Reading through a number of blogs about this speech today, yours is one of the first that makes some good points - notably about how in days gone by the "marketplace of ideas" wasn't necessarily as free and open as it is made out to be. But this doesn't change the fact that television, which is still a news source to far more people than is the internet, is a sadly closed medium. In these point-counterpoint sessions you mention, we only see two perspectives. Of course, they're two dissenting opinions, but it creates the illusion that as issue has only two sides when in fact there are many. This is why the internet, and blogs in particular, are so vital. I'm hopeful that the internet will be controlled by the UN rather than by only one country. The debate we're having here IS the Marketplace of Ideas.
Tom,
My exact sentiments! I heard some excerpts of his speech on radio this morning. I thought to myself-- how close we came to having him as Commander-in-Chief! The man gets wackier by the day.
From his rant: “It is no longer possible to ignore the strangeness of our public discourse.” The irony of this statement coming from him is overwhelming.
..."A sergeant offered that support would increase if more people served and suggested that returning to a draft might help universal understanding".
Whoa…I don’t think so!—says the former draftee.
I'm hopeful that the internet will be controlled by the UN rather than by only one country.
YIKES!!!!!!
You're right, he didn't say that he "invented" the internet, he said that he "created" it. There's just not enough difference to quibble over in my mind.
I second the "YIKES!" on u.n. internet governance. If you haven't been aware of how the u.n.'s been sniffing at the internet's crotch, I touched on it a bit here, and have been putting off a status update on it for weeks. Essentially, China, Iran, and Cuba would like very much for the internet to be governed by the u.n. - that alone should chill you.
@Doug, you forgot to mention the EU, they are in favour too, could it get any more chilling
I briefly watched former Speaker of the House Tom Foley (Democrat) and former Congressman Robert Walker (Republican) on C-Span this morning. Foley mentioned America's fiscal situation and the budget deficits. Walker pointed out that although the Democrats are very good at complaining of the way things are, they are incapble of coming to a consensus among their numbers in Congress over what alternative they should offer to the American people: tax increases, spending cuts....
Foley agreed with Walker, reluctantly. But it's not just on fiscal issues where the Democrats have no credible program (not that the Republicans have been doing well on spending either, but the Bush tax cuts are an excellent economic program).
On the war on terror, the Democrats can't offer much but complaint.
So, all you get are weird rants by Al Gore and others.
By the way, you guys have been generating some great posts in these past few weeks. Larry's, Dak's and Tom's. Bravo!
Now I know that you all despise Mr Gore and will grasp any opportunity to put the boot in, but am I the only one who can see a resemblance between his comments and what I see on sites like this? Certainly, in his usual wordiness (always a flaw with him) he hides his point under blather, but his central thrust, that television news media is controlled by a small group of people who use it to manipulate the nations discourse, well isn't this just the same point I see here week in week out?
OK- he doesn't share in the deluded msm liberal conspiracy paranoia that you're all fond of, but otherwise it's the exact same point. I notice also that his chief comments about the web are that he would prefer it to be more influential, but that he fears as it does so its freedoms will be undermined and that we must fight to prevent this. Isn't that what you all think too?
Gee- I don't know why you didn't all vote for him back in 2000 when you had the chance.
Alright, I'm kidding, but to me it's typical that as soon as someone who you see as "THEM" and not "US" says something you start the abuse. Yes- you see the same thing on left wing sites too, but as my mom says "that doesn't make it right".
So think again for a minute about this. I think he's a bit off target when he harks back to some golden age of a free media; it's never been like that. But as media companies consolidate and ownership shrinks to a smaller group this situation is worsening. And do you really think that a nation where the only financial way to compete for national office is to sell your agenda to the highest corporate bidder enjoys a healthy democracy?
I happen to think that Mr Gore, the presidential choice of the majority of Americans in 2000, might be rather a good judge of that.
Whistlin Bob,
do you really think that a nation where the only financial way to compete for national office is to sell your agenda to the highest corporate bidder enjoys a healthy democracy?
I don't really think this situation exists. You've got conservative talk radio, liberal talk radio (like Air America and National Public Radio). You got conservative and liberal internet sites. You got conservative and liberal television shows (O'Reilly and Hannity on the right; Chris Matthews and Katy Couric on the Left).
I see a competition of ideas. Not a robotic auction of souls to media CEOs. But that's just me.
I thought Walter Cronkite was dead already? Has he resurrected???
…young people who realized they were being shut out of the dialogue of democracy came up with a new form of expression in an effort to join the national conversation: the "demonstration."… Even this outlet is now rarely an avenue for expression on national television.
I don’t know where Gore is living now but he must not receive many stations.
…every day they unleash squadrons of digital brownshirts to harass and hector any journalist who is critical of the President.
The man is truly gripped by paranoia. But to his credit he does trip over some obvious media blems. So here’s my little goodie-bag for Gore:
And the well-known axiom that guides most local television news is "if it bleeds, it leads." (To which some disheartened journalists add, "If it thinks, it stinks.")
I agree. One of the biggest problems troops complain about is that the media focuses almost entirely on the violence in Iraq and pays little to no attention on the amazing accomplishments they make in other areas. Yet, I don’t think this is what Gore was alluding to.
…The Robert Blake trial. The Laci Peterson tragedy. The Michael Jackson trial. The Runaway Bride. The search in Aruba…
Yep, they went way over the top on these stories but no mention of the media’s long obsession with Abu Ghraib?
Michael, Yes, amazingly old Walter is still around and getting nuttier.
Commenting by HaloScan
