The U.S. Supreme Court, a group probably more at ease with a Smith-Corona than a Microsoft window, confronted the Internet last week. To the relief of Brock Meeks, cyberwarrior, the Republic stands.
“I thought the Supreme Court was absolutely on the mark,” Meeks said after it affirmed free-speech rights on the Internet.
The justices might blanch if encountering Meeks, a mix of gonzo journalist Hunter Thompson and investigator Jack Anderson. And he might be too unruly for most mainstream media though he’s gained quite the following in cyberspace.
Meeks, 41, is a San Francisco-raised social activist turned communications-industry reporter. He has worked for prominent publica-
tions, including a bible of the industry called Communications Daily, while also publishing CyberWire Dispatch, a distinctly personal bit of pamphleteering over the Internet.
He is now the chief Washington correspondent for MSNBC.com, the Web site of Microsoft and NBC (whose much-publicized MSNBC cable channel is drawing flies). There, he combines his bona fide technology and policy expertise, micro-knowledge of legislative happenings, a libertarian philosophy and an irreverent, at times snide, analytic bent.
For example, he has referred to Rep. Henry Hyde (R-Ill.) as “the wheezing, corpulent, white-haired gnome on steroids” and bashed him for being “little more than the water boy” for James Exon, a former Democratic senator from Nebraska who introduced the Communications Decency Act, which was struck down Thursday.
Over the line? Well, his voice remains one to consider, if not agree with, on new technology.
Q: A correct Supreme Court decision aside, what about people genuinely anxious about porn and other junk on the Internet?
A: I think the decision hands responsibility back to the parents. They now have an urgency to learn about the technology; more specifically, to talk to their kids about use of the technology. There are tools available for parents to try to restrict access to undesirable content, though the software is not perfect.
Q: If the Internet’s growth continues, and it becomes as ubiquitous as radio and television, will it not justify government regulation?
A: If that happens, government and supporters of regulation will have a much stronger argument for placing some kind of content-based restrictions on the Internet.
If it looks and smells like a broadcast medium, we are in big trouble. We might have to kill it to save it. If we keep advancing the technology so much so that it is indistinguishable from broadcast, with real-time video where somebody can pop into a Web site and see programming coming at them, I don’t know how different that is from turning on a TV.
Yes, if it becomes a broadcast medium on a computer, we will be in danger of having it regulated.
Q: A colleague of mine’s young kid went on line and found unsolicited e-mail with a picture of a nude woman with a champagne bottle. How do you deal with that?
A: Put a gun to your head and pull the trigger. No, not really. In general, if you’re concerned about kids’ access, the best thing to do is hook them up with a system like America Online, where parents can be as strict as they want to be. There are all kinds of “censorship tools,” including tailoring types of e-mail children will get. You can say, “My kid will only get e-mail from certain addresses.”
Q: Still, can you conceive of any foolproof way technologically to truly deal with all this?
A: No.
Q: OK, to finish up, for readers out there without a clue about this new world, what’s relevant?
A: Regardless of the very real problems with the technology, the Internet is the world’s most incredible tool for gaining new knowledge. Just because there are problems with it, that’s no reason to stay away from it. The best thing you can do is get involved with it and take the mystery out.
Hard to swallow
In Washington, candid is often merely canned.
Thursday morning brought Cajun political consultant James Carville to the curious institution called the Sperling breakfast.
More Top Picks Best Kitchen Appliances
It’s run by a longtime Christian Science Monitor editor, features political personages, is heavy on the cholesterol and open at more than $20 a head to print journalists only.
Carville has been the most aggressive public defender of President Clinton in the Whitewater and Paula Jones matters. He has been unremitting in bashing Whitewater independent counsel Kenneth Starr, surely with the approval of Clinton.
Arriving 15 minutes late, I found all the roughly 35 seats taken, except one next to Carville, who was attired in a bigtime consultant’s premeditated informality (Air Jordans and blue jeans).
There was a 3-inch-thick briefing book in front of him. Clearly, he was not exactly winging it, an air of rakish spontaneity aside.
The index cited, among other matters, “5 Points on Tyrell” (reference to an anti-Clinton magazine publisher), “Legal Times on Jones’ Credibility” (reference to a weekly magazine on legal matters), “Lyons Article on Hale’s Lies” (reference to an Arkansas reporter’s effort on Clinton accuser David Hale) and “NYT Magazine-Starr Pictures” (reference to a recent New York Times article for which Starr posed).
The binder’s dividers cited these topics: “Points,” “Kendall Letters” (David Kendall is the Clintons’ private attorney), “Documents,” “Paula Jones Packet” and “Backup clips.”
The hourlong performance included his totally unsupported allegation that there’s “payola all over Arkansas” benefiting Clinton accusers.
There was arguably more substance behind his assertion that if Clinton asked him to jump off the Washington Monument, he’d do it.
Cokie watch
The media buck-raking gets ever so more slick.
Leading Authorities Inc., a speakers bureau, has sent out a very nifty, large color flier with a photo of a bunch of guys in a rugby scrum. “Contact Sports & Political Debate: A Team Activity. Meet the Players . . .”
Inside is word on how you can rent the “Gladiators of American Political Debate,” namely twosomes who will gladly yell at one another over profound issues of public policy at the meeting of your union, pest-control association, lobbying organization, or other beloved assemblage.
For example, there’s the tag team of Juan Williams and Mona Charen:
“Fox Television’s Juan Williams, formerly a panelist on CNN’s `Capital Gang Sunday’ (whose remaining slobs include this item’s author) and former Jack Kemp speechwriter and syndicated columnist Mona Charen take on today’s hottest political and social issues. Provocative, thoughtful, and always entertaining, this left/right combination sheds some real light on the people and issues in today’s headlines.”
Or what about Gloria Borger and former Chicago Sun-Times reporter Mort Kondracke:
“Gloria Borger, a regular panelist on CBS’s `Face the Nation’ and a contributing columnist for U.S. News & World Report, discusses late-breaking issues and events with Morton Kondracke, executive editor of Roll Call and the senior panelist on `The McLaughlin Group.’ Enjoyable, informative, and entertaining, these two veteran journalists show their understanding of the news behind the news with deep insights and a dash of gentle humor.”
There are many, many more tandems, including Time magazine’s Margaret Carlson and National Review editor Kate O’Beirne, flacks-turned-faux-journalists Bob Beckel and Tony Blankley and pols-turned-faux-journalists Geraldine Ferraro and Pat Buchanan.
“Oh, yeah, I do that too,” said reporter Fred Barnes, also a McLaughlin fixture. “Groups like it that way. You don’t end up with somebody saying, `Hey, how come you didn’t have a Democrat?’ “
Alluding to coverage of the media cesspool in this space, Barnes correctly opined, “This is an industry your revelations have not killed.”