Audience Network

An innovative contemporary expression of the reformist agenda is found in a recent article ¹²⁹ by Ralph Nader ¹³⁰ and Claire Riley. ¹³¹ The authors propose the federal statutory adoption of "Audience Network,"' ¹³² a national, nonprofit membership organization, funded by dues and voluntary private contributions. "Audience Network"' would be allowed free prime­time access on all television and radio channels for public interest broadcasting:

Audience Network is a proposal designed to reestablish the first amendment rights of the public. It would provide systematic public access to and programming experience over the airwaves, as well as better public representation in the regulation of over­the­air broadcasting. . . . It would use [prime­time] to develop and air programs the membership wants on the airwaves and to educate the public about Audience Network's operation and broadcast regulation issues. Audience Network would also represent viewers' interests before the FCC, Congress and the courts. ¹³³

The overarching objective of Audience Network is "to put daily, civic function behind the principle that information is the currency of democracy."' ¹³⁴

The three approaches for reconciling the first amendment with today's commercial television­­what we label as classical, modern, and reformist scenarios­­all fall victim to the rear­view mirror predicament in some way. We cannot move into the future by freezing the first amendment in its eighteenth­ century enlightenment mindset, by applying the first amendment as if the biases and dangers of commercial television did not exist, or by styling the first amendment as if the public craving for entertainment will not affect reform efforts. Moving into the future requires an appreciation of a paradox not played out in any of the scenarios. Against the scenery of the classical, modern, and reformist programs, we now discuss the paradox of the first amendment in the age of paratroopers.