Barber wrote:Douglas, before you go all Dick Cheney on my ass, take note that the crux of my argument isn't for limited media (I'm a staunch First Amendment advocate), but for that media to have a more balanced view. (Remember, on the net even pedophiles can find peers who insist their attitudes are "normal".)
I'm not saying it's possible, but I'm saying that this multiplicity is not the panacea for having too few "professional" news organizations on television, in print and the radio.
Personally, I favor retroactively limiting the number of stations and papers any one corporation can own, both in total and in-market.
But that doesn't mean I like having websites that flat out lie to their readers/followers.
Okay, Steve, I'll put my six shooters away. I think I misread you. At any rate, I already acknowledged that the web has beaucoup crap caught in it. But it also has a great deal of valuable information in it, information that I find easier to access than in the days when I would have had to travel to the library and wade for hours through the periodicals section. And there's a lot of good debunking on the net, as well.
People who are genuinely interested in understanding the world are not gonna spend their days in some fucked-up internet community (as opposed to this one, he said self-consciously). Those are the ones who will make a difference, and those are the ones I am glad have more options than they once had.
Time for the trusty Margaret Mead quote: "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has."