Have you ever wondered why the “tiny ship” famously tossed in the opening credits of Gilligan’s Island was named the SS Minnow? The creator of the show, Sherwood Schwartz, has revealed that he intended the name as a swipe at Newton Minow, the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) appointed by President John F. Kennedy. FULL ARTICLE by Paul A. Cantor
Source link: http://archive.mises.org/15979/the-road-to-cultural-serfdom-americas-first-television-czar/
The Road to Cultural Serfdom: America’s First Television Czar
Previous post: Online Dating Reaches the Elite
Next post: New ePubs: Chodorov, Nock, and Flynn
{ 34 comments }
I always wondered why, in my re-run addled youth, I never saw “The Untouchables”
Now I know, the show was on the Index.
The guy is still with us. From Wikipedia:
Mr. Minow was a prominent supporter of Barack Obama’s candidacy for President of the United States. Minow recruited Obama in 1988 to work for his law firm Sidley Austin LLP as a summer associate, where Obama met his future wife Michelle Robinson.
Interesting article and a bit of a trip down memory lane. I would assume Minnow is long gone from the scene now so how does one explain the PC garbage that runs non stop in todays TV programming? I tend to think Washington must have complete control over the airwaves now.
Interesting article, but I fear that Schwartz was a little too subtle by calling it the “Minnow”. He should have called it the “Minow” and claimed it was a spelling error.
My favorite shows from the 60′s? Star Trek, The Saint, Secret Agent, The Avengers, The Prisoner, er, hmm, a lot of British shows…Gee thanks, Minow!
The UK still makes impressive shows, The real Shameless (Manchester UK) . Is As Anti-PC as you can get.
I wonder, if Minow’s attempt to ‘fix’ television led the mostly craptastic Televisoin of the ’60s….what led to the sudden spike in quality of television over the last decade? With numerous smart, well written shows like ‘Lost’, ‘Heroes’ ‘Smallville’ ‘Dexter’ and even ’24′(which although its necon propoganda, it had an interesting concept and was mostly well written and acted). Even your reletively formulaic detective shows like ‘Bones’ or CSI are much better than past versions like Dragnet or Miami Vice
Eh it might just be my slightly sleep deprived brain trying to see connnections where there arent any, but I think its worth asking….
Are you serious? Those TV shows are terrible- an endless, repetitious morass of formulaic nonsense. Just enough to keep lazy entertainment addicts returning for yet another mindless dose of sloppy turd-in-the-face, night after night. Yuck.
LJK Setright once wrote that there was a sewerage outfall in the living room of practically every house in the West. He had a point. Having spent three years living in the islands away from the TV I’m inclined to agree.
Sione
I am also someone who’s lived without TV for over a decade now, and become agitated from exposure to even a few minutes of it. That said, I still support people’s right to watch it and broadcasters to decide on its content, and am disgusted by the government intervention described in this article.
The “Austrian school” would have more credibility if one day it were capable of approaching a complex issue with anything other than a crude binary template hewn from Ayn Rand’s manichean world view. Dear Lord, Hayek and Milton Friedman were such sophisticated thinkers. Why must all of their acolytes bang such a primitive tribal drum?
In truth, Newton Minow was one of the few FCC chairmen who represented and understood all sides in this debate (a member of the Board of CBS and respected attorney for other top media corporations, he was also chairman of the board of PBS, a strong representative for individual artistic talents that created the shows, and an academic at Northwestern who wrote many highly regarded books– none of which were cited here or, apparently, read.) Thinking conservatives such as Don Rumsfeld, Walter Annenberg and numerous Republican senators publicly lauded Minow’s work and personally relied on his judgment on the most sensitive issues for decades. Republican presidential candidates as well as Democrats agreed over many election cycles that Minow had the mature, objective judgment to steer the presidential debate process.
Professor Cantor, however, clings to the simplistic notion that there are only “‘two radically opposed models of how culture operates” and viewed through this spectrum, Minow can of course only be a “typical bureaucrat” who views “everything in absolute terms.” Every fact in this article is squeezed into that tired formula.
If Professor Cantor had conducted a more honest inquiry, he might have learned that Minow came to the FCC in an era before airwaves were auctioned, which meant that the networks were receiving huge windfalls from their free use of the public spectrum space. (If Professor Cantor was familiar with conservative University of Chicago Nobel laureate Ronald Coase’s famous theorem, he would understand this private gain from exclusive use of non-private assets should be anathema to sincere believers in a free market). This massive giveaway to a few select networks created a flood of corrupting money which the lucky license holders used for payola, quiz show scandals and revolving door payments to previous regulators at the FCC. It is not surprising that the saintly Mark Goodson, of Goodson-Todman Productions, who was a major beneficiary of these corrupting practices, should feel that Minow’s new voice was pinching his toes: in the absence of auctions of spectrum space, with no way to reimburse taxpayers for the massive giveaway to a few select networks, Minow believed that as a small quid pro quo, it would not be inappropriate for citizens to take into consideration whether networks were in a race to the bottom to wring every last dollar from their windfall, or whether they were willing to allocate some small fraction of their programming to “the public interest.”
That term didn’t originate with Minow, and he was careful not to hold himself out as the arbiter of the public interest. But in an era before Sesame Street or coverage of the news, I’ll wager that even Prof. Cantor would have recognized that there was a role for appropriated spectrum space in addition to propaganda for kids about sugary cereals. Minow’s primary mission at the FCC was to maximize free choice for consumers, opening up UHF spectrum space and communication satellites so that the market would be wide enough to accommodate other players who fill these less profitable, but important, niches. I would urge Prof. Cantor to cut the length of his article in half by deleting the gratuitous and uninformed invectives, and use the space he saves for a second, more honest attempt at his subject.
“The ‘Austrian school’ would have more credibility if one day it were capable of approaching a complex issue with anything other than a crude binary template hewn from Ayn Rand’s manichean world view. Dear Lord, Hayek and Milton Friedman were such sophisticated thinkers. Why must all of their acolytes bang such a primitive tribal drum?”
Apparently you don’t like the logic of free market economics. By the way, Milton Friedman was emphatically not an adherent of the Austrian School of Economics.
“In truth, Newton Minow was one of the few FCC chairmen who represented and understood all sides in this debate (a member of the Board of CBS and respected attorney for other top media corporations, he was also chairman of the board of PBS, a strong representative for individual artistic talents that created the shows, and an academic at Northwestern who wrote many highly regarded books– none of which were cited here or, apparently, read.) Thinking conservatives such as Don Rumsfeld, Walter Annenberg and numerous Republican senators publicly lauded Minow’s work and personally relied on his judgment on the most sensitive issues for decades. Republican presidential candidates as well as Democrats agreed over many election cycles that Minow had the mature, objective judgment to steer the presidential debate process.”
What makes you think Austrian School economists, or genuine libertarians generally, care what so-called “conservatives” or “Republicans” think? Of course warmongers and thieves of sort you mention appreciated how Minow got even more illegal federal control over television programming.
“Professor Cantor, however, clings to the simplistic notion that there are only ‘ “two radically opposed models of how culture operates” and viewed through this spectrum, Minow can of course only be a “typical bureaucrat” who views “everything in absolute terms.” ‘ Every fact in this article is squeezed into that tired formula.”
But it’s true, whether you’re tired of it or not.
“If Professor Cantor had conducted a more honest inquiry, he might have learned that Minow came to the FCC in an era before airwaves were auctioned, which meant that the networks were receiving huge windfalls from their free use of the public spectrum space. (If Professor Cantor was familiar with conservative University of Chicago Nobel laureate Ronald Coase’s famous theorem, he would understand this private gain from exclusive use of non-private assets should be anathema to sincere believers in a free market). This massive giveaway to a few select networks created a flood of corrupting money which the lucky license holders used for payola, quiz show scandals and revolving door payments to previous regulators at the FCC. It is not surprising that the saintly Mark Goodson, of Goodson-Todman Productions, who was a major beneficiary of these corrupting practices, should feel that Minow’s new voice was pinching his toes: in the absence of auctions of spectrum space, with no way to reimburse taxpayers for the massive giveaway to a few select networks, Minow believed that as a small quid pro quo, it would not be inappropriate for citizens to take into consideration whether networks were in a race to the bottom to wring every last dollar from their windfall, or whether they were willing to allocate some small fraction of their programming to ‘the public interest.’ ”
Yes, during the Hoover administration, the federal regime illegally seized control of the airwaves. Nonetheless, even under this corrupt system, the general public’s viewing preferences and wish for real creativity were better met when the networks auctioned off airtime to sponsors with programs that had high viewership. “The public interest” here is just code for political interests seeking greater control of something previously privately exercised and seizing it for the achievement of their own powermongering objectives.
By the way, there’s nothing more hilarious than control freak leftists (as with Robert Redford, who made a ridiculous handwringing movie about it) raging about the ’50s “quiz show scandals,” as though government coercion was desperately needed to undo the fakery of these silly shows. (Rather as if the government decided to crack down on the fakery of roller derby or pro wrestling.)
“That term didn’t originate with Minow, and he was careful not to hold himself out as the arbiter of the public interest. But in an era before Sesame Street or coverage of the news, I’ll wager that even Prof. Cantor would have recognized that there was a role for appropriated spectrum space in addition to propaganda for kids about sugary cereals. Minow’s primary mission at the FCC was to maximize free choice for consumers, opening up UHF spectrum space and communication satellites so that the market would be wide enough to accommodate other players who fill these less profitable, but important, niches. I would urge Prof. Cantor to cut the length of his article in half by deleting the gratuitous and uninformed invectives, and use the space he saves for a second, more honest attempt at his subject.”
Of course Minow held himself out as an arbiter of “the public interest” when it came to American television. His very words, which Cantor has documented, make that self-evident.
Oh yes, we’re supposed to be glad that the federal socialist Public Broadcasting Corporation is showing fast-paced _Sesame Street_ to children, since it’s so terribly edifying – - not. It’s true purpose is to cater to ignorant adults who think they can sit their children in front of the television, out of the adult’s way, while they learn – - how to waste their minds.
“[S]ugary cereals”? How lovely for the federal regime to be deciding what can be advertised, since politically connected hack officials like Minow know so well what’s right for everybody else.
Wow… I thought Professor Cantor’s prose was overheated, but now I see that I underestimated the need of some members of his audience for emotional reinforcement.
I usually become skeptical when someone is explaining the “logic” of free market economics and the level of saliva and bile starts to reach my knees. Where I come from, the nature of logic is antithetical to that style of presentation. However, since you have explained to us that “It’s true” I am now persuaded. And might I add that it was an honor to have been present to witness the ipse dixit of the new Pythagoras.
iorek
That last contribution of yours is an example of playing the man, rather than addressing the substantial points he raised.
Sione
Sione
Sione, that is a fair criticism. I agree that is what I did.
I looked through the points Mr. McCosker raised and recognized that he rejects some of the fundamental jurisprudence of the 20th century. For example, he still contends that it was “illegal” for the government to regulate the airwaves despite the fact that, ever since President Hoover, those regulations have been reviewed and approved as legal by all three branches of government, both Democrat and Republican, (pruned back by the Supreme Court when necessary). I thought about responding by starting at the beginning and explaining why that authority is legal, and why, without a traffic cop there would be no TV stations at all, just overlapping static on the airwaves. But if the Supreme Court hasn’t convince him, I doubt that I could. It just seemed to be a waste of everyone’s time to haggle over this point, “substantial” or not.
Similarly, Mr. McCosker argued that “Of course Minow held himself out as an arbiter of ‘the public interest’ when it came to American television. His very words, which Cantor has documented, make that self-evident.” But when you look at Minow’s “very words,” you find they say the exact opposite. (“I am unalterably opposed to governmental censorship. There will be no suppression of programming which does not meet bureaucratic taste.”) It turns out that Mr. McCosker doesn’t believe Minow’s words and is concerned instead about Minow’s underlying motives or practical impact. That is certainly his right, but it didn’t seem to make much sense for me to swap conjecture about Minow’s secret intentions. It just didn’t seem productive.
As a third example, Mr. McCosker asserts that the “socialist” Public Broadcasting Corporation is not concerned with the public interest. Instead, “It’s true purpose is to cater to ignorant adults who think they can sit their children in front of the television.” I agree that too many parents deposit their kids in front of the TV, but if they are going to do so (I assume Mr. McCosker doesn’t want federal police to intervene in child-rearing?) I am glad they now have the option of at least one channel that will help kids learn to read and write. This may be “socialist,” yet Barry Goldwater was instrumental in the creation of Sesame Street. If a bipartisan consensus has applauded Sesame Street for decades and has not persuaded Mr. McCosker, I have no confidence that my response in this forum would faze him.
All I can say is that I intended no disrespect in dodging his substantive points. It was more a matter of economy. It just didn’t seem likely to produce a productive dialogue.
iorek wrote:
“I looked through the points Mr. McCosker raised and recognized that he rejects some of the fundamental jurisprudence of the 20th century. For example, he still contends that it was ‘illegal’ for the government to regulate the airwaves despite the fact that, ever since President Hoover, those regulations have been reviewed and approved as legal by all three branches of government, both Democrat and Republican, (pruned back by the Supreme Court when necessary). I thought about responding by starting at the beginning and explaining why that authority is legal, and why, without a traffic cop there would be no TV stations at all, just overlapping static on the airwaves. But if the Supreme Court hasn’t convince him, I doubt that I could. It just seemed to be a waste of everyone’s time to haggle over this point, ‘substantial’ or not.”
iorek is obviously unfamiliar with mises.org, or he’d recognize the gross decline in constitutionalism and how that became inevitable with a federal judiciary appointed by presidents and confirmed by the U.S. Senate (particularly after enactment of the 17th Amendment). iorek’s seems to think that because the Supreme Court political hacks go along with illegal seizures of power and property by the federal regime, it must be okay. Yes, the federal leviathon loves power and wants to keep and expand it.
“Similarly, Mr. McCosker argued that ‘Of course Minow held himself out as an arbiter of “the public interest” when it came to American television. His very words, which Cantor has documented, make that self-evident.’ But when you look at Minow’s ‘very words,’ you find they say the exact opposite. (‘I am unalterably opposed to governmental censorship. There will be no suppression of programming which does not meet bureaucratic taste.’) It turns out that Mr. McCosker doesn’t believe Minow’s words and is concerned instead about Minow’s underlying motives or practical impact. That is certainly his right, but it didn’t seem to make much sense for me to swap conjecture about Minow’s secret intentions. It just didn’t seem productive.”
Of course Cantor goes into great length about how Minow contradicts himself, threatening nonrenewal of licenses one minute and saying he has no intention to censor on the other. Cantor makes it clear that this is just deliberate obfuscation of Minow’s evil design, which by design evoked great fear among license-holders. iorek apparently hopes to engage in the same rhetorical deceit.
“As a third example, Mr. McCosker asserts that the ‘socialist’ Public Broadcasting Corporation is not concerned with the public interest. Instead, ‘It’s true purpose is to cater to ignorant adults who think they can sit their children in front of the television.’ I agree that too many parents deposit their kids in front of the TV, but if they are going to do so (I assume Mr. McCosker doesn’t want federal police to intervene in child-rearing?) I am glad they now have the option of at least one channel that will help kids learn to read and write. This may be ‘socialist,’ yet Barry Goldwater was instrumental in the creation of Sesame Street. If a bipartisan consensus has applauded Sesame Street for decades and has not persuaded Mr. McCosker, I have no confidence that my response in this forum would faze him.”
I was specifically referring to _Sesame Street_. That’s interesting how nuclear warmonger “Barry Goldwater was instrumental in the creation of Sesame Street,” since there’s nothing about it in the Wikipedia article on Sesame Street. Whatever role Goldwater may have played, that’s of no interest here, as one of the functions of libertarians is to expose the “conservative” and “Republican” criminals who pretend to oppose the expansive regime while working hard to make it bigger and more dangerous. Did you actually think readers here would be impressed by your namedropping of freedom-haters like Goldwater, Rumsfeld, and Annenberg?
If people are going to rot their children’s minds in front of daytime television, let’s not have our tax dollars and socialist television networks supply it. (By the way, there’s never been any reproducible data demonstrating that _Sesame Street_ watching produces greater literacy than, say, watching commercial entertainment. But its producers and socialist PBS do a great job of conning the public.)
iorek really says it all.
There’s a funny program in the UK called “How TV Ruined Your Life”. It’s not anti-government (made by the BBC), but it’s got some amusing clips of “Public Information Films” (they start at 2:15):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AxQuHocBmxw
One would expect political, economic, and social serfs to also be cultural serfs. Cheap beer and the sports channel has replaced bread and circuses.
If I was to fault Cantor for one thing, it’s that he’s too easy on the evil Minow.
Cantor is quick to suggest that Minow was just ignorant about how commercial television operated, as though a career political apparatchik like that gave a tinker’s d- -n about consumer preferences or esthetic creativity which might give pleasure to the common man. Minow was simply eager to use the already authoritarian and unconstitutional power of the FCC to strongarm on behalf of his political objectives.
I don’t want to get into a prolonged dialogue about “the evil Minow,” but just a friendly suggestion that you might avoid publicly embarrassing yourself if you occasionally read about your subject before rushing to buttress your prejudices with more layers of unfounded supposition.
Far from being “a career political apparatchik,” Minow left the FCC prematurely after only two years, over the objections of Kennedy, precisely because he did not want a political career. He returned to the private sector in Chicago, taking a job totally unrelated to the FCC so he would not be perceived as trading on his government service. Just like Cincinnatus, he plowed his land in the private sector, returning to public service only in an advisory capacity to help when his judgment was solicited (by both Republican and Democrat administrations.) Except for those two years in the Kennedy administration, his full time job was always his private law career.
But nice try.
iorek, you’d have made a better point if you’d left out the personal attacks and just stated the facts that conflict with McCosker’s claims. As it is, I find myself mostly skipping your post due to the attacks. Just a suggestion.
“he plowed his land in the private sector, returning to public service only in an advisory capacity to help when his judgment was solicited (by both Republican and Democrat administrations etc”
In other (more honest) words, Minow was busy swilling from the trough of government largess during and after his term as FCC Commissar. It appears he never lifted his head out of said trough.
Whether he did his whoring to authoritarian government as appointee to the FCC or in a subsequent “advisory capacity” or as a recruiter of prospective govt careerists, he is aptly described as a “government apparatchik”. It is the deeds of the man that count here, not the wordy fictions or deceptive pretenses.
Sione
Sione, what you call “wordy fictions or deceptive pretenses,” the rest of the world calls “definitions.”
The word “apparatchik” has a meaning. So do words like “whoring,” “swilling” and other wild, intemperate words that make you guys look so overwrought. Look, I don’t doubt that you are sincere and feel passionate about your cause, but nobody who matters will ever take you seriously until you learn to get some modest control over your emotions and your vocabulary. That is, until you start blowing up buildings in Oklahoma. But by then it will be too late.
I’ve noticed this, again and again. You like to sound like a stern schoolmarm warning us all about using intemperate vocabulary, lest we not be taken seriously. Yet you oppose the cause of freedom at every turn. Why do you think we should be taking the advice of someone who represents exactly what this website stands against?
It sounds to me more like sly manipulation designed to get us to water down our thought, so that we end up having no moral or cognitive force. Yes, ours is very much a minority position, but we’re growing. And we can look to so many movements of the past that have watered down their ideas to sound more “reasonable,” until their ideas have just died away. I for one have no intention of taking such advice from sworn enemies.
iorek
You need to learn not to write lies, else you’ll be known as a liar. Get it right. “Wordy fictions” and “deceptive pretences” are not the same as definitions. The rest of the world does not in general confuse frauds with descriptions of fact.
You write that, “The word “apparatchik” has a meaning. So do words like “whoring,” “swilling” etc.”
Yes, they sure do. That is why I selected and employed those very words. They illuminate the specific nature, attributes and behaviour of the subject.
As for the rest, I’ll reckon I’ll pass on accepting faulty instruction from some munter who uses language so dishonestly.
Sione
Shay, if you have an aversion to “personal attacks,” I’m assuming you never even got to my comment, because you surely skipped over Mr. McCosker’s entire comment about the “evil,” “ignorant” Minow being motivated only by personal political objectives in misusing “authoritarian and unconstitutional power.” Yessiree, you must have been so appalled you stopped reading after Mr. McCosker’s first sentence, correct? Shay?
I never said Minow was “ignorant”. That was Cantor’s excuse for Minow’s behavior.
But evil, yes, most certainly. People who operate to steal away economic choices from others, who complicate the law so they can become wealthy and powerful at others’ expense, that’s evil.
I stand corrected. On closer reading, “ignorant” was Cantor’s term, “evil” was yours.
iorek claims that “Minow left the FCC prematurely after only two years, over the objections of Kennedy, precisely because he did not want a political career. He returned to the private sector in Chicago, taking a job totally unrelated to the FCC so he would not be perceived as trading on his government service. Just like Cincinnatus, he plowed his land in the private sector, returning to public service only in an advisory capacity to help when his judgment was solicited (by both Republican and Democrat administrations.) Except for those two years in the Kennedy administration, his full time job was always his private law career.”
What a “public servant”! Except that it’s fantastically untrue.
According to the website of the Museum of Broadcast Communications ( http://www.museum.tv/eotvsection.php?entrycode=minownewton ), “Minow resigned from the FCC and returned to a lucrative private practice, later becoming a partner in one of the most powerful communications law firms in the United States: Sidley and Austin. Through the late 1990s, he remains an influential figure both in the media industry and in policy circles.”
In other words, revolving doors. Having succeeded in making communications law much more complicated and trying, Minow cashed in big time by becoming one of the richest communications attorneys in the world.
According to the Wikipedia article about Minow ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton_Minow ; bear in mind that Minow or one of his publicists may have had a heavy hand in editing this ), he “became assistant counsel to Illinois Governor Adlai Stevenson (1952–1953), worked for Stevenson’s two presidential campaigns (1952 and 1956), and then was a partner in the law firm, Stevenson, Rifkind & Wirtz (1955–1961). Minow campaigned for President John F. Kennedy prior to the 1960 presidential election.” Later the article say, “Reportedly, Robert F. Kennedy, brother of John F. Kennedy, and Minow frequently talked at length about the increasing importance of television in the lives of their children during the Kennedy presidential campaign. Thereafter, it came as little surprise that after the election Minow eagerly pursued the position of FCC Chair. Some observers nevertheless considered it unusual given his lack of experience with the media industry and with communication law.” Later, it continues, “He has been on the Board of Governors of the Public Broadcasting Service and its predecessor, National Educational Television serving from 1973–1980 and serving as its Chairman from 1978 to 1980. He is a recent past-president of the Carnegie Corporation, an influential PBS sponsor, and the original funder of Sesame Street. He is the Walter Annenberg professor emeritus at Northwestern University, as well as the author of four books and numerous professional journal and magazine articles. Minow has supported and written about the Digital Promise Project, a project to fulfill the educational potential of the internet. He is Senior Counsel in the Chicago headquartered law firm of Sidley Austin LLP (formerly Sidley and Austin prior to a merger with Brown & Wood), a large international law firm with multiple areas of expertise, including telecommunications related law. Between 1965 and 1991, he was a managing partner in the law firm before becoming Senior Counsel in 1991.” Further down, Minow “was appointed Honorary Consul General in 2001. His office processes consular and visa applications while some Singaporean honorary consuls refer such matters to another embassy or consular office.” Still further down, “Minow has sat on the Board of Directors at Foote, Cone & Belding Communications Inc.; Tribune Co.; Manpower, Inc.; AON Corp.; CBS, and Sara Lee Corporation. He has been Chairman of the Board at RAND corporation. He was trustee of the Chicago Orchestral Association as well as with the Mayo Foundation, which operates Mayo Clinic. He is a life trustee of Northwestern University and the University of Notre Dame, where he was the first Jewish member of the board, and he is currently Chairman of the Board of the World Health Imaging, Telemedicine and Informatics Alliance. He co-chaired the 1976 and 1980 presidential debates and is a vice-chairman of the Commission on Presidential Debates. He has served on numerous presidential commissions and was chairman of a special advisory committee to the Secretary of Defense on protecting civil liberties in the fight against terrorism. His book on the history of the Presidential debates was released in March 2008 by the University of Chicago Press.”
Bear in mind that, for this Wikipedia article, Minow or one of his publicists may have had a heavy hand in its editing. Let’s do some reasonable reading between the lines:
(1) While in his twenties, Minow became counsel to a nationally important politician. He then worked, presumably in a paid capacity, in that politician’s two campaigns for U.S. president, in which that politician became the Democrat nominee.
(2) Minow successfully “campaigned for” (exactly what that means is left murky) for the next Democrat nominee, who actually did become president. During and immediately after the campaign, Minow shmoozed his way into being appointed Chairman of the FCC, despite striking inexperience with the communications industry.
(3) After leaving the FCC, Minow became board members of the federal socialist NET/PBS.
(4) He became president of the Carnegie Foundation, which is a major underwriter of PBS.
(5) Minow got a “communications” professorship endowed by Republican media tycoon and political influence-peddler Walter Annenberg.
(6) Minow helped along his extremely lucratively “communcations law” practice by writing books and articles in the field.
(7) He’s also worked on ways for the federal regime to unconstitutionally interfere with the Internet.
(8) He’s a big shot lawyer for a huge international law firm mainly focused on “communications law.”
(9) Cashing in on his international political and legal connections, he got the Singapore government to make him in charge of their U.S. operations.
(10) He’s leveraged his wealth and power to get on the boards of many corporations and even on the board of a prestigious Catholic university, even while he’s not a Catholic.
(11) He’s long been a prized Democrat negotiator with respect to debates among Democrat and Republican presidential nominees.
(12) He’s routinely appointed to presidential commissions and played a significant role in the seizure of civil liberties (excused by alleged “terrorism”) since 9/11.
Conclusion: “[P]lowed his hand in the private sector”? Unfortunately, the government is so involved with all aspects of modern life that someone like that can parlay his political connections and insider knowledge into great wealth and influence.
Mr. McCosker, I am genuinely proud of you for looking into this and doing your homework. 100% sincerely. It makes it much easier to hone down our differences into verifiable factual subcategories.
A few things you should be able to confirm: It is NOT accurate that “Minow resigned from the FCC and returned to a lucrative private practice.” Instead, he went to work for Encyclopedia Britannica, which had no business before the FCC and had offered him a job before he ever went into the government. When he later joined a law firm, he did NOT join a powerful law firm with a communications law practice, he joined a small law firm in Chicago (Leibman, Williams) with no communications practice. Later, that firm merged with the Sidley & Austin firm mentioned in Wikipedia.
It is true that Minow donated his time to a lot of charitable boards, government panels, universities, etc. but through that whole period, for 50 years, he earned his living as a private lawyer and devoted most of his time to doing so. I know, I know, in your world that still makes him a government bureaucrat and no one can ever persuade you of anything different. But now that you’ve done all this homework, look at what you’ve uncovered: here’s a man who served on the boards of the most reputable charities in the country, such as the Mayo Clinic and the Carnegie Foundation. He served on the boards of some of the top educational institutions in the country, such as Notre Dame and Northwestern. He wrote academic books and taught classes. If you are able to find sinister motives behind all of this, you have to ask yourself, what more could any human being do to prove himself to you? How could anyone possibly ever live their life to satisfy your standards?
You have read in Wikipedia that Minow served on an advisory committee “on protecting civil liberties” in the fight against terrorism, and without knowing anything about it, you construe that to mean Minow “played a significant role in the seizure of civil liberties.” Doesn’t that strike anyone as a little peculiar? Are you really all so omniscient?
Mr. McCosker writes: “you oppose the cause of freedom at every turn. Why do you think we should be taking the advice of someone who represents exactly what this website stands against?”
To be frank, I misunderstood what this website stands for. I have high regard for Hayek, and his progeny at the University of Chicago, and I also have great respect for the University of Virginia where Professor Cantor teaches. That’s why I stopped here, but I was soon disappointed in Professor Cantor’s approach. The great Ralph Waldo Emerson famously admonished scholars to use their training and their depth to bring mature perspective and judgment to our outbursts and exaggerations: “Let him not quit his belief that a popgun is a popgun, though the ancient and honorable of the earth affirm it to be the crack of doom.” Professor Cantor does not heed Emerson’s advice; instead, he cobbles together a legal brief about a “Nuclear Option.” This methodology would be fine for talking points in a political campaign, but it seems a sorry performance from a serious institution such as UVa.
If you believe I “oppose the cause of freedom,” perhaps it’s because I am having trouble recognizing the type of freedom you describe. It seems to me that it is closer to the freedom of Robespierre than of Jefferson.
You have proven yourself willing to take a closer look at the facts about Newton Minow, even if your conclusion remans unchanged. If you care as much about the cause of freedom as you say, I urge you to go one step further and read the essay, “The Spirit of LIberty” by the great judge, Learned Hand– someone who was famous and respected not for mouthing off on a street corner but for doing the hard work of defending civil liberties in real life court cases every day for 60 years. Based on his experience, he wrote: “A society in which men recognize no check on their freedom soon becomes a society where freedom is the possession of only a savage few — as we have learned to our sorrow. What then is the spirit of liberty? I cannot define it; I can only tell you my own faith. The spirit of liberty is the spirit which is not too sure that it is right; the spirit of liberty is the spirit which seeks to understand the minds of other men and women; the spirit of liberty is the spirit which weighs their interests alongside its own without bias;”
That’s the kind of freedom I respect and, I think, the kind of freedom most consistent with those who truly believe in a “marketplace of ideas.”
Sione explains: “You need to learn not to write lies.”
I can see that it is time for me to bid adieu, and return to planet earth. It has been fun. If you ever tire of militia games, put down the paintball gun, step outside the trailer park and enjoy the sunshine. It really is a great big beautiful world out there for those whose minds and hearts are open and receptive to the great diversity of life.
Postscript to Professor Cantor: I assume you know better than all this silliness, if you are employed by UVa. Shame on you for misleading these boys, and for not taking academic integrity more seriously.
I know I promised that I was checking out and that you were rid of me, but as my last official act I followed some of my own advice and took the time to watch some of Professor Cantor’s video lectures, and I feel I owe him an apology.
I found Professor Cantor’s lectures thoughtful, cultured, opionated but open minded, and very entertaining. I respect that. They were not at all like the one-sided polemic he has posted here. Quite the contrary, he explained in one lecture that the issues were complex and that many of the ideas he raised were a “on the one hand / on the other hand” kind of thing. In his lecture on totalitarianism and art, he said that there was no absolute connection between the free market and cultural quality, that creativity can flourish under repressive bureaucracies and languish in a free market, and that Stalin actually made Shostakovich a better composer.
Professor Cantor says, and I agree, that it often helps creators to have something to push back against, and creators should be careful about whining about how they need a free, unencumbered career. Certainly shines a new light on Sherwood Schwartz’s complaint that Minow fettered Gilligan’s Island, or Mark Goodson’s complaint that Minow kept Goodson from reaching creative heights with his next TV game show. I would urge all readers of this article to watch Professor Cantor’s lecture on this web site, to get the other side of the story.
The only remaining question before I go is, “how do we account for the disparity between Professor Cantor in his video and in this article?” Professor Cantor said at one point he was taking a strong position in order to be “provocative,” to provoke a reaction from his students. I assume he meant provoking his students to question and challenge, and to use their powers of critical thinking to evaluate his words. I do NOT think he meanto provoke his students to chant, “Two legs bad! Four legs good!” Yet, that is what he seems to have done. I would ask him whether he really thinks he is doing these students, or the Austrian school, any favors with such an approach.
And now, I depart. Thank you for your patience.
I guess that’s supposed to mean iorek gets the last word or something.
There’s little point in untangling iorek’s self-contradictions and rationalizations for Minow’s behavior. Anyone used to this website should see through them easily. What’s more interesting is his technique of slyly insulting others posting here while pretending to be offended by the tone of the arguments offered by Cantor and others who aren’t enamored by Minow.
iorek
Seriously. You really should not write lies, especially not to your betters. When you are caught out (which you well and truely have been on this occasion), then you can expect the embarassement of exposure. Seems your wee ego don’t enjoy that very much at all. Take note that no amount of selective out-of-context quotation and flowery lecturing can compensate for your errors, or for your base falsity. That’s the take-home lesson for you today, little man. Now go away and think on it. Come back when you’ve learned what you’ve been taught here.
Sione
As for the rest; there is no need for you to express a hissy fit and toss your toys out of the cot. That’s just you being childish. Try to grow up.
Comments on this entry are closed.