Information control, or, How to get to Orwellian governance

Apparently, TV audiences are comprised mostly of people on the left who want to watch commentators on the left. Apparently, radio audiences are comprised mostly of people on the right who want to listen to commentators on the right.

Remember that Conservatism is only a small step away from Authoritarianism. The 'trust me' concept is one they totally believe in; they don't believe in oversight or fact-checking.

What could be more authoritarian than a government agency empowered to determine which media sources are "fair" and which are "unfair"?

blatham wrote:

I It is becoming increasingly likely that some legislation comparable to the Fairness Doctrine will be forwarded in the near future.

I hope you are wrong on that. I prefer freedom.

blatham wrote:

How folks will go about figuring how to do this so as to maximize the dissemination of ideas while not placing too large a burden on broadcasters is the key problem.

Which, of course is the key question. Inescapably one is left with the opinion of some people or some groups concerning just what is "fair" and what is "not fair".


I really doubt that even a motivated Democrat Congress will be able to find a constitutional way to do this. The former regulations came out of the Congress' power to regulate broadcasting and private access to the frequency spectrum under the Regulation of Commerce clause. Even that was a close one constitutionally. Now with most news distributed over cable or the internet, I don't see how they will be able to justify it.

blatham wrote:

I It is becoming increasingly likely that some legislation comparable to the Fairness Doctrine will be forwarded in the near future.

I hope you are wrong on that. I prefer freedom.

Everyone has the freedom to turn the dial. If you don't like what's on, don't listen to it or watch it. But to legislate what you think others should listen to or watch, then that is a boundary that shouldn't be crossed.

Imagine my disbelief to learn liberals are in favor of this.

blatham wrote:

I It is becoming increasingly likely that some legislation comparable to the Fairness Doctrine will be forwarded in the near future.

I hope you are wrong on that. I prefer freedom.

But conservative talk show hosts aren't for freedom. Freedom would be anyone with $50 could broadcast on any station they wanted to with their own transmitter. If we had freedom tomorrow, I guarantee you those RW talkers would be whining because their government sanctioned RW blather would be unable to produce any money.

McGentrix wrote:

Everyone has the freedom to turn the dial. If you don't like what's on, don't listen to it or watch it. But to legislate what you think others should listen to or watch, then that is a boundary that shouldn't be crossed.

Imagine my disbelief to learn liberals are in favor of this.

Ok, I'm trying to imagine your disbelief and I find it hard to imagine how you can just make up shiit like this "liberals are in favor of this" and still pretend that you can think your way out of a bread bag.

Berlosconi's Italy might be your idea of a media ownership regime sent down from heavenward to further glorious freedom, but it ain't mine.

An absolutist stance on media doesn't strike me as principled, though that is the assertion. It strikes me as being intellecutally lazy, ahistorical, and blindly ideological...like pushing gun-ownership demands to include an inalienable right to have pocket nukes on display in the rec room.

georgeob1 wrote:

blatham wrote:

I It is becoming increasingly likely that some legislation comparable to the Fairness Doctrine will be forwarded in the near future.

I hope you are wrong on that. I prefer freedom.

So do I.

parados, quoting George wrote:

But conservative talk show hosts aren't for freedom. Freedom would be anyone with $50 could broadcast on any station they wanted to with their own transmitter. If we had freedom tomorrow, I guarantee you those RW talkers would be whining because their government sanctioned RW blather would be unable to produce any money.

I would have said internet radio and podcasting come close to this ideal today. Conservative talk radio hosts, for all their faults, don't seem to complain much about competition from podcasters. I would also observe that the rightwing-to-leftwing ratio of blogs is more similar to talk radio than to terrestrial TV stations. This suggests that George and other Republicans here are right: The relative conservativm of talk radio serves a genuine demand on the marketplace of ideas, while the fairness doctrine would boil down to censorship of conservatism. As most instances of censorship, this one would be semantically sugarcoated to fool civil libertarians. But I'm not buying it for a second.

But you won't be an absolutist here even if you insist you are. I expect you'll argue for "untrampled" speech in the manner you do above, yet likely agreeing with recent FCC restrictions and penalties on instances of sexuality in the media while blowing up people, burning people, shooting people, cruelty, etc presents no such cause for concern or oversight.

The argument you (or thomas, say) will advance against governmental controls on media is an argument about human nature...humans in a position of governmental power will act to solidify and increase that power (over competing interests and agencies) to a point where authoritarianism becomes a significant danger to all citizens. Assuming corporate or "business" entities will behave any differently is utterly delusional and the examples are beyond countless. Nobody and no thing gets a pass here.

Do you believe that Blair was [lying]?

If you want to read liberal newspapers, you will find plenty of them on sale at picturesque kiosks. (I predict that you would end up getting hooked on La Republicca). Another point to note about Italy is that the Italians sacked Berlusconi. There is no such thing as "Berlusconi's Italy" anymore.

Many conservatives are libertarians - certainly many more than are found among liberals who generally look to government for more regulation and more interference in our daily lives and affairs. Your claim of authoritarianism on the part of conservatives is absurd.