I was today, in a rare moment, watching the US state-run “C-SPAN” channel (which is often presumably interesting subject to those who enjoy watching our politicians “grill” our other politicians and officials, at public hearings that take us back to the spirit of the Nuernberg Trials at the end of WW2 or the McCarthy hearings). “C-SPAN” is Washington D.C.’s depiction of democracy-at-work, right before our eyes and ears (much like the House of Lords’ viewings today also in Britain). These broadcasts make a sort of sport of politics. Or it is a class among the governors. Arguably, it is the display of democracy that only a tax-payer funded TV channel can provide? Well, democracy is at work each and every day that the constituency (all its members) exercise ones own right to influence one another in free discourses – not only in the halls and ranks located at central locations of power, nor within TV channel broadcasts alone; but, also at cafes, workplaces, on a bus, in our home, in a library, at a store, at a gathering etc. Speech means, speaking to one another wherever we happen to be, in freedom. And, gathering in common purpose lawfully, is to be admired and enjoyed. It is the most unbiased form of public life (free speech)… one does not need to be rich, poor, or middle class, to exercise it. Freedom of speech is not reserved only to the highly educated, highly paid, those present at a podium with audience, or credentialed somehow based on arbitrary standards of norm, either.

“C-SPAN” should be considered a sort of window-glimpse to some competing ideas and principles only, that suggest exactly what it is that America might be divided upon itself with. Is the channel reflective of that, or is is a “fire-starter”? Does the channel truly invite government transparency, or is it drama only. The political disagreements seen on “C-SPAN”, are indicative of the “bi-polar” nature of our representational government, as positions are contested on both ends of party lines – we think. While hearings truly implicate persons of supposed wrong-doing in nearly every topic of governance, is it all too much (to the American people)? OK so without such competing ideas in political discourse, our constituency might not know what they disagree about with one another? Leaving “C-SPAN” aside, it would be nice, if so-called competing privately-owned news sources would be a bit MORE different from each other. Seeing only slight discrepancy and distinctions among the major and multiple prevailing news source “opinions”… is awfully stale and myopic. I believe that we’ve reached a point in time where rather than news stations presenting different “seasonings” to the same “meal”… all made by the same or similar “chef”, we instead champion for a new “diet” – news channels that present completely different “meals” from that of all the others. This takes a leap of faith, on part of our government to trust and embrace the notion, that an educated public is a more governable and progressive society. This requires news corporations to not be so “threatened” by sophisticated and articulate foreign news stations which present information from entirely different journalist base. Truly then, the media will allow more truth to be shed onto the constituencies. Every continent has highly developed news and journalists, and seeing news from other continents is a treasure. The alternative to that: we dumb down our constituency and risk undermining democracy. A dumb down version of news and sport, by the mere illusion of choice and diversity, means that gate-keepers of news and a colluding government, only encourage crime and ultimate anarchy… while pocketing corporate profit at our expense.

How does the average American citizen take control of his or her personal choices, as to how the government should choose policy… when the politicians often elect to appoint themselves the “gatekeepers” of our opinions and aspirations? Well, with TV, at least we have control of the media, right? We can swiftly change a channel when we are disgusted. We don’t have to listen. But, what if all the channels present content that is only marginally different from the prior? We, don’t require fifty shades of gray; rather, black, white, and gray.

I did a quick, non comprehensive tally of news channels available via satellite and cable TV. When we have 46 (at least) channels nationwide, owned by 32 (at least) corporations that depend on customer loyalty – news media sources all have something largely in common: all of them do their best to sustain the American public with some version of home-grown propaganda. The propaganda is shaped by the opinions of the source (the broadcasting corporation employees and gate-keepers). It is only natural, for the few other competing sources that “ring true” in message to audience, and who dare to say something a bit different than the rest, to be listened to and appreciated. It’s similar to sitting at the bar, when the conversation is perhaps stale and all too familiar. Then, walks in the foreigner, who has new ideas and new jokes. Do we listen to him/her, or not? Are we amused? Are we welcoming to their gentle criticism? Can we find exciting new agreement? This should not be seen as “interference”, rather as “opportunity” for an open mind to grow. How? By the “calling” to connect, to a foreign view; and connect to a globalized collective intellect, that exists beyond that of our own nation. Fundamentally, this is one of the successes of our internet and free speech exercised on it. Like not before, America is engaged with the rest of the world. International news sources are a real treasure – even when we might disagree with some content! Do not intelligent and free people have a right to graze? To have the chance to change the channel, to another station? To find a balanced diet? “Gate-keepers” need not be afraid of subversive ideas that challenge status quo thinking among law abiding citizenry.

It used to be, that with fewer sources of media (fewer channels), manipulation of thought occurred through the 1 to 3 channels of state run media, but now… multitude of sources of domestic media, can duplicate the story – even obfuscate one’s welcomed opportunities to perspectives from elsewhere, that are diverse and valid. We want to know. A government that criticize that endeavor, is much like an over-protective parent that is afraid their child might learn something about the other sex… on his or her first teen-age date and beyond. Growth cannot be stopped. Actively undermining growth, causes greater problems than small doses of freedom and growing ability to handle the rewards and responsibilities of it. At best, a foreign news agency can blast domestic lies and shed light from a different direction. And, even encourage competing domestic news sources to dig deeper, follow stories, and not simply tow the corporate line. This is not to say that domestic media is an enemy. But we cannot let it dumb us down. And we cannot be controlled by authoritarian objectives.

State-run media is rarely recognized as “illegitimate” by a government that may oppose real free speech; because the message is highly controlled. But, when policies as directed by the domestic media are not improving domestic life for the people in truth, allowing foreign influence actually becomes a worthy means by which intellect is broadened and life is improved for more people. That is precisely however, the moment when some authoritarians and protectionists fear free media influence on a free thinking society. It is then conceivable and very real, that the persons interfering with free speech, are in the ranks of our very own.

But, all the credit does not go to the foreign media, because the foreign media is not alone responsible for the receptiveness of its audience; rather, the receptiveness of the audience is due to the ability of people to decide and discern what the media is saying. That credence which an audience give the messenger, is not only to the journalists’ credit; but credit also goes to the viewer’s ability to gauge reality, using education and personal talent of discretion. And, domestic journalists need not feel they need to overturn opposing viewpoints. Free speech encompasses diversity.

You may ask yourself, well, what came first? The chicken or the egg? Domestic or foreign? Is the message anything without the receiver? The answer to that is: Depending on who you are personally at war with, according to clash of ideas or civilizations – the answer you give will either be the chicken, or the egg (but not both). When you’re not hell-bent on war however, and you have an inquiring and non submissive mind, the “chicken” satisfies your hunger just as much as the “egg” does, and soon you enjoy eating both together! The point is, democracy grows for the person who can eat chicken with the egg! He or she, is then grateful for the diverse reporting in addition to distilled fact – from real diversity that exists in the world (fact can not always be definitively established by the domestic media or the foreign alone). Also, even foreign news is at risk of being a slant. Democracy spreads, among those who are willing to eat both “chicken” and “egg”; and be thereby satisfied… not threatened by the government that would have you pay attention to what it wants you to… at all times… if you were to capitulate all of the control to it. If you only eat apples, you may be safe for as long as the apple tree satisfies you. But, if you eat “oranges” and “grapes” too, then you are living a fuller life. So, does a foreign TV channel threaten your “fishbowl”? Or do you just decide to turn off your TV all together and opt for other ways to live in freedom?