Gero - Blog Post 7
In Chapter 3 of Speech Matters, Shiffrin discusses the distinction between individual versus nonpress, business corporate, and commercial speech (page 98). Shiffrin defends nonpress, business corporate, and commercial freedom of speech despite the market interests that may impact the sincerity or autonomy of such speech (page 99). These forms of speech do not “share the interest of individual thinkers and…their autonomy is not intrinsically valuable” yet they are a part of a “joint social enterprise” that renders nonpress, business corporate, and commercial speech as nonstandard in free speech theory (page 99-100).
Shiffrin later identifies and quickly dismisses more complex cases like “the press, which operates in a market environment but whose interests are more closely aligned with accuracy and sincerity” (page 101). I would argue that while the press used to have market interest in accuracy and sincerity, the recent market gains in national news media have delivered sensationalism as a more enticing objective. As news has transformed from local stations to massive corporations that profit off of political polarization and sensationalism, the market interest in accuracy and sincerity has diminished. This is of course a broad generalization and understands all press as news media, and it should be noted that I am addressing the press on the extreme ends of the spectrum. However, one cannot deny the market interest in explosive and controversial news coverage.
In September 2020, Fox News’ legal defense for a slander lawsuit filed against Tucker Carlson was that no reasonable viewers would take Carlson’s statements as factual (NPR). It may also be important to note that Carlson’s news segment was one of the top-rated programs in cable news history. Libel claims have also been brought against MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow and dismissed along similar lines (NPR). In these cases, as can be seen in news media more generally, the value of the press is possibly in entertainment over accuracy.
The development of the press as being vested in non-accurate and insincere interests would change its status from that of a complex case to a nonstandard one. If press were to be considered a business corporate or commercial speech under free speech theory, then it would be subject to a possible “comprehensive scheme of economic regulation” (page 100). Although in this case, economic regulation should be targeted in a way that promotes accuracy and sincerity, like sanctions for not thoroughly fact-checking or blatant exaggeration. With this economic regulation, the press would still be able to “expand the agenda of business enterprises beyond commercial profit into more morally responsive enterprises” (page 100).
This proposal of implementing economic regulation on the press poses a serious threat to the freedom of speech and Americans’ access to accurate news. Political commentary, even when biased, may help individuals form or confirm their personal beliefs. How extensive is the press’ freedom of speech when it is entirely motivated by market gain? The solution to the issue remains unclear, although I maintain that today not all press holds a market interest in accuracy and sincerity over that of sensationalism.
Comments