Consolidating the threats to freedom (Part I) — VOICES for REASON

The Senate passed a measure last week that would prevent the Federal Communications Commission from resurrecting the Fairness Doctrine.

I will be happy to see that threat to freedom of speech quashed, but I think there is an even more nefarious threat to free speech coming down the road–one that, to date, has gained far less attention.

Judging by Obama’s statements during the election, and by his choice of Julius Genachowski for the new FCC chair, indications are that he plans to ramp up restrictions on media consolidation in the form of “rules ensuring diversity of media ownership.”

Critics of media consolidation claim that most media outlets are owned by a handful of “monopolistic” corporations. These corporations, allegedly safe from competition, are supposed to be able to control what Americans see, read, and hear.

Their solution? To saddle media companies with all kinds of restrictions on ownership, such as rules banning a single company from owning a newspaper and television station in the same market. Ultimately, however, they see a virtual government takeover of the media as the only solution.

But media consolidation is not a threat to free speech–the attempt to proscribe it is. A government takeover of the media would obviously mean the end of free speech. But even short of that: what better way to ensure a servile press than to threaten media companies with the possibility that, at any moment, the government might decide to break them up?

In Part II, I’ll discuss why I regard this as the biggest threat to free speech coming from the FCC.