Journalist Amy Goodman Detained and Questioned at Canadian Border Crossing

Amy Goodman, Independent Journalist, author and host of Democracy Now! was traveling to Vancouver, Canada on Thanksgiving when she was detained and questioned by Canadian officials while trying to cross the border. Goodman and two colleagues were held and questioned for approximately 90 minutes while their belongings, including their notes and computers, were searched.

Goodman was on her way to speak at the Vancouver Public Library at a benefit for local community radio stations and the border guards seemed quite concerned over whether Goodman was going to speak out against the 2010 Winter Olympics which are being held in Vancouver.

To address why these border authorities were so concerned over the possibility of Goodman speaking out against the Olympics as well as the implications that this incident has on free speech, Goodman hosted a couple of guests this morning on Democracy Now!

Christopher Shaw, professor of Ophthalmology at the University of British Columbia. He is also a leading spokesperson for the No Games 2010 Coalition and 2010 Watch. He is the author of “Five Ring Circus: Myths and Realities of the Olympic Games.” and David Eby, Executive Director of British Columbia Civil Liberties Association.

Here is the video from the broadcast:

Prosecutors Announce That All Charges Against Journalists in St. Paul Will Be Dropped

In follow up to a story that was reported and discussed here at the Beacon, it has just been announced that all charges against journalists arrested in St. Paul during the RNC will be dropped.

The decision was announced by local authorities in St. Paul following widespread public outrage at the detention and the filing of charges against journalists arrested while covering the events outside the RNC. Mayor Chris Coleman of St. Paul released the following statement:

“This decision reflects the values we have in Saint Paul to protect and promote our First Amendment rights to freedom of the press. A journalist plays a special role in our democracy and that role is just too important to ignore. At the scene, the police did their duty in protecting public safety. In this decision, we are serving the public’s interest to maintain the integrity of our democracy, system of justice and freedom of the press.”

While this is certainly recognized as encouraging news by advocates of independent media and freedom of the press, there are many questions that still remain. Nancy Doyle Brown of Twin Cities Media Alliance states:

"This is an important first step, but many questions remain. We still need answers about why and how journalists got swept up in these arrests in the first place. And more than anything else, we need to ensure that this never happens again. We’ll never know how many important stories never got told because their authors were behind bars, not in the streets."

After the arrest of Amy Goodman and two of her producers from the independent media program Democracy Now!, thousands of people from across the country signed letters and statements calling for their release. The media reform organization FreePress delivered over 60,000 of these letters and statements to St. Paul City Hall demanding that they drop all charges against journalists. Josh Silver of FreePress reacted this news today:

"We’re pleased that the St. Paul authorities ultimately acted to uphold the rights of all journalists -- including those citizens using blogs, cheap cameras and cell phones to report news as it happens. Our task now is to ensure that our press remains free to report on the events, issues and stories that matter to our country, our communities, and our democracy."

Part of ensuring the future freedom of the press and of reporters to report on dissent is to critically examine why these actions were taken and how they can be prevented in the future. The statement from the Mayor's office implies that this is how the system should work; police should detain and arrest indiscriminately and then the courts will end up sorting it all out. Instead of assuming that this is an overall success there needs to be an examination into how these incidents happened, how they can be prevented in the future, and the impact this model of law enforcement has on a free society. The fact that so many people rose up and demanded that these charges be dropped is a victory for the people in standing up for basic rights. While this should certainly be viewed as a victory, it should be viewed through a bittersweet lens. Arresting journalists interrupts the important work that they are doing on the ground during the event being covered and this is valuable time that has been squandard can not be given back. Examination also needs to be done over the strategy of preemptively raiding journalists houses and rented space as was done in the case of I-Witness Video. This practice led police to copy documents and photograph items within the property, detain the individuals inside, and interrupt the journalistic work that was done. The following questions need to be asked in this case:

1. What did police do with the information collected from these locations?
2. Is any of this information being stored in a database that can be used against activists that have not broken any law, in future high publicity events?

There is no telling the amount of information compiled about journalists who have not been charged or convicted with a crime during the DNC and RNC. This is relevant and needs to be addressed.

This article can also be viewed at: http://www.cincinnatibeacon.com

The Fairness Doctrine, the Broadcaster Freedom Act, and the Expansion of Public Discourse

Martha Zoller has a new column that I happened to run across today that voices its support for the "Broadcaster Freedom Act". The "Broadcaster Freedom Act" will effectively bar the FCC from making any new rules or regulations that would reinstate or re-implement standards once set in the Fairness Doctrine. The Fairness Doctrine was established in 1949 to provide for a more balanced discourse on controversial issues that were discussed on public airwaves. The belief was that there were fewer broadcast licenses than there were people who would like to have them, therefore licensees accept certain public responsibility for the use of the airwaves. Given this acceptance of public responsibility, the Fairness Doctrine required broadcasters to devote some of their time to discussion of issues in the public interest and to give airtime to opposing viewpoints. Broadcasters could air opposing views in many different formats (news segments, editorial spots, etc.) but were not required to air the opposing views within the same program. The Fairness Doctrine also didn't require broadcasters programming to be split down a 50/50 line, but merely provide a balance in discussion of issues in the public interest.

The Fairness Doctrine stopped being enforced in the mid-1980's when then FCC Chair Mark Fowler expressed the belief that the view of broadcasters as community trustees should be replaced with the view of broadcasters as marketplace participants. In other words, Fowler advocated the position that content being broadcast on the airwaves should be left to the "free-market". Fowler would also argue, as does Martha Zoller, that the Fairness Doctrine limited free speech by giving the government control over a station's editorial content. Zoller states:

We must protect the free market everywhere it is being assaulted, and talk radio is a free speech market that should be left alone by regulation.

We must remember when discussing this issue, that the airwaves belong to the public and that broadcasters should serve the public interest. Since the end of the Fairness Doctrine we have seen continued concentration of the media into the hands of just a few companies. Though some would argue that we have more channels now with the existence of cable, I am reminded of Senator Byron Dorgan's observation that this is like many voices coming from the same ventriloquist. We have seen opinion and viewpoints become more limited on the airwaves, not expanded since things have been turned over to the "free-market". You can see this firsthand in the coverage in the lead-up to the Iraq War and in the "post-9/11 world" where dissenting opinion was suppressed. Zoller further claims in her article:

The marketplace doesn’t want liberal talk radio. There have been some shows that have done well, but the numbers are not in their favor. This year at the Talkers New Media Seminar, there were more liberal/progressive/independent hosts represented, but the bread and butter still goes to conservative talk because conservatives are so under-represented in the rest of the media market.

When we discuss topics such as the public airwaves, which are owned by the public and should serve in the interest of the public, it is not productive to speak about such topics as "products" subjected to the "marketplace". Public forums for debate, discussion, and the expansion of ideas are fundamental to democracy and speaking about different viewpoints as if we are choosing between brands of soda pop, is grossly missing the point. Simply stating that the public "doesn't want" the other view is no excuse for its suppression and in a society that benefits from debating all viewpoints, it is completely necessary to further open up the level of discourse.

Media consolidation has hurt democracy and it is not productive to think about the issue in terms of a "liberal" or a "conservative" media, but rather recognize that our media outlets are largely stenographers to power. Our media outlets produce sanitized infotainment that passes as news and keeps advertisers coming back for more. Perhaps it is more beneficial to look at this issue of "Fairness" through the eyes of a 1969 Supreme Court decision that upheld the Fairness Doctrine:

A license permits broadcasting, but the licensee has no constitutional right to be the one who holds the license or to monopolize a...frequency to the exclusion of his fellow citizens. There is nothing in the First Amendment which prevents the Government from requiring a licensee to share his frequency with others.... It is the right of the viewers and listeners, not the right of the broadcasters, which is paramount.

— U.S. Supreme Court, upholding the constitutionality of the Fairness Doctrine in Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 1969