Panelists emphasize state control of media

CORRECTION APPENDED

An American flag topped with an overly shiny silver eagle was an appropriate, if obvious, stage prop for an event centered on the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment.

First Amendment expert University President Lee Bollinger’s racily titled book “Uninhibited, Robust, and Wide-Open” served as the jumping-off point for yesterday evening’s panel discussion, “Free Speech in a Globalized World,” in the Low Rotunda.

Each of the four panelists, including Bollinger, Salman Rushdie, David Ignatius, and Michael Schudson, was given 15 minutes to detail their own views on free speech in a global context and not, as Doyle made explicit, to give a book review.

Bollinger went first and did offer a book summary—perhaps unavoidably, since it states all his own views. His first statement that “censorship anywhere can mean censorship everywhere” immediately set the free speech debate in a global context. Internet publishing plays a big part in the censorship issue, because, as Bollinger said, authors now have to conscientiously consider whether what they are writing in the U.S. might lead to legal action against them in another country, where censorship laws are stricter.

Bollinger’s second key point was more controversial. “I believe journalism is a public good,” he said. This was followed by a recommendation that more public funding be made available for press so that the likes of NPR and PBS can “go speak to the world and bring back the world to us.”

The next speaker, Salman Rushdie, the famous British-Indian novelist, diverted into anecdotes and talk of religion. Or rather, anti-religion. He finished off an ironic story involving a bill against religious criticism by saying “[the bill] makes you believe there’s a God—no there isn’t.” A demonstration of free speech in its own right.

David Ignatius, columnist and associate editor for The Washington Post, started off strong, pointing out the sexual innuendo of Bollinger’s book title. “It makes the business that I’m in really cool, and almost sexy. Thank you for that,” he said. But his argument soon became difficult to follow, and focused on being an “embedded” war journalist, rather than directly on free speech. His final statement, though, rebutted Bollinger’s earlier public funding statement. Ignatius said that people already see “media as too much embedded with the government.”

The last up, Columbia Journalism School professor, Michael Schudson, discussed “Uninhibited, Robust, and Wide-Open” the most directly. Again picking up the public funding thread, Schudson supported Bollinger’s view. He cited BBC as an example of a government-licensed news source that has managed to stay high-quality, and pointed out that the current American system isn’t exactly a free market. “Commercial funding can lead to commercial control,” he said. “Philanthropic control can lead to control … at the whims of philanthropists.” Perhaps the free-as-a-bird image of American journalists isn’t so correct after all.

After this veer into public funding territory, the Q-and-A session at the end brought the discussion back around to free speech itself. In response to a history student’s question about the recent prosecution of Dutch politician Geert Wilders for criticizing Islam, Rushdie identified a chief complexity of free speech advocacy. He observed that it’s easy to defend the right to free speech of someone likeable. It’s in defending those that are disliked, Rushdie said, that “you find out you’re a real free speech advocate.”

Correction: The original article referred to Geert Wilders as a Danish politician, when, in actuality, he is a Dutch politician. Spectator regrets the error.