Media

Liberals Finally Find Some Media Bias They Dislike

The freakout over the Sinclair Broadcast Group.

|

Last month, news anchors at Sinclair Broadcast Group's TV stations were required to read a script critical of "fake stories" and general bias in the major news networks. Because some of the phrasing mirrored President Donald Trump's overcooked critique of liberal media outlets, the story triggered widespread and overwrought warnings about authoritarianism and the rise of state-run media.

It's true that Sinclair, the largest owner of U.S. TV stations, would have been better off following the lead of the big outlets: hiring and working with people who subscribe to the same worldview and then simply letting them do their thing. But as long as we have a media market and inhibit government meddling in speech—thank you, Citizens United and Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai—the idea that we are powerless to turning away from "propaganda" is nothing but alarmism. Every Sinclair market has an alternative local news station for viewers, not to mention other sources of information consumers can read and listen to if they desire.

Then again, having read the panicky coverage before watching the Sinclair videos, I was surprised by the innocuousness of the spots. The anchors were plainly reading a scripted public service announcement that claimed there is a "troubling trend of irresponsible, one-sided news stories" at major news outlets and then offering themselves as an alternative. They then cautioned viewers to avoid the "sharing of biased and false news" on social media, which is, I am often told, a plague on democracy. "But we are human and sometimes our reporting might fall short," the script goes on to say. "If you believe our coverage is unfair please reach out to us."

The rhetoric was a less sanctimonious version of CNN's apples and bananas commercial from a few months ago—another finger wagging aimed at political foes and competitors. One peculiar complaint about the Sinclair spots is that local anchors were being "forced"—a word widely used by those reporting on the incident—to read opinions they do not share. "I felt like a POW recording a message," one aggrieved newsreader told CNN. As a writer, I can sympathize with people being asked to say things that undermine their beliefs. In truth, though, no one can force you to say or write anything. If you find the words "fake" and "news" morally and professionally objectionable, quit.

The concept of free will has little part in any of our national conversations these days. You'd think that Russian bots, Facebook posts, and local news anchors all have the preternatural ability to burrow into your brain and make your choices for you.

CNN senior media correspondent Brian Stelter went as far as to claim that viewers were being "force-fed" the Sinclair viewpoint, which would mean that every time an outlet is "leaning forward" or telling us that "Democracy Dies in Darkness" or lecturing us about "fake news," it, too, is force-feeding consumers their partisan talking points.

It's clear that the oversized reaction to the Sinclair script is occurring because it flaunted the wrong bias. And considering the often sycophantic treatment the previous administration received from major news outlets, it's difficult to take those acting appalled very seriously. In fact, those who act most disturbed are in part responsible for the rise of openly partisan journalism. That's because in many ways, politically motivated news is as much a market reaction as an ideological one.

Take CNN's full-blown push for gun control over the past few weeks. Is the network any less culpable of the supposed manipulation of democracy when it features a virtually unchallenged—and often fact-challenged—opinion that runs in a loop for a week? CNN wasn't alone. Surely, it's not surprising that many Americans might seek out alternative coverage, especially in conservative areas, where Sinclair is strongest. If the wealthiest legacy networks—the ones the public relies on because they have the most access—keep treating one party with standards and an intensity they don't apply to the other, then no one should be surprised by a pushback.

Maybe it's for the best. After all, advocacy journalism isn't necessarily propaganda. Politically motivated journalists tend to concentrate on specific targets, but their work can be worthwhile and factually sound. It's likely that the news coverage of the Sinclair affiliates, most of which are run independently, are just as reliable as that of the majors. But in a broader sense, competing biases keep the other side challenged. Meanwhile, let's continue reading all news with the appropriate skepticism and filters.

And it shouldn't be forgotten that there are plenty of conscientious journalists. Most media bias, it seems to me, is an organic byproduct of journalists' worldview, not some conspiracy to mislead the public. But everyone has a bias. There's nothing wrong with pointing it out. Sinclair's real sin, though, is that it was ham-fisted about the wrong kind.

Advertisement

NEXT: Movie Review: Chappaquiddick

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. “The concept of free will has little part in any of our national conversations these days. You’d think that Russian bots, Facebook posts, and local news anchors all have the preternatural ability to burrow into your brain and make your choices for you.”

    I like this line! I approve of this message!

    As a good libertarian, I know that it is actually Government Almighty that has the “…ability to burrow into your brain and make your choices for you.” Sometimes I find that the Government Almighty will take over my body, make my head swivel around 360 degrees and even more, and then make me spit up greenish-gray slit-pea soup!

    And then it makes me… SING!!! And not even really in my own particular… Idiom! Yes, that’s it, it’s not really my own idiom!

    Hold on, I feel one coming on now…

    1. I must… SING!!!
      Scienfoology Song? GAWD = Government Almighty’s Wrath Delivers

      Government loves me, This I know,
      For the Government tells me so,
      Little ones to GAWD belong,
      We are weak, but GAWD is strong!
      Yes, Guv-Mint loves me!
      Yes, Guv-Mint loves me!
      Yes, Guv-Mint loves me!
      My Nannies tell me so!

      GAWD does love me, yes indeed,
      Keeps me safe, and gives me feed,
      Shelters me from bad drugs and weed,
      And gives me all that I might need!
      Yes, Guv-Mint loves me!
      Yes, Guv-Mint loves me!
      Yes, Guv-Mint loves me!
      My Nannies tell me so!

      DEA, CIA, KGB,
      Our protectors, they will be,
      FBI, TSA, and FDA,
      With us, astride us, in every way!
      Yes, Guv-Mint loves me!
      Yes, Guv-Mint loves me!
      Yes, Guv-Mint loves me!
      My Nannies tell me so!

      1. Man, you been hanging out with Agile Cyborg lately or something?

        1. I hope Agile is drying out somewhere, honing his poetic skills without the aid of artificial stimulation. Assuming that can be done.

          1. I’m making over $7k a month working part time. I kept hearing other people tell me how much money they can make online so I decided to look into it. Well, it was all true and has totally changed my life.

            This is what I do… http://www.onlinecareer10.com

          2. Start making extra cash from home and get paid weekly… By completing freelance jobs you get online… I do this three hr every day, for five days weekly and I earn in this way an extra $2500 each week…

            Go this web and start your work.. Good luck… http://www.jobs63.com

        2. I’ve been trying to find my Inner Agile Cyborg to go “hanging” with him, yes, but he usually runs away from me!

          I’ve been focusing on finding my… My “idiom”; yes, that’s it! Sad to say, my idiom also often hides from me…

          1. Google paid every week on-line from home over $4000+ basically by working just on-line. A month back I genuinely have paid $19523 essentially by working a month on-line. Its basically glorious and my advantage ar beginning at now much better than anything unsurprising nine to five work environment work.

            look here more http://www.richdeck.com

  2. I had heard something about a freakout over some broadcasting chain, but thanks for revealing the details.

    This reminds me of the net neutrality freakout from a few months ago: crackpots going ape ? en masse ? about something that’s not even related to the actual event.

    There is so little critical thinking, logic, or even common sense around these days, I wonder if those qualities are part of some mass extinction event that took place under our noses without being noticed.

    I used to make fun of people who remained uninformed about current events but could tell you everything about the Kardashians or Brangelina. Now I wonder if they aren’t wise to avoid all the pearl-clutching and pants-shitting that passes for “news” these days.

    1. I think there is something to the idea that ignorance is bliss. But the counter to the unintended wisdom of the Cult of Kardashian is that perhaps it is precisely this sort of drivel that has rotted the minds of many to the point of emotionalism being the only faculty they have left. The shallow programming that seems to take up most of the time of many people never challenges their mind to work logically or rationally, thereby reducing those abilities. It is perhaps the method of the extinction, rather than an escape from it.

      But I suppose if we are in fact going to go extinct, there is something to be said for being one of the ignorant cattle going through the chute in a good mood. You’ll be dead in the end all the same either way, may as well go out with a smile and catchy tune in your head.

      1. Start making extra cash from home and get paid weekly… By completing freelance jobs you get online… I do this three hr every day, for five days weekly and I earn in this way an extra $2500 each week…

        Go this web and start your work.. Good luck… http://www.jobs63.com

    2. Or maybe this is what happens when the sheeple look up from their Kardashian, NBA, and home incest videos and try to digest some “news” issue from the (more) real world.

    3. “Now I wonder if they aren’t wise to avoid all the pearl-clutching and pants-shitting that passes for “news” these days.”

      That’s the advice of someone like Nassim Nicholas Taleb, avoid TV and the newspapers. Of course if Reason followed this advice, it would cease to exist. No stories about school kids being sent home for wearing the wrong tshirt, nothing about the college student who disagreed with her professor, nothing left, just emptiness.

  3. Everything we were told about the Pulse Nightclub shooting was fake news. Basically everything we were told by the FBI, Obama’s DOJ, and by the media was obfuscation and lies.

    Every single new outlet pushed the same angle, the same narrative, the same bullshit stories about him being secretly gay (he wasn’t), about him picking the club to target Hispanic gays (he didn’t), that it was an anti-LGBT hate crime (it wasn’t), that his motives were complicated (they weren’t), and that we’ll never know his true motive (we do).

    It was one of the worst examples of blatant propaganda and deliberate misleading of the public by the press in a long time. Now, we find out his father, who was at a Hillary rally two weeks after the event, was an FBI informant who is currently under investigation for funding the Taliban.

    Media silence.

    It’s like their begging me to become an InfoWars conspiracy theorist.

    Same the Imran Awan story. It probably isn’t a big deal. I don’t think it will lead us to Marc Rich’s killer or some elaborate Clinton conspiracy. However, it is a real story. It is a real scandal. It is something that warrants serious investigative journalism.

    The lack of coverage only feeds conspiracies, and you can’t really blame the conspiracy theorists.

    1. I think they assumed he was secretly gay because he frequented that nightclub. Why else would you regularly visit a gay club – are the drinks less watered-down?

      Where did you see the expose about his real motives? It sounds like you’re suggesting was radical Islam. I’ll buy that, but there must have been a self-loathing element there given that both alcohol and gayness are verboten for religious Muslims.

      1. That’s the tail wagging the dog. It appears that the assumption that he frequented the nightclub was based on his having shot the place up, and wishful thinking that he was a self-hating gay man. As far as I have seen in the coverage following his wife’s trial, there is no evidence that he’d been there before the shooting. Here’s the FBI cell phone expert, for example:

        “[Mateen’s] phone did not come up to the area of Pulse until 12:41 a.m. on June 12,” Fennern said. “Prior to that, his phone had never been up here. [Salman’s] phone had never been near the Pulse nightclub.” June 12 was the date of the shooting.

      2. He gave a thirty minute rant over the phone explicitly stating his motives. There is plenty of evidence that he had affairs with women, no evidence of men. There is no evidence he frequented that or any gay club. There is no evidence he was ever on a gay dating app. Find me this evidence. The “he frequented the club” story was an unsourced rumor pounced on by a press desperate for a narrative. There’s no evidence to support it whatsoever.

        1. “He gave a thirty minute rant over the phone explicitly stating his motives.”

          The club wasn’t vegan?

        2. Thank you, Bill and CBK, for the explanation.

          I get the feeling the media was desperate to not paint it as Islamic terrorism because they’d prefer not to feed into Islamophobia. Seizing the idea that it was homophobia, however, is cool, because they can bash homophobes all they want.

          1. “…they’d prefer not to feed into Islamophobia.”

            Yes, it is irrational to fear religious people who display a propensity to slaughter non-adherents.

            But, more tellingly I think they didn’t want to make Obama look like he was weak and add this one to a list that already included Ft. Hood and the Boston Marathon.

            1. “get the feeling the media was desperate to not paint it as Islamic terrorism”

              This theory assumes that Islamic fundamentalism & homophobia are somehow separate contradictory drives. While it’s true that the “self hating gay” narrative (a narrative consistently sourced to law enforcement) is bullshit, like most of the state’s claims about this mass murder & the family of the killer, the notion of an Islamist terrorist attack focused on decadent American gays strikes me as “on message” for those who perpetrate such acts, albeit rare in fact (at least in the US, where terrorism of all kinds is extremely rare).
              The ppl to be loaded at in this murder, other than the murderer himself, is law enforcement & not the “media”. It was law enforcement that sat on their hands outside pulse for hours while the killer continued his murder spree rather than risk life or limb of a precious police officer. It was law enforcement who would vindictively indict mildly retarded wife Noor Salman using confessed “facts” the FBI knew were bullshit when they invented them.
              This is one of the many, many reasons why this country is fkd. Every day brings stark evidence of state violence & corruption but instead of defending their own rights or the rights of others, every Tom Dick & Harry instead spends great deals of energy invested in extolling the social disasters of even the thinnest shred of media bias that counters their own tribal narrative.

              1. “Ppl to be loaded at” = Ppl to be pissed at. Sorry guys fkng autocorrect.

    2. I think they assumed he was secretly gay because he frequented that nightclub. Why else would you regularly visit a gay club – are the drinks less watered-down?

      Where did you see the expose about his real motives? It sounds like you’re suggesting was radical Islam. I’ll buy that, but there must have been a self-loathing element there given that both alcohol and gayness are verboten for religious Muslims.

      1. He apparently looked up downtown nightclubs and chose Pulse at random after being scared off by the security he saw at Disney Springs. He had never been in Pulse before the attack and may not have been aware that it was a gay bar until he went in.

    3. Interesting angle.

      Indeed, it’s as if most of the big commercial media is actually trying to drive people to wacky conspiracy news sites. There’s definitely a vacuum being filled by those sites.

      It’s actually one part of a bigger phenomenon unfolding, where it has little to do with what is being talked about in news media, by politicians, activists and public intellectuals, but rather what isn’t being talked about. The story about the Pulse shooter’s dad definitely seems to have a fraction of the attention the shooting had.

    4. It could not have been difficult for the media to verify whether Mateen actually was a patron at the Pulse or used some gay dating app. The two women who had affairs with him testified at court – no one interviewed them?

      No one seems to care that the FBI admitted to not sending tips on Nicolas Cruz to the proper field office. An illegal alien previously deported 3,4 times ran over a football player a day after the after the super bowl and hardly got any coverage. If you blinked you missed coverage on the Austin bomber.

      But you know, Black Panther broke box office records. That’s all over the news! American media is a SAD joke.

  4. Getting freaked out, frankly, about being mind-controlled by Facebook-forwarded fake news and Rooskies is VERY closely related to…

    Getting freaked out about being mind-controlled by rich people’s money in political campaigns!!!! We need Government Almighty to SAVE US ALL from campaign cash, via “campaign finance reform”!?!?! Ha! “Campaign finance reform” == to “Re-elections of all incumbents, for the incumbents, by the incumbents”!!!

    If the zombie of Adolf Hitler could crawl up out of the grave, and “make” us all vote for for him and his policies, by spending twenty trillion dollars, then we are all screwed already anyways, and no Government Almighty policies or laws can save us anyway!

  5. “Advocacy journalism” is a contradiction in terms. If it is advocacy then it is not journalism.

    1. That is unfair to a rich history of advocacy journalism in the U. S.

      1. And in pretty much every other place with a free-ish press.

        1. The press has always been primarily advocacy. It’s one of the great American myths that they’re unbiased and ‘just report the news’ when in reality it’s always been a way for those of means to influence the electorate.

          Occasionally some journalist or another has accidentally broken open an important story, but that virtually never happens.

          Any Media History textbook will tell you basically the above, broken out into several hundred pages of literal examples.

    2. I think you might be the one with the odd idea about what journalism is.

      Of course that’s not to say that I don’t think it would be nice to see less advocacy journalism in the mainstream press.

    3. The notion that there is ever any sort of balance, or lack of bias in journalism is a pervasive and extremely dangerous myth.

      All journalism is a form of advocacy.

      1. If nothing else it is the naked expression of “I think you should know this.” There always and everywhere being a ‘that,’ which is left out thus forming the essence of the advocacy.

      2. Yeah, but it didn’t use to advocate neo-Marxism or fascism in the US. That’s a new phenomenon.

        1. No, it’s not. RE: NYT circa 1930.

    4. Advocacy journalism is pretty much the only journalism there is.

      It’s naive to believe that there is any other kind of journalism in the US. To believe otherwise, one would have to believe that American journalists, who are overwhelmingly left of center, would and could put aside their own certainties about the way things should be and provide a balanced report on the way things really are. It doesn’t work that way.

      1. Balance is a horrible word. It immediately implies two opposing points of view and posits some sort of center.

        What if there are three possible positions? What if there are four thousand?

        There is, and there can be no ‘balance’ in any sort of journalism done anywhere.

        To think there is is to declare that certain points of view are beyond consideration.

    5. Out it this way, the type of journalism you are trying to hold at greater value would be devoid of any and all adjectives, lest they show any advocacy.

  6. It’s true that Sinclair, the largest owner of U.S. TV stations, would have been better off following the lead of the big outlets: hiring and working with people who subscribe to the same worldview and then simply letting them do their thing.

    Or firing those they hired for opposing viewpoints after they end up actually subjecting their customers to opposing viewpoints.

    1. I can’t think of one media outlet in America would do such a thing, from the Atlantic to the Atlantic.

      1. I sea what you did there.

    2. “Or firing those they hired for opposing viewpoints after they end up actually subjecting their customers to opposing viewpoints.”

      It takes a different style to be the token “opposing viewpoint” than it does to be part of the chorus. If you get confused about whose side you’re preaching to, you can annoy a LOT of people, including some who can have you fired.

  7. Liberal media bias is systemic and won’t go away unless somehow conservatives become the majority in the major population centers. Further conservatives aren’t generally drawn to journalism anyway. This is going to become more prominent if the Republicans continue to cast off their “thinkers” in favor of a base that generally doesn’t get past the brain-stem level of analysis.

    1. Yeah so we better hope that liberals continue to value enlightenment principles like facts, cuz the other side has gone full Rwanda genocide radio.

      1. Case in point.

      2. Liberals always value enlightenment principles.

        Progressives, democratic socialists, and Democrats are not liberals.

        1. ^ This.

          Tony is actual a great example of someone that will identify as ‘liberal’ who is absolutely illiberal in virtually every way.

          1. Tony was correct, he just didn’t understand he wasn’t in the winning group.

  8. “The concept of free will has little part in any of our national conversations these days. You’d think that Russian bots, Facebook posts, and local news anchors all have the preternatural ability to burrow into your brain and make your choices for you.”

    And this is not a bug, or unintended consequence, but a central feature. Almost every political entity and persuasion benefits when their constituents do not (cannot?) think for themselves. Technology has made the delivery of reinforcing propaganda more targeted and efficient. Evidence supports the cognitive addiction of video, especially on a little screen inches from the eyes. The unholy alliance of partisan politicians and techno-whores will guaranty the elimination of free will in our lifetimes.

    1. You misspelled Libertarian Moment. You’ve never been more free to get the same apple from this many outlets.

    2. There’s nothing preternatural in the efficacy of advertising or political propaganda. It’s been well understood for a while now. Thanks to its powers of persuasion, presidential campaigns run into the neighbourhood of a billion dollars.

      1. And Hillary still failed to win despite outspending Trump by a huge margin.

        1. I didn’t mean to imply that outspending a rival guarantees victory. It’s not that simple. Still, the impetus is to spend more. Reach more eyes and ears, hire smarter and more experienced strategists, advertising and propaganda experts, it all means spending more, not less money. But, and I can not stress this enough, outspending a rival does not guarantee victory. There are other factors at play, even the weather on voting day can swing an election.

          1. Spending doesn’t really help unless it’s spent on the right things and in the right places.

            1. If you can allocate money and are good at strategizing and you know the right people you can pocket millions as a political consultant.

              Spending is important, don’t kid yourself. Politicians spend most of their time in office soliciting donations. Does the name Al Gore ring a bell?

          2. I truly do not understand the value of political ads. I have my views on the various issues, and I pick the candidate that most closely mirrors my views. Sadly, usually a Republican these days (never a Democrat anymore). I am not suddenly going to switch my choice of candidates because someone hired Chechen hookers or conversely, lied about dodging sniper fire in Bosnia, or said you can keep your healthcare. I may not “like” my candidate, but I gotta go with the issues.

  9. And it shouldn’t be forgotten that there are plenty of conscientious journalists.

    Plenty?

  10. This is the dumbest headline I’ve ever read.

    1. And here i thought you regularly read the NYT.

      1. A brain is a terrible thing to treat with lye and cold water for days then salt then steam cook under low heat.

        1. speaking from experience are you?

        2. Stir fry maybe?

  11. Speaking Truth to Power is good, except when the power is on the left.

  12. It’s clear that the oversized reaction to the Sinclair script is occurring because it flaunted the wrong bias

    People keep saying things like this but I can’t find any real difference between the stance in the piece and the stance of CNN, MSNBC, ABC,CBS, NBC, or any of the other big media outlets–There’s fakenews out there. Be wary. Don’t listen, and don’t share it.

    And, without the leftist bloviating that it came -somehow- from the ‘right’, there’s no indication of this. It looks like what the lefties have been screaming since…..since…..well, since Hillary lost.

    In fact, when you show them the video sans leftist commentary, they see it as an example of the duplicity of the MSM.

    And the ‘this is the fault of the right’ screeching is just icing on that cake. CBS right wing? Yeah, riiiight.

    1. “People keep saying things like this but I can’t find any real difference between the stance in the piece and the stance of CNN, MSNBC, ABC,CBS, NBC, or any of the other big media outlets-”

      Because you’re not looking closely enough. The difference is clear. Sinclair blamed the “MSM” for fake news, while CNN, MSNBC et al blame outfits like youtube and facebook.

      1. The MSM blamed the MSM for fakenews? What are you saying? Did you see the call letters of the stations? All bastions of the MSM–local FOX stations included.

        1. “What are you saying?”

          I was surprised to see the Sinclair ads denounce the “MSM” explicitly and not mentioning facebook et al if my memory serves. I don’t watch any of these TV networks so I’m not the best to judge whether FOX or any other network is part of the MSM or not. I get most of my news from newspapers online and they present fake news as largely a thing of the internet. Self serving perhaps, but seems true enough.

          1. Well, depends on what you actually mean by fake news. News that purveyor of such knows is false was the original definition of fake news. So if I put out a story claiming that Trump humps chumps and I made it up, it is fake news. If I put out a story about Trump humping chumps, and it turns out, they were just giving him hand jobs, that is a mistake and in theory, not fake news. If I crow on and on about Trumps humpings, and ignore HRC’s or anyone elses’ raping of people, that is just biased media, the stories may still be true.

            But now, fake news seems to mean propaganda, regardless of whether or not the bare facts are true or not.

            So, if you are going with original fake news, sure, probably more prevalent on the internet. If fake news means propaganda, particularly poorly researched propaganda, then I would say no media type is exempt from fake news.

            1. “But now, fake news seems to mean propaganda,”

              For me the pizza gate story is the emblematic fake news story., The editor of the NYT made a point of publicly declaring that his paper wasn’t going to cover the story. I think the story is more than propaganda, but comes from some intelligence agency, Domestic, foreign or an exotic mix of free booters, who knows? Mission: nobble elections through elaborately contrived smears (which may be at least partly true, who knows) spread over the internet.

  13. I’m confused by the headline because Liberals have found plenty of bias on the right – FOX. Breitbart, Clear Channel…etc. There have been articles about Sinclair for a few years and the fear of consolidation in the local markets. Indeed, the “left” is not exactly pleased with the big corporate mediums like CNN, NY Times, etc.

    So who exactly are these”Liberals” that this headline is talking about? Sounds like a made up label for a nonexistent entity.

    1. A fair enough point given that the Modern American Liberal is virtually an extinct species.

  14. This headline is ridiculous, as AM talk radio has existed for 40+ years, even BEFORE Reagan dispensed with the FCC’s Fairness Doctrine.

  15. Cool! Can I spout libertarian propaganda over the airwaves then? Or do I need millions of dollars and have to conform to some arbitary guidelines and regulations to have that privilege?

    (broadcasting, like driving, is after all a privilege and not a right, you know)

    1. I believe the FCC regulates access to the electromagnetic spectrum under the theory that the public airwaves belong to all of us. So, I suppose you could spout “libertarian propaganda” if you were granted access to a channel/frequency to use.

      1. Since there are so many empty bands, it must not be very competitive, so it must be relatively cheap and easy to be granted permission, right?

        And if it’s not, how come?

    2. Yes, you can transmit on all kinds of public channels with little to no regulation or guidelines… Though I doubt seriously you would ever be using the airways to spout libertarian philosophy, as it starts with the idea of humility where libertarians don’t believe they have the right to tell other adults what to do.

      But even if public airways didn’t exist, freedom of speech does not equate to everyone having right to disseminate their speech fat and wide for free.

      Just like if there was a society in the 1600s that practiced free speech, that wouldn’t mean every single citizen also had the right to use a printing press to make tons of copies in order to ensure their ideas are accessible to a wider audience.

      TLDR: speech is free, but the widespread dissemination of speech is not free and never hashe been and likely never will be (the Internet certainly does make the costs much lower that they have been historically).

      Furthermore, the fact this is true does not devalue, nor does it reduce in anyway the individual’s right to freedom of speech.


      1. Furthermore, the fact this is true does not devalue, nor does it reduce in anyway the individual’s right to freedom of speech.

        I’d even say it expands it as the cost of dissemination drops.

      2. “But even if public airways didn’t exist, freedom of speech does not equate to everyone having right to disseminate their speech fat and wide for free.”

        Of course it does. It means exactly that. The government shouldn’t charge you to exercise your right to “disseminate your speech far and wide”. They also shouldn’t use force to prevent you from freely exercising that right unless it prevents someone else from doing the same.

        I understand there are costs associated with the technical infrastructure necessary to do so, but that’s not what we’re talking about here. The government regulates the equipment to levels that aren’t advocated by engineers, they regulate the spectrum to levels that aren’t supported by science, and they regulate the business opportunities in a clearly biased manner. It’s a needlessly exclusionary practice, and it’s naive to think that this isn’t intentional.

  16. Sinclair is in trouble for being telling viewers to be wary of fake news? Huh?

  17. The hypocrisy of leftists is simply beyond words. The entire traditional media apparatus is heavily slanted left wing, and a teeny tiny little part of the traditional media that isn’t must have a witch hunt brought on against them because bias is bad!!! So ridiculous.

  18. I am making $85/hour telecommuting. I never imagined that it was honest to goodness yet my closest companion is acquiring $10 thousand a month by working on the web, that was truly shocking for me, she prescribed me to attempt it. simply give it a shot on the accompanying site.

    +_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+ http://www.Jobpost3.tk

  19. Yes, FINALLY we’ve ended our long search and found rightwing media bias:

    goo.gl/VuZDaE

  20. I make up to $90 an hour working from my home. My story is that I quit working at Walmart to work online and with a little effort I easily bring in around $40h to $86h%u2026 Someone was good to me by sharing this link with me, so now i am hoping i could help someone else out there by sharing this link… Try it, you won’t regret it!……

    +_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+ http://www.Jobpost3.tk

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.