codification of net neutrality rules, or sway over the committees of Congress (and through it of the CPB), to influence the content of the media, commercial and public?

It is, of course, a rhetorical question.

First published here on The Huffington Post, Feb. 22, 2010.

Posted on By Patrick Maines

The American Samizdat

Back in the bad old days, “samizdat” was the name given to that body of politically forbidden literature that was clandestinely published and circulated in the Soviet Union.  In 2010, the Internet serves as an American samizdat, to the advantage of conservatives of one shade or another.

The Internet advantages “conservatives” more than “liberals” not because there are more or better conservative websites, but because of (1) the larger numbers of conservatives; and (2) the failure of the legacy media to portray conservative views and concerns.

No issue better illustrates this phenomenon than the extraordinary revelations of fraud and abuse in the “global warming” debate.  Despite the steadily growing number of Internet stories challenging the findings and practices of such as the IPCC and the East Anglia CRU, the mainstream U.S. media (the broadcast networks, newsweeklies, wire services, the Washington Post and New York Times) have shown little or no interest in these stories.

Instead, most of these news outlets continue to print or broadcast reports that are oblivious to the damage done in recent weeks to the claim of anthropogenic global warming (AGW).  And even where they have made mention of this development, they’ve often done so in a way that’s calculated to minimize the impact of the exposes.

A good example is the story published in the Washington Post by Julia Eilperin and David Farenthold.  Under the headline “Series of missteps by climate scientists threatens climate-change agenda,” the authors offer a perfunctory rundown of the many allegations that have recently been made against AGW literature, while repeating, mantra-like and in virtually every other paragraph, some variation on the claim of a scientific consensus that “climate change is happening.”

The contrast between this kind of coverage, or non-coverage, by the MSM, and the multitude of critical stories available on the Internet, many of them links to articles published in major British newspapers, is startling.  But news aggregators like the Drudge Report aren’t the only example of the way the Internet is empowering conservative voices re this and other issues.

The online comments sections of the MSM themselves are proving to be fertile soil for conservative opinion.  In fact, one sometimes wonders what the MSM’s reporters make of the comments that follow publication of their pieces online.  As of the time this piece is being written, for instance, the Eilperin/Farenthold story has attracted about 200 comments, perhaps 70 percent of them critical of the reporters for whitewashing, or failing to mention in sufficient detail, the “Climategate” revelations.

Other examples of the ways in which the American samizdat is facilitating right-of-center news and opinion can be seen in the widespread circulation of important stories similarly ignored until late in the news cycle, like the Acorn scandal, and more recently of exposes of the role of public employee unions in the deteriorating financial condition of so many states and municipalities.

There was a time, not so long ago, when news coverage by the MSM could set the agenda, and prosper, whatever its slant.  No more.  The issue today is how much longer the MSM will continue to practice center-left journalism in a center-right country.  At a time when their business models are in disarray, and the economy on its uppers, how long before the MSM come to believe that this is just bad business?

Posted on By Patrick Maines

Citizens United and the Commentariat

Nothing’s quite so inspiring as the sight of journalists, in high dudgeon, trashing the First Amendment.  Such has been the rule since last Thursday, when the Supreme Court issued its opinion in the campaign finance case called Citizens United.

For the uninitiated, the cause of the hysteria, at places like The New York Times and The Washington Post, is the Court’s entirely correct decision to liberate political speech from the clutches of the Federal Election Commission, such that labor unions, for-profit and nonprofit corporations will hereafter be able to spend general funds on the placement of issue ads and other kinds of what the FEC refers to as “electioneering communications.”

Because campaign finance “reform” has always been a hotly politicized issue, it’s not surprising that politicians, from the White House to Congress, have weighed in on this issue with more heat than light.  But it’s something else again to see journalists – all of whom zealously guard and enjoy their own First Amendment rights – turn a blind eye to those same rights where they’re someone else’s.

The journalists’ criticism of the Court’s decision is (1) that it is unnecessarily overbroad; and (2) that it will allow corporations (by which they mean large for-profit corporations) to dominate the political environment by the fact, or threat, of campaign advertising.

Even if one takes these journalists at their word – that their motive is a value-free concern for the political process rather than a tawdry reflection of their own political biases – we can say without fear of contradiction that, at least in this regard, they value the political process more than they value free speech.

Among the citizenry generally, such sentiments would be neither unexpected nor especially hurtful, but when they issue from journalists they are both.  This, because as people who are professionally engaged in such matters know, the Speech Clause of the First Amendment is not divisible by its applications.  It doesn’t apply just to the print media or broadcasting, news or entertainment, professional journalists or people at large, but to all of these and then some.

And the simple truth is that if you weaken the First Amendment in any area you weaken the whole of it.  This comes about because of the way that precedent is applied, not just in the courts but in policymaking venues as well.

Corporations enjoy constitutionally protected speech rights even where the speech in question is just commercial speech (speech that does no more than propose a commercial transaction.)  There’s no question about this.  There is lots of case law, most notably in Central Hudson.  Given this, how much greater is the value, under the Constitution, of their political speech?

The constitutional weakness in the journalists’ criticism of Citizens United to one side, they are also wrong on its political effects.  Corporations, particularly large and publicly owned corporations, are loath to spend their general funds on election campaigns.  This, because they know that, by doing so, they will inevitably attract criticism from some of their stockholders, and from the disfavored party and candidate(s), in any given election.  Corporations much prefer to stay out of election contests, and to allocate even their PAC money to incumbents, or to both incumbents and challengers.

And what if, despite the general aversion, it sometimes happens that corporations do spend general funds on election campaigns?  Given their reluctance to get involved in this way, perhaps the public ought to hear what they have to say.  It’s not, after all, as though such corporations are without their constituencies.

Indeed, when you consider the vast number of stakeholders that any large company has among its employees, stockholders, vendors, and customers, the company’s views are vastly more representative and diverse than those, say, of the editorial board of The New York Times.

As for the argument that the Supreme Court overreached in this case, a couple of observations.  First, while a number of commentators are now saying that the Court should have allowed the Citizens United film ("Hilary: The Movie") to be broadcast without going further, that’s a point they didn’t make before the decision came down.

Much more importantly, this criticism ignores the history of this case, most importantly oral argument when it first came before the Court, on March 24 of last year.  It was at that time that the government, which was there to defend McCain-Feingold in the person of deputy solicitor general Malcolm Stewart, inadvertently spelled out just how speech-killing our campaign-finance system might be.

Asked by Justice Alito if the government believed McCain-Feingold would permit like restrictions were the product distributed on the Internet, or as a DVD or a book, Stewart responded that it could be applied to all of those, that it could even require banning a book that made the same points.

As Bradley Smith, writing in National Affairs, put it:

There was an audible gasp in the courtroom.  Then Justice Alito spoke, it seemed, for the entire audience: ‘That’s pretty incredible.’  By the time Stewart’s turn at the podium was over he had told Justice Anthony Kennedy that the government could restrict the distribution of books through Amazon’s digital book reader, Kindle; responded to Justice David Souter that the government could prevent a union from hiring a writer to author a political book; and conceded to Chief Justice John Roberts that a corporate publisher could be prohibited from publishing a 500-page book if it contained even one line of candidate advocacy.

In other words, it wasn’t until after they had heard this – straight from the horse’s mouth as it were – that the Court issued, in June, its surprising order that the case be reargued and expanded to include two of the Court’s earlier rulings.

Viewed from a First Amendment perspective, McCain-Feingold was the worst piece of legislation ever enacted and subsequently upheld as constitutional.  That so many journalists are unhappy with its undoing is a black mark on their profession and on them as individuals.

First published here on The Huffington Post, Jan. 26, 2010.