“Who is the public? What does it hold as its good?” — From an obscure novel of the Fifties.
All the way back to the Federal Radio Act at the beginning of the last century, licenses to use a part of the electromagnetic spectrum for broadcasting have been granted under a stipulation: that the broadcaster will use his licensed frequency and radius to serve “the public interest.” That proviso remains in broadcast licenses issued today.
But what does it mean?
“The public interest,” like “the public good,” is always a matter of opinion. For centuries, the Left has used such phrases to attack their political opponents. Nebulous charges, like hearsay, are impossible to refute, for the accuser can always play the “that’s not what I meant” card. (Cf. “moving the goalpoasts,” a time-honored tactic in political combat.) Leftists are notoriously slippery about saying exactly what they mean before battle is joined.
But they purely hate it when the tactic is used against them:
The major broadcast networks (ABC, CBS, NBC) operate on free licenses of public spectrum in exchange for requirements to serve the public interest. They no longer do, and this is an obsolete model anyway. The spectrum should be auctioned off, with the proceeds used to pay down…
— David Sacks (@DavidSacks) October 26, 2024
Jim Hoft of Gateway Pundit expands:
In 2016, Donald Trump’s presidential victory did more than shake up Washington—it exposed the blatant bias and partisanship of the mainstream media.
This has left millions of Americans questioning whether they are being served objective news or force-fed a left-leaning agenda.
The Hunter Biden laptop story, for instance, exposed critical issues surrounding the Biden family, from questionable business dealings to potential national security risks. Yet, the mainstream media either ignored it entirely or dismissed it as “Russian disinformation” to protect their preferred candidate.
The story was sidelined, the facts brushed under the rug, and the public kept in the dark—all while a monumental cover-up unfolded before our eyes.
It doesn’t stop there. As President Biden stumbles through speeches, showing concerning signs of cognitive decline, the media’s silence is deafening. Rather than asking tough questions about his fitness for office, they treat these signs of decline as a “quirk” or “Biden being Biden.” Imagine if these behaviors came from a conservative figure—the relentless media assault would be swift and unforgiving.
Please read the whole article.
Of course, not all Americans passively accept the major media’s pronouncements. The rise of the alternative media makes that clear. But some do. Some mainline it, including the exhortations to fear and despise persons of conservative or libertarian sentiments. Hatred needs to be fueled, don’t y’know.
Of course, those who peddle that drug will claim that they are serving the public interest – that the rise of nationalist, pro-freedom opinion and those who espouse it threaten Americans’ well-being. Some of them invoke another nebulous concept, “national security,” as part of their fear-mongering. That was the chimera behind the “Russian collusion” hoax of 2016 and 2017.
They might even believe it.
The old libertarian proposal of leasing parts of the spectrum to those interested in broadcasting might be due for a revival. It would help to reduce federal meddling in the operation of the broadcast media. It would also put a red entry on the books of broadcasters: a “nut” that they would have to cover before they could count actual profits. Broadcasting against what the listening / viewing public perceives as its interests would come at a price. And is ours not a capitalist republic, where all that impacts the bottom line must be respected?
