JayB

All true (minor quibble about the meaning of words thing) - just hoping to get the homonym to articulate his personal sine qua non of right-wingism.

I was actually kind of concerned that they'd be short on material after the end of the Bush years...

Jesus, STFU, you drama queen real world violence...give me fuckin break, man. Hey: Look on the bright side. There's no reason anyone who wants to cross the vauge and context-dependent lines that get drawn on the site every once in a great while can't go on pursuing whatever outcome or interaction they're after using PM's, e-mail, registered mail, phone calls, telegrams, etc in private even if it's not particularly welcome on one of the public forums here. Besides, it was just a request. From a drama queen, no less.

dude, he called Ivan right wing in the last day or two. liar. show us. i may have just been collateral damage from standing too close to jay on the "suffer the fucking children" thread you can poke around page 7 of that gem and infer what you will for yourself, and if you catch yourself doing it, you probably should seek counseling I'm actually curious about what constitutes a conservative and/or right wing outlook. I don't necessarily take offense at being labeled as such here, but I'm curious about a definition of "right wing" that can encompass agnosticism, complete legalization of drugs and prostitution, support for gay marriage, etc. "This fear of trusting uncontrolled social forces is closely related to two other characteristics of conservatism: its fondness for authority and its lack of understanding of economic forces. Since it distrusts both abstract theories and general principles,[6] it neither understands those spontaneous forces on which a policy of freedom relies nor possesses a basis for formulating principles of policy. Order appears to the conservative as the result of the continuous attention of authority, which, for this purpose, must be allowed to do what is required by the particular circumstances and not be tied to rigid rule. A commitment to principles presupposes an understanding of the general forces by which the efforts of society are co-ordinated, but it is such a theory of society and especially of the economic mechanism that conservatism conspicuously lacks. So unproductive has conservatism been in producing a general conception of how a social order is maintained that its modern votaries, in trying to construct a theoretical foundation, invariably find themselves appealing almost exclusively to authors who regarded themselves as liberal. Macaulay, Tocqueville, Lord Acton, and Lecky certainly considered themselves liberals, and with justice; and even Edmund Burke remained an Old Whig to the end and would have shuddered at the thought of being regarded as a Tory. Let me return, however, to the main point, which is the characteristic complacency of the conservative toward the action of established authority and his prime concern that this authority be not weakened rather than that its power be kept within bounds. This is difficult to reconcile with the preservation of liberty. In general, it can probably be said that the conservative does not object to coercion or arbitrary power so long as it is used for what he regards as the right purposes. He believes that if government is in the hands of decent men, it ought not to be too much restricted by rigid rules. Since he is essentially opportunist and lacks principles, his main hope must be that the wise and the good will rule - not merely by example, as we all must wish, but by authority given to them and enforced by them.[7] Like the socialist, he is less concerned with the problem of how the powers of government should be limited than with that of who wields them; and, like the socialist, he regards himself as entitled to force the value he holds on other people. When I say that the conservative lacks principles, I do not mean to suggest that he lacks moral conviction. The typical conservative is indeed usually a man of very strong moral convictions. What I mean is that he has no political principles which enable him to work with people whose moral values differ from his own for a political order in which both can obey their convictions. It is the recognition of such principles that permits the coexistence of different sets of values that makes it possible to build a peaceful society with a minimum of force. The acceptance of such principles means that we agree to tolerate much that we dislike. There are many values of the conservative which appeal to me more than those of the socialists; yet for a liberal the importance he personally attaches to specific goals is no sufficient justification for forcing others to serve them. I have little doubt that some of my conservative friends will be shocked by what they will regard as "concessions" to modern views that I have made in Part III of this book. But, though I may dislike some of the measures concerned as much as they do and might vote against them, I know of no general principles to which I could appeal to persuade those of a different view that those measures are not permissible in the general kind of society which we both desire. To live and work successfully with others requires more than faithfulness to one's concrete aims. It requires an intellectual commitment to a type of order in which, even on issues which to one are fundamental, others are allowed to pursue different ends. It is for this reason that to the liberal neither moral nor religious ideals are proper objects of coercion, while both conservatives and socialists recognize no such limits. I sometimes feel that the most conspicuous attribute of liberalism that distinguishes it as much from conservatism as from socialism is the view that moral beliefs concerning matters of conduct which do not directly interfere with the protected sphere of other persons do not justify coercion. This may also explain why it seems to be so much easier for the repentant socialist to find a new spiritual home in the conservative fold than in the liberal. In the last resort, the conservative position rests on the belief that in any society there are recognizably superior persons whose inherited standards and values and position ought to be protected and who should have a greater influence on public affairs than others. The liberal, of course, does not deny that there are some superior people - he is not an egalitarian - bet he denies that anyone has authority to decide who these superior people are. While the conservative inclines to defend a particular established hierarchy and wishes authority to protect the status of those whom he values, the liberal feels that no respect for established values can justify the resort to privilege or monopoly or any other coercive power of the state in order to shelter such people against the forces of economic change. Though he is fully aware of the important role that cultural and intellectual elites have played in the evolution of civilization, he also believes that these elites have to prove themselves by their capacity to maintain their position under the same rules that apply to all others."

Pat & Bill: Arguments and low-grade rhetorical clashes have always been a part of Spray, but using the site as a mechanism to perpetuate a feud that always seems to be on the edge of escalating into real world violence just isn't a suitable use of this site, IMO, and I hope that you'll both reconsider persisting in it - at least here - regardless of who may be most at fault.

independent/public media are a "gaggle of leftists"? why do you keep thinking your rhetorical fallacies will go unnoticed? hmm, nope. You'll find that an informed public being essential to democracy is a widely shared concept and definitely not an obsolete, moth-eaten vision despite your irrational hatred of what the 60's brought to western democracies. For all your attempts at appearing as a tolerant, freedom loving type, the vision that emerges from your rhetoric is very bleak. I'm not the one histrionically lamenting the inadequacy of the American public's media preferences here, kemosabe. Listening to you expound on the significance of TV in the internet age is like reading an anarchist manifesto concerning the political implications of the phonograph in the radio age. "Step 1: Seize the phonograph factory and distribute wax cylinders bearing the manifesto to...." The vision that you've been articulating is neither necessary nor sufficient for an informed public. Most of the items passing for news on the itnernet is opinion, talking heads, blogs reguritating wire service stories, and "analysis". There is very little investigative journalism that orginates from these sources. Rather that is still the domain of newspapers, NY Times, Washington Post, LA Times, etc.; and some broadcast news - 60 minutes comes to mind. While the information is now more widely dispersed via the internet - it's pulling content from the traditional news sources. And more variations on the same content, rehashed over and over, is not adding any information but spin. Maybe this will change as the medium matures - but my guess is that we'll just get more dancing midgets on things like youtube and an endless succession of 15-minute-moments that continue to find a vast audience of dolts. Anyone who wants the information can easily find it. Anyone with a pulse can find draft copies of pending legislation, in about five mintues, even before it hits the floor for a final vote. I do this at least once a month. Ditto for every episode of FrontLine, recordings of significant political speeches, SEC-Filings for public companies, minutes from Congressional hearings, content and perspective from news organizations based outside of the US, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc. There's never been a time when either becoming or staying informed was easier. Seems like your main gripe here is with the American public. No?

independent/public media are a "gaggle of leftists"? why do you keep thinking your rhetorical fallacies will go unnoticed? hmm, nope. You'll find that an informed public being essential to democracy is a widely shared concept and definitely not an obsolete, moth-eaten vision despite your irrational hatred of what the 60's brought to western democracies. For all your attempts at appearing as a tolerant, freedom loving type, the vision that emerges from your rhetoric is very bleak. I'm not the one histrionically lamenting the inadequacy of the American public's media preferences here, kemosabe. Listening to you expound on the significance of TV in the internet age is like reading an anarchist manifesto concerning the political implications of the phonograph in the radio age. "Step 1: Seize the phonograph factory and distribute wax cylinders bearing the manifesto to...." The vision that you've been articulating is neither necessary nor sufficient for an informed public.

you make the assertion, you do the homework, friend. but i'll make it easy on ya: just list three of your best examples. 'Kay. 1. Tariffs. 2. Subsidies. 3. Tax exemptions. 4. (Bonus!)Earmarks. Might be fun to start with corn-ethanol if you need a particular example to get things started.

Pure horseshit. The entire history of the television medium can be read as an exercise in sales. Selling people on new programming: the sitcom, the game-show, the police procedural, the reality-show. But more importantly, television as it exists is purely and simply an advertising delivery device. Programming is a secondary consideration, the name of the game is getting someone to the commercial break. In any given hour, somewhere between 40 and 60 percent of programming is dedicated to giving viewers precisely what they don't want: advertising. Providing content is a net loss, the television industry makes money selling ads by delivering the lowest common denominator. (In a context where a large portion of the population can't put Canada on a map, anyone can guess where quality is headed.) Don't even mention the state of journalism in this environment. The crisis in media from Tivo and the internet (both lauded by consumers for their ability to insulate themselves from overbearing commercialism) stems from falling ad revenue, how to make money, not finding content. HBO aside, milking profits in this climate has pushed television to reduce production values and intensify its own sales pitch to advertisers. Product placement is not good enough anymore. Reality TV allows producers to reduce budgets, easily place product, and turn consumption into a main attraction, if not the entire show. Cribs or American Chopper anyone? Again, simply freeing a substantial portion of television bandwidth from the constraints imposed by the profit imperative (no claques, central planning, death panels, etc.) would lead to greater choice, more diversity, higher quality and lead viewers to discover previously unknown outlets for "what they want". It would certainly be possible to minimize politicization in the provision of the space to do and guarantee fair access as with other public utilities. Anyone who wants to sit down and get harangued by a gaggle of leftists for their many failings and shortcomings can dial them up on Youtube and get their virtual lashings on demand. Or they can borrow copies of virtually any documentary ever created from the library (I hear they have "books" there too!). Or pay $10 a month and do the same on Netflix. It's never been easier for people who are interested in quality, diversity, etc to get their hands on it at little or no cost to themselves, so it's not clear why the public needs to fork over any additional funds or grant the government any additional powers to underwrite a moth-eaten, 1960's era vision of TV as a mechanism for social uplift. Might also be worth considering the extent to which your arguments apply to televangelists. How'd they manage to acquire such a massive presence on TV?

classic anti-intellectual demagoguery. If you were better informed, you'd know that independent/public productions and media are immensely popular where they are properly funded. I'll just let you ponder the example of the BBC. as if it was needed to prove that today, corporations control politicians and policy. We have seen 100's of examples over the last few years and I have yet to read you contest any of it. Until then, you denial that corporate power is unchecked is mildly amusing, if not tragic. You've pretty much given the game away here by conceding that granting the government the powers over the media marketplace that you are fantasizing about will, in practice, wind up granting more power to whoever can most successfully lobby the government to rig the game on their behalf. Are you sure that your journo/filmo editorial collective is going to prevail in that contest forever?

indeed, because, through the many examples of government impositions on business and cultural activities that JayB will now tout out in support of his paranoias, all will be revealed. All Will Be Revealed. ALL WILL BE REVEALED! Don't take my word for it. Peruse the tax code, an appropriations bill, or any legislation that has any bearing on the above at your leisure and draw your own conclusions about the extent to which the conduct of public affairs is driven by private motives, and the extent to government's interventions in the media marketplace will be free from them.

I think you missed the point there. I wasn't saying that enforcing whatever limited programming mandate that a claque of leftist media-chaperones wanted to force the American public to bypass with their remotes and TiVo's would lead straight to any of the above. I was simply stating the fact that the array of coercive powers at, say, Ron Popeil's disposal are considerably less imposing than those available to the government. Given the track record of various private interests and motives distorting the operation of the same, if you're going to worry about a particular entity imposing a "manufactured" agenda on the public, the locus of your concern is puzzling and invites a logical justification.

Nonsense. Everyone knows the market is waaaaay more into Connecticut soccer-moms with cankles.

alright, well this hardly sounds insane - good luck getting the funding though, as you know pbs makes the conservos insane - i don't see the need to break up fox or any other current news provider however, but taxing mega-corps to help fund your more public channels might work - the current lineup of pbs shows already has a # of snoozers though, so it'd be challenging to find much of quality to fill the time - seems like it'd mostly be wayne's world knock-offs I certainly hope someone intervenes soon, or AOL will control all new media and AltaVista will irreversibly consolidate their dominance in search.

and Perhaps, some day you'll explain to us how you get to prohibition, banning and manufacturing obedience when people are talking about diversity and independence. Especially since loss of freedom occurs as surely through corporate hegemony as it would though direct government control as is very apparent today (fact that you have yet to acknowledge). You seem to operate in a manichean world where there is no alternative to corporate and/or government oppression. The claim in bold is fascinating, and I hope that you'll expand on it at length. Choose your favorite corporate hegemon (Starbucks?) and take it from there.

i do want to understand your argument - are you just saying you want the goverment to pick up the tab for more cspan/pbs type channels and have some democratic body for determining their content? That could be a key component of media reform, a more rigorous application of anti-trust law to break up media conglomerates could be another. Independent bodies insulated from commercial and political interests charged with maintaining free and fair access to those outlets would be very important, programming and control over content would need to be as decentralized as possible with filmmakers and journalists themselves having the most say. But I don't have a problem with government helping to fund content. The Film Board of Canada and Swedish Television for example, have helped produce many films and programs of lasting significance. The same could be said of PBS. The crucial point to all of this however is that freeing a substantial chunk of the media (and journalism especially) from the pressures imposed by the quest after profit and the lowest common denominator can represent an increase in diversity and higher quality. Good lord. Diversity and quality as defined by who, exactly? As if there wouldn't be a whole raft of "undemocratic" political considerations that warped the distribution of programming amongst the filmo/journo collective at the heart of this fantasy that warped the distribution of content and constrained access in ways that are at least as severe as those that determine what happens on the commercial airways. It should go without saying, but it apparently doesn't, that they crank out content that's entirely consistent with both "the public interest," in the most literal sense. That is, what the public is actually interested in watching. You may not like it, but your hallowed majority votes with their remotes every night and the grant-dependent paean to pacific vegan horticultural collective in Southern Vermont and loses to the WWE every time. No amount of publicly funded browbeating by a claque of self-annointed media governesses is going to change that. Anyone who wants to can find that particular full length documentary on the internet, which pretty much negates the basic premise of this conversation and the purpose of the "People's Media Collective" being fantasized about at length here. The fact that people are lamenting the barriers to information in the present, and romanticizing some vague golden past in the age of manual typewriters is just astonishing.

This is definitely a topic that comes up from time to time, so it'd be worth taking a moment to use the search function to scroll through the previous threads. I don't think that there's any way to avoid paying more, but from what I can recall some folks seemed to have found some strategies to dull the pain a bit.

Sounds like eliminating constitutional checks and balances in exchange for turning over every third channel to C-SPAN is a one-way ticket to utopia.

It's more than a bit strange that these corporate media oligopolies have seemed to have so little interest in using the uncheckable array of powers at their disposal to manipulate the public into consuming enough of the print media that they generate to allow the said media outlets to stay in business. Seems like if they can subvert the "public interest" at will and subvert it to their own ends that'd be job one.

The current situation amounts to limiting the public square to a tiny minority, but hey... Democratic institutions have devised all sorts of ways to protect the interests of minorities. The 'one dollar/one megaphone' media oligopoly system however has not. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. No one is entitled to an audience for it.

I'd rather what's in the public interest be decided by the public through an open and democratic process than by simply allowing it to be defined de facto by those whose abiding and objective interest is in keeping "the unruly mob" in a state of idiotic stupor punctuated with bouts of frenzied consumption. [video:youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31_v2SLwLJI Let's hear more about this public process. What are the specific legislative mechanisms, enforcement protocols, etc that you'd establish given a blank slate to do so?

The counterpoint would be the book "Manufacturing Consent" by Chomsky and Herman. I agree that trying to decide who's speech is in the public interest is a slippery slope and one that should be avoided. But corporations have enourmous power in getting out their message these days. I would at least prefer that they pay market rates for the use of the public airways while trying to convince us we're dorks unless we purchase the latest trinket du jour. And I prefer the former practice of requiring stations to provide limited air time to community groups or individuals rather than the current facade of public service by making appereances at the last walk for the (fill in the blank for terminal illness of choice). I'm not sure how one can logically equate the threats posed by manufacturing consent via media to be more significant than manufucturing obedience via the power to ban, seize, imprison, etc., all of which are subject to being co-opted to serve private interests in the name of safeguarding the public interest. Anyone foolish enough to knock back a shot every time someone invoked "the public interest" while listening to the advocates of the various ethanol mandates plying the halls of congress, for example, would succumb to alcohol poisoning in less time than it takes to get through one of the PSA's you cite above.

Seems like a timely moment to trot out one of the better passages on the perils of prohibitionism, be it of speech or drugs: " No words need be wasted over the fact that all these narcotics are harmful. The question whether even a small quantity of alcohol is harmful or whether the harm results only from the abuse of alcoholic beverages is not at issue here. It is an established fact that alcoholism, cocainism, and morphinism are deadly enemies of life, of health, and of the capacity for work and enjoyment; and a utilitarian must therefore consider them as vices. But this is far from demonstrating that the authorities must interpose to suppress these vices by commercial prohibitions, nor is it by any means evident that such intervention on the part of the government is really capable of suppressing them or that, even if this end could be attained, it might not therewith open up a Pandora's box of other dangers, no less mischievous than alcoholism and morphinism. Whoever is convinced that indulgence or excessive indulgence in these poisons is pernicious is not hindered from living abstemiously or temperately. This question cannot be treated exclusively in reference to alcoholism, morphinism, cocainism, etc., which all reasonable men acknowledge to be evils. For if the majority of citizens is, in principle, conceded the right to impose its way of life upon a minority, it is impossible to stop at prohibitions against indulgence in alcohol, morphine, cocaine, and similar poisons. Why should not what is valid for these poisons be valid also for nicotine, caffeine, and the like? Why should not the state generally prescribe which foods may be indulged in and which must be avoided because they are injurious? In sports too, many people are prone to carry their indulgence further than their strength will allow. Why should not the state interfere here as well? Few men know how to be temperate in their sexual life, and it seems especially difficult for aging persons to understand that they should cease entirely to indulge in such pleasures or, at least, do so in moderation. Should not the state intervene here too? More harmful still than all these pleasures, many will say, is the reading of evil literature. Should a press pandering to the lowest instincts of man be allowed to corrupt the soul? Should not the exhibition of pornographic pictures, of obscene plays, in short, of all allurements to immorality, be prohibited? And is not the dissemination of false sociological doctrines just as injurious to men and nations? Should men be permitted to incite others to civil war and to wars against foreign countries? And should scurrilous lampoons and blasphemous diatribes be allowed to undermine respect for God and the Church? We see that as soon as we surrender the principle that the state should not interfere in any questions touching on the individual's mode of life, we end by regulating and restricting the latter down to the smallest detail. The personal freedom of the individual is abrogated. He becomes a slave of the community, bound to obey the dictates of the majority. It is hardly necessary to expatiate on the ways in which such powers could be abused by malevolent persons in authority. The wielding, of powers of this kind even by men imbued with the best of intentions must needs reduce the world to a graveyard of the spirit. All mankind's progress has been achieved as a result of the initiative of a small minority that began to deviate from the ideas and customs of the majority until their example finally moved the others to accept the innovation themselves. To give the majority the right to dictate to the minority what it is to think, to read, and to do is to put a stop to progress once and for all."

sure, okay, of course - they're big businesses themselves so of course they're gonna be pro business, but that's been the case for more than a century, and again, the birth of the internet has substantially improved reporting by the little-man - the bottom line is that it's not the governments place to go and destroy mega-news providers - there is competition both amongst themselves and w/ the blogosphere, and theoritically they all improve one another it is the role of government to ensure the proper use of the public commons (airwaves). Proper use that includes the independence of the 4th estate for a functioning democracy, which requires an informed public. Self-censorship to retain advertisers and access to politicians is the rule rather than the exception. Coverage of all issues show that left wing perspectives aren't available through the corporate media (from the Iraq war, to single payer healthcare, to israel-palestine, and on ...). The blogosphere has a positive role to play but it doesn't have access to most of the public on a regular basis. Example: coverage of ACORN by the corporate media. Most of the info told in this segment has been available on the web for years, but only surfaces in one corporate news program once the damage to ACORN has been done: [video:youtube]zDxm--DyavI Given that "the public interest" is a rhetorical nebulosity capable of accomodating virtually any and every self-serving interpretation that one might care to invent, what's to stop whomever happens to be in power at the time from equating "public interest" with their own personal/political interests and abusing the power thus granted to them accordingly? What about the earmarking/appropriations/tax-exemption/tariff/subsidy track record gives you confidence that private motives won't supercede whatever arbitrary definition of "the public interest" is in play at any given time?