At Right Wisconsin, I write about the incongruity of letting some people called "the media" who are engaged in "journalism" do whatever they want when it comes to conspiring with and supporting candidates, while those who are not in this privileged position cannot.
My point is not to accuse any particular media outlet of plumping for a candidate, although the Cap Times, in sponsoring a rally for the Democrats, does seem all in on that. It is simply to note that they can. Even if you could prove that a newspaper was in the tank and working hand in hand with a candidate or party to influence an election, you'd have no complaint under the law.
My first point is to ask why this should be. Why should the Journal Sentinel or WTMJ or Fox News or MSNBC be able to establish themselves as partners with a political perspective or candidate, while others - who may have to buy time or curry favor with these outlets - may not?
My second is to suggest a conclusion. Since we'd all recoil at the notion that the notion that the expressive conduct of the newspapers or television stations can be curtailed (at least I hope we would), then maybe we should be more supportive of the speech rights of those who have to buy into the media's privileged position.
Cross posted at Purple Wisconsin
7 comments:
"Imagine that a candidate - let’s call him Senator Foghorn - decides to plant a favorable story with the local media."
Is he or she conservative or liberal? Because it seems to me that some take to task one particular group and not another group based on their own confirmation bias.
"He calls a friendly reporter and persuades her to write a piece placing him in a favorable light and disparaging his opponent."
Collusion, right? Kind of what happens with say, for example, those in higher learning institutions and certain talk show radio hosts.
"The story – which has certainly been "coordinated" – is of substantial value to Senator Foghorn. The cost of writing it and disseminating on paper and on the web is far more than what could be lawfully contributed to his campaign."
You are making a value judgement in this particular case. There a host of variables to consider--who is targeted, how they are targeted, why they are targeted.
"I write about the incongruity of letting some people called "the media" who are engaged in "journalism""
Praytell, please elaborate on this point, rather than leave us hanging. Who do you believe is pretending to a "journalist"? How does he/she NOT perform their tasks as a professional? What axe do YOU have to grind? Is there someone particular you yourself are pointing fingers at? Why no transparency?
Bravo! Well said!
JM
You miss the point completely. The problem is not that our hypothetical journalist has done anything wrong. She hasn't. The question is: why should she have greater rights than people who don't work for a media outlet?
"The question is: why should she have greater rights than people who don't work for a media outlet?"
Ask Christian Schneider and get back to us. You see, professor, as long as you point out the inconsistencies of the left while conveniently ignoring those same discrepancies in your own backyard, you, just like your counterparts on the left who have the same "gripe", only come across as playing the partisan card.
Regardless, your argument is based on the assumption that she DOES have "greater rights". How do we know for certain that the story has been indeed "coordinated"? How do we know the intentions of the politician was to "plant" the story?
Esenberg completely ignores the phony baloney right wing "news outlets" that have cropped up in Wisconsin over the past couple years, all propped up by various shadowy funding sources.
Who can forget Brian Sikma, who swallowed whole hog the preposterous story that now-US Rep. Mark Pocan's partner had beat up an opponent's staffer in the run-up to the 2010 election? The story was as believable as the moon being made of green cheese, but the ever-eager Sikma, convinced he had the crime of the century, ran with it. Sikma remains a "credible" right wing "news" source. A move like this would have been fatal, of course, for the career of a legitimate journalist.
You have selective outrage, Esenberg.
This is why I rarely respond to comments. JM does not understand that I was posing a hypothetical. We know the intent of the politician and the coordination with the journalist because they are hypothesized to be so. I posed the situation as a hypothetical because I know things like this happen on the left and right all of the time. (Indeed, JM seems to believe that Christian Schneider has done it) I know that a person in this case would have "greater rights" - a statutory defense that someone who bought ads would not have -because the law says so. I cited the section. My question is how that can be justified? My "gripe" is not with journalists - in my backyard or not - I think they should be free to write what they want.
"JM does not understand that I was posing a hypothetical."
Patently false. If you refer to your own comment at 7:54 a.m., you acknowledge that I recognize the situation being posed as a hypothetical--"The problem is not that our hypothetical journalist has done anything wrong."
In addition, I begin my 9:09 p.m. entry responding to your statement "Imagine that a candidate...", which definitively implies that I recognize you were offering a hypothetical.
"(Indeed, JM seems to believe that Christian Schneider has done it)"
I merely stated you should ask a person you are familiar with that same question. I have no idea
if he is engaged in the behavior in question.
" know that a person in this case would have "greater rights" - a statutory defense that someone who bought ads would not have -because the law says so. I cited the section."
You created a hypothetical situation rooted on the begging the question fallacy to seemingly appear non-partisan, then conveniently insert after the fact that "[well], I know things like this happen on the left and right all of the time. "
So, since you claim to be familiar with those instances, those occasions where it has occurred, then please enlighten us how YOU know the story has been coordinated? How do YOU know the intentions of the politician and story writer?
Post a Comment