michael@xanadu.com (Michael McClary) (01/13/90)
In article <17622@rpp386.cactus.org> mgodwin@rpp386.cactus.org (Mike Godwin) writes: >In a way, it may be better if Helms succeeds in forcing the FCC >to further limit broadcasting content--it might force people >to realize that the FCC, as it currently operates, routinely >imposes unconstitutional limits on freedom of expression (or, at >least, they *ought* to be regarded as unconstitutional limits, >but the Supremes practically never get broadcasting law right). The concept of making something bad worse, to goad people to get off their butts and fix it, is an attractive one. (Many leftish groups have gotten bad names for themselves by trying it.) Unfortunately, things have to get a LOT worse before you get a reaction (if you get one at all). Then, if you DO get one, AND it's successful, it usually won't win back all the recent losses, let alone produce a net improvement. Meanwhile, things have gotten worse. This is especially true of press censorship, which restricts the very information channel that might spread the message that things have gotten worse. (If YOU see only pablum on the broadcast media, do you blame the FCC, or the broadcasters? Think about it: there's been only pablum for a long time. And did you EVER see an attack on the FCC's policies in the broadcast media? How about in the paper press, which happen to be their competition?)