> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On > Behalf Of The Fool
... > > Eh? How is this an attack on free speech? I don't agree with the > tactics, > > but I don't exactly see Fox as a great defender of free speech, either. > > It's an organization that is attacking forms of speech (in this example, > among others, TV shows), that they do not agree with, by any and all > means possible. It's *just* a boycott. That's hardly "any and all means possible." Your hyperbole undermines the credibility of your argument. > These are the same kinds of people that, like the > Taliban, would if they could, impose their religious views on everybody > and eliminate the first amendment. Got any evidence of that? I think you're making an unjustified assumption. And the comparison to the Taliban is ridiculous -- far less rational than those you're trying to argue against. It's one heck of a leap from boycotting to terrorism. > In this particular case they are > trying to starve the show they are attacking of it's principal sponsors > and access to funds. I don't find it any less disturbing that a small group of religious fanatics can influence television programming than the fact that a small group of advertisers can do the same. The tobacco companies, which have had far more influence over media than any religious group, have killed more people than the Taliban. Neither religion nor greed are going to be eliminated, so the real solution is to reduce the cost of distributing media, to the point where it's so cheap that nether the greed-heads nor other special interests can wield so much power. > Here's a link showing the same kind of thing, in a different way: > http://www.ucomics.com/boondocks/2002/09/21/ > > Instead of attacking the speech itself they are attacking the ability of > those they are against to have that speech, they are attacking the medium > itself. That is why it so much more despicable. Imagine if Boondocks reached the same audience via the Internet, perhaps through a P2P distribution system (i.e., something with no central server), with no advertising. That change in distribution would render small groups powerless to bring it down. It would take away the influence of *any* kind of power center. Banning such boycotts would return power to the handful of big media companies and their advertisers, who currently control nearly 100 percent of what a large percentage of our population knows about the world outside their immediate experience. That situation is a far greater threat to freedom than any religious group (unless you consider the worship of power and wealth to be a religion, in which case the media *is* a religion). > > Seems to me that anything that breaks down the concentration of power > in big > > media is a move toward greater freedom of speech, not less. > > Yes. But I don't see how this relates to that article. Simply because a successful boycott against any advertising-based medium diminishes big media power. > With Michael > Powell in charge of the FCC, do you expect anything more than the > complete deregulation that has let 1 company (clear channel) buy 1200 > radio stations? It looks very much like the exact same thing is going to > happen to TV. Already about a dozen or so media giants control 70-90% of > the media you read, listen to and watch. A dozen? That would be nice. It's more like five. And you're preaching to the choir with that sentiment. I've been speaking publicly about that issue for about ten years now. Have you ever read "The Internet and the Anti-net," which I wrote for the second World Wide Web Conference? (See http://archive.ncsa.uiuc.edu/SDG/IT94/Proceedings/Overviews/arnett/Antinet.h tml.) It's the piece that led to my friendship with David Brin, among other things. I still get e-mail about it, eight years after publication. It's required or suggested reading for a number of college media classes, translated into several languages. I think you'll see that we're pretty much on the same page on this issue. We see boycotts differently, though. It seems to me to be a legitimate response to the concentration of media power. I'm not of the religious right and I don't think they'd be any less corrupt than the media companies if they controlled the airwaves... but the fundamental problem is the structure of media distribution, which needs to change so that *no one* can seize so much power. Any Christian who imagines that the world would be better off with a church-run government needs to put down the Bible for a moment and read Santayana: "Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it," and then a history of the Reformation. If you encounter Christians who seem to be aiming to run the country, feel free to remind them that Christ taught otherwise. A few good verses might be "My kingdom is not of this world," and "Render therefore unto Caesar the things which be Caesar's, and unto God the things which be God's." Or point out that pre-Reformation Europe under the domination of the Church of Rome was one of the most corrupt societies the world has ever known. But hey, I'm preaching to the choir on that one, am I not? Nick _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
