What I wonder is, if the amendment gets passed and goes to the states for ratification, I assume there will be a political campaign for and against it. Would such a position against "controversial" positions mean that no ads attempting to persuade politicians and their constituents would be allowed?
I thought the mighty media held their highly-paid positions to serve the public interest. How does it serve the public interest to avoid controversy? That very controversy is the heart of "public interest," it seems to me.
Let's remember this whenever any Viacom-owned station (CBS & UPN) comes up for license renewal. Lodging a protest at every single license hearing seems to me to be a natural means by which the public can make itself heard, given that all other means seem cut off.
Ed
What I wonder is, if the amendment gets passed and goes to the states for ratification, I assume there will be a political campaign for and against it. Would such a position against "controversial" positions mean that no ads attempting to persuade politicians and their constituents would be allowed?
I thought the mighty media held their highly-paid positions to serve the public interest. How does it serve the public interest to avoid controversy? That very controversy is the heart of "public interest," it seems to me.
Let's remember this whenever any Viacom-owned station (CBS & UPN) comes up for license renewal. Lodging a protest at every single license hearing seems to me to be a natural means by which the public can make itself heard, given that all other means seem cut off.
Ed
Commenting by HaloScan
