'scrollbars=yes,menubar=no,width=620,height=520,resizable=yes,toolbar=no,location=no,status=no,screenX=200,screenY=100,left=200,top=100'); return false;" title="Bookmark using any bookmark manager!" target="_blank">

Source: Ars Technica

Over thirty organizations want the Federal Communications Commission to open up a probe on "hate speech" and "misinformation" in media. "Hate has developed as a profit-model for syndicated radio and cable
television programs masquerading as 'news'," they wrote to the FCC
earlier this month.

As for the Internet, it "gives the illusion that news sources have increased, but in fact there are fewer
journalists employed now than before," they charge. "Moreover, on the
Internet, speakers can hide in the cloak of anonymity, emboldened to say
things that they may not say in the public eye."

The groups who want this new proceeding include Free Press, the Media Access Project,
Common Cause, the Prometheus Radio Project, and the League of United
Latin American Citizens. Their statement, filed in the Commission's
Future of Media proceeding, comes in support of a petition to the agency
submitted over a year ago by the National Hispanic Media Coalition.

"Hate speech against vulnerable groups is pervasive in our media—it is not
limited to a few isolated instances or any one media platform," NHMC
warned the FCC in 2009. "Indeed, many large mainstream media
corporations regularly air hate speech, and it is prolific on the
Internet. Hate speech takes various forms, from words advocating
violence to those creating a climate of hate towards vulnerable groups.
Cumulatively, hate speech creates an environment of hate and prejudice
that legitimizes violence against its targets."

The coalition has asked the agency to request public comments on hate speech in the
media, inquire into its extent, explore "the relationship between hate
speech in the media and hate crimes," and look into options "for
counteracting or reducing the negative effects of such speech."

In addition, the groups wants the FCC to examine "the prevalence of
misinformation" in the media, since misinformation "creates a climate of
prejudice."

"The NHMC understands that those who would prefer hate speech to remain under the radar will claim that such an inquiry
violates the First Amendment," the group added. "No doubt they will
raise the red herring of the restoration of the 'fairness doctrine,'
trying to divert the attention of the vast majority of Americans who
find hate speech reprehensible."

NHMC says it wants none of this, "but merely the collection of information and data about hate
speech."

Concrete harms

The gist of NHMC's concern is that "hate speech over the media is producing concrete harms,"
particularly against Latinos in the United States. Hate crimes against
Latinos have gone up 40 percent over the last four years, the petition
says. And the victims of hate speech suffer not just physical but
psychological distress. "These harms may be particularly acute for
Latino children given that children are uniquely susceptible to messages
in the media."

The campaign for this probe comes as the national temperature is rising over Arizona's controversial immigration
enforcement law. No surprise then that the petition cites various
related commentaries from talk radio and cable television, such as this
excerpt from a tirade allegedly given by nationally syndicated radio
host Michael Savage:

America is being overrun by an invasion force from Mexico... Is it racist to protect your nation against an
invading horde, from another nation that wants to sweep you off the
map?... And you think the gang banger with baggy pants is going to pay
for your retirement... ? [Y]ou're digging your own grave ... [a]ll
that's missing is the worm from the tequila bottle to go with it.
And this, allegedly from a local AM station:

On September I, 2007, on KGEZ-AM in Montana, John Stokes advocated that those who do not speak
English should have their hands chopped off. He went on to pontificate
that 'Romans 15: 19 says that if they break into your country, chop off
their leg. We have to forcibly get rid of them!' These statements
clearly urge listeners to regard all Latinos—including their fellow
citizens—as 'enemies' and suitable objects of physical violence.
As for the Internet, NHMC notes that at, at the time of the petition,
inputting "I hate spics" into Google.com generated over 45,000 results.
Of the first fifty, about 65 percent led to pages containing hateful
messages found on chat boards, blogs, and social networking sites.

The more recent group statement in support of NHMC's request links this
problem to the lack of localism and the consolidation of radio and
television.

"Numerous studies find that people of color continue to be under-represented, stereotyped or misrepresented in both news and
entertainment programming," the organizations write. "Indeed, media
consolidation leads to a less diverse, less responsive, less responsible
media."

Collecting this hate speech data would be helpful, they conclude, "even if the Commission does nothing more than turn that
information over to the public, researchers and other government
entities." The probe will allow groups like NHMC "to hold the media
accountable." It will encourage media organizations to correct their
mistakes. And it will help researchers better understand the "effects of
hate speech in media and the correlation between hate speech and hate
crimes."

Benefits and costs

We share these groups' concerns about the current media environment and appreciate their
emphasis on non-regulatory solutions. And we have a lot of respect for
the NHMC, one of the few prominent minority media organizations that
supports the FCC's proposed open Internet rules.

But we still hope that the Commission dodges this bullet. It will bring upon the
agency a world of pain, dragging it into a quagmire of accusatory
politics at a time when the FCC faces a host of crucial regulatory
tasks.

Before jumping into this project, the FCC should assess the benefits and costs of launching such a probe. The payoff will
obviously be some kind of government summation on hate speech in the
media. That, we presume, is what NHMC is hoping for when the group
mentioned that it has also asked the National Telecommunications and
Information Administration to follow up on its 1993 report, The Role of
Telecommunications in Hate Crimes, "and to work in conjunction with the
FCC in these efforts."

No doubt the new opus will satisfy those already convinced that there is a problem, although just like the NTIA
study and the FCC's 2007 report on violence in broadcasting, it will
likely cite scholarship questioning any direct links between speech and
violence.

Beyond that, the document will probably accomplish little more than those earlier surveys—unless you regard the current
media environment as progress.

Now for the costs.

First, none of the media targets of these petitions will believe that NHMC
doesn't want some kind of direct or indirect regulation, especially if
they fear that the materials served up by this inquiry could be used as
fodder for advertiser boycotts similar to the one that drove Lou Dobbs
from CNN.

And why shouldn't they come to that conclusion after they've read this footnote to the Free Press et al commentary about
making the media more accountable:

"This sort of awareness-raising has worked in the past. On November 11, 2009, under
mounting pressure from organizations and individuals across the nation,
Lou Dobbs resigned from CNN. Presente.org was one of the key
coordinators of the far-reaching BastaDobbs.com effort, collecting over
100,000 signatures from concerned individuals. That effort was only
possible because communities across the country were aware of Dobbs'
tirades, but organizations such as Presente.org and NHMC do not have the
resources to monitor the growing number of vitriolic media
personalities."
Second, this inquiry will leave the FCC with the daunting task of cataloguing every conceivable kind of hate speech,
including those directed at Republicans and right wing talk show hosts,
in order to avoid the appearance of having run a political proceeding.

Third, the Commission will have to sort out which of the plethora of examples
it receives are hate speech. On which data pile will complaints about
harsh criticisms of Israel or Muslims land? How about misogynist hip-hop
tunes? What about Internet pornography, especially the rough kind? All
we can say is, good luck with that.

Fourth, despite claims to the contrary, such a proceeding will further burden the media reform
movement with the perception that its campaigns for more localism and
against broadcast media consolidation are really calls for back-door
Fairness Doctrine-style content regulation. Again, why shouldn't critics
draw this inference, when the supporters of this inquiry link the hate
speech problem to those very themes?

Finally, why would the FCC want to run an inquiry on Internet content at a time when, in pursuit of
revised net neutrality rules, its chair is trying to convince the
public that the agency doesn't want to regulate Internet content?

This proposed investigation will lead the Commission down a landmine-laced
road at a time when it has taken on more challenges than ever, including
net neutrality, getting broadband to rural and low income America,
spectrum reallocation, and a new IP video policy. And watching the probe
would be a polarized Congress up for mid-term elections, its members
itching to run with any tirade that will get them on cable TV.

In sum, this is a well-meaning idea whose time, we hope, has not come.