View Single Post
Old 12-10-2012, 9:11 AM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 8,542
iTrader: 1 / 100%

Originally Posted by SlobRay View Post
Now I couldn’t even come close to explain why the media in the old days seemed to be critical of all government dealings, but today they are sheep that follow with blind acceptance.
I can.

The media in the old days was owned by a relatively large number of groups and individuals, and was largely localized. Elections are won or lost based on the perceptions of the voters, and those perceptions are the result of the information the voters receive. In a world where there are many competing news outlets, control of information is relatively limited and, thus, news sources have some incentive to actually get things right.

Then broadcast television came into existence. For the first time, not only was the media able to reach most of the entire population of the country, but the number of media outlets that was able to do so was very limited. National news took center stage and the local news sources became relegated to the back. Additionally, there was a shift from news being a source of information to news being a source of entertainment.

What happens when you put control of the information that the majority of people receive and subsequently use to control their voting decisions into the hands of the very few? Control over elections, that's what. The advent of cable threatened to disrupt that control, but that has since been taken care of through mergers and acquisitions.

Today, it is impossible for a national candidate (like the President) to get elected unless that candidate gets national media attention. The situation isn't much better for congressional candidates, since most local broadcast news outlets are owned (and thus controlled) by the very entities that own the national broadcast outlets. The national broadcast media is now in the driver's seat when it comes to elections, and has been for the past 40 years or so. This is why you don't see the media criticizing government all that much: the government as it is exists because the media itself made it that way, through its control over the information people use to vote.

At this point, only the internet can possibly reverse this, which is why you can expect to see continuing efforts on the part of the government to control it.
The Constitution is not "the Supreme Law of the Land, except in the face of contradicting law which has not yet been overturned by the courts". It is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, PERIOD. You break your oath to uphold the Constitution if you don't refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional.

The real world laughs at optimism. And here's why.
Reply With Quote