Thursday, April 12, 2007
Imus, Censorship, Marketplace and Infrastructure
Don Imus keeps people's attention when he talks, so he has a radio show. Recently, though, the Imus show sank to new lows in the art of discourse.
As a result, advertisers are canceling Imus ads. This puts a new twist on what I wrote yesterday about "intentional indifference." That article expounded on the theory that a venue owner's ad acceptance policy should be blind to the content of the ads. Should this also work in reverse? [Preview: No!]
That is, should advertisers be blind to the nature of their chosen advertising venue? Advertisers are not moral (to a first approximation). They simply want to attract buyers. So Skippys Peanut Butter would probably not advertise in a magazine for people who are allergic to peanuts. Nor would Northrup-Grumman advertise its wares at a peace rally. So, while the best policy for venues is to be blind to advertising content, the best policy for advertisers is to choose venues carefully.
I'd guess that 70 to 80% of the Don Imus radio audience is turned off by racist remarks. And a smaller, but significant, percentage has been victimized by a racist remark. Wise advertisers would (and should) take such information into account. Advertisers may not be moral, but ads aimed at moral individuals will be judged accordingly.
Should government intervene in the Imus affair? Or to prevent future Imus-type incidents? No! Like the operator of an advertising venue, government acceptance based on content confers an implicit endorsement. Today Imus, tomorrow Ahmadinejad or Gonzalez or Obama will be subject to government endorsed (or censored) speech. And, in this case, where the coupling between advertisers and the moral judgement of individuals is relatively tight, the marketplace solution works.
Both the government and the venue are infrastructures. Per hypothesis, the general rule is that infrastructure operators should not discriminate based on who uses them or for what purposes.
Purveyors of end user goods, on the other hand, may. And in some cases, they should.
[Tenuously related side issue: It could be argued that FCC licenses for radio stations are a form of government intervention, in that they choose (endorse) the license holder. Clearly the FCC endorses incumbents, most of which are large conservative conglomerates, because today technology allows for many, many more stations than there are licensees. In fact, hasn't Wi-Fi (and other Part 15 uses) taught us that vibrant communications markets can function amazingly well without station licenses at all? Meanwhile, the FCC has abandoned using its licensing authority to endorse content. It has found other ways, specifically threats of ad hoc fines for speech it refuses to define in advance. I wish the FCC would stop behaving as if it were the Federal Speech Suppression Commission, get out of the way and let the marketplace work.]
As a result, advertisers are canceling Imus ads. This puts a new twist on what I wrote yesterday about "intentional indifference." That article expounded on the theory that a venue owner's ad acceptance policy should be blind to the content of the ads. Should this also work in reverse? [Preview: No!]
That is, should advertisers be blind to the nature of their chosen advertising venue? Advertisers are not moral (to a first approximation). They simply want to attract buyers. So Skippys Peanut Butter would probably not advertise in a magazine for people who are allergic to peanuts. Nor would Northrup-Grumman advertise its wares at a peace rally. So, while the best policy for venues is to be blind to advertising content, the best policy for advertisers is to choose venues carefully.
I'd guess that 70 to 80% of the Don Imus radio audience is turned off by racist remarks. And a smaller, but significant, percentage has been victimized by a racist remark. Wise advertisers would (and should) take such information into account. Advertisers may not be moral, but ads aimed at moral individuals will be judged accordingly.
Should government intervene in the Imus affair? Or to prevent future Imus-type incidents? No! Like the operator of an advertising venue, government acceptance based on content confers an implicit endorsement. Today Imus, tomorrow Ahmadinejad or Gonzalez or Obama will be subject to government endorsed (or censored) speech. And, in this case, where the coupling between advertisers and the moral judgement of individuals is relatively tight, the marketplace solution works.
Both the government and the venue are infrastructures. Per hypothesis, the general rule is that infrastructure operators should not discriminate based on who uses them or for what purposes.
Purveyors of end user goods, on the other hand, may. And in some cases, they should.
[Tenuously related side issue: It could be argued that FCC licenses for radio stations are a form of government intervention, in that they choose (endorse) the license holder. Clearly the FCC endorses incumbents, most of which are large conservative conglomerates, because today technology allows for many, many more stations than there are licensees. In fact, hasn't Wi-Fi (and other Part 15 uses) taught us that vibrant communications markets can function amazingly well without station licenses at all? Meanwhile, the FCC has abandoned using its licensing authority to endorse content. It has found other ways, specifically threats of ad hoc fines for speech it refuses to define in advance. I wish the FCC would stop behaving as if it were the Federal Speech Suppression Commission, get out of the way and let the marketplace work.]
Technorati Tags: Censorship, FCC, Infrastructure, Layers, Imus
Comments:
Post a Comment
