Engadget has a great article (see video below) about the state of internet access in the United States. The nation that invented the internet is has fallen behind many European nations in overall internet speed and cost of access. This all comes back to Net Neutrality. Liberals believe we need to force providers not to limit access. That’s not the problem. We need to foster more competition.
During the buildup to the Iraq war there was a lot of discussion about idea of preemptive military action. At that time the fear of Iraq having weapons of mass destruction was the justification for invasion. The politics of fear became a popular slogan for the left, but in reality all politics is fear. Global Warming: Fear. Health Care: Fear. Social Security: Fear. And on and on it goes until the federal government has regulated every possible aspect of our lives.
The newest form of fear mongering is over the issue of net neutrality. I won’t go into the painful details, but the fear is that giant Internet Service Providers could limit aspects of the internet to save bandwidth. This has led many people (mostly on the left) to start clamoring for preemptive government regulation of the internet. Why is beyond me. If anything, the FCC’s role in our lives is already too great.
Thanks to regulation many ISPs don’t fear competition. Verizon had to fight tooth and nail just to offer competition to established cable providers all over the United States. For most of the United States there simply isn’t an alternative cable provider. The only choice is to get a dish. How did this happen? Government regulation. It tends to limit choices and favor monopolies.
Is your local football team not doing well? Why the hell is the game blacked out? Thanks to the FCC the NFL team that plays in a football stadium that was mostly likely built with taxpayer dollars can keep you from watching the game. What business does the federal government have in keeping citizens from watching a game on TV?
The regulation pyramid is a plague all over America. Liberals want ObamaCare to drive down costs and cover more people. Health care would be cheaper if the government had never gotten involved in the first place. Once the government starts regulating something it’s a slow and painful death and the typical lawmaker only has one answer to problem: more regulation.
Over the last 100 years corporations have used government regulation to stifle competition and secure subsides. The left has an inherent distrust of corporations, but they’ve been taken for a ride. The only way to keep corporations in check is leveling the playing field. Competition is the ultimate way to limit corporation overreach. We don’t need “net neutrality” we need “regulation neutrality.”
“The jaws of power are always open to devour, and her arm is always stretched out, if possible, to destroy the freedom of thinking, speaking, and writing.”
John Adams
Ever since people started reporting on and analyzing the news on the Internet and other new media outside the traditional media outlets, the traditional media has been going through its own version of the Kubler-Ross Five Stages of Grief…
Denial… “This can’t be happening.”
Anger… “Who the hell do these pajama-clad people think they are?”
Bargaining… “Okay. We hate you, so we’ll start doing the same thing.”
Depression… “Our business model sucks and we’re going out of business.”
Acceptance… “Everything will be okay since I can get a federal bailout and have the feds regulate and harass my competition out of business, all in the name of some nebulous public good!”
Fake but accurate: When traditional "journalists" are sure something's true but have no evidence, it's time to go to Kinko's! Image from michellemalkin.com.
Whenever a high-profile blogger gets it wrong, jumps the gun or takes something out of context, the traditional media launches into “I-told-you-so” mode, most recently and notably with the Breitbart/Shirley Sherrod fiasco. However, when one of their own does it, there’s nothing to see (Rathergate).
The traditional media would like nothing better than to consolidate their power in such a way that everyone but the traditional media is held accountable for their actions. I think they call it “accountability journalism,” or what I like to call “baby talk.”
This begs the question: who fact-checks the fact-checkers? Who holds those who wield the sword of accountability accountable? What the traditional media desire is a monopoly on accountability, which is convenient for a demonstrably biased group advancing specific political and ideological agendas. As “gatekeepers” they will ensure the unwashed masses stay outside the gates. Safely inside the gates, the gatekeepers can do whatever the hell they want. Who needs transparency when the gatekeepers are so ethically and morally pure?
Was Breitbart held accountable for posting an out-of-context video? Certainly. Now that the entire video is out and people can see it for themselves they can make their own judgment about it without a monopolistic “accountability” filter designed to tell them what to think.
Fake but accurate: Filmed from multiple angles with hundreds of cell phone cameras recording at the same moment, not one person has come forth with evidence that Tea Partiers screamed racial epithets at black Congressmen who purposely walked the gauntlet to incite the racism that supposedly infuses the Tea Party movement. The accusation may be fake, but the traditional media decided it was accurate so there was no need to verify the veracity of the claims. Now that's accountability journalism!
By the same token, when the media reported with absolute certainty that the N-word was hurled more than a dozen times at black legislators purposely running the Tea Party gauntlet on Capitol Hill, the blogosphere cast serious doubt on this assertion. The traditional media’s reaction? Ignore the evidence and mindlessly repeat a lie since it fits their worldview and narrative.
The traditional media believes the Tea Party is racist, primarily because the Tea Party opposes the first black president’s agenda. In the traditional media narrative, opposition to Obama equals racism. So if A=B is true, then naturally the stuff we make up, C, is true, even if it really didn’t happen.
Rathergate was based on the same thinking. Dan Rather and his colleagues at CBS believed that George W. Bush was a nincompoop and a shirker so they didn’t waste any time double-checking the documents sent to them by a dubious source that helped prove the point. When the documents were shown to be obvious forgeries, Rather and the traditional media circled the wagons. Their final defense? Fake but accurate! I don’t know about you, but I prefer news that’s genuine and accurate.
So, while the traditional media whines and moans about the lack of accountability in the blogosphere, talk radio and Fox News, we’re actually living in a time of hyper-accountability. You can’t publish, post or air anything without someone somewhere holding you to account.
There are obvious drawbacks to this Wild West information age, such as the ease of defamation, but that’s a trade-off I’m willing to make. Information is power, and once concentrated in too few hands it is dangerous.
Recent Comments