It's Only TV, It's Not Like It's A Magazine Or Something

From a Nicholas Lemann book review in The New Yorker:

...in the realm of broadcasting, compulsion works. One way to get radio and television stations to do more local coverage is simply to order them to do so. That may sound like a shocking intrusion on freedom of the press, but it is in no way inconsistent with the history of American broadcasting.

Yes, and it's also not inconsistent with American history to try to deny African-Americans the vote. So?

How about this? Let's have the government make sure The New Yorker fires every writer whose work show a contempt for our basic freedoms. I realize it's a shocking intrusion on freedom of the press, but hey, compulsion works.

QueensGuy replies: Eh, the racial discrimination analogy's pretty weak, and press is different than broadcast in some ways. I like this analogy a whole lot better.

LAGuy Responds: First, it's not an analogy. I'm merely pointing out that an argument that something's been done historically doesn't come close the making Lemann's case.

Second, the broadcast media is part of the press covered by the First Amendment. In the past the Supreme Court allowed many restrictions on magazines, books and movies which are now seen as unconstitutional, and they have an equally lamentable history of allowing improper interference in broadcatsting. They stripped away basic freedoms when they decided early on that the magic of invisible waves should somehow be treated differently from ink even when the end result--delivering information and entertainment--is the same. Therefore, the public (i.e., the government) can control things. But something being potentially legal doesn't make it just. Furthermore, there are limits to these limits, and Lemann goes well beyond them.

The lame arguments that have been used to deny freedom over the airwaves are sometimes based on indecency (which Lemann isn't talking about) and scarcity (which was never any good, but in these days with numerous TV, radio and satellite channels, and very few local newspapers, is hard to maintain with a straight face). As bad as they are, they're not relevant to Lemann's wish to have the government directly regulate political content on TV and radio. If it makes sense to do it there, it's just as good an idea for the government to do it in magazines and newspapers--the only difference is then Lemann would be personally affected and start screaming that the First Amendment is over (and he'd be correct--he just wants the end to freedom of speech in a medium he disapproves of).