The Left's Crusade to Silence Debate (The Media Cornucopia)

The City Journal ^ | Spring 2007 | Adam D. Thierer

[Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus]

Throughout most of history, humans lived in a state of extreme information poverty. News traveled slowly, field to field, village to village. Even with the printing press’s advent, information spread at a snail’s pace. Few knew how to find printed materials, assuming that they even knew how to read. Today, by contrast, we live in a world of unprecedented media abundance that once would have been the stuff of science-fiction novels. We can increasingly obtain and consume whatever media we want, wherever and whenever we want: television, radio, newspapers, magazines, and the bewildering variety of material available on the Internet.

This media cornucopia is a wonderful development for a free society—or so you’d think. But today’s media universe has fierce detractors, and nowhere more vehemently than on the left. Their criticisms seem contradictory. Some, such as Democratic congressman Dennis Kucinich, contend that real media choices, information sources included, remain scarce, hindering citizens from fully participating in a deliberative democracy. Others argue that we have too many media choices, making it hard to share common thoughts or feelings; democracy, community itself, again loses out. Both liberal views get the story disastrously wrong. If either prevails, what’s shaping up to be America’s Golden Age of media could be over soon.

[Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus]

Keep your laws off my body (of information)!

[Red Badger]

They will silence dissent in the name of “free Speech”.
They will take your weapons in the name of “security”.
They will take your property in the name of “the common good”.
They will take your life in the name of “enemy of the State”............

[Always Right]

Some, such as Democratic congressman Dennis Kucinich, contend that real media choices, information sources included, remain scarce, hindering citizens from fully participating in a deliberative democracy.

They tried the 24-7 Kook station, but it filed bankruptcy.

[Don Corleone]

They had this "Fairness Doctrine" a couple of generations ago. It resulted in "All Music all the Time" stations since no one could deal with the "equal time" provisions that gave everyone the right to get on the air and voice his/her opinion. It was and will be again an unmitigated disaster.

[griswold3]

Interesting!

“Sunstein also proposes a kind of speech redistributionism. For the Internet, he suggests that regulators could impose “electronic sidewalks” on partisan websites (the National Rifle Association’s, say), forcing them to link to opposing views. The practical problems of implementing this program would be forbidding, even if it somehow proved constitutional. How many links to opposing views would secure the government’s approval? The FCC would need an army of media regulators (much as China has today) to monitor the millions of webpages, blogs, and social-networking sites and keep them in line.”

[ClaireSolt]

The cornucopia undermines their ability to tell us what the common good is. We discuss American Idol round the water cooler and make FOX #1 in the ratings. So, Dems boycot Fox because their idea of the 1st amendment is filth and smut and rap.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

The underlying fallacy of "Campaign Finance Reform" and of the Fairness Doctrine is the assumption that "objective journalism" is objective. But pointing out individual examples of partisanship in "objective" journalism does not serve the purpose of delegitimating the concept.

The concept of objective journalism implies, first of all, that all respectable journalism - not including Fox News Channel - is in accord and yet is not selfinterested. The rules which define the practice of journalism, however, are explicable primarily in terms of the business interest of journalism:

• If it bleeds, it leads. This is negativity.

• "Man Bites Dog," not "Dog Bites Man." This is unrepresentativeness.

• Always meet your deadline; there's nothing more worthless than yesterday's newspaper. This is superficiality.

Those rules are essentially entertainment imperatives to sell newspapers or attract attention to broadcast news shows. To these rules must be added:

• Never question the objectivity of a fellow journalist (not counting Fox News Channel), and never criticize a politician for being too liberal. In point of fact, "liberal" is simply a positive label for someone who promotes the idea that Big Journalism is objective.

That rule is explicable as a business imperative, as well. It is not a rule that journalists speak openly about, but its operation is clearly visible whenever some particular journalist has exposed his own liberalism to obviously.

Why Broadcast Journalism is
Unnecessary and Illegitimate

[SauronOfMordor]

Advertiser-supported news will inevitably turn Left. Leftists are just much more likely to scream, boycott, and protest to advertisers if the outlet displays less than fervent Leftism in its reporting

The owners want to make money. Money is made by selling ad space. Advertisers do not like noisy protests by customers

[PGalt]

Thanks for the ping. Interesting thread. BTTT!

[Eddie01]

I remain ardent in my assertion that the MSM resolves in actual effect to nothing more than the marketing arm of the DNC, who in concert, work to exploit the basic human need for acceptance through chartered behavioral dysfunction to recuit and retain members (votes)

Note please items 6, 7 and 8.

The Left's Eight Commandments

I
Thou shalt create an illusion of invulnerability shared by most members to foster excessive optimism and encourage extreme risks taking

II
Thou shall not allow any member to question the group's inherent morality, instead members shall be encouraged to ignore the ethical or moral consequences of their decisions

III
Thou shalt promote collective efforts to rationalize in order to discount warnings, or other information that might lead members to reconsider their assumptions before they recommit themselves to their assumptions

IV
Thou shalt reinforce stereotyped views of enemy leaders as too evil to warrant genuine attempts to negotiate, or as too weak and stupid to counter whatever risky attempts are made to defeat their purpose

V
Thou shalt self-censor any deviation from the apparent group consensus, inclining each member to minimize the importance of their doubts and counterarguments

VI
Thou shalt create and maintain a shared illusion of unanimity concerning judgement conforming to the majority view

VII
Thou shalt apply direct pressure on any member who expresses strong arguments against any of the group's stereotypes, illusions, or commitments, making clear that this type of dissent is contrary to what is expected of all loyal members

VIII
Thou shalt appoint mindguards to protect the group from adverse information that might shatter their shared complacency about the effectiveness and morality of their decisions

-Eddie01 2006 (adapted from Janis '82)

e.g. Don Imus was separated from the microphone as a protective measure. He didn't like Hillary...

[highlander_UW]

So liberal thought is so incoherent that it's too hard for liberals to find on the Internet? Or is that liberals are just too stupid to be able to find it?

I don't have any difficulty in finding dissenting opinions to just about any position.

[The Spirit Of Allegiance]

They will silence dissent in the name of “free Speech”.
They will take your weapons in the name of “security”.
They will take your property in the name of “the common good”.
They will take your life in the name of “enemy of the State”............

2 posted on 04/16/2007 7:28:07 AM PDT by Red Badger

---

May they fail dismally. God forbid!

[Balding_Eagle]

bump

[E.G.C.]

BTTT

[Mmmike]

I think the behavioral patterns of the media are due in large part to the operational logic of large secular bureaucratic businesses charged with stirring up a buzz about something, anything, all the time. The truth has a way of becoming known (if only in little bits and pieces, sometimes) and serving as a fusion point around which cultures can develop. It also enhances the mental and emotional soundness of the person who abides it. But the media operates under an imperative that works against this. The media is charged with stirring up a perpetual frenzied state in the mind of the individual consumer, combating the internal peace which embrace of truth makes possible. This makes the media an opponent of the advance of truth and the natural development of culture. Any thoughts?

[neverdem]

BTTT

[gridlock]

That leftist media critics start sounding so authoritarian is no surprise. In a media cornucopia, freedom of choice inevitably yields media inequality. “In systems where many people are free to choose between many options, a small subset of the whole will get a disproportionate amount of traffic (or attention, or income), even if no members of the system actively work towards such an outcome,” writes Clay Shirky of New York University’s Interactive Telecommunications Program. Overcoming that inequality would require a completely regulated media.

Clay Shirky has it wrong. Each and every member of the system is working diligently to ensure that there is a disproportionate distribution of traffic, because they all want a disproportionately large portion directed to themselves. That is what the system is supposed to do.

The successful prevail. The failures fail. This is what is supposed to happen.