Lessig

Gregg Easterbrook wrote something on his blog that Roger Simon criticized for being anti-Semitic. It was also, as Glenn Reynolds points out, anti-Disney. The consequence of his writing was that Easterbrook was fired from ESPN (which is owned by The Mouse). Was the cause the anti-Semitism or the anti-Disney-ism?

As one of Easterbrook's self-described "harshest critics" says, the firing was an over-reaction. I agree, though more because of the place than the substance of what Easterbrook said. Had Easterbrook been the announcer at a football game and made similar comments, I could well understand (and defend) ESPN's decision to fire him. But a post in a blog is not a blast to 20 million people. No one would hold ESPN responsible; no one, so far as I can see, was even drawing a link to ESPN.

This leads Glenn Reynolds to suggest that it is another example of the consequences of the MediaCon.

Glenn has a point. ESPN's actions are ambiguous, at least if you agree with Roger Simon that firing Easterbrook was an over-reaction. ESPN should resolve the ambiguity.

If ESPN fired Easterbrook because it overreacted to his comment, then that's an injustice to Easterbrook, and a slight to society.

But it it fired Easterbrook because Easterbrook criticized the owner, that's an offense to society, whatever the injustice to Easterbrook -- at least when fewer and fewer control access to media. No doubt, anti-semitism has done infinitely greater harm than misused media mogul power. But if firing your critics becomes the norm in American media, then there will be much more than insensitivity to anti-semitism to worry about in the future.

MoveOn has launched a campaign to convince CBS to change its policy. Here's the polispam they'd like people to send:

Subject: The ad CBS will not air

Dear friend,

During this year's Super Bowl, you'll see ads sponsored by beer companies, tobacco companies, and the Bush White House. But you won't see the winning ad in MoveOn.org Voter Fund's Bush in 30 Seconds ad contest. CBS refuses to air it.

Meanwhile, the White House and Congressional Republicans are on the verge of signing into law a deal which Senator John McCain (R-AZ) says is custom-tailored for CBS and Fox, allowing the two networks to grow much bigger. CBS lobbied hard for this rule change; MoveOn.org members across the country lobbied against it; and now the MoveOn.org ad has been rejected while the White House ad will be played. It looks an awful lot like CBS is playing politics with the right to free speech.

Of course, this is bigger than just the MoveOn.org Voter Fund. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) submitted an ad that was also rejected. We need to let CBS know that this practice of arbitrarily turning down ads that may be "controversial" – especially if they're controversial simply because they take on the President – just isn't right.

To watch the ad that CBS won't air and sign the petition to CBS to run these ads, go here

MoveOn.org will deliver the petition by email directly to CBS headquarters.

Thanks.

A great letter to the editor in the Boston Globe re CBS' judgment about what sort of controvesy it should keep its viewers from. The site is flakey, so here's the text:

CBS's failure in judgment

We Americans need to rethink whether CBS and its
parent company Viacom should continue to be
trusted to broadcast on our publicly owned airwaves.

First, CBS turned down an ad by MoveOn.org discussing
the budget deficit because it was too controversial
for the Super Bowl. Then it proceeded to air an
obscene halftime show produced by MTV. The show
included Nelly urging women to take off all their
clothes, and Janet Jackson performing with dancers
wearing leather fetish outfits and lingerie, and
then closing her performance by exposing her breast.
MTV's website promised on Jan. 28 that Jackson's
performance would include shocking moments, so it
is clear that this was planned.

CBS deliberately suppressed and censored political
speech and public discourse, the core reason
behind the First Amendment, yet saw fit to air
sexually exploitive performances during a family
event. We cannot tolerate such failures in
judgment.

Christine Bolzan, Beverly, MA

Media concentration is often too easy a target. A lot of what the left, right, big, and small complain about in media spaces is the result of basic human weakness and cowardice. That's not to say it's not a big problem. It's just not the only problem. Every once in a while, something happens to remind us that big, bad media is more bark than bite.

This seems to be one of those cases. Disney is blocking Miramax from releasing Michael Moore's latest propaganda binge, "Fahrenheit 911."

Is it because Disney is too powerful? No. It's because it's not confident enough to stand up against the possible threats of angering Republicans in Florida. An omnipotent, oligopolistic company (see Microsoft or Halliburton) need not bow to political threats.