Static
Now that the former Constitutional Law professor has demonstrated what he thinks of that “document of negative liberties”—reading somewhere between the lines a heretofore undiscovered government mandate to build cars, run banks, and provide medical care—let’s recall his jaundiced attitude toward that “make no law” nonsense in the First Amendment:
[T]he Department of Justice and the FTC should closely scrutinize all mergers for their implications for competition and consumer choice. The FCC should more seriously evaluate the impact of proposed mergers on the ability of divergent communities to participate in the national media environment.
…
I strongly favor diversity of ownership of outlets and protection against the excessive concentration of power in the hands of any one corporation, interest or small group. I strongly believe that all citizens should be able to receive information from the broadest range of sources. I feel that media consolidation during the Bush administration has had the effect of eliminating a lot of the diversity of information sources available to persons who have to rely on more traditional information sources, such as radio and television broadcasts and newspapers.
…
The ill effects of consolidation today and continued consolidation are well-documented — less diversity of opinion, less local news coverage, replication of the same stories across multiple outlets, and others.
…
And common sense tells us that the consolidation of outlets in local markets will lead to fewer opportunities for diverse expression of opinions.
…
I do not want to discourage diversity of programming on cable systems and fear that a la carte regulation may do that.
…
I think FCC commissioners must be committed to service, averse to drama and capable of bringing disparate communities together.
…
I think communications policy must be more focused on the public interest, more inclusive of nonindustry voices and analysis, and maximize opportunities for the expression of a diversity of views. These issues go beyond simple economics to involve a set of core principles of an informed and empowered citizenry that need to be recognized in government’s approach to this important segment of our society.
All right, already! We got it the first, second, and third times!
I’m not sure where to begin or why to bother. Does he seriously think there is a paucity of viewpoints in the media? I’ve lived in Boston and New York, and there are more voices to be heard on the airwaves in those cities than Sybil ever heard in her head. Black stations, Latino stations, Pacifica stations, NPR stations. I have to believe other big cities are the same. And if he’s saying the government needs to go further and require greater “diversity”, I think Justice Scalia needs to sit him down and ’splain the First Amendment to him.
Air America was a well-financed attempt to take on the right-wing agenda of much of the rest of talk radio—and it has famously flopped. Would he engineer a bailout of them, too?
One last point: when somebody starts talking in such psedo-intellectual gruel as this:
The FCC should more seriously evaluate the impact of proposed mergers on the ability of divergent communities to participate in the national media environment.
It’s time either to watch your wallet or grab your gun—or both. “Divergent communities”? “National media environment?” Just shut up, stop preempting American Idol, and leave us the hell alone. That’s your job.
PS: Divergent communities participating in the national education environment is a different story, however:
D.C. parents aren’t letting the anti-choice Obama administration off the hook for strangling the city’s school choice program. They’re holding a rally at Freedom Plaza today.
Someone pointed out that this guy has splurged trillions and trillions of dollars, yet won’t unwrap a roll of pennies for “diverse” students in the DC public schools.