Comment by jazzyjackson 3 months ago
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.
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.
Copyright enforcement is not a form of censorship.
Copyright violation is not speech.
Copying someone else's work and presenting it as your own is not protected speech, it is fraud. If you want to still consider this speech, someone is using it to actively and intentionally harm others.
If you're so intent on free speech, how would you feel if someone followed you around screaming profanities and abuse? Are you engaging in harmful and immoral censorship by calling the cops to remove this person? Are you suppressing his right to free speech by taking out a restraining order?
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.
In theory your argument could be good, in practice the state is governed by the same horrible people that run corporations, and at least with corporations they topple over every 25 years.
So yes I’d prefer not to let leeches take my money by force to give it to media, worst of all to tell the things they said against whites during the last 4 years. I mean, the proof that they’re bad is exactly what you paid them to say recently.
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.
NYT does have a left leaning bias. Here's an example where a conservative person and a liberal person each did the same donation tax avoidance strategy, and the NYT said the conservative got "an enormous personal tax windfall", but the liberal got "no tax benefit". In reality they both got the same benefit. NYT describes the conservative person as greedy and the liberal person as selfless, for doing the same thing.
A few scattered examples of this does nothing to counterbalance the neoliberalism and outright cronyism of NYT. They are probably a big reason why you might even (wrongly) associate neoliberalism with leftist ideology.
Back in 2004 they withheld publishing the fact that the NSA had spliced themselves into every internet backbone. (RIP Qwest).
Back in 2002/2003, they drummed for war like all the good sycophants.
A few examples of them painting some of their toadies in a good light while trashing some of their enemies is hardly evidence of “leftism”.
If the NYT were even moderately leftist, they would have endorsed Bernie Sanders.
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.
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.