- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
The general theme that runs through many of your pieces on the media revolves around the concept that the media in general owes a duty to inform the public, in the public interest and for the public good.
Comcast's refusal to air ads critical of itself is one manifestation of this theme. The focus of much of television on the trivial, simple and insignificant at the expense of arguably more important and complex issues is another.
It strikes me that this is simply a the way things are versus the way you would like them to be argument. While not conversant with the applicable statutes I find it difficult to believe that there is something in law that would dictate the content of media dissemination, save and except that is be true or at a minimum fair comment.
Apart from the law I don't know how or why such an obligation on the part of the media would arise. The media is not a vocation or a calling, it is a business. I don't see any overriding moral imperative imposed on the media, such as the Hippocratic oath imposes on doctors.
All media, regardless of it's location on the political spectrum, is guilty (if that's even the right word) of being selective in what it chooses to broadcast or publish.
The concept that all such dissemination would need to be done with the public interest in mind is fraught with all kinds of practical difficulty, not the least of which is whether there exists a single entity that could be called the "public interest". What is in the public interest of one segment of society, may be considered adverse to the public interest of another segment of society.
