Add our headlines to any RSS reader (Google, Bloglines, My Yahoo!, Technorati, etc.) or get the XML/RSS feed:
|

Use this code to display the headlines on your website.

Link to us with this:

The name of the authority Gore is referring to can't be much longer than the word "authoritative", can it? Would it kill you to mention the study name, Al? For the record, "Nielsen Media" is one letter short of "authoritative", the company whose survey Gore might be referring to. (The study reports the same number of minutes per American TV viewer that Gore quotes.)

Without mentioning a single exposed nipple, Gore continues to lay the foundation for censorship. He goes on to express his feigned queasiness about his 1984 Senatorial campaign's use of TV commercials to manipulate the polls by an accurately predicted 8.5%.

"I authorized the plan and was astonished when three weeks later my lead had increased by exactly 8.5%. Though pleased, of course, for my own campaign, I had a sense of foreboding for what this revealed about our democracy. Clearly, at least to some degree, the "consent of the governed" was becoming a commodity to be purchased by the highest bidder. To the extent that money and the clever use of electronic mass media could be used to manipulate the outcome of elections, the role of reason began to diminish."

Be still my heart, the big phony had a "sense of foreboding". Al Gore: the man, the myth, the moral giant who can walk with the people. He's willing to advance his political career with help from campaign staff who "manipulate the outcome of elections", yet he is able to draw the moral conclusion that "the 'consent of the governed' was becoming a commodity to be purchased by the highest bidder". Come on, Al. Have your fucking moral cake or eat it. One or the other.

While experiencing his sense of foreboding, Gore completely ignores content: the content of both the messages of his campaign commercials and the content of the viewers' minds. "The role of reason" is not any less important or relevant just because cultural trends can be predicted.

Gore makes it clear that he has had his eye on television for some time: "As a college student, I wrote my senior thesis on the impact of television on the balance of power among the three branches of government." He drives the point home with classic politico terminology: "The potential for manipulating mass opinions and feelings initially discovered by commercial advertisers is now being even more aggressively exploited by a new generation of media Machiavellis."

And now the seeds of emotional build-up masquerading as logical premises begin to sprout:

"And what if an individual citizen or group of citizens wants to enter the public debate by expressing their views on television? Since they cannot simply join the conversation, some of them have resorted to raising money in order to buy 30 seconds in which to express their opinion. But too often they are not allowed to do even that."

The big, bad, evil TV conglomerates have rolled out their duct tape and are busy keeping everyone's mouths shut. I guess he wants you to feel sorry for some asshole whose publicity agent couldn't get him on this week's episode of Meet the Press. I get it, Al. The average Joe's lack of access to television deprives them of their "democratic rights" (to manipulate the system, presumably). Come on, Al, MoveOn.org to the part about increasing government regulation.

It's ironic, in that same paragraph, that Gore chooses MoveOn.org as his example of anti-free speech victimhood. Isn't this the group everybody credits as having such incredible, grassroots success? (I guess it's still considered a "grassroots success" even when George Soros pays for the manure.)

It's not until the third from last paragraph when Al Gore starts firing the heavy insinuations: "Fortunately, the Internet has the potential to revitalize the role played by the people in our constitutional framework."

But wait for it, here comes Al Gore to the Internet's rescue:

"[The Internet is] a platform, in other words, for reason. But the Internet must be developed and protected, in the same way we develop and protect markets—through the establishment of fair rules of engagement and the exercise of the rule of law. The same ferocity that our Founders devoted to protect the freedom and independence of the press is now appropriate for our defense of the freedom of the Internet. The stakes are the same: the survival of our Republic."

So, now we have it. Prohibiting the abridgment of the freedom of the press isn't good enough for Gore. It isn't good at all. The Internet must be regulated to remain free. But, the Founding Fathers didn't opt for "fair rules of engagement" in old-fashioned "printing press speech", so what gives Gore the right to impose them on Internet speech?

Throughout the chapter, one might assume that Gore is harping on television because his goal is to demand a federal take-over of that industry. (I don't doubt it's on his list.) Instead, his real goal is to position television as the dead medium. That is, dead for political speech. And here's the heart of it. Gore uses the public's lack of monetary access to television as his excuse for regulating speech on the Internet.

Essentially, Gore asks: "You don't want to be prevented from using the Internet in the same way you're prevented from getting on TV, do you?" His choir responds: "No way, Al! Can you do anything about that?" "Why sure," Gore responds, "The solution is to regulate the Internet now, before it becomes regulated." Dr. Gore wants to put leeches on your body and drain your blood, because your blood is about to get infected and it's the most thorough way to prevent an infection.

The Internet needs no extra "ferocity that our Founders devoted to protect the freedom and independence of the press". The first amendment is perfectly capable of protecting the Internet on its own:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Did you have an opinion on this? Then post a comment.