71% also think it is "already possible for just about any political view to be heard in today’s media." Um, so what is the impetus for controlling content on the airwaves other than to forcefully push your agenda? Where do all of these angry little fascists come from?
And apparently 54% of the supporters are Democrat while Republicans are "evenly divided" on the issue. Dear Half of Republicans, I don't even know you anymore.
The "Fairness Doctrine" arose in an era of very limited television due to limited bandwith, and while that still seems like a pretty poor excuse for controlling media content, the very rationale for the FCC-imposed rule no longer exists. So this is just a naked "We want to control what you see and therefore think" agenda.
Why not take it a step further and demand the same for books? Sure, there are lots of books and people can choose whatever they want- but therein is the danger. They could choose only the books that they want to read without any balancing offset. And why stop with just political views? I mean, underlying values which inform politics (e.g. Christianity informing views on abortion) require a balanced viewpoint as well. And if those toothless hick heartlanders only read the Bible, we'll at least need to allow for some kind of Book of Rebuttal. Perhaps sandwiched between Acts and Romans. Or between the New Testament and the Old.
"But Holmes, that is ridiculous! You shouldn't be able to control the content in a book." But if I read the book aloud on TV, that would be different how? Look, I know the New York Times is biased- that is why I don't buy it. I know CNN is downright propaganda, that is why I don't turn it on. Ideas in a free market have a much better chance of getting out than one built on the PBS model- that last bastion of free and balanced thought. Er... (But I did love that hippie painter guy.)
No comments:
Post a Comment