Feross.org

Note: This is Part 4 in a series of posts about freedom of speech on the Internet. You should read Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3 first.

The voice of the common man cannot be heard when the control of the press is concentrated among such a small number of players.

“Political freedom is a society’s safety valve, allowing the passionately critical a nonviolent way to express their dissatisfaction with the status quo.”

– David Cole, “Quotes on Democracy”

While the “diverse spectrum” of corporate news outlets has created the illusion of a free and fair press, the increasing trend of media consolidation over the last two centuries is even beginning to threaten this illusion. Corporate media consolidation – the majority of media outlets being owned by a small number of conglomerates and corporations – is an increasing problem that threatens free and fair political discourse in the United States.

Americans are increasingly realizing the negative implications that concentration of media ownership is having on free and fair political discourse. Former CBS News anchorman Walter Cronkite, who has lobbied the FCC against adopting relaxed media ownership guidelines, was quoted in BusinessWeek as saying, “The gathering of more and more outlets under one owner clearly can be an impediment to a free and independent press.”

This gathering of outlets under one owner has only increased over the past 25 years. I read that “In 1983, 50 corporations controlled the vast majority of all news media in the U.S. . . . In 2004, only 5 huge corporations – Time Warner, Disney, Murdoch’s News Corporation, Bertelsmann of Germany, and Viacom (formerly CBS) – now control most of the media industry in the U.S.”

If political freedom is a society’s safety valve, what happens when the means to express this political freedom are controlled by interests that wish to maintain the status quo? In this system, how can “passionately critical Americans” express their dissatisfaction?

Short answer: they cannot; they have no voice, no free speech.

Update: You should read:
Part 5 – George Orwell Rolls in His Grave
Part 6 – The Internet Revolution and Citizen Media
Part 7 – Remix Culture (…again)
Part 8 – Threats to Freedom of Speech on the Net
Part 9 – Yes We Can Regulate Culture with Copyright Law
Part 10 – Lawrence Lessig = Awesome
Part 11 – Final Thoughts

Related Posts

1. Net Neutrality – Adventures in Calling Congress
2. Immortal Technique Comes to Stanford
3. Google Killer?: Twitter’s New Layout Highlights Twitter’s New Focus on Search

Note: This is Part 2 in a series of posts about freedom of speech on the Internet. You should read Part 1 first.

The republican revolutionaries promised us a society where everybody can participate as an equal in political debates, and where everyone has a voice and an audience. The liberals promised personal growth, the right of all citizens to develop their arguments, skills and individuality. The radicals promised freedom of speech as a way to expose prejudice and corruption. These are great ideals. Wonderful promises. Too bad they weren’t kept.

– Eric Ringmar, A Blogger’s Manifesto

In every country where democracy has taken hold, people have the right to express themselves freely. This is a core freedom, a fundamental right. Free speech is often heralded as the single most important right that sets Western liberal democracies apart from the rest of the governed world – and rightly so.

Related Posts

1. Net Neutrality – Adventures in Calling Congress
2. Misinterpreting Copyright
3. Free Software Foundation is Awesome
4. Bumper Sticker Wisdom