BCT Editorial – 10/27/10

This is at least the third editorial on this topic since 2005.  The previous two were “Stating the obvious” and “A matter of trust.”

The Times has a checkered history when it comes to the free speech clause of the First Amendment.  See “For what it’s worth” (1/26/10) and “Scared stiff” (1/29/10) for examples.  In this case, though, I believe the editorial was exactly correct on this point.  The key for me is the event was a truly public event with then-President Bush acting in his capacity as President.  Had Mr. Bush been acting as a private citizen, such as speaking at a campaign fundraising event, the sponsoring group would have had the right to control attendance.

Let’s look at the following paragraph: “Meanwhile, American who turn on their televisions and radios are being assaulted by negative campaign ads that are funded by - who knows?”  Translation: The Times is upset candidates and their supporters are spending a lot more on television and radio ads than they are on newspaper ads.

The editorial concludes “That’s because another court ruling handed down last year, this one 5-4, said wealthy individuals, corporations, unions and well-funded special interest groups, usually hiding behind phony front organizations, can pour as much money into political ads as they want, in effect, to buy the election results they want.  If you’re keeping score, that’s one free speech point for the wealthy and powerful and zero points for the not-so-rich and powerless.  Game, set and match.”

The decision to which the editorial referred (Citizens United v. FEC) was decided January 21, 2010, not “last year” as the editorial asserts.

As I wrote in a previous critique, “The Times has no problem with free speech by corporations as long as those businesses are part of the press.  That is, the Times is all for freedom of speech (‘us[ing] their wealth to control the political debate by setting the tone, framing the issues and shaping the images’) for itself, but would deny the same freedom to Jim Bob Steel Company across town.  Why should Calkins Media, Inc., [owner and operator of the Times] be allowed to use its wealth to publish columns, editorials, and ‘news’ articles advocating candidates and issues, but not Jim Bob Steel?”