Elizabeth Shelton’s jail sentencing decisions: D-
The Houston Chronicle reported Tuesday that Elizabeth Shelton, a University of St. Thomas student and the daughter of a state district judge, would serve her 120-day sentence for drunk driving in one block, rather than on weekends and holidays as she had initially requested.
Although she has taken her full sentence, which implies she has finally accepted responsibility for her actions, the concession should never have been made in the first place. Being the daughter of a judge should have had no bearing on how her sentence was carried out – her irresponsible and dangerous actions led to the death of Matthew McNiece.
A judge granted her initial request that she be imprisoned only on holidays and weekends, and Shelton only agreed to take a semester off school and serve the sentence all at once because it was too difficult to juggle school and jail.
Any other college student, even ones who, like Shelton, may be in danger of losing scholarships, would have been laughed out of the courtroom for requesting a "weekend warrior" jail time schedule. Even the fact that Shelton was able to change her mind reflects an unfair advantage because her father is intimately connected to the Texas judicial system.
Shelton’s requests, and the granting of them, drives home the idea that people with connections receive concessions unavailable to others. Shelton’s requests were granted close enough to home to be of concern – most of the students at UH pay for their own schooling, and many are the first in their families to go to college. They don’t have the connections to receive special considerations from the legal system. As long as the government, or any authority, makes concessions for well-connected individuals such as Elizabeth Shelton, it makes it harder for those without connections to trust the system.
FCC’s media consolidation concessions: F
The FCC decided Tuesday to loosen bans on media ownership in 20 major cities in a 3-2 decision down party lines, with the Committee’s two Democratic members dissenting. The new ruling, which lifts a ban on single ownership of both broadcast and print media in the same market, sets a precedent that will make media more generic, ease the path to censorship and put more pressure on already beleaguered independent media sources.
The ruling also allows similar consolidation across the United States in smaller markets, which spreads the problem even further, Reuters reported.
Laws and rulings against media consolidation were put in place for good reason – to prevent one entity from controlling all the information being disseminated to a particular area. Different media outlets and entities serve as a watchdog not only for the government and other authorities, but also for each other. With one business interest in charge of a city’s or market’s media, it will be easy for stories and information, especially negative ones about the parent company, to slip through the cracks.
Independent media, of which many examples can be found in Houston, already struggles to be heard amidst the clamoring voices of media with vastly greater resources and manpower. Allowing large media outlets to consolidate will further drown out these important and necessary voices.
Bringing the public balanced, relevant information should be the first priority of any media outlet, especially news agencies. Loosening the rules on media consolidation slips the door to generic, incomplete information that much farther open. Keeping media outlets independent of one another is vital to having an informed society.
Although the commissioner’s stated reasons for the passing the decision – to help failing local media receive the financial backing they need to recover – is a noble one, this is no the way to go about it.
Legislatures have threatened to push legislation to overturn the decision, as they see the dangerous precedent it sets. One can hope they will make good on their plans.
