[Newspoetry] Fwd: FC: Sending the Wrong Message (a rant)

Wed May 26 15:51:24 CDT 1999

It sends the wrong message to equate, as the author of this rant does,
the right of the public to express itself freely with the priviledge
that a media conglomerate might enjoy to disregard boycotts on the
part of powerful advertisers.  The first is a right, which the people
are entitled to.  The second, if it obtained, would only indicate that
a media conglomerate was beholden to some revenue stream other than
the dissenting advertisers.  Which wouldn't exactly be a bonanza for
the first amendment.

On Wed, May 26, 1999 at 07:45:54PM +0000, glenn at meaning.com wrote:
> Forwarded Message:
> > To: politech at vorlon.mit.edu
> > From: Declan McCullagh <declan at well.com>
> > Subject: FC: Sending the Wrong Message (a rant)
> > Date: Wed, 26 May 1999 10:53:34 -0400
> > -----
> > I generally don't forward rants. But this is timely, relevant, and amusing.
> > 
> > And it's happened before:
> > http://cgi.pathfinder.com/time/digital/daily/0,2822,12297,00.html
> > 
> > -Declan
> > 	
> > *********
> > 
> > Date: Tue, 25 May 1999 15:16:05 -0700
> > From: Lizard <lizard at dnai.com>
> > Subject: Sending the wrong message
> > 
> > Fox announces 'less violence' next year. Warner Brothers pulls the
> > final episode of 'Buffy the Vampire Slayer', to be shown much later,
> > perhaps after considerable editing. Jerry Springer chooses less
> > controversial topics for his talk show. All across the mediascape,
> > networks and producers concern themselves with the 'message' they may
> > be sending to America's youth.
> > 
> > They are indeed sending a message -- and it is the worst possible one
> > they could send.
> > 
> > The message they are sending is:"Conform! Give in! Rights aren't worth
> > fighting for! There is no principle worth standing up for beyond
> > capitulation to the passion of the moment!"
> > 
> > By knuckling under to even the slightest hint of regulation --
> > regulation which wouldn't withstand a Constitutional assault -- they
> > send the message to our youth that free speech is just a pretty
> > catchphrase without meaning, that if what you have to say offends
> > someone, then it is better not to say it. They send the message we are
> > a nation of soundbites and polls, not laws and principles. They send
> > the message that the proper answer to offensive speech is a punch in
> > the mouth -- and the victim should mutely accept his punishment and be
> > grateful it wasn't worse.
> > 
> > That is the message the networks are sending to your children. Is it
> > the one you want them to hear?
> > 
> > What should the media say  in the rapidly dispersing wake of
> > Littleton? They should say, "We provide the programs you want to see.
> > If you want a change in our programming, change the channel. Don't
> > blame us for your lack of self control. Don't hold us accountable for
> > your bad taste. What you see on the tube is what you have chosen to
> > watch."
> > 
> > "Further, there is a principle here worth fighting for. The principle
> > that we live by laws which hold true and steady no matter what. That
> > our rights do not come and go with the headlines, that our ideals are
> > fortresses built on rock, not lean-tos built on sand. We all will
> > claim a willingness to take up arms to fight to defend our nation
> > against an army of invaders, but we are sometimes too willing to
> > destroy our nation ourselves, without a fight, while claiming those
> > few who struggle to defend the things that make America great are
> > 'radicals' or 'extremists'."
> > 
> > "We in the media say:No more! The line will be drawn here. No more
> > capitulation, no more compromise, no more cowardice. No more
> > censorship and bowdlerization. No more slicing and dicing a script
> > until every idea, thought, or concept which might cause a neuron to
> > fire in a single human brain has been turned into confetti. No more."
> > 
> > "And if Congress doesn't like it -- tough. 'No law' means 'no law',
> > period. They cannot regulate us, and, if they try, we shall defy them
> > at every step of the game. We may lose sponsors in the short run, but,
> > in the long run, we will be defending our rights and our property --
> > for if the televisions stations, broadcast towers, and printing
> > presses we claim to own are run only at the sufferance of the
> > government, then we do not own them at all, and any profit we may make
> > from them is not truly ours in the first place." 
> > 
> > That's what they should say. And every Saturday in June should be
> > sunny, every kitten and puppy should find a loving home, and everyone
> > should floss daily and see their dentist twice a year.
> > 
> > 
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > POLITECH -- the moderated mailing list of politics and technology
> > To subscribe: send a message to majordomo at vorlon.mit.edu with this text:
> > subscribe politech
> > More information is at http://www.well.com/~declan/politech/
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Newspoetry maillist  -  Newspoetry at ganymede.isdn.uiuc.edu
> http://ganymede.isdn.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/newspoetry
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Futrelle                  | "What a vineyard!" -- Mandy Bart
Developer, NCSA/SDT/Emerge    | Chester 
futrelle at ncsa.uiuc.edu        | 
(217) 265-0296                | 