Limiting Diversity, Ownership Stifles 1st Amendment

As I have at times had to remind a few of The Mercury's Facebook commenters when they cite the "First Amendment" as reason to leave an offensive post on our page -- "Freedom of speech belongs to you. Freedom of the press belongs to those who own the press. Want to say something in a newspaper? Start one yourself."

There is reason to be worried about both freedom of the press and freedom of speech and expression, however, as the headlines stack up with evidence that both are threatened with curtailment.

The first and most obvious to anyone paying attention is the recent decision by the Federal Communications Commission to remove "net neutrality," the rule that ensures all web sites, Twitter, Facebook, Instagram and a zillion other social media accounts be treated equally.

It seems hard to imagine a more American idea than one that ensures all voices are given equal opportunity to say what's on their minds -- and have an equal opportunity to be heard -- no matter how offensive.

But that's never been entirely true.

As noted above, those of us who work in the media have a much better chance of being heard and have since the start of the nation.

With that advantage, our responsibility in the media, and particularly the press -- upheld better by some than others in an exercise inevitably fraught with bias -- is to try to give a broad variety of views equal opportunity to be aired.

The counter-balance to this built-in limitation in the press since the nation's founding has been free speech; that anyone can stand in the middle of the town square and state their piece with people given the choice to ignore it or to listen, or even to argue -- which is of course closely related to the right to assemble for this purpose.

In the last 15 years, that function has been carried forward onto the Internet with spectacular and sometimes incendiary results.

Want information on Basque separatists? They have a web site.

Curious about Islam? No shortage there.

Climate change? Ocean dumping? Hillary's emails?

Yup, yup and yup.

At a time when the President takes to Twitter to "get around the filter" of the media and speak directly to the people, his administration will preside over the greatest potential restriction of that opportunity since the Internet was invented.

While something tells me Donald Trump's Twitter feed is unlikely to be restricted, how long before Twitter decides to create "Twitter Prime," which gives faster speeds and greater visibility to those willing to pay for it?

Facebook already allows you to "sponsor" posts, to pay to have them put in front of more people, and the absence of net neutrality may make such schemes an everyday occurrence.

And beyond the operators of the platforms, consider the ISPs, or Internet Service Providers. Once a broad variety of tech start-ups, it has since narrowed down to be essentially the same utilities which built the infrastructure, Comcast, AT & T and the like.

All promises to the contrary, those providers will now perform the function they are designed to perform -- make money.

So unlike the gas company, or the water company or PECO, these corporate giants (which are about to get a huge tax cut by the way) will in many communities -- like here in Pottstown -- enjoy a monopoly on a utility that allows those willing to pay more, to get better service.

Imagine the outcry (if there was anyone left to report it) if the water company provided cleaner water to those who paid higher rates.

Yes, you pay more to your cable company to get more channels, but is that the model we want for the Internet? Does anyone really like the way cable TV operates?

"The FCC is doing away with rules barring internet providers from blocking or slowing down access to online content. The FCC would also eliminate a rule barring providers from prioritizing their own content," CNN reported.

If only those who can pay for a podium and loudspeaker can have access to the town square, the number of views or information the public will be exposed to will be limited to those who can afford the price of presenting it.

Net neutrality's demise will mean -- as with so many other things in America --

that those with more money will have an advantage -- to make even more money.

As Michael Cheah, general counsel at video site Vimeo,  told CNNMoney: the point of the net neutrality rules is "allowing consumers to pick the winners and losers and not [having] the cable companies make those decisions for them."

There was a time when a quote like that would have been spoken by a Republican, back when the GOP championed the "free market" as a solution to many problems. Their suggestions was usually calling for the removal of government regulations to unleash the power of the market.

This is one of those rare instances when removing a regulation stands to restrict the market to a few monied players -- something else which Republicans increasingly seem to favor ever since Citizens United unleashed the lobbyists to funnel obscene amounts of money into campaign coffers.

Which brings us to the second, somewhat less reported threat to the First Amendment -- media consolidation.

It was rightly seen as big news last week when it was announced that the omnivorous Walt Disney Company is consuming the larger part of 21st Century Fox for $52.4 billion.

"Disney has already announced an ambitious plan to introduce two streaming services by 2019. With this deal and the wealth of movies, TV shows and sports programming it provides, the company will now have the muscle to challenge Netflix, Apple, Amazon, Google and Facebook in the fast-growing realm of online video," the New York Times reported.

Consider that in addition to its own treacly empire of theme parks, princesses and dancing candlesticks, Disney owns both Marvel and the Star Wars movie empires (pun intended), as well as the ABC network and ESPN. 

Now it will introduce its own streaming services and everyone who thinks Disney will have enough money to pay to ensure its content gets priority online raise their hand.

This comes hand-in-hand with last month's decision, again by our freedom-loving friends at the FCC, to remove restrictions on ownership of broadcast television and other media companies, "potentially leading to more newspapers, radio stations and television broadcasters being owned by a handful of companies," as the Washington Post reported.

Initiated in the 1970s "to ensure that a diversity of voices and opinions could be heard on the air or in print," FCC Chairman Ajit Pai said "small outlets are struggling to survive in a vastly different media world" and the rule is no longer needed, the Post wrote.

According to Pai, the rise of blogs, websites and podcasts mean "traditional media outlets now face more competition than ever — and rules that once enforced a diversity of viewpoints are no longer needed," wrote the Post which, in case you didn't know, itself now has the same owner as Amazon, Jeff Bezos.

“As a result of this decision, wherever you live, the FCC is giving the green light for a single company to own the newspaper and multiple television and radio stations in your community. I am hard pressed to see any commitment to diversity, localism, or competition in that result,” said FCC Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel, a Democrat who voted against lifting the rule.

("A major beneficiary of the deregulatory moves, analysts say, is Sinclair, a conservative broadcasting company that is seeking to buy up Tribune Media for $3.9 billion," according to the Post. I'm sure that is complete coincidence.)

So, to sum up, blogs, websites and podcasts are competing with traditional media (true), so the FCC is letting single (well-monied) entities buy up all the traditional media in a given market so they survive, but at the cost of limited diversity of views and content.

And at the same time, it is allowing media consolidation, the FCC is throwing net neutrality out the window so that "competition" against traditional media will now be limited among those with enough money to pay to be in the ring to compete and to get an unfair advantage over the guy blogging from his mother's basement. 

In other words, big media can now consolidate and prioritize what it wants you to see on the Internet.

Frankly, let's call it what it is -- it's un-American and it is a direct threat to the First Amendment.

Teddy Roosevelt, a Republican who recognized the danger of the consolidation

of economic power and the value of "a square deal," would have railed against this as fervently as he did over the railroad, coal and timber trusts of his era.

"Yet more and more it is evident that the state, and if necessary the nation, has got to possess the right of supervision and control as regards the great corporations which are its creatures; particularly as regards the great business combinations which derive a portion of their importance from the existence of some monopolistic tendency," Roosevelt wrote and it is as true now as it was then.

With fewer companies making content, and Internet providers willing to take payments to ensure well-heeled content is seen first, while content from those with shallower pockets remains unseen, it creates yet another uneven field on which smaller competitors are at a disadvantage.

Consider the change that means.

How many times has a video shot by someone you've never heard of before gone viral on the Internet? And I don't mean cat videos.

Consider how that has given birth to everything from the exposure of police violence against African-Americans, to James O'Keefe's "Project Veritas" and the video that took down ACORN. 

Well, if you can attract investment (maybe even tax-free political donations?) from big money, your content might get seen on the Internet. If not ... well, looks like you're out of the competition. Truthfully, without money, you could never even be in it.

That is not supposed to be how a democracy works, or how America works.

None of which even considers the enhanced (and terrifying) opportunities fewer hands with more and more control over content and discourse provides for censorship, an invisible injury to freedom of thought because you don't miss what you never knew existed.

After all, if a corporate giant can prioritize what you see, what prevents them from ensuring you don't see it at all?

I mean, consider that I just called for more regulation of Comcast. Under the new system, you might never even have .......