(February 26, 2017 at 2:53 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote:(February 25, 2017 at 3:38 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: An informed electorate is vital to a functioning democracy. I don't see how reducing available information aids informing the public.
I agree with you. At the same time, I don't see how anyone can say that the public is starved for information. if anything there is too much. If the NYT and CNN ceased to exist, I doubt they would be missed.
The problem arises when they cease to exist as the result of a governmental power starving them of information, which is the currency of exchange for the media. When that sort of thing happens, the government is empowered to punish its critics for no other reason than their criticism. That is obnoxious and something I'd never support. The marketplace is and should be the only judge of the viability of those two or any other news outlet.
Neo Wrote:(February 25, 2017 at 3:38 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: The first step towards authoritarian government is muzzling the voices which would object.
Personally, I think there is a difference between snubbing certain journalists and censoring them. They are still free to print and say whatever they want.
Of course they are. But playing favorites with the intent to harm their business seems to me to be ethically suspect, if not actually abusive. And I stand by my comment that this is an attempt to muzzle critics, because without access to these closed-door meetings, they are locked out of the information loop.
If he can't stand the heat, he should GTFO of the kitchen.
