CNET Anger

In the first place, sweeping someone like Savage under the rug is counter-productive. Suppressing despised speech is one way to cement its influence over those who are susceptible to its message. Ideas, even odious ones, are apt to evade restrictions placed on them by censors. Second, there's the principle of free speech. The bill of rights prevents the U.S. Government from abridging the right of free speech. It says nothing about corporations. Encouraging a corporate sponser to pressure a news organization in order to influence their content is a bad, bad idea. There is already enough of that kind of pressure, either implicit or explicit.

In his article, Cooper quotes an unnamed Microsoft representative answering a question about why they hired a guy who ".. regularly insults nonwhites and foreigners". The answer: "We have stated that we don't agree with the views of Mr. Savage. However, we do respect his right to freedom of expression and the independence of MSNBC to put him on the air." A laudable position, about which Cooper says "Up to a point, that made sense." But he had earlier dismissed a Microsoft press release stating that policy as ".. boilerplate mush." And he goes on to say that the answer ".. also avoided any deeper examination of where and how to draw the boundary between the software company and its own cable channel. There are red lines, and undoubtedly, figuring out the exact geography is a tricky exercise." Now, Microsoft's categorical statement that they will not interfere with the editorial decisions of MSNBC is not shallow, but merely succinct and inflexible. And if deciding when to take the extraordinary step of vetoing a hiring decision by those editors is a ".. tricky exercise" to Cooper, then I'd say he's complicating a rather simple issue because of his obvious distaste for Micheal Savage. Another sign of this is his praising of Microsoft for keeping hands off MSNBC when they were being flayed by the press in general, and MSNBC in particular over the antitrust trial. Editorial independence is fine with Mr. Cooper when he approves of the editorial line, but not when he doesn't.

One could attempt a reducto ad absurdum of the argument I have made here by postulating some hysterical violation of public safety or journalistic integrity by editors. Then wouldn't a corporation with a controlling interest be bound to interfere to protect the public good or maintain their reputation? I have two answers to this (hypotherical straw-man) question. First, I would think that the proper response by a corporation to that sort of situation would be to sell their interest in the offending journalistic organization. Second, nothing so serious as the putative threat to public safety was going on in this instance. What we had here was a garbage-mouth oaf of a shock-jock being hired by a network that is desperately trying to compete with Fox. Push came to shove when Savage went over the top. MSNBC promptly fired his ass. That was a good editorial decision following a poor one. But neither one were any of Microsoft's business! I rarely give Microsoft any credit, but in this case it is due. Hooray for a sane policy with respect to journalistic properties you own, Microsoft! And shame on you, Charles Cooper, for trying to talk them out of it.