The invention of the Internet is as consequential as Gutenberg's printing press. by Laurie Rogers Trlak
(libertarian)
Tuesday, April 19, 2011
The Internet Reformation
Tyrants have always known that the way to keep their subjects under their thumbs was to keep them ignorant; that was the lesson of Orwell's 1984, and that seems to be the modus operandi of the current educational establishment in this country: to keep the populace uneducated, unthinking, and unable to think for themselves, but the internet has changed that. No doubt that is why so many on the left have demanded a return to the so-called "Fairness Doctrine," which would more likely stifle free speech as broadcasters worry about possible fines or other sanctions for failure to comply with complex government regulations that change as often as the party in power.
An encouraging development in the last 20 or so years is the development of the Internet, and it has shown once again that ideas, as well as elections, have consequences, and this new medium is proving to be every bit as consequential in our modern world as Gutenberg's printing press was in medieval Europe. In 1517, when Martin Luther nailed his 95 theses to the door of Wittenberg church, intending that they be used for academic discussion, he had no idea that they would end up being disseminated widely, thanks to the printing press that Gutenberg had succeeded in creating a little over a half century earlier. Thanks to that one invention, copies of Luther's theses were distributed throughout Germany, sending shockwaves from Germany to the Vatican, eventually reaching even the shores of Great Britain. The result was the Protestant Reformation, and the world hasn't been the same since.
The advent of the internet has had a similar effect on the modern political arena, not only in the United States, but as we have seen recently, around the world; popular uprisings in Egypt, Libya, Ethiopia, and elsewhere, have been started in part by information disseminated on the internet. In the U.S., grass-roots movements such as the Tea Party have sprung up largely via the internet. These movements have gained momentum because the internet provides an accessible medium for ordinary citizens to meet, plan, and organize, even across great distances, at a relatively low cost, with little to no time lag. The empowerment inherent in this ability seriously undermines the ability of dictators to control the flow of information, necessary to maintain their power-base and control of populace. Even in a comparatively free society like the U.S., the government has an interest in controlling information, regardless of which party is in power. As last year's Wiki-leaks scandal has shown, the internet has made that much more difficult, if not impossible.
The argument in favor of the Fairness Doctrine is that it would ensure that all points of view are represented in the public airwaves. Proponents of the Fairness Doctrine insist it is necessary to ensure that the airwaves are not co-opted by right-wing politics, leaving the public with no opposing points of view. According to an article appearing on the website for Common Dreams.org, even while the doctrine was in effect, right-wing talk show hosts dominated the media (Steve Randall. The Fairness Doctrine: How We Lost It, And Why We Need It Back. CommonDreams.Org. February 12, 2005). But many on the right believe, with some justification, that the main-stream media, consisting of the three major broadcast networks, as well as CNN and MSNBC, are so biased towards the left that the only way to provide any balance at all is to present a conservative viewpoint. The success of conservative talk radio and Fox News speaks to the hunger the American public has for news and commentary that they feel is unbiased and honest, which says a great deal about the perceptions people have, rightly or wrongly about the main-stream media; and who can blame people for thinking that the media have a strong liberal bias? During the 2008 presidential campaign, so many television journalists were so enamored of Barack Obama that no serious questions were asked concerning his abilities or qualifications.
Before the advent of AM talk radio and Fox News, day-time television focused on variety entertainment programming such as Merv Griffin and Dinah Shore, featuring various celebrities. Phil Donahue's show was something of a new genre in daytime programming, and he was hardly a conservative shill, nor was his protgee, Oprah Winfrey. Phil Donahue is about as far from being a conservative as Ronald Reagan was from being a liberal. Morton Downey, Jr. had what could arguably be called a conservative talk-show on WWOR in the 1980s, although most of the content of his programming was designed to provoke outrage more than serious political debate. And of course, Rush Limbaugh got his start back in the 80s on radio, and he did have a short-lived late-night television show in the 90s. But Sally Jessie Raphael and Ricki Lake were far from conservative. Not until market forces revealed that such programming had an audience eager to hear what radio broadcasters like Rush had to say did radio stations begin airing this type of programming, and not until the launch of Fox News on cable in the late 90s was there a non-liberal presence in television news broadcasting on cable, which had been dominated by CNN until then.
Many people see the push for a new fairness doctrine as a bald-faced attempt to control the dissemination of information on the internet, in addition to silencing or at least muffling conservative talk radio. The fact that most of the supporters of a new Fairness Doctrine are on the left should raise red flags for anyone who values free speech and small government. Given the left's intolerance for any opinions contrary to its own, those of us who demur should resist tooth and nail any attempt to stifle free speech. The role of the government is not to ensure fairness in speech; it is to maintain order and provide for defense. Our constitution limits the power of the federal government to what is clearly outlined in its articles. For too long the courts have used judicial sleight-of-hand to allow government to overstep its constitutionally delimited boundaries. Last November's elections indicated that we as a people may be ready for a new reformation. We will not tolerate a dictatorial government attempting to regulate speech via the internet or radio and television. The question is: will they listen? And if they don't, what then?
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 3
thumbs so far
The views expressed
in this article are those of Laurie Rogers Trlak only and
do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates.
Laurie Rogers Trlak is solely responsible for the contents
of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated
with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
