>Isn't the notion of the "media" becoming obsolete in this day of
>user to user communications? I don't think we can usefully
>distinguish between the media and ordinary people, when anyone can
>publish and share his observations via the Internet.
The Internet is not primarily a broadcast media.
>I would not support banning discussion of elections by
>individuals. In the first place such a limitation would be almost
>impossible to enforce. In the second place it sets a precedent for
>further erosion of freedom of speech, one of the most important
>principles in guaranteeing freedom.
I'm not talking about banning discussion of elections by
individuals, just the broadcast media, and only for the duration of
voting. Enforcing should be easy.
>Ultimately the question is whether to try to limit the flow of
>information. It's true that people's behavior may change if they
>know more about what is going on, including how people are voting
>during the course of election day. But IMO we have to accept this
>kind of change.
It's trying to limit the negative effect of information during
voting hours only. Can you suggest a positive use for this flow?
During the voting hours only?
>Giving people more information will make many changes in society.
>Many of them are good, some of them are potentially bad (at least
>for some groups). We have to learn to live with a highly informed
>society, rather than fighting this change.
There a difference between information being used to inform, and
used to influence an outcome.
The fact that broadcast media is biased is a problem.
Extropy Institute, www.extropy.org
Adler Planetarium www.adlerplanetarium.org
Life Extension Foundation, www.lef.org
National Rifle Association, www.nra.org, 1.800.672.3888
Ameritech Data Center Chicago, IL, Local 134 I.B.E.W
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:50:21 MDT