Surprisingly Good Video by a 15 Year Old Conservative on the Second Amendment

[Lyfetime]

It's a little kid, lol. But I was honestly surprised how good the material is.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UsNNsBfuHmY

 

[Mike38]

Smart young man. His parents obviously raised him right. He will not fall victim to the mental molestation of the far left public school system. Unfortunately, he is of a group that is few and far between.

 

[Dreamsinger]

Yeah, he's a smart kid and the material is good. The problem I have is the common assumption that all gun owners are "conservative". I'm 67, old enough to remember when guns weren't a partisan issue. A study of California gun owners found while 38% of gun owners identified as Republican Democrats and Independents combined outnumber by almost 2:1. Not all Democrats are anti-gun. One might be surprised that a lot of non gun owning Republicans couldn't care less about the Second Amendment. Ever wonder why NRA membership account for less than 4% of gun owners? The far right political rhetoric alienates a lot of them. The only thing that keeps me in is maintaining my instructor ratings and the club I belong to requires it. The point being that as gun owners, we're under attack from authoritarians on all points of the political spectrum. We're already a minority, further dividing ourselves along party lines is counter-intuitive.

 

[ShallNotBeInfringed]

To follow up on what Dreamsinger said - we need to get to the point where the Second Amendment is not part of the left / right divide.

We, the people, did not give up our right to self-defense. I'm hoping that the present condition will waken people to the fact that we cannot expect the government to protect us at all times and under all circumstances.

 

[jdc1244]

Not all Democrats are anti-gun.

Correct.

 

[Pond James Pond]

Yeah, he's a smart kid and the material is good. The problem I have is the common assumption that all gun owners are "conservative". I'm 67, old enough to remember when guns weren't a partisan issue. A study of California gun owners found while 38% of gun owners identified as Republican Democrats and Independents combined outnumber by almost 2:1. Not all Democrats are anti-gun. One might be surprised that a lot of non gun owning Republicans couldn't care less about the Second Amendment. Ever wonder why NRA membership account for less than 4% of gun owners? The far right political rhetoric alienates a lot of them. The only thing that keeps me in is maintaining my instructor ratings and the club I belong to requires it. The point being that as gun owners, we're under attack from authoritarians on all points of the political spectrum. We're already a minority, further dividing ourselves along party lines is counter-intuitive.

I don't live in the US, and perhaps that degree of separation gives me a broader overview, but the main point above can't be stressed enough.

I also think that the media system you guys have to operate under is very damaging to public discourse.

Partisan broadcasting just adds to the echo chamber/us and them dynamic which will never allow agreements and understanding to be reached.

I have an American colleague who said that there is no legal for news outlets to broadcast the facts.

Imagine how more balanced and informative a platform any contentious issue, such as the second amendment, might have if this were not the case and if the Fairness Doctrine were still applied.

I hope I'm wrong in saying the above so please correct me if I am, but if true like he said that is incredibly damaging.

 

[zukiphile]

I hope I'm wrong in saying the above so please correct me if I am, but if true like he said that is incredibly damaging.

I know you are a keen observer, but I think your conclusions rest on some incorrect information. None of this post is personal.

I also think that the media system you guys have to operate under is very damaging to public discourse.

Partisan broadcasting just adds to the echo chamber/us and them dynamic which will never allow agreements and understanding to be reached.

I have an American colleague who said that there is no legal for news outlets to broadcast the facts.

The operative principle of freedom of the press is that the government does not regulate content. If someone wants to speak a falsehood, the remedy in that "system" is to call it a falsehood, not to silence the speaker.

Where a news outlet is partisan, with the exception of National Public Radio it survives only where there is a market for that product. It can be frustrating to see news in both print and broadcast come with a lot of partisan advocacy, but the alternative would be worse, imo. Media that aren't controlled or influenced by those who consume it is better than media controlled by government.

Imagine how more balanced and informative a platform any contentious issue, such as the second amendment, might have if this were not the case and if the Fairness Doctrine were still applied.

The Fairness Doctrine is a euphemism for government regulation of news and programming content.

When the Fairness Doctrine was still on the books, news programming was no less partisan or biased, but it looked less contentious because viable minority positions were less frequently represented. An argument can only seem contentious if those who disagree are allowed into the conversation.

The far right political rhetoric alienates a lot of them.

I don't live in the US, and perhaps that degree of separation gives me a broader overview, but the main point above can't be stressed enough.

As a European, you know that "far right" politics aren't about the government leaving people alone and letting individuals do as they see fit, but is about identity politics and assertions of greater government power. The European "far right" position is one that doesn't exist in the US to any significant degree.

The identification of libertarian (i.e. liberal) positions as "far right" is a slander designed to suggest that the culmination of strong individual rights ends in Auschwitz-Birkenau.

 

[Pond James Pond]

@ Zukiphile

You know the lie of the land better than I in the US, but from the little I've seen it seems this network or that have distinct political positions that they are trying to promote.

My view is that is not their job.
Theirs should be to report the facts, and let the public decide on what that means. Any analysis provided should be as impartial as possible.

Not some of the facts, not the facts that suit their position and certainly not alter the facts (Jayson Blair, to name but one), but all the facts that can reasonably be communicated.

How can both sides of the argument be presented if the network itself is strongly biased? I understand that there is bias in most, if not all reporting, but that bias can be mild, or pronounced. Striving for as little as possible is a sign of a decent news organisation.

Yes, I have my views on US foreign policy and so I follow that, but the only domestic one which I follow, where there is no equivalent in the EU, is the 2nd Amendment.
The other principles of a functioning democracy are pretty well covered otherwise.

What I see in terms of the the 2A debate is the two sides making speeches about the others' position: not to each other but to their own factions; to their own supporters.

2A advocates voice their arguments to other 2A advocates. 2A opponents voice their criticisms to 2A opponents.

My concern is: how can either side ever understand the other when the only information they get are from their respective spokespersons?

How do you get past that if there is no incentive to let the other side speak their mind because it is not what your viewing public wants to hear (confirmation bias and all that)?

but the main point above can't be stressed enough.

The main point I was referring to is the assumption that all democrats are anti-gun is false, and that pro-gun democrats will feel alienated by the rhetoric of many right wing republicans in the US. I'm not drawing comparisons with EU political doctrines.

Even on here, some of the stuff members right about "the democrats" can't be nice to read for those who do support them yet also support the 2A.

 

[zukiphile]

The main point I was referring to is the assumption that all democrats are anti-gun is false, and that pro-gun democrats will feel alienated by the rhetoric of many right wing republicans in the US. I'm not drawing comparisons with EU political doctrines.

Even on here, some of the stuff members right about "the democrats" can't be nice to read for those who do support them yet also support the 2A.

At the level of politicians of national stature, the conclusion that all democrats are dismissive of the right described in the 2d Am. is factual. It may or may not surprise you that Bernie Sanders has a history of some good 2d Am. votes as a regional politician. This was also true of some southern democrats historically (if memory serves Al Gore was vaguely pro-2d Am. as a state pol). When they develop national aspirations, they drop their heterodox positions.

Viewing this circumstance even from within the US could leave a person confused. There is a strategy of speaking two contradictory messages to two different audiences. Accordingly, nearly every national level politician will assert that he supports the 2d Am., but the details of his position will show square opposition to it. Dems didn't invent this, but it accurately describes the pattern on this issue.

If I were a dem put off by a description of what dem politicians believe, should I be angry with the person who spoke the truth, or angry at the politicians it describes?

You know the lie of the land better than I in the US, but from the little I've seen it seems this network or that have distinct political positions that they are trying to promote.

My view is that is not their job.
Theirs should be to report the facts, and let the public decide on what that means. Any analysis provided should be as impartial as possible.

I am sympathetic to that vision, but let's recognize that it has never been a reality. Every speaker has a view. Whether you and I think it is a speaker's job to advocate doesn't bear on whether he should be permitted by the government to advocate. That's very much the point of free speech being a right.

I believe the issue of media dissatisfaction is related to a lack of trust. If we aren't ever going to get reporting free of bias, I think the ideal should be transparency and candor. A speaker with whom I disagree, but who discloses his prejudices and then is candid about his observations is a speaker in whom I can repose a high degree of trust.

When Michael Kinsley was well, he enjoyed fairly high regard from conservative writers despite being a fellow of the left precisely because he didn't appear to hide his premises.

How can both sides of the argument be presented if the network itself is strongly biased?

Because we have more than one network, and each network has many different reporters and editorial personalities.

I spend a lot of time listening to National Public Radio, a government subsidized media network that gets preferred licensing. When much younger, I even had a program on a local station. It's quite biased, and at times dishonest and unethical, but I still listen to it quite a bit. I condemn some of what they do, and see their government subsidies as corrupting, but that doesn't mean I can't enjoy aspects of their programming.

That's the nature of media variety. One can select content as he wishes. By analogy, one can eat a healthy diet from a buffet. If one chooses to restrict his diet to his favourites of bacon and ice cream that's a problem with a person, not the concept of a buffet.

If a reader gets all of his news from a single source, that's a problem of the reader, not the system that provides a wealth of sources.

What I see in terms of the the 2A debate is the two sides making speeches about the others' position: not to each other but to their own factions; to their own supporters.

2A advocates voice their arguments to other 2A advocates. 2A opponents voice their criticisms to 2A opponents.

An advocate who articulates a coherent position to people who are sympathetic to it provides a real service. A widely held coherent position can have an advantage over a widely held inchoate sentiment. The internal dialogue amongst those supportive of an individual right lead to the organized support and advocacy that helped produce an internally coherent understanding of the right. That process will not end with Heller.

This doesn't mean that it should be the sole version of advocacy.

My concern is: how can either side ever understand the other when the only information they get are from their respective spokespersons?

I don't assume that people only get information from their respective spokesmen. I think they see public acts, like Robert Francis O'Rourke promising to take AR15s and Joe Biden subsequently telling a crowd that RFO will be in charge of the gun issue. They also see public acts like DJT engaging in regulatory restriction and wonder what his commitment really is. I think people on both sides take these public cues into account.

How do you get past that if there is no incentive to let the other side speak their mind because it is not what your viewing public wants to hear (confirmation bias and all that)?

The other side of every issue has the opportunity to speak its mind precisely because the government hasn't a place in determining the content we see (Fairness Doctrine).

 

[HighDesert]

Gun ownership may not be divided into a left vs. right issue, but there's a pretty obvious theme leading to the belief that all democrats hate guns.

There used to actually be a Democrat party in the US. Unfortunately, it's been hijacked by the left. While Republicans and other right wing groups, with the exception of the far right will mercilessly attack republicans they don't agree with, the same doesn't hold true with Democrats who oppose the left for hijacking their party. Democrats don't currently have a party and from what I can tell by those around me, they don't seem all that bothered by it. They will continue to vote with their party regardless. We don't see nearly the numbers sitting home on voting day, because their candidate is off his/her rocker and they know it. I hear them say it all the time. Well, I don't like him/her, but he/she can't possibly be as bad as they sound! Never do I see or hear them attack their own!

The right wing groups are quick to attack the republican party and at a drop of the hat, refuse to vote if they don't 100% agree with what's being proposed, and quick to split votes with a fringe candidate. I know far too many who are still waiting for that perfect candidate and haven't voted for 20 years, complaining about everything all along.

There are currently two parties in the US. The party of the clueless and the party of the dangerous. The dangerous has the biggest voice and will destroy you if you disagree. While some democrats may well be pro 2A, they will never speak up for fear of being chastised by their own. The right is already chastised, so may as well be heard. The left has been the most destructive force on earth and the coward enable their progress.

With this divide, the 2A and everything else written in the US constitution is at risk. With the press being 98% on the left, there's no reason for anyone to know any different, unless they dig for the info. Most will not. Unfortunately, it won't be long, before we will all look back and wish we had the good life back. Once gone, it's over.... One the 2A is gone, we're as good as cattle.

 

[Pond James Pond]

At the level of politicians of national stature, the conclusion that all democrats are dismissive of the right described in the 2d Am. is factual.

My comment was regarding democrat voters being painted with an anti-gun brush by others, which I've seen happen on this forum. In many ways I might fit the profile of a democrat voter. In others republican. Where I align with the former, I would not like being labelled as anti-gun because of it.

I am sympathetic to that vision, but let's recognize that it has never been a reality. Every speaker has a view.

It may not be realistic for people to not have views but it is realistic for professionals to can that view when the job requires it and act impartially.
Reporting facts and mediating debates are not the same as opinion pieces.

If a reader gets all of his news from a single source, that's a problem of the reader, not the system that provides a wealth of sources.

I think clearly it's the reader's problem as well as society's. A democracy where people sit in echo chambers is no good thing, in my view.

And having a media network that facilitates that can't be good overall.

This doesn't mean that it should be the sole version of advocacy.

Based solely on what I see, it seems predominantly that version.
Some on here actively try to argue their point regarding the benefits of the 2A and I applaud that, provided it is done in fashion that encourages others to at least listen.

Others say they will not even lift a finger to help someone they know to be anti-gun. Two ends of a spectrum for sure, but which is the greater reality on the grand media stage?

I think they see public acts, like Robert Francis O'Rourke promising to take AR15s and Joe Biden subsequently telling a crowd that RFO will be in charge of the gun issue.

And some may well vote them in based on that, but what makes me sad is that many will never have their views questioned or challenged in a way that might make them sit up and reconsider them. Because there appears to be a dearth of genuine, balanced discourse in the media.

If I hadn't had a reason to challenge my own views; examine them; learn about the opposing views, I would probably still be anti-gun. What happened to me could be happening across the country.

At the end of the day, if the system that exists suits the American public, well then OK. However, my personal prediction is that if there is no change and the polarisation continues it's the 2A, amongst other rights, that will suffer.

I hope I'm wrong.

 

[zukiphile]

My comment was regarding democrat voters being painted with an anti-gun brush by others, which I've seen happen on this forum.

Some of this phenomenon seems to be a generalization being interpreted as a universal. I doubt that anyone believes that every last democrat voter opposes the 2d Am.

In the same way, you've made some generalizations about media outlets, but I take that as a description of a prevailing pattern, not a universal attribute of American media.

And some may well vote them in based on that, but what makes me sad is that many will never have their views questioned or challenged in a way that might make them sit up and reconsider them. Because there appears to be a dearth of genuine, balanced discourse in the media.

If I hadn't had a reason to challenge my own views; examine them; learn about the opposing views, I would probably still be anti-gun.

I don't hold myself out as an expert on human nature, but I will guess that you were curious about other people's ideas before the gun issue came up for you.

Ample curiosity can be the virtue that leaves you open to stronger, better thought through conclusions. It is not a universal quality. I doubt that there are many people who are inclined to be curious, but fail to learn that there are other views as a result of their news sources.

Stated differently, where I've seen people unable to ponder the existence of genuinely held contrary positions, those people seem to work very hard toward maintaining that illusion.

If a reader gets all of his news from a single source, that's a problem of the reader, not the system that provides a wealth of sources.

I think clearly it's the reader's problem as well as society's. A democracy where people sit in echo chambers is no good thing, in my view.

And having a media network that facilitates that can't be good overall.

What is the less harmful alternative to letting people write and speak as they please?

 

[Pond James Pond]

What is the less harmful alternative to letting people write and speak as they please?

How true. Yet does a network that doesn't give adequate platform to those of opposing view do just the harm you allude to?

If I have a platform for free speech, I should let all speak freely and my opinions should not override theirs.

If a media network pushes a particular political narrative, it does just that.

I will guess that you were curious about other people's ideas before the gun issue came up for you.

I'd like to think so. Perhaps I am more inclined than some, but that is not an on off option. Some first need to realise that other people's opinions are accessible. Greater exposure to them will help that happen.

Some of this phenomenon seems to be a generalization being interpreted as a universal.

It's a trend I see, sometimes on here. Sometimes elsewhere. I make my observations based precisely on that, my observations.

Do note that I have been at the receiving end myself.

Being from Europe, I have read with disappointment how some speak with such authority on here about the gun politics of Europe, and in sweeping terms. And are factually incorrect.

The fact that I can speak freely on TFL, as an opponent to those assertions means that those reading can get information from both sides with which to form their opinions, or go in search of more.

The idea of having the state control or licence of the media is a significant argument against, as I see from your comments and I do see you point, but bear in mind that that media not controlled or licenced by the state is owned by private individuals who answer even less to you than the government.

You can't vote those out of office, yet i'm confident they can influence who you vote in.

 

[zukiphile]

What is the less harmful alternative to letting people write and speak as they please?

How true. Yet does a network that doesn't give adequate platform to those of opposing view do just the harm you allude to?

No.

A single network is one of many; it can't control public conversation because none of them claim a monopoly. If I don't like what CNN offers, I can see what Sky, NBC, BBC, or RT offer.

The result is diversity even where no single vendor, publisher or speaker intends that diversity.

Being from Europe, I have read with disappointment how some speak with such authority on here about the gun politics of Europe, and in sweeping terms. And are factually incorrect.

The fact that I can speak freely on TFL, as an opponent to those assertions means that those reading can get information from both sides with which to form their opinions, or go in search of more.

I find a lot of European and Canadian regulation on this topic confusing, in part because so many sources disagree, and because the underlying attitudes of the speaker may be quite different. Germans seem to fill out lots of forms for lots of things and may consider the necessity of making an application no real burden at all. We've had Canadians here who tell us it's a myth that Canada has tight gun restrictions because they can own lots of different types. Other Canadians will note that they can own a type, but only to take it to or from a designated range. And of course, provincial government can be part of the mix.

The idea of having the state control or licence of the media is a significant argument against, as I see from your comments and I do see you point, but bear in mind that that media not controlled or licenced by the state is owned by private individuals who answer even less to you than the government.

That presumes that the government answers to me. It doesn't. That's one reason I want to maintain my rights against that government.

A media controlled by a government is controlled by a monopoly power; the monopoly of government power is a lot of the problem with government control.

No private individual or business (except my own) answers to me, so its continued prosperity depends on people listening voluntarily. The voluntary quality of the freedom to speak, or not speak, is central to the free speech right held against the government.

You can't vote those out of office, yet i'm confident they can influence who you vote in.

That's fine. You can influence how I vote as well.

That an outlet should be silenced as the result of a popular vote should be abhorrent. Americans talk a lot about "democracy" as a result of terrible WWII propaganda, but real democracy would be a tyrannical nightmare. Our system of laws is largely geared to keep catastrophic democracy at bay and maintain a rule of law instead.

Any speaker is free to use his own money to write, publish and speak as he wishes. I am free to listen or not, and so long as he isn't using my money or money and assets collected by the government, I don't see what serious objection could be raised against it.

When someone tells me that government should have a power, I consider whether I would admit that the power could be used against me legitimately. I concede the the state plays a legitimate role in handing me a ticket for speeding, running a red light or wrongfully killing another. I would not consider a revocation of my right to publish as the result of an election to be legitimate.

 

[Tom Servo]

My comment was regarding democrat voters being painted with an anti-gun brush by others, which I've seen happen on this forum.

I'm old enough to remember centrist, pro-gun Democrat politicians. It wasn't even all that long ago. But in the modern party, there's no place for them.

There is, unfortunately, no escaping the fact that voting for any current Democrat is a vote against the RKBA.

 

[Pond James Pond]

No.

Yes: it strikes me that of the examples you cite as alternatives, only two are US since Sky and NBC are owned by the same company. Given that I'm mainly focussed on the lack of open debate on the 2A, the others have little impact.

In any case, RT is a propaganda tool for the Kremlin: need I say more?

The BBC is state funded, but is politically independent.
By law the govt has to enforce collection of a fee from the population who use its services.
It's called the TV licence. That goes directly into the coffers of the Beeb.
Not entirely unbiased, as a news organisation, but far from the worst. And its charter states that it will always extend invitation to the opposite view on a given subject.

I should clarify that whilst you argue against govt sanctioned/controlled media, I don't argue for it. You may take that as my position, but it is not.

I simply argue for having more balanced reporting and a platform for people to speak from.

Because while you may, many, if not most, will not go looking for alternative views.

And whilst it may feel nice to have a network telling people only the bits they want to hear, it does them no favours.

The voluntary quality of the freedom to speak, or not speak, is central to the free speech right held against the government.

What's the point in free speech if only one voice gets airtime?
What purpose does it serve then?

It doesn't allow for the whole premise of free speech which is that any view point can be voiced to then be considered, challenged or endorsed.

Any speaker is free to use his own money to write, publish and speak as he wishes. I am free to listen or not, and so long as he isn't using my money or money and assets collected by the government, I don't see what serious objection could be raised against it.

Except that then the one with the biggest wallet gets the biggest voice. And we're back to Murdoch et al.

Once more, my gripe is that there is no discourse, as far as I can see, when it comes to such issues as the 2A. There are two entrenched sides and never the twain shall meet, at least not in a meaningful way. I honestly believe that this is the biggest threat to the 2A.

Right now, to the best of my knowledge, that is the problem, and the gulf between the two sides is growing, not shrinking.

If the general public get routinely exposed to both sides of an argument, regularly, transparently, it won't matter half as much what some top tier politicians have to say about it because people will know enough to form balanced opinions. They will know utter tosh when they hear it.

An informed population is a stronger more effective electorate: something the Russians, and Chinese know only too well.

 

[zukiphile]

I think you've raised three separate issues. I'll try to keep them distinct. Let me know if you think that does your position a disservice.

Yet does a network that doesn't give adequate platform to those of opposing view do just the harm you allude to?

No.

Yes: it strikes me that of the examples you cite as alternatives, only two are US since Sky and NBC are owned by the same company. Given that I'm mainly focussed on the lack of open debate on the 2A, the others have little impact.

In any case, RT is a propaganda tool for the Kremlin: need I say more?

The BBC is state funded, but is politically independent.
By law the govt has to enforce collection of a fee from the population who use its services.
It's called the TV licence. That goes directly into the coffers of the Beeb.
Not entirely unbiased, as a news organisation, but far from the worst. And its charter states that it will always extend invitation to the opposite view on a given subject.

The origin or bias of a media outlet doesn't bear on whether its presence in the US market is based on a content restriction of the US government. We get RT and BBC because there is a market that will pay for it. If you want other US organization too, we have Sulzberger, Sinclair, Bloomberg, ABC, and CBS. Sky(Fox) and NBC may have common ownership, but their product is quite different in view.

If the goal is a diversity of views presented, isn't that the pertinent test?

I should clarify that whilst you argue against govt sanctioned/controlled media, I don't argue for it. You may take that as my position, but it is not.

I simply argue for having more balanced reporting and a platform for people to speak from.

How does that happen in the absence of state compulsion? I did take your position to be that US media would be improved by re-imposition of the Fairness Doctrine.

The problem you describe is sometimes described as people "living in a bubble". It's common in many populations from colleges, to media organizations to government agencies.

The specific problem I see with giving any government agency power to regulate the content of speech in media is that even if the agent is honest (an assumption we should not make) the agent may exist in a bubble that causes him to propagate false information.

Just this morning on my way into work, an NPR reporter reported that the "OK" hand gesture is a method of racist radicalization. That's false. It's a hoax that was exposed years ago, but an NPR reporter who may "live in a bubble" reported it as truth.

The voluntary quality of the freedom to speak, or not speak, is central to the free speech right held against the government.

What's the point in free speech if only one voice gets airtime?
What purpose does it serve then?

It doesn't allow for the whole premise of free speech which is that any view point can be voiced to then be considered, challenged or endorsed.

The point of free speech is that the speaker determines the content of his speech rather than the government. I agree that it has the positive effect that weaker ideas are challenged. It isn't exactly a dialectic in which the stronger idea prevails, but the weaker idea doesn't get the dubious benefit of state protection.

I'm not sure there is an issue on which only one view gets airtime in the US market.

Any speaker is free to use his own money to write, publish and speak as he wishes. I am free to listen or not, and so long as he isn't using my money or money and assets collected by the government, I don't see what serious objection could be raised against it.

Except that then the one with the biggest wallet gets the biggest voice. And we're back to Murdoch et al.

Murdoch isn't an exception. His outlets are part of the diversity, and there was a time when he considerably increased viewpoint diversity in US media outlets.

If Murdoch spends every last penny of his own money on speech, what's the gripe? That someone spoke an opinion we don't share?


Your last point seems more about people than media structure.

Once more, my gripe is that there is no discourse, as far as I can see, when it comes to such issues as the 2A. There are two entrenched sides and never the twain shall meet, at least not in a meaningful way. I honestly believe that this is the biggest threat to the 2A.

Right now, to the best of my knowledge, that is the problem, and the gulf between the two sides is growing, not shrinking.

I don't particularly want popular consensus on dilution of civil liberties. Coming to a "reasonable" compromise can be the death of any right one holds against the government.

I believe that you underestimate the degree of discourse in US popular media. In the genre of opinion journalism, authors often address authors' article in adversary journals. It's good for both journals each of which gain readers. CNN used to have a journalist, Howard Kurz, conduct a one hour program on Sundays during which reporters assessed the quality of the prior week's news coverage. CNN didn't like some of the critiques of CNN coverage and cancelled him. Almost immediately Fox/Sky picked Kurz up and have had him doing the same sort of show every week since.

That doesn't mean that there is a lack of lopsided rubbish offered. There's plenty, but it isn't just that.

If the general public get routinely exposed to both sides of an argument, regularly, transparently, it won't matter half as much what some top tier politicians have to say about it because people will know enough to form balanced opinions. They will know utter tosh when they hear it.

I disagree. I see smart and well informed people accept utter tosh daily. Your barely planted axiom is that poor political decisions arise from ignorance of contrary views and insufficient information.

I suggest that the big civil rights issues are resolved or determined by values. Media may bring those differences in values into clearer relief. I think that divide on the 2d Am. issue is something like a side who sees an individual right that shouldn't be violated for things other people have done, and another side who support regulation of individuals if they think it will/could produce a society wide result they favor.

That's a value difference that mere information is unlikely to shift much.

 

[Brownstone322]

Yeah, he's a smart kid and the material is good. The problem I have is the common assumption that all gun owners are "conservative" ... Ever wonder why NRA membership account for less than 4% of gun owners? The far right political rhetoric alienates a lot of them ... We're already a minority, further dividing ourselves along party lines is counter-intuitive.

Amen. I'm as non-partisan as they come. I just happen to believe in personal freedoms. I actually find conservatives (particularly of the social variety) to be repulsive.

But, man, I love guns.

 

[Pond James Pond]

I did take your position to be that US media would be improved by re-imposition of the Fairness Doctrine.

Only that it at least promoted presenting balanced views.

I'm interested in that outcome, rather than the means.
What I have difficulty understanding is the resistance to that outcome

I see smart and well informed people accept utter tosh daily.

Maybe because that's all they ever see. Given choices, they may see the tosh more clearly for what it is.

Coming to a "reasonable" compromise can be the death of any right one holds against the government.

If compromise is what you want to avoid, then it behoves you to promote a situation where more of the opposing camp (as I once was regarding guns) see things the way you do (as I do now regarding guns). I don't see how that will happen if they keep hearing the same mantra on their chosen network.

I'm not sure there is an issue on which only one view gets airtime in the US market.

So in your experience any given network in the US will afford 2A issues equal time and analysis and balanced reporting? Will people get the same facts to consider? Full facts?

Media may bring those differences in values into clearer relief.

Values and facts. In my view, a single "value", presented alone is less potent than one compared to another.

Your axiom seems to be that greater information and greater exposure to opposing views won't improve the strengths of people's political decisions. I disagree.

Murdoch isn't an exception. His outlets are part of the diversity, and there was a time when he considerably increased viewpoint diversity in US media outlets.

If Murdoch spends every last penny of his own money on speech, what's the gripe? That someone spoke an opinion we don't share?


Your last point seems more about people than media structure.

If you have no issue with someone having a huge sway over organisations that in turn have huge sway over the population, simply because they are spending their and not yours money, I guess we don't share the same levels of skepticism.

 

[zukiphile]

In the interest of brevity, I am not quoting everything you wrote. As before, please let me know if it appears that something substantive was left unaddressed.

I'm not sure there is an issue on which only one view gets airtime in the US market.

So in your experience any given network in the US will afford 2A issues equal time and analysis and balanced reporting? Will people get the same facts to consider? Full facts?

Please note the difference in my bolded text and your bold text. It is not my experience that every network will afford equal coverage on every issue. It is my experience that in a nongovernmental, non-monopoly system, what any given network does on its own cannot control the market.

If that market permits people to speak freely, someone is going to voice the minority position.

I did take your position to be that US media would be improved by re-imposition of the Fairness Doctrine.

Only that it at least promoted presenting balanced views.

I'm interested in that outcome, rather than the means.
What I have difficulty understanding is the resistance to that outcome

That’s fair. My resistance to the Fairness Doctrine is that it is not a substantive outcome, but is an assertion of government authority, an end in itself. If you employ a corrupt means in order to strive for an end, you get a corrupted end as well.

Once you have government control of the content of speech, the government is not bound to use that control only in ways that please you.

Murdoch isn't an exception. His outlets are part of the diversity, and there was a time when he considerably increased viewpoint diversity in US media outlets.

If Murdoch spends every last penny of his own money on speech, what's the gripe? That someone spoke an opinion we don't share?


Your last point seems more about people than media structure.

If you have no issue with someone having a huge sway over organisations that in turn have huge sway over the population, simply because they are spending their and not yours money, I guess we don't share the same levels of skepticism.

We may have different distributions of our skepticism.

I may have an issue with Michael Bloomberg and the way he deploys his media assets. I have certainly had “issues with” Sulzberger properties in the past because of the substance of their positions. That does not mean that I contest the right of either to control their own properties and speak or publish only as they wish.

As in the example of NPR I provided to you, there can be skewed and absolutely false reporting, but the remedy is better and truer reporting, not a media commissariat measuring minutes and column lines to determine what may be said.

Who is the greater threat to free speech, a lazy and sloppy reporter or a media commissar?


ANALOGY WARNING! Sometimes when I argue the logical reach of the 2d Am. to an American, I compare it to the logical reach of the right of free speech in the 1st Am. This may be the first time I have thought it would make sense to reverse that order.

It would not be a proper protection of my 2d Am. rights to tell me that they are expressed by armed state agents, but not by me having arms. I would protest that this is no protection at all because my right is one I hold against the state. I would say that it not only fails to protect my right, but affirmatively usurps that right in favor of the very entity against which I hold the right.

Similarly, it would not be a proper protection of my 1st Am. rights to have the content of speech determined by state agents, not by publishers and speakers. I would protest that this is no protection of free speech at all because that is a right to be free of government control. I would say that it not only fails to protect my right, but affirmatively usurps that right in favor of the very entity against which I hold the right.