An Unfortunate Story For Blogging

USA Today has now picked up on the Spocko versus KSFO censorship story.

The First Amendment flap was debated Sunday on CNN's Reliable Sources. Dan Riehl, a blogger critical of Spocko, said some of the radio hosts' comments "were blown out of proportion or misrepresented" in the complaints to sponsors. Mike Stark, another blogger and a Spocko ally, said: "The way to fight free speech that you disagree with is to engage in more free speech. And that's exactly what Spocko did."

This is a sad story for blogging as it runs contrary to a fundamental principle of blogging, that all individuals with incredibly different voices have a chance to be heard. To see such a truly democratic medium turned into a tool used in an attempt to shut down another voice, regardless of the medium, is an unfortunate thing for bloggers of every political stripe. Where does it end?

The notion Mike Stark posited on Reliable Sources in his defense is so disingenuous as to be absurd. He suggested that sending clips from the radio show and hounding advertisers, apparently now being done by hundreds of liberal blogs, was simply an expansion of free speech. One would think that someone who claims to be studying law might have more sense than to make such a ridiculous claim. Any objective observer of this incident knows precisely what is being attempted and it has nothing to do with free speech at all.

How long before radio stations and other media outlets get truly serious about not having any of their content reproduced even in part on blogs because of this irresponsible action which takes their content only to turn it back on them to repress their speech?

From Air America to any number of Liberal media outlets, Stark and company are fooling themselves if they believe that their political opposition couldn't find clips or quotes every bit as inflammatory and start pressuring advertisers in those cases, too. Enough.

I don't care about Stark and his cohorts politics. I would oppose this action just the same were it coming from the Right. This is a dangerous, unhealthy and even un-American road to go down.

One would hope that there are enough adults with some influence on the Left, individuals or bloggers with a genuine and not simply a partisan appreciation for the First Amendment, to step up and stop this thuggery that is a blemish on blogging, as well as our American tradition for tolerating speech of every type, even that with which we vigorously disagree.

Blogging has given us many new, important voices on both the Left and the Right. If either side seeks to collect and amplify large numbers of those new voices to shut down the free speech of anyone else, it's impossible to view that as anything other than a complete and egregious betrayal of at least one key principle, free expression, upon which all blogging is based.

With any freedom comes responsibility. Someone on the Left side of the blogging world needs to step up and shut this attempt at suppression down. There is nothing in the American tradition of freedom that endorses or encourages waging war against political adversaries by trying to close them out of the debate.

The ultimate destination on the road of suppression is a world in which any of us might have our right to be heard taken away. Given that we have really only just begun to truly discover it, is it worth risking that freedom for nothing more than a superficial, short term political gain, or a feather in the cap of a would be activist who, apparently, has no real respect for the universal application of the First Amendment to all?

We should compete against other media outlets based upon content and ideas. Beating them with unhealthy tactics is really no victory at all.

I hope enough serious-minded bloggers of every political stripe consider comng together to denounce this travesty before it grows. Otherwise, the next target could be the radio program, television station, or perhaps blog, you either contribute to, or enjoy.

Comments

[Jay]

Glad I can access your blog from over here in Qatar. Looks like most blogs I can get to except my own!

[Rob Kaufman]

Sorry, but I must call bullcrap on your little rant. If advertisers on KFSO were proud of being associated with the hatemongering station why would they feel the need to jump ship? If when advertisers are made aware of what passes for discussion on KFSO they chose to flee the station how is that anti-American? I must have missed this same rant when right wingers were trying to stop Michael Moore's movie from being shown, but at least you are good for entertainment value Dan.

[Dan Riehl]

It's KSFO, Rob. Are you a moron, or a dyslexic moron? The more idiots like you betray your lack of principles, the less respect you engender from moderates, as well as conservatives. What amazes me is how you don't even have enough self-respect to pretend you're a decent human being. That's good in a way, see, the real irony here is that if you wound up taking away all the speech on the Right, all you'd find out is why we have guns. ; )

Then the real fun can begin.

[Rob Kaufman]

Oh no, I made a typo, I wonder if I should draw attention to the moron who looks back at you when you are in front of the mirror. At least I know the difference between your and you're, and you claim to be a writer? I do always love when idiots that think they are so smart pointing out others mistakes can't even get through that post without making a whopper. Not to mention the other mistake you made, I am Rob, not Bob, but I understand that your brain does not function that well so it is forgiven.

[Dan Riehl]

I think you're losing it, Rob? LMAO I guess you are impaired. Is it the meds, or a lack of oxygen from having your head so far up your ass?

[Rob Kaufman]

Nice try going back and correcting that error of yours, at least your lemmings will believe that you know the difference between your and you're, but I will just keep going back to my screen capture showing your stupidity whenever I want a chuckle. My you really are a pathetic stooge aren't you?

[Dan Riehl]

Oh, I don't know, Rob. See, this is my blog so naturally I hang out here. You, on the other hand, purport to disagree with everything I believe in, yet you can't tear yourself away. I'd say who the stooge is is pretty clear.

I don't read Lib blogs as they have nothing to offer me. But you're like a moth to a flame, somehow convincing yourself that your obsession will do some good.

It must be pretty empty having no place to belong, finding yourself desperate for contact where you aren't appreciated at all.

Mommy must have kept you locked in the closet when you were young.

[Rob Kaufman]

I may not be wanted here Dan, but at least I am not the so called writer who didn't know the difference between your and you're. Just curious but do there, their, and they're also give you trouble? Even if I was a pathetic loser at least I will always know that at least I have you out there to be even a bigger loser than me. Talking though about someone with no life, isn't nearly 3:00 AM in New Jersey, at least I will be in bed around midnight.

PS Are you still calling the Virginia race for Senator Macaca?

[TheSpartan]

"I don't care about Stark and his cohorts politics. I would oppose this action just the same were it coming from the Right. This is a dangerous, unhealthy and even un-American road to go down."

Really Dan? Were you leading the charge when Melanie Morgan was trying to silence Michael Moore? Or how about the TV Drama about the Reagan's? What? You were no where t be found? That's what I thought. This is all about free speech on Spocko and the other blogger's part. They are simply engage in their right to inform the advertisers of exactly what is being said at KSFO. There is no threat of a boycott, the word has never even been mentioned by our side other than in response to the right's use of it. In fact wassn't it the rethuglicans at KSFo that implied a boycott of advertisers that left their station?

[scarshapedstar]

"To see such a truly democratic medium turned into a tool used in an attempt to shut down another voice, regardless of the medium, is an unfortunate thing for bloggers of every political stripe."

Funny, I thought Spocko was giving them a broader voice by ensuring more people heard their opinions.

[Legalize]

This is not about free speech or the first amendment; this is about an infantile blogger coming to the defense of equally infantile radio "personalities," where the light of day has been shed on what they actually stand for - hate. Cowards like Dan loathe exposure; they loathe transparency; they loathe scrutiny of their words and their actions; uand ltimately they loathe that their hate and hypocrisy are put on display in the market of ideas for sentient folks to analyze, because when the public hears and understands what Dan REALLY stands for, Dan will have to justify that; he will have to face up to it; and he might have to face his own shame. It must be scary.

"There is nothing in the American tradition of freedom that endorses or encourages waging war against political adversaries by trying to close them out of the debate."

Yes, why can't we just have a rational discussion as to whether or not public officials should be executed for espousing political views you might find objectionable?

[Phoenix]

RobBob,

>I may not be wanted here Dan, but at least I am not the so called writer who didn't know the difference between your and you're.<

That would be "so-called".

(Just another Phoenix rant.:)

[Rob Kaufman]

And again your point is Phoenix? I have never claimed to be a writer like Mr Riehl has. But thank you for playing the game.

[I'm raising the BS flag on this post Dan]

nless you can show me some posts that demonstrated your overwhelming outrage at the Dixie Chick treatment, the pressuring of theaters (by Melanie Morgan and pals) to not show Michael Moore's F-9/11, to the pressure your side exerted on CBS to can the showing of The Reagans miniseries...

Nah, Dan... you folks have been more than willing to loudly protest speech you don't agree with. Now that we've had some success similar to your side's, y'all are whining like a bunch of spoiled children. Nobody owes Melanie Morgan and her pals at KSFO a microphone. The advertisers aren't obligated to pay for her microphone - if she feels like her livliehood is threated, she should do what all the rest of the Right's intellectual giants do: run to Scaife, Olin, Coors and the Moonies for support.

Nobody on our side is burning Coulter's or D'Souza's books - as noxious and ill-considered as they are. But talk to your Christainist friends about Harry Potter books they've burnt... Hey man, don't look at me - your side embraces those nuts... I just report the facts...

[Phoenix]

And again your point is Phoenix? I have never claimed to be a writer like Mr Riehl has. But thank you for playing the game.

Posted by: Rob Kaufman | Thursday, January 25, 2007 at 02:05 PM

Oh, you're welcome, Rob. Thank YOU, too, for playing the game. I just knew you would. The point was to fix 'so called' into its proper 'so-called'. Just so you would know. You had another error - left out a word, but I know Internet protocol frowns on people taking notice of things like that. It just isn't done unless you have nothing to say and just want to abuse someone. I didn't want to be abusive to you, nor did I want to appear petty. :)

[Rob Kaufman]

Don't worry Phoenix, you do appear petty so no harm was done.

[Bill Adkins]

Want to talk about the Fairness Doctrine? I think this applies to the twisted FCC these days.

"FCC quashed 'inconvenient facts' on news media ownership
By John Dunbar
ASSOCIATED PRESS
WASHINGTON - When the government decided to take a hard look at how well broadcasters were serving their communities, two economists at the Federal Communications Commission got a research idea: They would look at whether locally owned TV stations produced more local news than did stations owned by companies based outside the area.

They found that local ownership resulted in more local news coverage.

They soon realized they had turned up what one of the researchers, economist Keith Brown, called "inconvenient facts": The findings were at odds with what their agency, under heavy lobbying from the broadcast industry, had endorsed.

The months-long study was spiked by the agency with "no plausible explanation," Brown says. He suspects it was because the conclusions were at odds with the shared position of the FCC and the broadcast industry: that media ownership rules were too restrictive and should be loosened.

Three years after Brown and the other economist, Peter Alexander, did their work, a copy of the study surfaced, sparking controversy. Its apparent suppression, and the alleged deep-sixing of a second research study, have prompted an investigation by the FCC's inspector general.

Although that review is not yet complete, interviews with past and present employees of the FCC reinforce Brown's account. Economic research reports were at times altered to reflect a more favorable view of lifting ownership caps, and they were spiked altogether in at least some cases, they said.

Moreover, there are new concerns that an FCC management directive, issued shortly after the first television news report made headlines last fall, has had a chilling effect on research.

The underlying issue -- how many newspapers, TV and radio stations a media conglomerate may own in a single market -- has yet to be decided. A federal court ordered the agency to take a fresh look at media ownership rules, a process that could stretch on for another year."