Sunstein even suggested that the government might have to step in and force Web sites to link to opposing opinions.Reads a little like this:
Does anyone else smell the "Fairness Doctrine" again? I will happily link to a relevant article from DU, inasmuch as they are so hate filled and illogical over there that they would make my arguments for me.
I wonder if he would force the NYTimes to reference editorials at the WSJournal, or have the WashPost reference the WashTimes?
That will happen when monkeys fly out of my butt!
One of the major reasons I FReep is to hear things I never could have thought of myself.
FR is a great source for news. It is the dialog surrounding the threads that has folks like this author up in arms.
I've got a word or two
To say about the things that you do
You're telling all those lies
About the good things that we can have
If we close our eyesDo what you want to do
And go where you're going to
Think for yourself
'Cause I won't be there with youI left you far behind
The ruins of the life that you had in mind
And though you still can't see
I know your mind's made up
You're gonna cause more miseryDo what you want to do
And go where you're going to
Think for yourself
'Cause I won't be there with youAlthough your mind's opaque
Try thinking more if just for your own sake
The future still looks good
And you've got time to rectify
All the things that you shouldDo what you want to do
And go where you're going to
Think for yourself
'Cause I won't be there with youThink for yourself
'Cause I won't be there with you
Sunstein even suggested that the government might have to step in and force Web sites to link to opposing opinions.Reads a little like this:
By 1965 (or thereabouts), the long march of the liberals against these laws was complete. Anti-pornography laws, if not overturned by the Supreme Court, were unenforced and virtual dead letters. Virtually any loon could advocate anything from satanic rituals to Maoism without fear of the magistrate.
About this time, liberals came to realize the old right wing press barons of old, like William Randolph Hearst and the McCormicks in Chicago, were gone and their editorial staffs populated with their fellow liberals. The new national TV networks had become America's preferred way of obtaining news; these networks, especially CBS, were liberal without fail. Also, the prestige newspapers like The New York Times and The Washington Post were liberal, as were at least two of the three major news magazines. The Johnson landslide of 1964 gave the Democrats both houses of Congress with filibuster proof majorities as well as the Presidency. Conservatives had turned on one another, with William Buckley excommunicating Objectivists and Birchers into the outer darkness. Young Americans for Freedom was fracturing between libertarians and traditionalists, with far fringes of the two groups spinning off into anarchism and white supremacism, respectively. The Johnson administration enforced the "Fairness Doctrine," effectively shutting down conservative broadcasters.
The period from 1965 to 1980 was the "golden age" of liberalism. To survive politically, conservatively inclined men like Nixon redefined themselves as centrists, making statements like "we are all Keynesians now." Conservative public opinion was confined mostly to low circulation magazines of varying levels of crankiness: National Review, Human Events, American Opinion, and Reason, to name the more prominent. There were also numerous newsletters with even lower circulation. There were telephone services like "Let Freedom Ring," where you could hear that day's conservative message. It was sort of like trying to find model train enthusiasts in your home town. You could find them if you asked around, but you had to put in the effort to locate them.
The one man who planted the seeds that are growing into an end to the liberal monopoly was, fittingly, Ronald Reagan, the Great Communicator. It was in his administration that the Fairness Doctrine was overturned. But it was at the tail end of his administration that a 40ish Missourian made effective use of the open airwaves to create the first mass market conservative voice in decades. The Rush Limbaugh Show generated a horde of imitators, but the EIB's "Golden Microphone" took a top spot in talk shows that no one, not Dr. Laura, not Howard Stern, not Sean Hannity, has taken away in over a decade. By 1995, the first major fissure in the liberal monopoly was broken. AM talk radio had become a fixture in the lives of many Americans, especially white males in "flyover country." It was this medium that, along with Bill and Hillary Clinton's hubris, gave both Houses of Congress to the GOP in 1994, for the first time since 1946. Not even Reagan's coattails accomplished this! The House of Representatives has stayed in the GOP's hands for four election cycles since, the first time the Republicans accomplished this feat since the days of Harding and Coolidge.
The second crack in the liberal monopoly was the Internet. As little as 20 years ago, to be an "important news source" meant having huge budgets fed by enormous advertising revenue. A practical means of cracking the news media's flagship magazines and prestige newspapers did not come along until the rise of the Internet. Then Matt Drudge, the nom de plume of a conservative whose interests combined those of a newsman and a computer geek, developed a pioneer on-line newspaper. In 2004, his Web site is viewed daily by over seven million people, more than read Time and Newsweek combined. Following in his footsteps were WorldNetDaily, Newsmax, and many others of varying quality and accuracy.
At this point, the only option the liberals have to put the genie back in the bottle is by gunpoint: reinstating the Fairness Doctrine and harrying the conservative and libertarian Web sites out of business. No one should kid themselves; given the opportunity to do so, the liberals will crush their foes by force of law. Then get used to the future: a boot stamping on a human face, forever.
Remember in the early 90s, when talk radio became huge, how "polarizing" and "damaging to the national debate" and -- wait for it -- "unfair" it was? Note to libs: you already have ABCNNBCBS, PBS and NPR. Internet and talk radio are here to stay, get over it.
The book was originally published in 2001, but Sunstein recently told me he's softened his view on government regulation. "I didn't say that such regulation is necessary; only that it's worth considering," he said via e-mail. "I'm not sure I still think so ... The major point I'd emphasize is the risk that when like-minded people speak mostly to one another, there's more division and polarization and less mutual understanding. This is a serious problem for American democracy. Lots of options are good, but it's not so good if people sort themselves into echo chambers."
I hate the smell of fascism
People want information. It's not so much that people care about the opinions of the people providing it, they just want it to be accurate and complete.
The reason why the alphabet broadcasters have lost viewers and daily newspaper circulation had dropped like a brick is not because they're "liberal" it's because they're liars or they fail in their job of providing information that's relevant but in cross-purposes of what they think is best for society.
No it's not. Flamers go back to the days pre-Usnet, on Compuserve BBS's, and trolls are not "flamers", they're disruptors who add statements that have no inherent value to threads upon which they're posted on forums such as this, or on Usenet. This guy must be another term that's used widely online. A newbie.
Apparently, it hasn't occured to the writer of this blog that if it weren't for the eixstence of conservative only web site like Free Republic, this nation would be in major political crises like a number of other nations are right now.
Web sites like this are vital not just to the sanity and health of this country but so like-minded people like myself can have the chance to address public policy issues without some Bill Clinton butt kisser bullying me around.
As I've explainded before I came to this place from a local message board put toghether by one of Oklahoma's major newspapers. It was spammed continously by out of state Democrat butt-kissers who tried to play thread police with us conservatives. Acccusing me for example of wasting bandwith everytime I tried to make a case for President Bush in 2000 while the Al Gore butt kissers were allowed to campaign for their beloved political diety without harrasssment.
Thankfully, that message board is shut down and no longer in existence. There's simply no way in the world people like me are going to accept the idea of conservative only web sites being mandated to post leftist links and allowing leftists to post on them while other web sites of political exclusivisity allowed to maintain their modus operrinti. That's just not acceptable to me or anybody else after what I had to put up with at that other message board.
Whether anybody likes it or not conservative only web sites are not going away. They're here to stay so learn to live with it. We conservatives are not going to kowtow or cupuliate our ideas to other ideoloiges just because our ideas cause disconfort to certain individuals or groups. Those days are over. Get over it and accept it.
Regards.
. . . except that those restrictions would eliminate liberals from most dialogue. The number of liberal columnists who stick to facts can be counted on the fingers of one hand-- Camille Paglia, Gregory Kane and Clarence Page are the only three who immediately come to mind.