Last week, Glenn Beck and Fox News announced they would be parting ways sometime later this year. The controversial host has said outlandish things like how President Obama is a racist, 9/11 families complain too much, and the Egyptian Revolution is really an attempt to establish a new world order, known as the "Caliphate."
Prior to this year, Glenn Beck had somehow managed to obtain a massive audience and following. However, since his antics and theories evolved from fringe to potentially certifiably crazy, his audience left in droves. In the past year Beck's audience dropped drastically: 29% overall and 35% among 25-54 year olds. Hundreds of advertisers refused to have their products shown while his show was on the air due to his hateful speech.
I contend that this is exactly what the First Amendment was designed to do. We, as a society, allowed Glenn Beck's ideas to flow freely out into the market place of ideas. Initially, when this country was struggling and jobs were hard to get Glenn Beck's messages echoed a growing frustration. But as the economy began to recover and people started to return to some level of normalcy, Beck's incoherent, chalkboard drawn-out delusions did not carry weight. People turned the channel. His ideas failed. Fox News saw the writing on the wall (pun intended) and had to break it to Beck that his time was numbered. They cordially came to an agreement on departure, but one cannot help but notice why he is leaving. Less and less people were accepting of him in the free market place of ideas.
No doubt that Fox News is still a powerhouse drawing in the most prime-time news watchers. Fox News did the right thing if they want to stay that way by eliminating a voice that was not only losing potential sponsors, but was also costing America air-time that could be filled by a more well-reasoned voice.
1st Amendment remedies... sure sounds better than talking about actually killing Michael Moore, which is what Glenn Beck said he wanted to do to Mr. Moore, who has wildly different political views than him.
For more information on Glenn Beck's departure: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-04-06/glenn-beck-leaves-as-fox-host-for-new-role-with-news-network-1-.html
The “soft power” of the masses in the marketplace of ideas is an interesting facet underlying First Amendment doctrine and one I hope to reach in my paper as well. However, the angel I intend to take is this: Proponents of the safe harbor provision of the DMCA (proxy censorship) suggest that market forces are likely to overbear concerns that ISPs are too quick to acquiesce to less than cognizable DMCA take-down claims because ISP customers will put economic pressure on ISPs to be particularly discerning in what they remove and what they do not. I believe this argument is problematic for three reasons: First, it assumes away the Due Process shortcomings of notice and take down provisions, Secondly, it avoids the substantial costs and does nothing to mitigate the potential damage a dis-favorable law suit outcome might have on the ISP whom would be forced to make very difficult legal decisions in the absence of any bright line rules, and Finally, with the notable exception of a few there appears to be a conspicuous dearth of contemporary consumer outcry in the face of an immeasurable amount of DMCA take-down notices being acted upon by ISPs without adjudication. But that is the DMCA, when it comes to Glenn Beck I hope that market forces drive him from my TV sooner rather than later!
ReplyDeleteExactly, the marketplace of ideas will always be free flowing and allow for people to share their ideas, and as much as I do not like what Glenn Beck has to say, I would not want to stop him from that free speech. The market will dictate what people accept and now people are less accepting of what Glenn Beck has to say. I feel bad for Jon Stewart and the writers on the Daily Show becuase they really are going to miss Glenn Beck
ReplyDelete