December 3, 2013

Judge Alex Kozinski, dissenting in a decision that upheld the ban on political and commercial advertising on public TV and radio stations.

"... I would set public television and radio free to pursue its public mission to its full potential. We'd all be better off for it."

The 11-judge panel of the 9th Circuit rejected arguments that were based on the First Amendment free speech guarantee.

13 comments:

Rose said...

Public broadcasting was supposed to be the alternative to the 'mainstream media' - it isn't anymore. People/business has long since gotten around the ban on advertising, and activist groups have harnessed it for their own ends (which oddly match those of government). Stop public funding for what is now a sham, and let them become mainstream. The incubator process is complete. Conservative (New) media is now what Public systems were then. And oddly enough, though the perception is that Conservative media is not embraced, the ratings show otherwise. Just not embraced by 'the right people' I guess.

clint said...

What a joke.

Does no one actually listen to NPR?

What is it, if not a commercial advertisement, when they tell us that this program has been brought to us by ADM, supermarket to the world??

Brennan said...

Public broadcasting has advertised on behalf on corporations and not for profits for years. Donate funds, get advertising.

Just ask Bill Moyers.

The so called committee of experts on public broadcasting is a sham industry. James O'Keefe showed us all video tape of how to buy them.

Howard Roark said...

Bwahaha- take government support and lose some of your rights to speak and advocate.

I'm old enough to remember children being told "he who pays the piper calls the tune." Now the listeners expect the patron of the piper to call the listeners' tunes for them.

Howard Roark said...

Bwahaha- take government support and lose some of your rights to speak and advocate.

I'm old enough to remember children being told "he who pays the piper calls the tune." Now the listeners expect the patron of the piper to call the listeners' tunes for them.

mesquito said...

What is Sesame Street if not an advertisement for an extremely lucrative toy franchise?

chrisnavin.com said...

I was wondering how NPR's public perception might fare after two Obama terms.

They're natural ideological allies, as I think NPR became federally funded during LBJ's Great Society in the 60's.

NPR's core mission strikes me as Dewey-esque, and since the 60's, they're pretty committed to feminism, civil rights activism and environmentalism and other discontents of that era.

I suspect NPR is a bridge for older school Democrat populists, mainstreamed 60's boomer activism which has cooled into a liberal establishment, and they're trying to compete in a new era of hipsters, technology music, the sciences etc.

I suspect many NPRites honestly don't see that such ideological committments don't speak for all of the public, nor ever could, and often lead them to support Democrats nearly all of the time.

At least we have a 1st amendment, and don't have the CBC as in Canada or the BBC in Britain.

YoungHegelian said...

Everybody's mentioning the "underwriters" on NPR as essentially being sponsors, and that's all true.

But it's worse than that. Listen to how much of the content is a guest with something he or she needs to hawk. That's advertising by another name, and the interviewers are always so fawning when they interview these guests. Never, ever does the product get slammed in any way ("So, Linda, I read your book, and I have just one question: Do you know what "verbs" are for?").

They really need to go for profit or to dramatically lower their costs (i.e. fire their big name talent). It would actually give them much more freedom in their programming.

Brennan said...

They really need to go for profit or to dramatically lower their costs (i.e. fire their big name talent). It would actually give them much more freedom in their programming.

The way public broadcasting is funded ensures that the shoddy programming will last to infinity. Local stations, TV and Radio, receive taxpayer funds. They use these funds to license "The News Hour" or "Morning Edition". They hold no sway at all over the programming. They buy or don't buy. Suprprise, they buy and always buy.

Deregulation could allow local stations to buy whatever programming they want.

David said...

According to the article, the government has "prohibited content-based speech." That explains so much about the media.

cubanbob said...

Enough already. Sell of the stations and channels and frequencies to the highest bidders.

Anglelyne said...

chrisnavin.com: I suspect many NPRites honestly don't see that such ideological committments don't speak for all of the public, nor ever could...

Ah, NPR. I turn 'em on in the car now and again to annoy myself. Last month they were outdoing themselves with an unseemly orgy of JFK idolatry, provoking uncharitable thoughts of "die, Boomer, die" in this tail-end baby-boomer. The icing on the cake was switching it on and hearing, lord have mercy, the earnest moth-eaten strains of "Abraham, Martin, and John".

A tune that I'm sure chokes up fans and employees of public radio everywhere. I was overtaken by uncontrollable laughter and a desire to go burn down the nearest NPR station.

Saint Croix said...

It burns my ass that Kozinski is not on the Supreme Court.

The United States stands alone in our commitment to freedom of speech. No other nation—not even freedom-loving countries like Canada, England, Australia, New Zealand and Israel—has protections of free speech and free press like those enshrined in the First Amendment. These aren’t dead words on paper written two centuries ago; they live. In many ways, the First Amendment is America. We would be a very different nation but for the constant buffeting of our public and private institutions by a maelstrom of words and ideas, “uninhibited, robust, and wide-open.”

You can find his dissent here. What a great jurist he is.