*Pages 1--5 from  Microsoft Word - 33154*
 The  Media  Institute  Friends  &  Benefactors  Awards  Banquet 
 October  22,  2003 
 (As  Prepared  for  Delivery) 


 Thank  you,  Patrick,  for  that  kind  introduction.  And  thank  you  for  inviting  me  to  speak  to  you  tonight. 
 I  have  a  special  memory  of  this  annual  dinner.  It  was  the  first  “D.  C.  Event”  that  I  went  to  as  a  new  associate,  just  a  month  after  I  moved  to  Washington  almost  ten  years 
 ago.  I’d  like  to  think  that  the  partners  I  was  working  for  invited  me  because  they  sensed  the  deep  respect  and  appreciation  I  have  for  the  First  Amendment.  In  reality,  thought,  I 
 know  that  I  just  happened  to  be  the  first  associate  they  asked  who  owned  a  tuxedo. 
 Since  that  first  dinner,  I  have  had  the  greatest  admiration  for  the  Media  Institute  and  its  mission.  I  grew  up  as  the  fourth  of  five  children,  and  the  First  Amendment  was 


 rarely  adhered  to  in  my  family.  My  voice  was  definitely  stifled  by  my  4  siblings.  I  therefore  welcome  every  opportunity  to  defend  freedom  of  speech.  Indeed,  I  did  not 
 realize  at  the  time  that  this  would  be  the  most  important  preparation  for  my  experience  as  the  fourth  of  five  Commissioners.  Unfortunately,  debate  about  Commission  items  too 
 often  is  strikingly  similar  to  fights  over  who  controls  which  television  channel  will  be  watched. 


 My  experience  as  a  child  also  taught  me  perhaps  the  most  important  lesson  regarding  free  speech.  For  even  when  I  was  able  to  garner  the  attention  of  my  parents,  I 
 quickly  learned  that  unless  I  had  something  unique  or  compelling  to  say,  competing  voices  soon  would  drown  mine  out. 


 And  therein  lie  the  most  important  premises  underlying  the  government’s  role  in  media  regulation:  First,  while  the  First  Amendment  protects  one’s  right  to  speak,  it  does 
 not  guarantee  that  people  will  listen  to  you.  Second,  competition  among  voices  is  ultimately  the  best  method  of  ensuring  that  the  most  important  information  is  heard. 


 Our  Constitutional  rights  to  free  speech  and  a  free  independent  media  are  the  backbone  of  our  democracy.  Together,  they  allow  individuals  to  criticize  our  social, 
 political,  and  military  leaders,  thereby  fostering  a  thriving  media  marketplace.  And  that  thriving  media  marketplace,  in  turn,  reinforces  our  democracy  by  facilitating  the 
 expression  and  publication  of  diverse  viewpoints. 
 We  see  evidence  of  how  important  freedom  of  speech  is  to  democracy  when  we  look  at  countries  around  the  world.  In  pre-  war  Iraq,  for  instance,  all  news  outlets  were 


 controlled  by  Saddam  Hussein.  Since  the  Iraqi  people  have  been  liberated,  this  censorship  has  been  lifted,  the  people  are  free  to  speak,  and  news  organizations  have 
 flourished.  Iraq  now  has  hundreds  of  news  outlets,  including  radio  stations,  TV  stations,  and  newspapers  representing  the  widest  array  of  political  views.  Foreign  publications, 
1
 3 
 news  channels,  few  broadcast  networks  and  fewer  broadcast  stations,  and  no  Internet,  the  rule  was  based  on  a  market  structure  that  bears  almost  no  resemblance  to  the  current 
 environment.  Indeed,  because  of  these  marketplace  changes,  we  already  had  revised  all  of  our  other  media  rules  since  the  “newspaper/  broadcast”  ban  was  adopted.  As  a  result, 
 for  years,  newspapers  were  the  only  media  entities  prohibited  from  owning  broadcast  stations  in  the  markets  they  served.  Regardless  of  how  large  the  market  was  or  how 
 many  newspapers  or  broadcast  stations  were  present,  this  prohibition  remained. 
 As  Dennis  was  able  to  articulate,  such  a  government  ban  raised  serious  First  Amendment  concerns.  And  perhaps  most  important,  Dennis  was  able  to  demonstrate 


 concretely  how  Tribune  had  used  common  ownership  to  produce  higher  quality  news  –  and  more  of  it.  For  instance,  by  sharing  costs,  the  Tribune  newspaper  and  television 
 station  in  Chicago  were  able  to  afford  to  send  reporters  to  Iraq  to  cover  the  war.  These  reporters  were  able  to  contribute  both  written  reports  and  on-  air  footage.  And  the  two 
 news  organizations  were  able  to  provide  consumers  with  detailed,  first-  hand  reporting  rather  than  rely  on  wire  services. 


 With  Dennis’  help,  the  Commission  finally  recognized  that  such  benefits  frequently  accrued  to  local  communities  where  cross-  ownership  had  been  permitted.  In 
 its  recent  media  ownership  order,  the  Commission  acknowledged  that  newspaper/  broadcast  combinations  often  result  in  a  significant  increase  in  the  production 
 of  local  news  and  current  affairs,  as  well  as  an  improvement  in  the  quality  of  programming.  With  more  and  better  news,  citizens  are  more  likely  to  become  engaged  in 
 the  issues  of  the  day.  And  we  all  benefit  from  the  more  vibrant  debate  in  the  marketplace  of  ideas. 


 *  *  * 
 As  with  Dennis,  there  are  many  reasons  to  honor  Brian  Lamb’s  contributions  to  free  speech  and  excellence  in  journalism.  From  its  inception,  C-  SPAN,  the  network 


 Brian  founded,  has  shined  a  spotlight  on  our  government  and  the  political  process.  C-SPAN  has  brought  all  of  us  –  the  citizenry  –  that  much  closer  to  the  decision  makers.  C-SPAN 
 therefore  encourages  us  to  become  more  active  participants  in  our  democratic  system. 


 Importantly,  C-  SPAN  is  not  at  the  mercy  of  commercial  advertisers  needing  a  certain  audience  rating.  Nor  is  it  subject  to  the  budgets  and  politics  of  government 
 funding.  Rather,  the  cable  industry  funds  C-  SPAN  as  a  public  service  contribution.  Brian  had  the  wisdom  to  seek  financial  support  from  this  sector,  and  the  cable  companies 
 had  the  good  sense  to  do  what  was  right.  And  both  made  sure  to  keep  government  out  of  the  picture. 


 C-  SPAN  is  a  great  example  of  the  media  industry  taking  a  positive  step  for  free  speech  and  the  marketplace  of  ideas.  The  cable  industry  didn’t  wait  for  government  to 
 try  to  require  it  to  cover  its  hearings.  It  didn’t  wait  for  government  to  try  to  regulate  how  much  of  its  capacity  need  be  devoted  to  public  hearings.  The  cable  industry  (thanks  to 
3
 5 
 The  media  has  immense  power  to  shape  and  influence  the  hearts  and  minds,  and  this  power  should  not  be  wielded  lightly.  Ultimately,  responsible  behavior  and  self-restraint 
 keep  the  calls  for  government  intervention  at  bay.  Embrace  your  First  Amendment  rights,  but  do  so  responsibly. 


 *  *  * 
 I’d,  again,  like  to  congratulate  Brian  and  Dennis  for  your  excellent  contributions  to  the  media,  the  public,  and  the  public  interest.  And  thank  you  again  for  inviting  me  to 


 speak  to  you  tonight. 
5