[lex24]

Much bigger issue is twitter, Facebook etc. They have unbelievable power.  What they decide to flag or ban- particularly in the realm of political speech - has enormous implications.

---

It would be too political to go back 40 or 50 years to when there were only three networks, every one got their news from Walter Cronkite, and nary a discouraging word was heard. Suffice it to say that today's hurly burly is infinitely better. I much prefer no consensus, to a bland unthinking one.

I agree with almost all of what you said, except the above. First of all, I do not agree that "nary a discouraging word was heard". Consider the pictures from the Tet Offensive and repeat your statement. The big difference then was that there was a clear, distinct dichotomy between news programs and editorial programs. While there was undoubtedly some bias in news reporting, it was at least attempted to minimize it. I agree that today we have the potential to get much better news reporting because there are more people reporting it. Unfortunately that reporting gets so mixed in with talking heads reporting what they believe/hope/fear is true along with what they can show is true that confusion reigns. The "news" programs are treated like entertainment programs and compete for ratings based on how many people can be induced to watch. The bare facts may not do that, so let's add in some speculation and sensationalize what we do know so that people will watch.

If you think there was an "unthinking consensus", you obviously didn't work with the Goldwater campaign.

And to end where I began, ANY speech with which you disagree can be characterized as too dangerous to tolerate. The game's as old as the Alien and Sedition Acts in the Adams administration. But in fact very little is. You disarm it by rebutting it, not by prohibiting it.

Exactly. That is the only way these ideas can be defeated, and if one can't rebut an idea, maybe it deserves some consideration after all.

Interesting younuse TET as an example, given the media got it so wrong.

[lex24]

Much bigger issue is twitter, Facebook etc. They have unbelievable power.  What they decide to flag or ban- particularly in the realm of political speech - has enormous implications.

---

It would be too political to go back 40 or 50 years to when there were only three networks, every one got their news from Walter Cronkite, and nary a discouraging word was heard. Suffice it to say that today's hurly burly is infinitely better. I much prefer no consensus, to a bland unthinking one.

I agree with almost all of what you said, except the above. First of all, I do not agree that "nary a discouraging word was heard". Consider the pictures from the Tet Offensive and repeat your statement. The big difference then was that there was a clear, distinct dichotomy between news programs and editorial programs. While there was undoubtedly some bias in news reporting, it was at least attempted to minimize it. I agree that today we have the potential to get much better news reporting because there are more people reporting it. Unfortunately that reporting gets so mixed in with talking heads reporting what they believe/hope/fear is true along with what they can show is true that confusion reigns. The "news" programs are treated like entertainment programs and compete for ratings based on how many people can be induced to watch. The bare facts may not do that, so let's add in some speculation and sensationalize what we do know so that people will watch.

If you think there was an "unthinking consensus", you obviously didn't work with the Goldwater campaign.

And to end where I began, ANY speech with which you disagree can be characterized as too dangerous to tolerate. The game's as old as the Alien and Sedition Acts in the Adams administration. But in fact very little is. You disarm it by rebutting it, not by prohibiting it.

Exactly. That is the only way these ideas can be defeated, and if one can't rebut an idea, maybe it deserves some consideration after all.

Interesting younuse TET as an example, given the media got it so wrong.