CBS decided to refuse to air a political advertisement by moveon.org during the Superbowl halftime. Does a special kind of business - a major television network - have the right to make a decision about whether it will allow content with a certain political position to be aired?
The assumption that the hyper-conservative talk-radio set makes is that all business is the same. A surprising assumption for people who claim to be sophisticated about the nature of private enterprise in the United States. CBS is not the same as Coca Cola in many respects; and neither is the same as the mom and pop diner down the street. Each is a different organization with different goals and different procedures.
CBS is different from other types of enterprise in several imporant and obvious ways. The most important and obvious characteristic of the major networks is that they have been given exclusive access to a shared public resource by the federal government. There is a limited amount of spectrum available, as determined by physical laws; and there is a limited amount of cable bandwidth available, as determined by the economic laws of natural monopolies. This limits the number of possible television networks. The history of the broadcast industry as determined that the federal government will give CBS exceptional access to this public resource to the exclusion of other companies that would also like to air television broadcasts. Having been given (networks do not own the spectrum, they merely rent it for a surprisingly small license fee) exclusive access to this public resource CBS has an obligation to the public to use it for the benefit of the public. And there is a government agency, the FCC, which has an obligation to ensure that CBS continues to honour that obligation.
Television networks, such as CBS, also differ from other types of enterprise as they have a considerable impact on the voter. Any advertising executive or campagn manager will tell you that television has a greater audience share than radio, newspapers, magazines and the internet combined. Just ask Howard Dean how powerful the television medium is - one ill-advised howl has been pummled into the consciousness of most of the voters in America. The statement that as been made that "moveon.org has the capability to get its own drivel out" by some means other than television is deliberately naive to the point of duplicitness. No organization that is denied access to television will ever reach the majority of the population.
You do not have to be a paranoid conspiracy theorist to realize that if the government controls television through the FCC and television controls the information that the voter receives, a collusion between these two behemoths to systematically deny the public access to a political point of view is exceptionally dangerous to the fundumental rights and freedoms of the American public.
To paraphrase Beatrice Hall, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it (on television as long as it meets a very minimal criterion of meaningfulness)."
Furthermore, CBS and other broadcasters have an obligation under any law to use its resources to the benefit of the public.
Under the first major broadcasting law in the U.S., the Radio Act of 1927, broadcasters were required to provide all political candidates with equal time to present their positions because without a provision for equal time: “American thought and American politics will be largely at the mercy of those who operate these stations, for publicity is the most powerful weapon that can be wielded in a republic. And when such a weapon is placed in the hands of one person, or a single selfish group is permitted to either tacitly or otherwise acquire ownership or dominate these broadcasting stations throughout the country, then woe be to those who dare to differ with them. It will be impossible to compete with them in reaching the ears of the American people.” Congressman Luther Johnson, 13 March 1926, 67 Congressional Record 5557
This principle has been carried forward under Section 315 of the 1934 Communications Act with amendments in 1959 to create exemptions for certain news programs (when Congress stressed that the broadcasters had a duty to serve the public interest in providing complete and accurate news); and in 1971 to ensure that a reasonable amount of time would be made available under this section (i.e., a broadcaster cannot deny all candidates air time and then argue that they are all being treated equally).
The intent of Section 315 is clear: broadcasters have an obligation to the voters to keep them informed and to avoid bias in favour of one candidate over another.
Under the letter of this law, it is true that there is no obligation to provide equal time to issues which are identified with particular candidates, but this is not the first time that this loophole to equal time has been raised. In the past, broadcasters have argued that there is no reason to close the loophole because they voluntarily act reasonibly in protecting the public interest. If they do not, then Congress clearly has a duty to ensure that the intent of the equal time rule as instantiated in Section 315 is preserved by amending the section again.
Sadly for those of us who do not like excessive government intervention, private industry seems to need considerable government legistlation and regulation to ensure that they behave ethically and fairly. Especially when there is no competition because the government has to provide a few companies with exclusive access to a public resource.
Yours, Thom