In this letter to the editor, the author comments on Troy Miller’s commentary “How the FCC Can Define the Future of Free Speech.” Radio World welcomes letters to the editor on this or any story. Email [email protected].
Mr. Troy Miller — which (unfair) “previous administration” are you referring to?
Senator Jessie Helms, even before the Bush administrations, orchestrated relentless personal attacks in concert with with well-funded and organized religious groups, pressuring the FCC and Congress to eliminate the support and licensing of PBS and NPR, among other “arts.” Their vitriol is a matter of public record, should Mr. Miller care to look.
For decades, organized religious leaders justified their attacks based on their perceived “threats to Christianity.”
The first Trump administration openly and aggressively pursued internet media giants claiming “bias against conservatives.” Congress held “investigative hearings” resulting in status-quo “hands off” private internet enterprise. Meanwhile, congressional conservatives threatened CPB, PBS and NPR over alleged “political bias.”
Mr. Miller’s assertions regarding “limited free speech” are made during Brendan Carr’s blatant FCC political intimidation “investigation” of the decades-old, well-established sponsorship practices of NPR and PBS and of “content.” This offensive is also concurrent with an attempted “claw-back” of prior congressionally-approved CPB funds and the complete elimination of future funding, threatening CPB’s very existence.
Can Mr. Miller identify specific examples of denied (religious) “free speech” via conventional regulated broadcasters sufficient to withstand litigation, yield damage awards or benefit from injunctive relief? He asserts that “religious broadcasters have faced hurdles within digital platforms.” Does that include dominant global, satellite-based religious networks and enterprises such as Christian Broadcasting Network?
For decades free OTA (“over the air”) sponsored religious content has been readily available via secular and “religious” broadcasters via radio and television formats. Yet Miller alleges “injury” resulting from failed access to unregulated PAID subscriber-based, for-profit private enterprise-based platforms such as Netflix, YouTube, etc.
Although FCC “must carry” rules arose to protect OTA television, is Miller suggesting similar enforcement on digital broadband platforms supporting religious content while the FCC simultaneously trashes NPR and PBS?
Regulate free speech with more “must-carry”? At what tangible/intangible costs to carriers? To what end?
Perhaps Mr. Miller is unaware of modern-day consumer demand for “religious product.” Consumers cannot be force-fed material originating “from the pulpit.” Mr. Miller’s logic suggests FOX media should be forced to carry op-eds from the Democratic National Committee.
Mr. Miller, per your opening paragraph, it’s really your message that “doesn’t fit.”
— Christopher Peeters, registered professional engineer, IT & RF engineering consultant
[Check Out More Letters at Radio World’s Reader’s Forum Section]
