Following Goldy's announcement that he's joining the KVI team, David Postman points out an obvious instance.
And now that Goldstein is going mainstream, he wants his first official guest to be Tim Eyman, the inspiration for horsesass. In his invitation to Eyman, Goldstein says, "Now I know you might have some reservations about appearing on the air with a host who made his name by calling you names, but this is radio, and you are, after all, a media whore."Goldstein responds:Again, please remember that this is radio Tim, radio - tens of thousands of people hearing you talk - so if there really is no such thing as bad press, what do you have to lose? And besides, we're going to talk about you anyway, so why not be there to defend yourself?But wait, wasn't it Goldstein who was just telling us dupes in the press to ignore Eyman?So to my friends in the media I'd like to suggest that you take Timmy at his word one last time, and refuse to give him any coverage at all. Zero. Zilch. Nada. No clips on the news, no column inches in the paper... not even to curse him out. The guy just dissed you. (Again.) Don't reward him. Can the press resist?Apparently not.
For his part, Postman makes a salient point that perhaps it was a little hypocritical of me to advise the press to ignore Tim, and then go and invite him onto my show. Yeah, I guess. At the very least it’s probably bad strategy. I’m not approaching my radio show any differently than I approach my blogging – I’m an unabashed, partisan liberal with an unabashed, partisan liberal agenda – but I suppose I need to give some thought as to how my first, tentative steps into the cold waters of the mainstream might change my role in the media.I'd also suggest he think carefully about his stated position on KVI's trouble with campaign regulations.
[I]t was with some ambivalence that I approached the controversy over KVI’s shameless promotion of I-912, the anti-road maintenance initiative. On the one hand, I was one of the first “media watchdogs” to publicly express outrage over how blatantly John Carlson and Kirby Wilbur used their shows to actively advertise, organize and fundraise for I-912; without them, the initiative campaign simply would not exist. On the other hand, I’m no dummy – when I get my own radio show I plan to take a page from the KVI playbook and be just as active in promoting progressive initiatives, causes and candidates. It’s not only good politics, it’s damn good for business....It might not be long before Goldstein finds himself at the end of litigation because of his "unabashed, partisan" views. In this strange world of regulated speech, anything can happen--and probably will.
While I admit that the line between advocacy and advertising is blurry, and that I am uncomfortable at the thought of a bureaucrat or even a judge having the power to determine when this line is crossed, there is no question that the line exists, and to ignore it is to open our system to inevitable abuse. If media outlets can use their enormous power to run political campaigns outside the established regulatory framework, they will.
And in fact... KVI has. John and Kirby crossed the line, and to make matters worse, they used the public airwaves to do it. The people of Washington have a right to know the true value of KVI’s in-kind contribution to the I-912 campaign. Filing these reports may be a hassle, but then, so is democracy.
2 comments:
I think there is a big difference between the kind of advocacy John and Kirby normally do, and what they did during the I-912 signature drive.
They acted as the mouthpiece for the signature drive, organizing canvassing on-air, and promoting it relentlessly. While their names weren't on the committee, they willed the initiative onto the ballot, using KVI's broadcast license as their primary resource.
And remember, nobody says they can't do this. They just have to report it as an in-kind donation when they do.
Whatever. Like I said at the time, I was always uncomfortable with this issue, but there is no question that there is a line somewhere that the media can cross. The question for the courts is whether they did cross the line this time.
goldy, thanks for stopping by. I agree that the canvassing effort was where the line was obviously crossed Wickham indicated as such, and in his second ruling dismissing Carlson's and Wilbur's counterclaims, wrote, [pdf]
In granting the injunction this court expressly or impliedly made certain findings: (1) that Kirby Wilbur and John Carlson were principals in the campaign; (2) that they had intentionally promoted the campaign by advertising it in their regular radio show time slots; (3) that the on-air advertising was in addition to and different from any editorializing, comment, or discussion by the hosts on their shows; (4) that it had value to the campaign similar to advertising the campaign could have purchased on-air; (5) that the value of the advertising had not been disclosed to the Public Disclosure Commission in the manner of any other in-kind contribution; and (6) that requiring reporting of that value would not restrict Kirby Wilbur or John Carlson in their on-air speech in any way. In the volumes of pleadings submitted subsequent to that
injunction, this court has seen nothing to persuade it that those findings were factually incorrect.
So, in other words, it was the free advertising in between the regularly-scheduled programming that really set off Wickham's constitution-o-meter.
"Take a page from the KVI playbook," sure, but not that one.
As an aside, it's ironic that an institution originally designed to create a more "open government" can be twisted around into a means of censorship if not carefully monitored itself.
Post a Comment