In recent days broadcasters have taken issue with the idea, floated in a proposed order by the Federal Communications Commission, that they be compelled to run public service announcements (PSAs) educating consumers about the February 2009 transition from analog to digital television. Fox's comments are typical in this regard, arguing among other things that "[s]uch compelled speech is inconsistent with broadcasters' First Amendment rights."
All very high-minded, this. After all, nobody likes it when the government tries to compel speech. But then I remembered - these are some of the same broadcasters who cheerfully aired government-produced video news releases (VNRs) without attribution. Moreover, the Radio-Television News Directors Association and 70 other media organizations vigorously opposed an FCC proposal to fine Comcast for airing such VNRs as actual news, without attribution as to their source, calling such action an "outright intrustion into the newsroom."
Again, it's hard to argue in favor of government-compelled speech (although broadcasters, as part of their licenses to use public airwaves, already must submit to a certain amount of this, for example, the equal-time rules for political candidates). But I can't help but wonder at the apparent incongruity of these seemingly disparate positions: the government can't force us to air consumer education PSAs, and it can't force us to disclose the source when we voluntarily air government-produced "news" pieces as part of our (supposedly) journalistic function.
Guess I'm just not that sophisticated.