Free speech and free access are quickly becoming less free

March 16, 2005
by Rob Lafferty

In many ways, newspapers and magazines – print media – are slowly becoming irrelevant to the American public as a source for the daily news. More people than ever are relying on broadcast and cable television for news.

Those folks expect television news to deliver the full story in a fair, balanced and objective manner – and many believe that’s what they are getting, in spite of all evidence to the contrary.

A growing number of people prefer to use Internet news sites, news groups and e-mail newsletters to gain information about their world. Many of them search for the news on their own, creating individual counterpoints to broadcast versions of the news, and sharing those views with the world.

Those that favor print or broadcast media often claim that Internet news sources are often unreliable. Yet both of those media forms have long and ongoing histories of scandals, lies, misinformation, sloppy mistakes and heavy editorial bias. Both have been, and continue to be, subject to a wide variety of pressures to minimize or ignore certain true events.

No form of communication is perfect, but modern society has created a deeply flawed method of delivering information to the public. The economic realities of advertising, along with media ownership by business conglomerates, have driven far too many independent print and broadcast news media into an early grave.

Media control efforts take many forms. Cash is given to journalists and on-air broadcasters to promote a specific agenda; prizes, awards, a public-relations gig on the side, and outright bribery are just a few ways that our government or big corporations can essentially “buy” individuals whose job is to report the true news to the public.

A news organization that fearlessly and ethically reports daily events can be squeezed out of existence. Divert their resources, undercut their economic base or hire away their best people may be all that it takes to control the messages they deliver. If that fails, smaller organizations can often be bought for the right amount of cash.

What remains are a few large voices speaking nearly in unison, echoed by thousands of small voices that are kept “on message” in every way possible.

Publicly-funded media access is a relatively new method for gaining diversity in local, national and world news reporting. Community-owned television stations are no longer infants; like teenagers, they’re still a bit clumsy, but growing quickly towards their potential – and they are coming under attack from individuals and institutions who dislike anything that isn’t “on message” or under their control.

AKAKU public cable television is one of those emerging sources of diversity. It’s certainly not traditional news reporting; in fact, community television stations rarely have the resources to cover daily news.

But they can provide the public with information – and allow the public to broadcast their own information – that is interesting and useful in many ways.

Along with the Internet, public access cablevision is at the forefront of an information revolution. Best of all, most of what is aired on AKAKU’s channels is the work of volunteers and community members who express their opinions and share their beliefs and ideas. It’s the closest thing to a truly democratic forum that has existed since the days when town meetings were common in every small community.

The recent effort by Maui Community College provost Clyde Sakamoto, developer Everett Dowling and a compliant state legislature to reclaim one-third of the funding Akaku receives from cable television providers in Hawai’i has been labeled as an assault on the First Amendment right to free speech.

Technically, that’s not quite true. Citizens can still state their opinion in public; they just might not be able to film their statement and air it on AKAKU as before.

But the funds in question are not taxpayer dollars; they are fees paid by everyone who subscribes to the cable companies’ services. MCC and the DOE have no rightful claim to any of it. That money truly belongs to the people, and government should keep its hands off. The Akaku Board of Directors can be held directly accountable to the people, by the people. If they fail their obligation to spend funds wisely, they can be replaced by better managers.

Anyone who thinks that money given to the Department of Education in Hawai‘i will be spent wisely has not been paying attention to the educational history and spending practices of the DOE. And anyone who thinks that silencing “irresponsible” voices is a good idea is living in the wrong country.