the dichotomy between electronic media and print media

The First Amendment protection for the Electronic Media should be just as complete as the protection for print journalism. Initially, when the First Amendment was penned by our forefathers there was no inkling of an idea as to how far technology would expand, so there is no way to provide for a potential electronic media at that time. As a result all forms of media should enjoy equal First Amendment protection; especially since the electronic media is becoming more prevalent than print media, with declining readership in newspapers, and rising viewership of television news, and the advent of the internet news has been huge, it is a matter of time before print media goes the way of the dinosaur, which is to say becomes extinct. A nonchalant glance at modern media regulation quickly reveals a disparity between regulation of print media and regulation of electronic media, mainly that there is much less regulation of print media than there is of electronic media. This is because the electronic media, and broadcasting in particular, were treated differently by the U.S. Congress at their inception. The rationale for this difference in treatment for broadcasting was that the airwaves were a scarce, public resource, and that messages traveling on these public airwaves could potentially reach, and indeed affect, a great many more people than print messages. Therefore, the government thought that, in the public interest, it was necessary to regulate broadcasting. Furthermore, broadcasting was seen as a form of interstate commerce, which, under Article I, Section 8, of the U.S. Constitution, Congress had the authority to regulate. Other electronic media were categorized similarly and are regulated under the Communications Act of 1934 as amended by the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Print, however, is only regulated under the ownership, antitrust, and criminal laws shared by all businesses in the United States.
The forefathers of America wanted to ensure that there would not be harsh censorship and prior restraint of the dissemination of information, as it is the dissemination of information to a mass public that prevents tyrannical rule. The First Amendment was written into the United States Constitution to prevent the censorship that took place in the colonies, and in England with their system of mandatory licensing. The forefathers had the foresight to provide protection of the media so they could effectively hold the government accountable. The first Amendment is not intended to protect falsity, or damaging information, but rather to offer a shield to hide behind to disseminate true information that the public needs in order to be responsible citizens and engage in self governance. This is why the Court has upheld First Amendment protection for the dissemination of information found in the public record, (Cox v. Cohn).
As a child I often heard the phrase “with much privilege comes much responsibility,” this is very applicable to the media as well. Given the high level of first amendment protection, the media have a responsibility they must meet. The media must meet and serve the public interest. The electronic media is compelled to do this more so than the print media on account of the licensing issues with the Federal Communications Committee. A newspaper has no license therefore does not have to serve the public interest. However, broadcast technologies do have to obtain licensure from the Federal Communications Committee (FCC) in order to operate over the electromagnetic spectrum. With that in mind, it places a greater emphasis and accountability upon the electronic media to serve the public interest. In journalism, the media must provide the public with pertinent and true information they need to know in order to be informed members of society and engage in self governance. If they are not serving the public interest and providing the public with accurate information, the public will not be in a position to act informed when it comes to holding elected government officials accountable.
The First Amendment is not a blanket coverall by any means. There are certain types of speech that are not and should not be covered under the First Amendment for obvious reasons. Libel and Slander are not covered in absolutes under the First Amendment, if a journalist acts with malice and disseminates false information, they should not be able to cower under the canopy of First Amendment rights. Since the people of this “great” nation depend upon the media for their information to keep themselves informed and capable of participating in self governance, the media should not be allowed to publish or broadcast information that is knowingly false that could jade, or misinform the public; in doing so the media is violating the service they provide, and the reason they have First Amendment protection in the first place.
Given the current climate in the media, as defined in the introductory paragraph, now more than ever, it is imperative that the Supreme Court abandon the differentiation between the different forms of the media, and start applying the First Amendment equally throughout the different types of media. Eventually there won’t be any need to look back at precedents set for newspaper or radio, because eventually both those mediums will unfortunately become extinct. The Supreme Court should recognize the changing climate, and prepare for where it will take them in the future, and provide universal first amendment protections across all media platforms.