You can do you, if we can do us

La jeune folle

Hello everyone, you may not know me, especially if you do, please read this as an attempt to help, not harm. Put on your favorite song, take a walk, step outside and engage the world — anything that reminds you that you have power, you can make a difference.

Don Quixote

(Exhales Deeply). I believe in Freedom of Speech very deeply and this is not a hit piece on media. You gotta do you, boo. But, you doing you means we can’t do us.

I know I’m not the only one saying this, but Freedom of the Press is a lost cause not only because the government censors journalists, but because censorship has become a paywall.

I fully support making money, but the business model of modern journalism makes it laughable to claim the press is “free.” It isn’t. I fully comprehend that Freedom of the Press protects against government suppression, but what happens when access to information is locked behind a subscription fee?

Take GROUND News as an example. It’s a great platform, but I won’t subscribe to its premium service. Why should I have to pay to see the sources of my information and how they’re biased? Nothing against GROUND News - they’re doing what they have to do to survive - but by paying for it, I’d be reinforcing a system I fundamentally disagree with.

That’s why all my ramblings are free. Pay for editorials and opinion pieces? I guess so, sure.

Pay for information that should be safeguarded as a public trust? No thanks.

Full disclosure: I don’t engage with news anymore. Every now and then, I’ll check the Associated Press. I get it - technology is expensive, and the meter is always running. What choice do they have? I don’t know.

Still, these paywalls are anathema to Freedom of the Press. And I’d be naive to think this is new. The “Town Square” of modern media reminds me of the tobacco empires of the 20th century; highly addictive, highly toxic, highly profitable, and highly unregulated.

History proves that media is the most powerful tool for shaping opinion. During the Civil War, censorship was rampant on both sides. In the late 19th century, Joseph Pulitzer and William Randolph Hearst mastered sensationalism, proving that if you pay a penny, you can buy influence.

In the early 20th century, investigative journalists like Upton Sinclair (The Jungle) and Ida Tarbell (Standard Oil exposé) held corporations as accountable as the political time allowed. But just as journalism can expose the truth, it can also obscure and censor.

The Espionage Act of 1917 and the Sedition Act of 1918 criminalized anti-war reporting, and McCarthyism’s damage to free expression never fully healed. Today, certain ideologies are still instant poison pills in public discourse, and the media plays its part in fanning the flames rather than fostering discussion.

This is why I turn comments off. There’s no discourse in the comments section. Just people throwing grenades or confirming their own biases. I’d rather we actually talk to each other in person, share ideas, and build on them.

Modern media thrives on controversy and volatility. It doesn’t care about nuance or public service as it needs heroes and villains because anything else doesn’t sell ads or boost stock prices.

And yet, here we are, still swimming, with some too exhausted to act, others too powerless to make change, while the smallest group - and the most powerful - controls the conversation for everyone else.

As a quick digression, there is this incredible microfiche repository at the University of Georgia in Athens that one could spend an entire lifetime looking through. And, without having to skip through advertisements that you have to pay to get rid of. Thanks ADHD for the PSA.

Back to our top story, the paywalls reinforcing our political identities have never been lower, while the barriers to self-worth and self-determination have never been higher. It’s easy to access rhetoric, but getting to reality? That’s nearly impossible.

Watching media coverage today feels diabolical and lost in an enigma of clickbait headlines and ad-driven hum bug. It’s become unwatchable and unreadable.

Take NTSB press briefings as an example. I follow them on YouTube and have an educated academic understanding of flight communications, FAA rules, and procedures. I’m not a licensed pilot nor an air traffic controller, but after 30 years of following crash investigations, I’ve noticed one constant: the press in the room always focuses on the wrong thing at the wrong time.

You do you boo, but in these cases, speculation and ambulance-chasing comes at the cost of clarity, and that price is too high. I believe in transparency, but not when it leads to misinterpretation and overgeneralization rather than truth.

At the risk of sounding like an old man (I was born in 1975, which apparently is old now), The Fairness Doctrine of 1949 and it’s subsequent removal from the FCC in 1987 opened a pandoras box without some sort of re-establishment of public forum principles.

There’s a valid argument that the Fairness Doctrine once limited unorthodox opinions, and that today’s media landscape provides enough diversity of viewpoints for people to form their own conclusions. I’d agree if there were even a shred of… I don’t know what to call this puzzle. A maze without a map?

I found this intriguing paragraph in the FCC ruling:

The doctrine’s encouragement to cover only major or significant viewpoints, with which much of the public will be familiar, inhibits First Amendment goals of ensuring that the public has access to innovative and less popular viewpoints.

The ruling states that the Fairness Doctrine actually inhibited coverage, which explains its repeal. However, the “chilling effect” it warned about has only intensified, now through market-driven de-regulation. Just look at fact-checking and the endless finger-pointing in rapid-fire Gish Gallop (yes, that’s a real term look it up). The government struggles with transparency and accountability as it is, but de-regulation hasn’t improved things. It has only made media worse.

You have to remember that I remember when national television stopped at the end of the day. What was really incredible about this time was that local stations got a chance to rise above the noise. People in my generation remember all the alternative and plainly goofy stuff that was out around that time. That break from the day made a difference.

Now, all I do is watch the nostalgia of really bad VHS to digital conversions on YouTube. I’ve dumped every subscription (even the folks I love) because all I was getting from the algorithm was garbage. I had to cull all my preferences from click bait. I keep getting this thing asking to customize my feed but the options are so generic and not in my interest that I don’t touch it. I’m not like the other reindeer.

I’m watching a mix of Concrete Blonde’s performances if you want to know what real vocals and performance sound like. I’m hopelessly not interested in anything else in pop culture. I’d rather just meet folks and enjoy their company.

Ok, so back to The Fairness Doctrine - read the transcripts here - it is a fascinating report talking about government overreach and freedom of speech. The shift in thinking led to the 1987 repeal, reinforcing the idea that fairness in media should be determined by competition rather than policy.

That’s my point - that competition for viewership has created the dominion of extreme editorialization. I can guarantee news outlets had their talking heads covering the latest NTSB investigation, and I’m pretty sure all they did was yammer and frustrate the investigators and families doing their best in a time of profound tragedy. The lack of personal awareness is just astounding in pursuit of getting the lead.

And yes, I see the irony - I’m editorializing too.

Freedom of Political Speech

I feel like I have to walk a fine line here. Freedom of Political speech is a right and should not be abridged.

I’ve been trying to collect an opinion on Citizens United for years. Campaign Finance is just a complete mess as elections are a dirty poker game played by whales. I have read the rulings and a good tick of the other related rulings. It’s a lot to take in. These are the major Supreme Court Rulings:

• Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company is a corporate law case in the 1880s that mentions personhood of corporations.

• Buckley v. Valeo is a campaign finance decision in the 1970s which states that restricting the ability to spend money on campaign contributions limits the ability of speech.

• Citizens United is a 2010 ruling which states that corporations and unions cannot be prohibited from making independent expenditures in federal elections. Citizens United overturned Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce a previous ruling by a different Supreme Court in the 1990s regarding limiting campaign finance expenditures.

The following quote is from the majority opinion in 2010, and where I base my current reflections. This is from Justice Kennedy.

Quite apart from the purpose or effect of regulating content, moreover, the Government may commit a constitutional wrong when by law it identifies certain preferred speakers. By taking the right to speak from some and giving it to others, the Government deprives the disadvantaged person or class of the right to use speech to strive to establish worth, standing, and respect for the speaker’s voice. The Government may not by these means deprive the public of the right and privilege to determine for itself what speech and speakers are worthy of consideration. The First Amendment protects speech and speaker, and the ideas that flow from each.

This is where I feel the 2010 ruling must be re-considered, because if one supreme court ruling can be invalidated, then why not another? The ruling was very clear that times were changing with “Rapid Changes in Technology“ and after fifteen years I feel there is a new argument to be made.

I can’t tell you how important a sentence this is to how I see things.

By taking the right to speak from some and giving it to others, the Government deprives the disadvantaged person or class of the right to use speech to strive to establish worth, standing, and respect for the speaker’s voice.

I fully accept that the Government is not creating laws to limit free speech by giving these platforms wide latitude, however what happens when the platforms make it impossible to hold a public forum?

I’ll give you an example. “Town Hall“ broadcasts are tightly choreographed affairs where the entire process is highly vetted. I know there are reasons behind it that make sense, however how does this rigged lottery scheme of asking questions get to the heart of the matter?

In the 2024 Election, the absolute dumpster fire presidential campaigns consciously made the decision that engagement with people was campaign rallies or chats in places that I don’t watch. There was no ability for me to understand anything other than through the lens of a sound bite. Those are the worst political campaigns I have ever seen in my lifetime and that’s saying something.

Since 2010 the digital landscape has completely changed and we have seen unprecedented exponential growth in digital media consumption. The days of printing presses are long gone. Handing out a leaflet to engage people is replaced by creating a web page on your desktop or mobile phone or using social media for assembly.

The text used in Buckley v. Valeo references a 1971 campaign finance act that directly use the words “handbills“. I was less than a year old when that ruling was made.

Sorry, here’s my argument. In the fifteen years since Citizens United, there has been case law and precedent for establishing public forums in the digital age. The Second and Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals have both ruled that there are first amendment violations when digital platforms are used as “Public Forums“ and assembly is abridged.

I would go to CSPAN, but I have to log into my cable provider to do so and I only pay for internet. Why isn’t that free for everyone? Isn’t that a public forum?

What happens then a very popular candidate only prefers online media hundreds or thousands of miles away and refuses to engage in any other way? If they are polling strongly, what incentive do they have to change their campaign?

What if I don’t want to subscribe to a platform to get that information ad free? How do I question a candidate then and engage in my right to assembly? Where is the defining principle in law that defines our rights to a public online forum?

This is why I believe that a new “Fairness Doctrine“ should be established when regarding public forums online. Especially for equal time without advertising in an un-gated way without interruption by commentary by on-air personalities. I’m happy to watch a legitimate Town Hall to gain perspective if I know it is not curated and there are honest questions.

My goal would to be to make sure that many opinions are considered and that media outlets cannot curate the questions, they should be submitted and voted on by the people before hand. Let the candidates have a reasonable but brief time think on it, then have the moderator ask the questions. Don’t crowd out the field to the two major parties; let the top five by national registration speak, not based on some polling sample. Hold all political ideologies to the same rigorous standards. They will all be better for it.

No matter where you go, there you are

So here we are and maybe pay-for-play has always been the case. Maybe I’m just Don Quixote chasing windmills, demanding a world that never really existed. But I don’t believe that. I believe in the possibility of something better. I believe that truthful information should not be a privilege beyond one’s financial reach or that in our changing digital world that we are locked out by charging a premium.

I’m not saying that folks shouldn’t make money. They totally should. I’m saying the economy of free speech should not come at the costs it currently has.

I could spend thousands a month just trying to get past paywalls in search of “truth” and still be none the wiser for it. My internet already costs over $100 a month. Over-the-air broadcasts? Not feasible. And I can’t even install a proper antenna to reach beyond a few miles because of geographic restrictions. So much for “cutting the cord.”

If our media is gated by paywalls, purchasing computers, paying internet fees, and algorithms that drown out any opinion - controversial or not - if we must pay a premium to remove advertisements just to engage in a public forum, if we are bombarded by UI design that inhibits our ability to interact, if we cannot digest information and have no reasonable alternatives to secure an equal voice without contributing millions or billions of dollars, then how does any disadvantaged person establish worth, standing, and respect?

Right now, we’re already paying for it, they just renamed the tax a “fee.”

And that’s the other irony, isn’t it? We can’t “do” us, if we can’t engage with the world without being in a walled garden of pseudo-reality. And in a world where access to truth is a financial transaction, someone has already made the choice for you.

We can either accept it or demand something better.