No one seems to comprehend the double-edged sword of freedom these days, as evidenced by Jerome Garger’s recent diatribe (“Fuss over Jackson hides deeper problems with U.S. media,” ODE, Feb. 23). Freedom is not merely the ability, free of retribution, to do something, but is as a whole that ability plus the right to not do something without fear of retribution. This understanding of basic personal liberty is what drives the essence of free-market capitalism: the notion that individuals exercising their freedom to do and not to do influences the goods and services, including media, that are a part of the whole.
If we are to presume, then, that this is the case, we must also presume that what drives a corporation like CBS is the will and desire of its customers. If the will and desire of its customers are commercials of purple pickup trucks and CBS chooses pink Geo Metros, then the consumers of CBS — in this case, the people who choose to watch the programs CBS offers — can choose, as an extension of their freedom, not to watch CBS anymore, and instead watch Fox or NBC. If Mr. Garger truly holds dear the freedom that he is speaking of, then he would have to embrace this as a natural consequence of such freedom. This exercise of freedom, then, can be said to influence what is aired. CBS has to compete with the likes of Fox, NBC and ABC, and thus must respond regularly to the desires of its customers’ wishes in order to remain a viable network.
The more explicable and begged question, then, is this: How would Mr. Garger remedy the situation? Choose a group of educated people to decide what is proper for the public to watch, see and absorb? That’s rather undemocratic, don’t you think? Perhaps even a bit “elitist”? The answer lies with Mr. Garger himself. The people should decide. They are, in fact, deciding right now, much to the chagrin of Mr. Garger. They call into places like CBS and demand that series like the Ronald Reagan biography not be aired. CBS and other news-media outlets do intense polling of those who watch their station for information about viewing and reaction to shows offered, and most importantly, they monitor the viewing itself. It is perhaps the most democratic system currently available, and yet those of Mr. Garger’s clique despise it with such impunity and hatred as to boggle the reasoned mind.
But why is this? It cannot be because the system is anti-democratic, for the evidence does not establish this. Rather, it is because the evidence points to a public who as a reflection of their own freedom censor themselves, an idea that baffles the pre-pubescent minds of Garger and those like him. So be academically and intellectually consistent, Mr. Garger, and accept the fact that sometimes in a popular vote, you will lose. Be gracious about it, and be a good loser.