Comment by mmooss
12 hours ago
> obviously the US government has a say in what gets published and promoted
That's not at all obvious to me. On what grounds, moral or legal, should the US government tell anyone what to publish or promote?
12 hours ago
> obviously the US government has a say in what gets published and promoted
That's not at all obvious to me. On what grounds, moral or legal, should the US government tell anyone what to publish or promote?
I read what you quoted as a matter of fact statement, not an assertion of what is ethically righteous
But with that, I don't agree that it's a fact, maybe the FCC regulates what you broadcast on radio and TV, but if you don't take federal funding, the government doesn't really have a pull in what is created or prompted AFAIK. Journalists in the press pool may trade subservience for access but that's about it.
FCC is a special cause because private entities are using a public resource that must be managed. The content controls were a way to prevent Hearst style journalism spreading to radio and television. It worked well until the era of entertainment news developed.
How about copyright infringement, false advertising, sharing classified documents, tobacco advertising? There are a LOT of special cases.
Maybe there shouldn’t be and all of those things should be free from government interference, but the status quo is that plenty of speech is regulated.
3 replies →
> but if you don't take federal funding, the government doesn't really have a pull in what is
Paying chills is anti-democratic. In France, 100% of the media you know is subsidized, and it is unsustainable to do journalism without state sponsorship: France is not a democracy.
Fight me all you want, shower me with Alex Jonesy accusations, or nazi affiliations, but that’s why I wish the left would lose more elections. And it’s 51% of us now.
Just - be - honest - with - media.
So let me get this straight - you want to go from a system where:
- the government hands out money to the media - the law says that they need to give it to everyone without political discrimination - if they try to withold funding, you can sue them and probably win
To a system where:
- if you have a ton of money, you can be a media outlet - if you don't have a ton of money, get fucked
I'm struggling to see how the latter is better for anyone other than rich people who want to influence the masses.
Easiest way to spot an authorian is the complaining something is not democratic while also spending time promoting antidemocratic messages.
It is a cop out. I do not believe everyone who argue against some of my views are against everyone of them. I have no idea of what part of the far right pleases you, but the point about a democracy is that nothing is fixed everything ebbs and flows. This is something conservative people have a hard time with, and when the leftwings ebbs they have a hard time.
The media is not left wing. It might be more left than the far right, but it is also along way from the far left.
Just be honest about your ideas and intentions, do not blame others for your failures.
3 replies →
No, I will shower you with good old capitalist critiques. The market is not all powerful. Market failures exists because not every market is capable of self-regulation. Some market players can and do abuse their market power. State intervention so that journalists, policeman, waste managers, water distributors, electricity distributors, internet providers, health care providers, health insurance providers, food producers, etc. can do their job effectively, because they provide needs that are too sensitive to leave to private self-interests. That's why many of those are subsidized _and_ regulated.
It can make laws that prohibit or discourage publishing certain content. It can also shape the discourse in such a way that these laws are not viewed as restrictions on free speech.