Freedom of Speech and Freedom of the Press

“Without deviation, without exception, without any ifs, buts, or whereas, freedom of speech means that you shall not do something to people either for the views they express, or the words they speak or write.” Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black#

The concept of Freedom of Speech is an inherent human right, the right to voice an opinion publicly without fear of censorship or punishment. It is recognized formally around the world by the laws of most nations, and depending on the type of government that is in place, the laws are upheld or ignored. Even the United Nations has a Declaration of Human Rights, which includes a person’s “right to hold opinions without interference and a right to freedom of expression.”

The topic of free speech is one of the most contentious issues in a society, but is an important part of, as Rawls suggests, balancing liberty and equality. Because the freedom is so highly valued, limitations placed on it are always going to be controversial. The U.S. Supreme Court has written that this freedom is the matrix and the indispensable condition of nearly every other form of freedom. But freedom of speech is always going to be limited because it will always take place in a framework of competing values. In the case of the Fairness Doctrine one could say the competing values were the political ideologies of conservatives and liberals.

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees that “Congress shall make no law…. abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.” Over time, the press has come to mean all of the media, and the courts have decided many cases that define how far freedom of the press extends under the law. One aspect of a free press is its ability to champion causes that it favors without having to argue the case for the other side.

In coming up with the Fairness Doctrine the FCC believed it would provide a vibrant marketplace of ideas among broadcasters of television and radio stations. The broadcast media have traditionally been treated differently because they were licensed by the FCC to operate as semi monopolies. Print media were not included within the enforcement power of the FCC. This was because there was no limitation on how much could be printed, unlike the limitations for transmission over the airwaves.

As we know, the media in the United States are in business to make money, which they mainly do by selling advertising. To sell advertising, they provide entertainment on a mass basis, which is their general function. Both print and electronic media determine which events are newsworthy largely on the basis of audience appeal. This has always been the case in this country.

The rise of mass circulation newspapers in the 1830’s produced a politically independent press in the U.S. In their aggressive competition for readers, those newspapers often engaged in sensational reporting, a charge sometimes leveled at today’s media. Even when there was nothing sensational to report the media sometimes took it upon themselves to create news that would sell papers. A prime example of this would be newspaper magnate William Randolph Hearst (1863-1951) with his chain of newspapers, along with his friend, publisher Joseph Pulitzer. Hearst’s New York City paper, the New York Morning Journal, became known for sensationalist writing and for its agitation in favor of the Spanish-American War in 1898. Even the term yellow journalism (a reference to scandal-mongering, sensationalism, and similar practices) was derived from the Journal's color comic strip, The Yellow Kid. Were Hearst and Pulitzer over-stepping a journalistic moral code?

According to Janda, Berry and Goldman in The Challenge of Democracy, the five specific functions of the media are to report the news, interpret the news, influence citizens’ opinions, set the agenda for government action, and socialize citizens about politics. If these “rules” of reporting the news are correct then a Fairness Doctrine would not fit within any of the five listed functions. A news radio station such as NPR would have every right to report and interpret the news as they see it, thereby influencing public opinion and setting the agenda for government with a viewpoint matching the newspersons running the station. We see that occurring now with newspapers and radio and TV stations that come up with news stories that reflect the political leanings of the particular media outlet. Janda says that the media has the freedom and the obligation to go after particular “newsworthy” stories that might lead to the resignation of a President, the downfall of a corporation, or simply support for a particular candidate running for office.

Within the United States political communication moves in two directions: from government to citizens and from citizens to government. This communication rarely travels directly from government to citizens without passing through the media, especially at this time in our history. In addition, political communication not only travels between our government and its citizens and back again, but between governments and citizens around the world.

In all articles and comments that I have read about why we need a Fairness Doctrine, one idea keeps popping up: that news sources in this country are limited, and the only voice being heard is the conservative voice. But where do Americans really get their news from, and does everyone believe that some news is biased to certain perspectives, whereas other news is not?