The Not-So-Golden Rule

The Equal Time Rule violates the First Amendment. 

            Commercial speech hasn’t always been afforded First Amendment protection like hard news (See post "Left, Right, Left").  Conversely, editorial content is what serves up an audience for advertisement, and advertisement supplements the First Amendment. 

            Good journalists will show both sides of the story for hard news.  But choosing which stories to editorialize is an issue that involves the organization’s medium (radio, print, web), its targeted audience and which issues are important to it, as well as issues of taste and sensibility. 

            It’s no secret that conservatives have a stronghold on the editorial content of radio broadcasts.  Just listen to Rush Limbaugh.  Likewise, liberals have a firm grasp on any station incorporating NBC into its name (MSNBC, CNBC, etc…).  Just listen to Keith Olbermann. And the list goes on. 

            The point is, forcing radio stations to broadcast opposing editorial shows is wrong.  Should it make sense to do so, the market for advertising will be there and allow it to happen. Just look at NPR; it’s not your typical talk-show station.  But, if the market is not there, the government should not force a radio station to supplement shows with opposing views or slash the airtime already afforded current shows to conform to some editorial equality standard.        

            Good editorial content and open debate are necessary and the First Amendment protects this.  The government needs to stop trying to circumvent it.

Captions!

DISCLAIMER: The photographs below were taken by Warren Tillery during the spring of 2009 in partial fulfillment of the requirements for Photojournalism.  The captions posted are not those that originally accompanied the photographs, though certain factual information contained in them was referenced from the originals.  The new captions, together with the photographs, combine to satisfy a caption-writing assignment for Ron Rodgers’ Editing Lab, fall 2009.  These are in no way meant to portray actual news events, but merely as a way to practice the elements of writing information-dense captions for news-style photographs.  Permission to use portfolio photographs, rather than new ones, for this assignment granted to Tillery by Rodgers on Sept. 21, 2009.

SOCCER SKILLS – Players compete for the ball during Sunday’s match between Real Alachua and C60 at Forest Park.  The teams play in the A division of the Gainesville Regional Soccer League.  Games are played weekly with teams split into divisions based on skill level with A being the top. (Photo by Warren Tillery)

WALKING TO CLASS – Students walk toward the Reitz Union between classes Thursday.  Without adequate parking, many students are forced to walk long distances in short amounts of time to avoid tardiness to classes. (Photo by Warren Tillery)

PUDDLE JUMPING – Cliff Phillips flies through the air while wakeboarding Saturday on Lake Swan in Melrose, Fla.  Phillips was practicing for an upcoming wakeboarding competition. He’s been wakeboarding for five years. (Photo by Warren Tillery)

"F-R-E-E-D-O-M," said William Wallace.

            The First Amendment is sacrosanct to journalists because it ensures the right of the press to be free and independent of the government.  But, the First Amendment also ensures individuals the right to freedom of religion.

            While we don’t have an official religion, the United States is predominately a Christian country. However, in attempting to be sensitive toward practitioners of other religions, we’ve inversely become insensitive to the rights of the majority.

            Recently, Pace High School Principal Frank Lay and Athletic Director Robert Freeman gained national media attention showcasing the issue in point.

            At a luncheon to dedicate a new field house at the school, Lay asked Freeman to lead a prayer prior to the meal.  Somebody screamed foul and the ACLU got involved - claiming the two, acting in their official capacity, had broken federal law by violating the establishment clause.

            Luckily, a federal judge had the good sense to rule that the two men hadn’t for they faced severe punishment if they had.

            What gets overlooked is the issue of free exercise.  As principal, Lay can’t use his position to promote religion.  He, along with all other Santa Rosa County School District employees, signed an agreement as such.  But, this agreement doesn’t restrict his right to practice religion; he just can’t force others to practice with him.

            If an attendee at the luncheon didn’t wish to take part in the pre-meal blessing, then fine, they weren’t forced to.

             But, if the majority of attendees did wish to partake in prayer, the free exercise clause protects their rights to do so.

            Besides, banning prayer in school is a bad idea. For most of us, it’s the only way we make it through.

First, Do No Harm.

          According to FirstAmendmentCenter.org, a bill making its way through committee in the Senate would enhance protection for journalists when it comes to naming sources or releasing confidential information in court.
          It’s about time this happened. According to the article, a similar bill was also passed in the House of Representatives earlier this year.
          Lawyers can already claim attorney-client privilege and refuse to divulge confidential information. Why not journalists?
          Look at the situation surrounding the Valerie Plame affair. Judith Miller, a journalist for The New York Times, was jailed after she refused to release information.
          As she said, keeping a source’s confidence is vital to journalism and the exercise of the First Amendment.
          This bill must make it out of committee and be presented to the full Senate.

Left, Right, Left.

            This week, The Gainesville Sun ran an ad reading, “Barack Obama and the Democrats did not inherit the bad economy; they caused it and made it worse.” 

            Now I’m not debating the accuracy of the ad, merely advocating its right to be placed.  The U.S. Citizens Association paid for it, and it doesn’t violate any legal bounds as public officials can rarely by libeled.    

            Yet, angry readers sounded off.  Some went so far as to take an action as original as saying “yo mama” for a comeback and canceled their subscriptions.  Yeah, that ought to show them.  Never mind the part about subscriptions barely covering the delivery cost of the paper. 

            All of this because The Gainesville Sun published something certain readers believed to be false.  That’s the point of the First Amendment: to guarantee freedom of speech.

            What they should do is think about how great it is to live in a country where someone can place an ad critical of the president and not be executed.

            The Gainesville Sun made no attempt to pass this off as news; they even placed “advertisement” at the top of it.  Without ads, media outlets would go out of business.  The Gainesville Sun is simply doing what’s necessary to continue bringing its readers the news.  I’m sure the economy the ad-in-question mentions has caused ad revenue to diminish and led many news organizations to adopt policies of “if it’s legal, run it.”

            As I write this, I’m looking through Tuesday’s edition of The Alligator.  I see all kinds of ads claiming various things.  Nobody seems to be mistaking ads for male-enhancement products for hard news (no pun intended).