Debt Free

Our history is replete with networks and newspapers airing and publishing “factually inaccurate and deeply misguided program” material. It's one of the tenets of our government and open society that we are allowed to publish or air virtually anything, save for material that's been classified by the government. Much of the content read and viewed in the media is biased, flawed or inaccurate, often all three, in one way or another, yet it still finds its way into the minds of Americans without governmental interference. It's when members of our government begin requesting in the strongest terms that broadcasting companies edit, alter, or cancel programming that the rest of the country should sit up and take notice.

The American public should recognize that, no matter the apparent inaccuracies or political agenda of an editorial or program, the content owner may distribute, publish, or air it as they see fit. If a content owner can be pressured into changing the content, for any reason, by members of our ruling bodies, all should know that we have effectively experienced governmental censorship. The very idea of governmental censorship in any form should be so distasteful to the American public as to cause a severe reaction and not be tolerated. Instead, it seems that too many among us are more concerned with the message and less with the reality that, when our governmental leaders can pressure legitimate content owners to alter or withhold that content, we've lost one of our core freedoms.

Chuck, Deb, Dick and Harry, when you put forth such admonishing statements such as “We urge you, after full consideration of the facts, to uphold your responsibilities as a respected member of American society and as a beneficiary of the free use of the public airwaves to cancel this factually inaccurate and deeply misguided program. We look forward to hearing back from you soon. “ you might just as well add “because we can make it really tough for you in the future” to the end. Such thinly veiled threats are just the type of persuasion that those in office doubtlessly engage in on a daily basis, but have no place when they affect our Constitutional rights.

In this great country our citizens have the liberty to put forth any ideas or accounting of events they may wish, and air them on any size stage they may desire. If others disagree with the aforementioned ideas or their portrayal, they are free to produce their own ideological programming or account of any event in question. They may produce and air advertising and editorial material contradicting the previous accounting of the events. They may blog, or have others do so, a litany of the reasons why the editorial, program or literature is inaccurate, slanted or complete garbage. Hell, they can even, as private citizens, sue the content developers if they feel they were personally misrepresented, slandered, or defamed.

What they cannot, and should not do is apply pressure, using the weight of their U.S. Senatorial office, for the developers and producers to change the content, or in any way alter the distribution plans for any content. If they, or any other governmental officials can achieve this, then we've all lost. The big bloggers are accumulating a greater audience and more influence every day, and many are extremely influential already. When might the day come that their reach and influence rivals or eclipses that of the traditional media? When it does, they too may become the targets of such governmental abuses.