View Single Post
Old April 1, 2020, 01:28 PM   #22
Pond, James Pond
Senior Member
Join Date: July 12, 2011
Location: Top of the Baltic stack
Posts: 5,981
My resistance to the Fairness Doctrine is that it is not a substantive outcome, but is an assertion of government authority, an end in itself. If you employ a corrupt means in order to strive for an end, you get a corrupted end as well.
I think I've made this point earlier, but I'll reiterate it: I'm not after a government arbiter.

I'm after balanced reporting, fact-based reporting, fact-checked reporting.

If a given position is given I want a reporting ethic that would make inviting opposing views to contribute should they choose.

And I want that because I believe that way lies a better, more fully informed public.

How that comes about, is less of an issue for me. I see private media do appalling reporting: some of it bemoaned on this very forum. I see state media reporting very well.

And I see the reverse in both cases too. Sometimes within the same organisations.

Who is the greater threat to free speech, a lazy and sloppy reporter or a media commissar?
My point is not about risking free speech. It is about making full use of it.

Not for the immediate benefit of the speaker, but the secondary benefit of free speech which is an exposure to many ideas, not just the main one, the preferred one, the convenient one.

Why aren't people angry about that?

Going back to the initial point of the thread more specifically together with my motive for posting: isn't telling that it's not debate, discussion and a regular exchange of views that has coaxed many to re-evaluate the ownership of guns, and therefore perhaps their view on the 2A, but rather a global pandemic that may kill many yet?
When the right to effective self-defence is denied, that right to self-defence which remains is essentially symbolic.
Freedom: Please enjoy responsibly.
Pond, James Pond is offline  
Page generated in 0.03120 seconds with 8 queries