Kruse Kronicle

Should Glenn Miller be Allowed to Advertise?

—

by

mwkruse
in ,

Missouri will have a write-in candidate for Senate named Glenn Miller this fall. Miller is an unabashed racist, which is made painfully clear in his radio ads. He has purchased airtime on Kansas City news station KMBZ, and because of free speech concerns, KMBZ is obligated to run the ads because they accept ads from other candidates. KMBZ is not too thrilled to run the ads, which is perfectly understandable. Who wants their business to be associated with this stuff.

Yet, I'm inclined to think the law is probably right. It is disturbing to listen to such messages, but who said our lives get to be all sweetness and light? Letting this stuff out in the open motivates the majority to be more diligent in addressing such warped views. What do you think?

Here are the two as replayed on KMBZ's Shanin and Parks Show. CAUTION: The content of the ads is deeply offensive.

Comments

5 responses to “Should Glenn Miller be Allowed to Advertise?”

  1. Travis Greene Avatar
    Travis Greene

    I don’t know. Free speech concerns apply to the government and censorship. I’m not sure that should mean radio and televisions have to accept any advertiser who will pay for the airtime. I suspect it has more to do with fairness doctrine and the equal time rule (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal-time_rule).
    In any case, I guess I’d rather live in a country where you occasionally hear an advertisement from some kook rather than one in which Clear Channel or whoever could basically control elections.

    Reply
  2. Michael W. Kruse Avatar
    Michael W. Kruse

    Yes. It’s the fairness doctrine. Allow one, allow all. I think some would argue that their should be fairness only to a point and then some discretion should be allowed. Not necessarily my view.

    Reply
  3. phil_style Avatar
    phil_style

    Unless the station us publically funded I’m surprised that your laws require it to broadcast this stuff. A private station should be free to pick and chose whatever it wants to promote, broadcast or advertise.

    Reply
  4. Michael W. Kruse Avatar
    Michael W. Kruse

    In the U.S., the airwaves are owned by the government and licensed to stations. The airwaves are treated mostly as a public good. Because it is a public good the government polices speech on the airwaves. If you are going to air one paid political ad, then you must play all paid political ads. That is how they guard against radio stations appropriating a public good for private political ends.

    Reply
  5. Travis Greene Avatar
    Travis Greene

    Phil, I think the deal is that since radio and tv stations broadcast over the public airwaves (considered to be the same as a park, or the aquifer, or some other public good), they have different responsibilities than, say, a cable company. Though the station may be privately owned, the radio waves aren’t. They’re technically on a kind of super long-term lease from the government, I think. I’m not a lawyer. Same reason they can’t show nudity, use certain kinds of profanity at certain times, and so forth.

    Reply

Leave a Reply to Travis GreeneCancel reply

Discover more from Kruse Kronicle

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading