Some Speech is More Equal Than Others

If you’re reading this commentary in your favorite publication, consider yourself fortunate, because it means that the resident Opinion Editor is one of just a very few fair-minded individuals willing to let all opinions be heard, even the ones that might be critical of the industry that provides them with their creature comforts.

That’s because it reveals a dirty little secret you might not otherwise realize: most media outlets have an agenda. Naturally most will deny it, claiming they are always fair and accurate, but that is very seldom the case, and has been for quite some time.

Here’s one example of many. Most newspaper folks and historians know about Harrison Gray Otis, the publisher and editor of the LA Times at the beginning of the 20th century. He and his son-in-law successor Harry Chandler invented stories of a drought to scare the voters of Los Angeles into passing a bond fund to build an aqueduct from which they and many of their cohorts benefited financially. The power of the media in this case was unmistakable, prompting Lord Acton’s astute observation, "Power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely," to become part of the Western lexicon.

Since then, the media has learned even more about how to manipulate our interests and beliefs. With their constant polling, they can keep tabs on exactly what We the People are thinking, then cleverly present stories in such as way as to incrementally adjust that thinking until we finally come around to their point of view. Most of us are too busy to check numerous sources before we form an opinion about something, we just accept the first, or more accurately, most predominant thing that we see or hear.

That predominance is the key to another not-so-secret reality. Most media outlets, including broadcast, cable, radio, even internet, are owned by large conglomerates that have been gobbling up smaller independent outlets for the last few decades. That has resulted in a great deal of power and influence being in the hands of a very few. In addition, these media empires also own film studios, TV production companies and other fictionalizing media, allowing that agenda to infiltrate and influence us from every conceivable angle.

Clearly, just because our Constitution guarantees the freedom of speech to the people, and that same freedom to the press (and it’s conglomerates), it doesn’t guarantee that the people’s voice can be heard over the press’ voice. The best we people can hope for is to be a momentary blip on the radar that might generate some discussion among other people. Trying to engage in a direct dialogue with the press is almost impossible.

Even when we’re successful, it is well understood that the press will always, always, always get the last word. They merely have to stop printing your side of the story, and they’ve won. Which, again, is why you are so fortunate to be reading this article in the publication in your hands; because it means that THIS editor truly does believe in the freedom of speech for ALL the people.

What is Congress Thinking? Limbaugh is an Entertainer, Not an Elected Official

Politainment strikes again. Rush Limbaugh, the well-known conservative radio talk show jock, said something that offended some people the other day (is that surprising?). In response, the theoretically august body of the Congress (not the Democrat Party, mind you, but members of our duly elected Congress) offered up a demand for an apology from Limbaugh’s employer, Clear Channel Communications. Let’s say that again. The Congress of the United States wants an unelected (and unelectable) private citizen whose job it is to entertain people using whatever thought-provoking and often insensitive methods at his disposal to apologize for his "unconscionable" personal remarks on a political issue.

Let’s get this straight. People like Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Bill Maher and Jon Stewart are professional entertainers. They worked hard and paid a lot of dues to earn an entertainment industry Union Card like SAG, AFTRA or Actors Equity. Just because they get most of their material from politics doesn’t make them political professionals, it’s just that politics is such a great target. They are highly visible espousers of our First Amendment right to free speech, but their opinions are their own, and if you don’t like them, you can change the channel or put down the book.

On the other hand, what our legislators say publicly, while also protected by the First Amendment, should NOT just reflect their personal opinions, as their importance has far-reaching effects that cannot be turned off or ignored. They are responsible for espousing the views of the country and their constituents, not just themselves or their party. To do less is a disservice to their jobs and responsibilities, not to mention being unprofessional.

When certain members of Congress stated publicly that the Iraq War was already lost, it had an understandably crushing effect on the morale of the troops and the country because legislators opinions are taken as policy by all Americans. Now those same members of Congress are demanding that Mr. Limbaugh, a professional entertainer who holds no elected leadership position and represents no one but himself and those who choose to listen to him, withdraw his statements because they are concerned it will have a negative effect on our troops and veterans. How ridiculous!

This trend is frightening. More and more people are beginning to believe that entertainment and politics are one and the same. It not only causes great concern that the average Joe might get confused by the merge (though manipulation of the voter in a variety of ways has always been an unfortunate reality in any democracy), that concern is geometrically increased when those within the two occupations themselves can’t seem to tell the difference anymore.

Just remember, if they have an entertainment Union Card, they are a professional entertainer. If they are a Presidential candidate, legislator, lobbyist or member of an activist organization, they will usually NOT have an entertainment Union card. In fact, there is no labor union for political professionals. Considering their habitual unprofessional behavior, is THAT surprising?