ignoring (1), except to point out that Obama seems to be in support of the latest attempt to eviscerate the Fourth Amendment via another FISA update. Serious brakes on my enthusiasm for him to be president.
with regards to (2), however, I'd just say that it could have hardly been worse back then than it is now. How much coverage is there of the war, except when spending resolutions come up? Not non-existent, true, but not a lot.
How about coverage of the WH propaganda campaign to drum up support for the war several years ago? (Paying retired generals to go on news programs and spout stuff supportive of the war.)
How about coverage of that FISA bill I alluded to earlier (yes, I'm aware of Olbermann's special comment on it, and greatly disappointed by it)?
Going back a bit further, how about coverage of how the aluminum tubes that were the slam-dunk evidence of Sadam having nuclear weapons being called inconclusive by nuclear weapons experts within the administration?
Going back similarly far, why didn't we hear that the State Department's intelligence apparatus didn't agree with most of Colin Powell's UN speech until years later?
How about coverage of the specifics of billions of dollars wasted (literally, thrown away) in Iraq through improper administration or outright graft?
How about how contractors in Iraq are, literally, electrocuting soldiers as they take showers?
How about how people are fired for trying to get contractors over there to actually justify their invoices (a billion dollars worth, that we know of)?
Going back further again, how about coverage of Sadam's ties, or lack thereof, to al-Qaida?
While I agree that it would be great to not need the fairness doctrine, and we probably won't within the next ten years, I strongly disagree that it would not be useful now. And the reason for that is simple: too much of the population gets all their news from broadcast media, and that's just a number of cases off the top of my head where the broadcast media has fallen on its collective ass in coverage, to the great detriment of the entire country.
Hmm... If there are plenty of sources of information, why did 2/3 (it might have even been 3/4; I forget) of the US population believe that Sadam Hussein was personally involved in the planning and execution of the 9/11 attacks when we attacked Iraq? Why did 1/3 of the US still believe that two years later? There were plenty of people saying it wasn't true online. In the mass media? Not so much.
We still need those ownership rules. Hopefully not for too much longer, but for now, we definitely do.
And how can they be forbidden to publish the results? They got the copies for free, with conditional publishing? Then why not buy the software, and publish the results?
On the post: Once More, With Feeling: The Fairness Doctrine Is Not Fair, Nor Is It Needed
Re:
with regards to (2), however, I'd just say that it could have hardly been worse back then than it is now. How much coverage is there of the war, except when spending resolutions come up? Not non-existent, true, but not a lot.
How about coverage of the WH propaganda campaign to drum up support for the war several years ago? (Paying retired generals to go on news programs and spout stuff supportive of the war.)
How about coverage of that FISA bill I alluded to earlier (yes, I'm aware of Olbermann's special comment on it, and greatly disappointed by it)?
Going back a bit further, how about coverage of how the aluminum tubes that were the slam-dunk evidence of Sadam having nuclear weapons being called inconclusive by nuclear weapons experts within the administration?
Going back similarly far, why didn't we hear that the State Department's intelligence apparatus didn't agree with most of Colin Powell's UN speech until years later?
How about coverage of the specifics of billions of dollars wasted (literally, thrown away) in Iraq through improper administration or outright graft?
How about how contractors in Iraq are, literally, electrocuting soldiers as they take showers?
How about how people are fired for trying to get contractors over there to actually justify their invoices (a billion dollars worth, that we know of)?
Going back further again, how about coverage of Sadam's ties, or lack thereof, to al-Qaida?
While I agree that it would be great to not need the fairness doctrine, and we probably won't within the next ten years, I strongly disagree that it would not be useful now. And the reason for that is simple: too much of the population gets all their news from broadcast media, and that's just a number of cases off the top of my head where the broadcast media has fallen on its collective ass in coverage, to the great detriment of the entire country.
On the post: Senate Tries To Roll Back FCC Ownership Rules; Apparently Still Hasn't Heard Of The Internet
plenty of reliable sources?
We still need those ownership rules. Hopefully not for too much longer, but for now, we definitely do.
On the post: Turns Out P2P Filters Don't Actually Work
they need permission why, exactly?
Next >>