by Kellyann Dinoff

Created on: June 30, 2008

A Case for Broadcast Darwinism

Absolutely not!

Our country is a democracy, built by the people, for the people. Thus, it is the people,' the general population, who should determine the content of our airwaves. Like any trend or fad, the masses will surely embrace that which the majority holds to be of greatest value, and shun the least popular, and least valued, opinion. Consider it Broadcast Darwinism simply put, it's survival of the fittest.

And let's not forget that this whole concept flies in the face of one of the pillars of our nation freedom of speech. How can we exercise this guaranteed right to free expression of thoughts and ideas if the government is charged with balancing' the message? And honestly, what value' would this balancing' offer? Would we each be guaranteed our 15-minutes' in the spotlight? Would there be a quota for the number of opinions or messages for each side of debate?

Today's technology offers so many different means of expression that virtually anyone can express their opinion if they so desire. With so much opportunity for expression what more could be done to offer the opportunity for balance?

Yes, traditional, broadcast radio stations are limited by bandwidth and licensing, however, these are surely going the way of vinyl records and eight-track tapes, as more highly-evolved species' of media come to maturity. Satellite and Internet radio are becoming quite pervasive and popular and now offer not only nearly limitless bandwidth, but a nearly limitless, worldwide reach. Tune in to either of these media and you will find entire STATIONS devoted to a single issue from women-oriented talk to sports to politics to the latest Hollywood gossip. If you've got something on your mind, rest assured, there's a worldwide audience available to you.

And conversely, while there is freedom of expression, an individual has the freedom of consumption the freedom of choice. If you don't like it, turn it off, don't read it, surf to another page. We are intelligent, rationale, beings. We do not need a government making our choices, serving up what the almighty they' deem appropriate. We already have the guidance of ratings and FCC rulings on indecency and obscenity which, in their own right, are to this day constantly questioned and evolving, leading to the question how would we even measure such a balance? By the minute of coverage? By the strength of the signal? By audience reach? With so many different ways to quantify a message, how would balance' even be measured?

So I say, let's take a tip from nature and leave well enough alone.

Learn more about this author, Kellyann Dinoff.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.