Slashdot Mirror
Why the Web Mustn't Become the New TV
An anonymous reader writes "This article argues that Rupert Murdoch's bid to own complete control of BSkyB is only part of an ongoing process to make the internet a totally 'linear' experience. The increase in the use of paginated content and the proliferation of video over transcribed interviews are, the author argues, part of a tidal shift from a browsable internet experience to a linear one that will move the user's experience of media from genuine choice to a series of locked-down 'information rides,' in order to re-secure advertising exposure. The author also writes, 'Current worries among publishing houses that magazines and newspapers will succumb to the digital written word on the internet are perhaps analogous to Victorian fears about mechanical horses taking over from real horses in the drawing of carriages. The point is being missed, the wrong fear being indulged.'"
Which is why I've never liked the word "conservative". I'm registered Republican and yet want to repeal the Patriot Act, shrink government to the enumerated powers in the Constitution, and legalize marijuana, cocaine, et cetera. I can hardly be called conservative, despite people's attempts to attach it to me
TBH these qualities you list sound more Libertarian than Republican or conservative. Are you sure the Republican Party is best representing your interests? It's hard to find authoritative definitions on this subject, but my reading is that the American Republican Party is a Conservative party who's goals are to retard cultural and scientific progress, make war and consolidate power amongst large business and the church.
I mean, I know that sounds harsh and all, but I honestly can't determine what other goals they have from their track record.
I am a Libertarian, and my belief is that the greatest common good can be found by maximizing personal liberty. This implies repealing the Patriot Act, shrinking governmental responsibility to the level mandated by the constitution (the people's contract with the federal government), repealing the prohibition of recreational drugs, erasing the sexist boundaries around the definition of marriage, etc etc.
People willing to trade their freedom of expression for temporary entertainment deserve neither and will lose both.
Choose whatever grocery store you want. Almost all the products in every store are made by a handful of companies.
You only think you have choices. And if you could choose between 5 different ISPs it wouldn't be long before it became 4 ISPs. As long as you have unlimited money in politics, you're going to have unlimited corporate power in the Justice Department, Congress and the Courts.
Let's talk again when you're ready for publicly-funded elections, with instant runoff and no electronic voting. If you're not ready for those things, it doesn't matter if you call yourself liberal, conservative, libertarian or Tea Party. You're not ready to stop being a serf.
You are welcome on my lawn.
You have made my day.
So the concept of externality is something someone can get at even when starting out as a libertarian. Yay! There is Hope!
I count myself as a liberal, of late, but I'm probably more conservative on drugs than you are. I support full legalisation of marijuana, but for now at least, I wouldn't go past decriminalizing simple possession of the harder drugs and would keep dealing illegal until we see more about what the pot law changes actually do. It bothers me that there are currently 17 federal agencies where some agents have full automatic weapons carry powers (outside of the Military itself). I don't just want to repeal the USAPATRIOT act, I'd like to cut that 17 way down, maybe to the point where the BATF and the IRS have to get an FBI agent or US Marshall to come along if they need physical force, certainly at least to the point where the only people at Treasury routinely carrying guns are either Secret Service on presidential guard duty or are guarding gold shipments. Never-the-less, you sound at least semi-rational in your views.
With that said, I'm trying to figure out how you can claim with a straight face that Fox is the only network that doesn't lean left. It sounds to me like you are drawing a line that puts 65% or so of all Americans on the hard left, (in which case, I suggest you surrender to the inevitable.). I've seen stories where I thought there was a leftwards bias, but there are quite a few that go the opposite way. For example, remember the Rod Blagojevich scandal? One of Blagojevich's flunkies was recorded in a wiretap as saying the Obama camp was 'a bunch of boy scouts', who wouldn't play ball at all. ABC and MSN ran that story as an update to the scandal, and both had a headline with it saying some variation on " Obama has some explaining to do.". That's right wing bias right there - when the same evidence that shows a perp is guilty suggests you were as pure as the driven snow and didn't associate with the criminal act is when you don't have some 'splainin' to do, in any normal, sane world. Alternately, it was because some parts of the press were locked in pro Hillary mode at that time, or just trying to keep the race close so they could draw more viewers. Maybe it doesn't fit neatly into left/right at all, but it sure as shootin' doesn't make a good example of left wing bias.
Just recently, we had the nutcase who took over the Discovery channel offices. NBC excerpted the part of the frootloop's manifesto where he referred to Al Gore's "Inconvenient Truth" as proof he was inspired by Liberal sources, but left out the parts where he talked about "ending all immigration and completely closing our borders", and "Eliminating the Anchor Babies". For the first 48 hours after the story broke, to see the whole manifesto you had to go to the BBC. I've seen dozens of stories such as that.
You do know, don't you, that the real, classical left wants to try Bush and Cheney for war crimes? The real left (to the extent there is a single 'real' left) wants to nationalize all the investment banks that are 'too big to fail'. The left doesn't just want to repeal the Bush tax cuts on people making over 250 K a year, they want to raise the maximum rate - some of them to something like what it was in the Eisenhower era (90%). Yeah, I remember CBS giving time to Noam Chomsky's arguments on the 2010 Supreme court revocation of campaign finance limits. No wait, not one national news outlet put Chomsky on the air on that (AFAIK). A lot of the people who were, or are, the left wing equivalent of Rush and Glenn don't get any airtime at all. Actors shooting off their mouths get used instead to 'present both sides'.
Who is John Cabal?