I agree with everything in there, except the inferred notion that full government control of the airwaves would remedy any of that. Almost everything noted in there as "doublespeak" is a government named and executed initiative, and those names were given by government officials. What makes anyone think that government control of content would change anything, other than further reducing what little legitimate dissent is currently broadcast in the new media? The news media has not lost its legitimacy due to deregulation; instead, it has lost its legitimacy due to its entanglement with the government, and the favors paid to it for its compliance. The problem is not too little government involvement, it is - as with most things in life - too much government involvement.
I agree with everything in there, except the inferred notion that full government control of the airwaves would remedy any of that. Almost everything noted in there as "doublespeak" is a government named and executed initiative, and those names were given by government officials. What makes anyone think that government control of content would change anything, other than further reducing what little legitimate dissent is currently broadcast in the new media? The news media has not lost its legitimacy due to deregulation; instead, it has lost its legitimacy due to its entanglement with the government, and the favors paid to it for its compliance. The problem is not too little government involvement, it is - as with most things in life - too much government involvement.
ReplyDelete