Dumbing Down

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-01-2004
Dumbing Down
85
Tue, 06-08-2010 - 4:50pm

In a recent commencement address, Obama worried about too much information being available via the Internet.

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-28-2009
In reply to: galanie
Thu, 06-10-2010 - 8:24pm
One would be hard-pressed to find a site that is more biased, more on the fringe, more conspiracy theory oriented than WND.
iVillage Member
Registered: 05-13-2009
In reply to: galanie
Thu, 06-10-2010 - 8:38pm

Where again did Obama say "too much information" is harmful, perhaps even dangerous." Because I actually read the commencement address, and its not in there.

Where does he "Tax sources of information."? Is that the Mary Bono letter as proof?

Remind me how long Obama has been President? "Provide tax funds to your supporters (much as ACORN was subsidized over the years until non-traditional media investigated)". How about the Bush funding faith-based initiatives? Isn't that comparable?

That's not unique the the Obama admin, but I personally find it petty, but not illegal or even oppressive as its all public information. "Seek to censor or limit access by media that question your administration?" Fox can criticize Obama, and Obama can criticize Fox - 1st amendment for all!

OKAAAY. I am now done. I've got to adjust my tin foil hat. When you have real information to back up your "insights" into Obama's ultimate goals, we'll engage.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-02-2009
In reply to: galanie
Thu, 06-10-2010 - 9:48pm
You'll notice that when you reference an Obama speech about limiting information or government probing into ways they can use our tax money to prop up their failing mouthpieces like the New York Times, the reaction will focus on a "link" that you don't have. We all know why.

"Resist, we much. We must, and we much. About that, be committed."

iVillage Member
Registered: 05-13-2009
In reply to: galanie
Thu, 06-10-2010 - 10:28pm

Can you enlighten me then?

The op proposition was bogus based on the content of the actual speech. All information is not equal. WND as proof? Mary Bono as expert? I lurve WND, it is infinitely entertaining. Neither provide "proof" when speculating that the Obama admin is planning to take over the media like China and Iran.

So when I offer actual proof that op is incorrect, and that there is no actual plan to use taxes to prop up print media.

So when you put a point out for debate, you don't have to support you point on THIS board? Good to know.

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-01-2004
In reply to: galanie
Thu, 06-10-2010 - 10:29pm
EDITORIAL: FTC floats Drudge tax
Journalism can reinvent itself without government 'help'



    The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is seeking ways to "reinvent" journalism, and that's a cause for concern. According to a May 24 draft proposal, the agency thinks government should be at the center of a media overhaul. The bureaucracy sees it as a problem that the Internet has introduced a wealth of information options to consumers, forcing media companies to adapt and experiment to meet changing market needs. FTC's policy staff fears this new reality.


    "There are reasons for concern that experimentation may not produce a robust and sustainable business model for commercial journalism," the report states. With no faith that the market will work things out for the better, government thinks it must come to the rescue.


    The ideas being batted around to save the industry share a common theme: They are designed to empower bureaucrats, not consumers. For instance, one proposal would, "Allow news organizations to agree jointly on a mechanism to require news aggregators and others to pay for the use of online content, perhaps through the use of copyright licenses."


    In other words, government policy would encourage a tax on websites like the Drudge Report, a must-read source for the news links of the day, so that the agency can redistribute the funds collected to various newspapers. Such a tax would hit other news aggregators, such as Digg, Fark and Reddit, which not only gather links, but provide a forum for a lively and entertaining discussion of the issues raised by the stories. Fostering a robust public-policy debate, not saving a particular business model, should be the goal of journalism in the first place.


    The report also discusses the possibility of offering tax exemptions to news organizations, establishing an AmeriCorps for reporters and creating a national fund for local news organizations. The money for those benefits would come from a suite of new taxes. A 5 percent tax on consumer electronic devices such as iPads, Kindles and laptops that let consumers read the news could be used to encourage people to keep reading the dead-tree version of the news. Other taxes might be levied on the radio and television spectrum, advertising and cell phones.


    The conflict of interest in having the government pay or contribute to a newsman's salary could not be more obvious. Reporters and columnists would have little incentive to offer critical analyses of tax increases that might mean a boost in the pocketbook. Once Congress has the power to fund the news, it can at any time attach "strings" designed to promote certain viewpoints - in the name of fairness, of course. Each year at budget time, the Fourth Estate would scramble to be worthy in the eyes of Capitol Hill for increased support. It is hardly a surprise that the heavily subsidized National Public Radio frequently presents issues in a way favorable to Washington's tax-and-spend agenda.


    Self-respecting journalists must reject this tempting government bribe as the FTC brings its proposals to a round-table discussion scheduled for June 15. When it comes to the media, consumers lose most when government suppresses innovation in the name of "saving" old business models.


    © Copyright 2010 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

    iVillage Member
    Registered: 10-28-2009
    In reply to: galanie
    Thu, 06-10-2010 - 10:33pm

    The Washington Times:

    <>The Washington Times is a daily broadsheet newspaper published in Washington, D.C., the capital of the United States. It was founded in 1982 by Unification Church founder Sun Myung Moon, and has been subsidized until 2009 by the Unification Church community. The Times is known for being a socially and politically conservative alternative to the larger and more well-known Washington Post.>>

    <>The Washington Times was founded in 1982 by Unification Church leader Sun Myung Moon, who has said that he is the Messiah and the Second Coming of Christ and is fulfilling Jesus' unfinished mission. Bo Hi Pak, Moon's chief aide, was the founding president and the founding chairman of the board. In 1996 Moon discussed his reasons for founding the Times in an address to a Unification Church leadership conference, saying "That is why Father has been combining and organizing scholars from all over the world, and also newspaper organizations, in order to make propaganda." In 2002 Moon said: "The Washington Times is responsible to let the American people know about God" and "The Washington Times will become the instrument in spreading the truth about God to the world.">>

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Washington_Times

    iVillage Member
    Registered: 11-27-2009
    In reply to: galanie
    Thu, 06-10-2010 - 10:39pm

    So, in the article presented, would you mind disputing what they are saying?

    iVillage Member
    Registered: 05-13-2009
    In reply to: galanie
    Thu, 06-10-2010 - 10:41pm
    I've disputed what they said upstream. Feel feel to counter.
    iVillage Member
    Registered: 11-27-2009
    In reply to: galanie
    Thu, 06-10-2010 - 10:44pm

    Actually you said that Mary Bono Mack isn't the sharpest knife in the drawer and you wouldn't take what she says on faith.

    iVillage Member
    Registered: 10-28-2009
    In reply to: galanie
    Thu, 06-10-2010 - 10:46pm

    <>

    If it comes from a ridiculous, blatantly biased source, I don't bother wasting my time even reading it. If someone is serious about debating issues, post a serious source. Otherwise, it's a joke and not worth my time.

    Pages