A Media Compromise: Satisfying NCLR Without Censorship

It should not be mandatory for major networks to reject giving airtime to commentators affiliated with hate speech, as NCLR has requested. While I adamantly disagree with the views groups such as the Minutemen, I believe that it is entirely unmerited to prohibit their views from being broadcasted. In fact, barring these opinions can undermine the goals of organizations such as NCLR and SPL. These organizations are advocating education. A naïve population does not lead to a peaceful population. Hate speech will always find ways to infiltrate into the public consciousness and denying its existence only worsens the problem.

In the past few decades, the media has been increasing obsessed with “sensational news” and has also grown to be the primary mechanism for educating citizens about current events. By showing commentators associated with hate groups, these network are not promoting tolerance of intolerance, but instead using their influential position to make change. Hate groups can fit the bill as the “loonies” in the quintessential dramatic news story if portrayed to the American public in a certain light. Television networks should be encouraged to give hate speech commentators airtime to show how irrational these views are. If these points of view are placed against pragmatic solutions, the easily swayed general public will likely remained engrossed, yet still reach the conclusions that NCLR supports. Furthermore, when these views are presented as an antithesis, some people may be so moved that they will be inspired to spring into action. Ultimately it is the network’s decision as to what they portray on their shows. Nevertheless, a compromise such as this one remains business-savvy for media corporations, yet still discretely promotes NCLR’s agenda.