Information control, or, How to get to Orwellian governance

Cycloptichorn wrote:

For example, Time warner provides cable service to Joe Consumer; Joe Consumer writes regular blog posts about how slow and terrible their service is and how bad their customer support it, but he can't get out of his contract; Time Warner doesn't want people reading his post, so they make sure his page takes 30 seconds to load each and every time.

Chilling effect?

Much of this comes down to competing views of the internet, imo; different ideas completely about who owns and runs the thing, and what it is actually for.

Cycloptichorn

This scenario ignores the practical limitations on a company's ability to act in such an arbitrary manner. I long had Time-Warner DSL service, and it usually worked very well--but when it failed, it really sucked, precisely because of the profit motive. Time-Warner simply did not employ sufficient staff to deal with customer complaints when any portion of their net failed, and any specific customer was obliged to "get in line" simply to complain, never mind get action on their service complaints.

No corporate entity could afford to routinely police the content of all the blogs which are posted using the ISP they would maintain. Only the most egregious offenses against their corporate self-love would be likely to be noticed, never mind interfered with. This is the same reason why i never subscribe to government internet conspiracy theories. For the United States, as the most "wired" (and "wireless") example, to contemplate surveillance of the contributions to the net by all of its citizens would require hiring one half of the population to watch and report on the other half.

The examples which Thomas provided of China and Iran are only significant because of the relatively low proportion of ISP users in each country. And, as Thomas has pointed out, their efforts are not uniformly and universally successful. Technologically sophisticated users can make a sieve the the Chinese national firewall, and even the casual user who would be careful of the language they use could easily escape detection. As China in particular becomes more prosperous, it will be increasingly difficult for the gerontocracy to police net use by its citizens, reaching the level of impossibility in the foreseeable future.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

The examples which Thomas provided of China and Iran are only significant because of the relatively low proportion of ISP users in each country. And, as Thomas has pointed out, their efforts are not uniformly and universally successful. Technologically sophisticated users can make a sieve the the Chinese national firewall, and even the casual user who would be careful of the language they use could easily escape detection. As China in particular becomes more prosperous, it will be increasingly difficult for the gerontocracy to police net use by its citizens, reaching the level of impossibility in the foreseeable future.

Agreed. Freedom and free expression will eventually find their way. In this information age, the attempt to regulate the state's idea of "fairness' or "security" will either fail as Set has outlined, or drive the state to ever more oppressive controls.

Finally, with respect to the unlamented "Fairness Doctrine" -- it applied only to broadcast media, and only as a condition of government stewardship of a public commodity - the broadcast frequency spectrum. There was and is no constitutionally acceptable basis on which our government can regulate or restrict the free political speech of people - or corporations. With respect to modern internet and cable media the Fairness Doctrine is and will remain a dead letter.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

After all, in the free market, there is a little thing called "Supply and Demand." It might be worth your while to study the principle for once, and you might finally get a clue about something.

Dear little limpy,

Keep thinking you know more than I do: your ego seems to need it and the only person who looks foolish is you.

Apparently, you are so manipulated (notice your sources!) that you fail to understand that the market can be and is manipulated.

0 Replies

plainoldme wrote:

Apparently, you are so manipulated (notice your sources!) that you fail to understand that the market can be and is manipulated.

Out of curiosity, I have two questions for you, plainoldme:

1) In your opinion, plainoldme, who or what manipulates what bloggers write?

2) If your answer to question #1 is "nothing/noone", how do you explain that the blogosphere is about as conservative as talk radio, whose conservatism you attribute to manipulative executives?

0 Replies

I never said that the bloggers were manipulated. I have never read a blog and have no opinion of them.

0 Replies

plainoldme wrote:

I never said that the bloggers were manipulated.

I never said you did.

0 Replies

POM,

Perhaps then the question is what do you mean when you say the commercial media are "manipulated". I assume you refer to the bias that owners of a media corporation may apply to the programming, selecting of commentators, or even style & content of their broadcast or, in the cases of print media, newspapers or magazines.

Many blogs have become organized efforts with owners and employees. Likely many of these are incorporated in one way or another. Such blogs are therefore hardly different from the commercial mwedia to which you did refer. Thomas' point still applies. The blogosphere, individual and organized is about equally liberal and conservative. This obviously calls into question both the validity of your assertion that today's media are "manipulated" by largely conservative owners, or even if it may now bee true by a small margin (which I believe is not the case), that it will necessarily stay that way.

Corporations are run by human beings who have the same rights of expression as all other human beings. Same goes for Liberal NGOs and Labor Unions. Do you propose limiting or regulating the political expression of all such groups?

0 Replies

Quote:

Such blogs are therefore hardly different from the commercial media to which you did refer.

They of course differ in one critical way: they are unabashed about their partisanship. There is no real expectation of 'objectivity.' The media on the other hand....

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:
Such blogs are therefore hardly different from the commercial media to which you did refer.

They of course differ in one critical way: they are unabashed about their partisanship. There is no real expectation of 'objectivity.' The media on the other hand....

Are you saying that when people listen to Rush Limbaugh or watch Bill O'Reilly because they expect objectivity?

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
Quote:
Such blogs are therefore hardly different from the commercial media to which you did refer.

They of course differ in one critical way: they are unabashed about their partisanship. There is no real expectation of 'objectivity.' The media on the other hand....

Are you saying that when people listen to Rush Limbaugh or watch Bill O'Reilly because they expect objectivity?

Why not? This is one of the central claims of Fox and Limbaugh - that they are 'fair and balanced.'

You and I see through that, but I hope that you don't extrapolate us to the population as a whole. Many don't, at all. Therefore I would say that yes, there is an reasonable expectation of balance.

RedState.com, for example, is a Republican weblog. They don't f*ck around about that, they don't pretend to be anything else. The vast majority of political blogs are unabashedly pro- one side or the other. I would say that with the exception of talk radio (which is much more like a blog than other medias!) that the majority of media sources claim and are expected to be either objective or non-partisan...

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

You and I see through that, but I hope that you don't extrapolate us to the population as a whole. Many don't, at all. Therefore I would say that yes, there is an reasonable expectation of balance.

I used to believe stuff like this too you know -- that I'm a lot smarter than "the population as a whole", and that I can see through things that "they" can't.

Then I grew up.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
You and I see through that, but I hope that you don't extrapolate us to the population as a whole. Many don't, at all. Therefore I would say that yes, there is an reasonable expectation of balance.

I used to believe stuff like this too you know -- that I'm a lot smarter than "the population as a whole", and that I can see through things that "they" can't.

Then I grew up.

First of all, I didn't see where I wrote that I was 'smarter' than the population as a whole, let alone a 'lot smarter.' I also didn't see where I wrote that the population as a whole 'can't' see through things that I can.

I said that the population doesn't. You and I spend several hours a day researching and discussing this and other topics about politics and the media and economics. The vast majority of people do not. This is why they don't see through things; it takes effort to do so.

You'll understand if I'm not exactly stung by your criticism given the inaccuracies it is based upon... my original point stands unchallenged that the media portrays itself as balanced in a way which the blogs do not. Do you disagree with this, or not?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

One Cable/Satelite TV channel, Fox News, is perceived by Liberals to be biased toward Conservatism and biased against Liberalism. They reject the notion that Fox is fair and balanced compared to the ABC, CBS, NBC, network news channels.

Of course, fair and balanced is a matter of perception. I for one do not think ABC, CBS, and NBC network news channels are fair and balanced. I think that all three are heavily biased against conservatism and heavily biased for liberalism. But as long as I have Fox News to watch without government manipulation of its content, I couldn't care less about what ABC, CBS, NBC, network news channels broadcast.

A minority of the population watches Fox News and a minority of the population listens to Shawn Hannity and Rush Limbaugh. What's the problem?

I think the fairness doctrine ought to be fairness in the application of the doctrine of free competition. The last thing I want is for TV channel and radio station broadcast content to be regulated by any majority or any minority political party.

Quote:

The Bill of Rights (1791)
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

my original point stands unchallenged that the media portrays itself as balanced in a way which the blogs do not. Do you disagree with this, or not?

Cycloptichorn

I agree in part and disagree in part. I don't think Rush Limbaugh, Anne Coulter, Neil Boortz, and Howard Stern make any pretensions about being balanced. O'Reilly and Fox may sling around their "fair and balanced" slogan, but I don't thinka majority of their listeners are buying it. Those who prefer Fox over CNN usually know full well that it's a conservative station they're preferring. That said, some media outlets present themselves as balanced, and some viewers do buy that.

But I definitely disagree with your earlier assertion that you can watch, read, or listen to any one media outlook with a reasonable expectation of balance. Every publication puts its own spin on the news it's selecting and reporting.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
my original point stands unchallenged that the media portrays itself as balanced in a way which the blogs do not. Do you disagree with this, or not?

Cycloptichorn

I agree in part and disagree in part. I don't think Rush Limbaugh, Anne Coulter, Neil Boortz, and Howard Stern make any pretensions about being balanced. O'Reilly and Fox may sling around their "fair and balanced" slogan, but I don't thinka majority of their listeners are buying it. Those who prefer Fox over CNN usually know full well that it's a conservative station they're preferring. That said, some media outlets present themselves as balanced, and some viewers do buy that.

But I definitely disagree with your earlier assertion that you can watch, read, or listen to any one media outlook with a reasonable expectation of balance. Every publication puts its own spin on the news it's selecting and reporting.

Would you agree or disagree that the trad. media tend to have a higher expectation of balance then the majority of political blogs?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Additionally,

Quote:

Rush Limbaugh, Anne Coulter, Neil Boortz, and Howard Stern (and O'Reilly)

... are not the 'news.' They are pundits. Is there a difference?

Fox News - the actual news presented as news, and not opinion - is more balanced than the pundits are. I've watched it many times just to see if this is true, and in my experience it is. I still believe that they are a pro-Republican rag, but take away the pundits and it isn't nearly as bad.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Would you agree or disagree that the trad. media tend to have a higher expectation of balance then the majority of political blogs?

Dunno. Depends on the individual publication I guess. The National Review and the Washington Times are Old Media, but I don't think anyone can reasonably expect them to be balanced.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Why not? This is one of the central claims of Fox and Limbaugh - that they are 'fair and balanced.'

Cycloptichorn

Well, I know that Limbaugh never claims to balance his conservative views with liberal views. He claims he is balance to the news, that claims to be balanced, but is not. I happen to agree. By the way, since when does freedom of speech force a man to be balanced, and according to who is the balance determined?

The worst bias is so called "news" that is not balanced, and hasn't been for a long time.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

The worst bias is so called "news" that is not balanced, and hasn't been for a long time.

Ain't that the truth!

Quote:

In Ex-Aide's Testimony, A Spin Through VP's PR

By Dana Milbank
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, January 26, 2007; Page A01

Memo to Tim Russert: Dick Cheney thinks he controls you.

This delicious morsel about the "Meet the Press" host and the vice president was part of the extensive dish Cathie Martin served up yesterday when the former Cheney communications director took the stand in the perjury trial of former Cheney chief of staff I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby.

Flashed on the courtroom computer screens were her notes from 2004 about how Cheney could respond to allegations that the Bush administration had played fast and loose with evidence of Iraq's nuclear ambitions. Option 1: "MTP-VP," she wrote, then listed the pros and cons of a vice presidential appearance on the Sunday show. Under "pro," she wrote: "control message."

"I suggested we put the vice president on 'Meet the Press,' which was a tactic we often used," Martin testified. "It's our best format."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/25/AR2007012501951.html

0 Replies

It would be a fine thing if anyone honestly addressed either the Berlusconi example or the anecdote from Ted Turner regarding Blair's statement. Either poses the tough problem of standing counter-factual to the ideological preference for government non-involvement in media matters and what you (thomas, george) presume to gain from that ideological stance.

And/or, if it must be the case, in some axiomatic way, that such governmental determinations of media operations will produce a regime oppressive to speech and viewpoint dissemination, then either of you ought to be able to demonstrate with some ease how your thesis proved itself during the period when the FD was in place (the constitutional argument is quite irrelevant as regards this, of course).

Or, I could ask you, what responsibility above and beyond merely turning a profit for shareholders might we reasonably or legally require of entities which own or control information systems (of the "news" sort) within our communities? Are there any at all?

Or, do you see any proper role for limiting monopolization of media ownership? Why? As some five major corporations presently control the main media sources streaming into folks' living rooms, is this "five" number like Goldilocks third bowl of porridge...just right?

Or, I could inquire whether you've read up at all on the demise of the FD and how that came about including which individuals and organizations were at the forefront of the push to dismantle that legislation?

Or, I could inquire as to whether you've bothered to read the media study I've noted and linked quite a number of times which demonstrated that the more citizens watched PBS, the more closely their opinions corresponded with the facts of Iraq whereas the more citizens watched Fox, the greater was their divergence from accurate appraisals? (I have it bookmarked on another computer, but I'll link it again if you request and if you'll read it)? And then, if you find those conclusions inescapable, I'd ask how you might conclude that your communities are better off when people are purposefully and intentionally made to be stupid.

0 Replies

Information control, or, How to get to Orwellian governance

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know