http://techliberation.com/2009/05/17/cutting-the-video-cord-two-excellent-washington-post-articles/ Keeping politicians' hands off the Net & everything else related to technology Tue, 14 Feb 2012 19:26:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 http://techliberation.com/2009/05/17/cutting-the-video-cord-two-excellent-washington-post-articles/comment-page-1/#comment-65564 Steve R. Mon, 18 May 2009 07:43:31 +0000 http://techliberation.com/?p=18365#comment-65564 <p>While the Post may publish positive articles, the Post, on occasion, also relapses into publishing "bad" (opinion) articles that favor "protecting" the media. No surprise there. A recent "bad" article being <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/15/AR2009051503000.html" rel="nofollow">Laws That Could Save Journalism</a> by Bruce W. Sanford and Bruce D. Brown. A disturbing aspect of this article is that a "special interest" (journalism) is proposing going to the congressional supermarket to obtain laws that "protect" their profession. One can only hope that our non-representing representatives will demonstrate a bit of back-bone and not grant the "special interest" legislation to "protect' journalism. A free market can not function if every "special interest" has special protections.<br><br>PS: Since I posted the above, <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090517/0236594905.shtml" rel="nofollow">TechDirt</a> has also picked up on the Washington Post opinion piece. Mike Masnick writes <i>"If I didn't know any better, I'd think it was satire, because the suggestions are so mind-bogglingly bad and dangerous, it's hard to believe anyone wrote it with serious intent. Also, it's worth noting that the Washington Post didn't bother to detail the rather massive conflicts of interests from both lawyers. Apparently they both have represented numerous big name newspapers."</i></p> While the Post may publish positive articles, the Post, on occasion, also relapses into publishing “bad” (opinion) articles that favor “protecting” the media. No surprise there. A recent “bad” article being Laws That Could Save Journalism by Bruce W. Sanford and Bruce D. Brown. A disturbing aspect of this article is that a “special interest” (journalism) is proposing going to the congressional supermarket to obtain laws that “protect” their profession. One can only hope that our non-representing representatives will demonstrate a bit of back-bone and not grant the “special interest” legislation to “protect' journalism. A free market can not function if every “special interest” has special protections.

PS: Since I posted the above, TechDirt has also picked up on the Washington Post opinion piece. Mike Masnick writes “If I didn't know any better, I'd think it was satire, because the suggestions are so mind-bogglingly bad and dangerous, it's hard to believe anyone wrote it with serious intent. Also, it's worth noting that the Washington Post didn't bother to detail the rather massive conflicts of interests from both lawyers. Apparently they both have represented numerous big name newspapers.”

]]> http://techliberation.com/2009/05/17/cutting-the-video-cord-two-excellent-washington-post-articles/comment-page-1/#comment-61898 Steve R. Mon, 18 May 2009 03:43:31 +0000 http://techliberation.com/?p=18365#comment-61898 <p>While the Post may publish positive articles, the Post, on occasion, also relapses into publishing "bad" (opinion) articles that favor "protecting" the media. No surprise there. A recent "bad" article being <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/15/AR2009051503000.html" rel="nofollow">Laws That Could Save Journalism</a> by Bruce W. Sanford and Bruce D. Brown. A disturbing aspect of this article is that a "special interest" (journalism) is proposing going to the congressional supermarket to obtain laws that "protect" their profession. One can only hope that our non-representing representatives will demonstrate a bit of back-bone and not grant the "special interest" legislation to "protect' journalism. A free market can not function if every "special interest" has special protections.<br><br>PS: Since I posted the above, <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090517/0236594905.shtml" rel="nofollow">TechDirt</a> has also picked up on the Washington Post opinion piece. Mike Masnick writes <i>"If I didn't know any better, I'd think it was satire, because the suggestions are so mind-bogglingly bad and dangerous, it's hard to believe anyone wrote it with serious intent. Also, it's worth noting that the Washington Post didn't bother to detail the rather massive conflicts of interests from both lawyers. Apparently they both have represented numerous big name newspapers."</i></p> While the Post may publish positive articles, the Post, on occasion, also relapses into publishing “bad” (opinion) articles that favor “protecting” the media. No surprise there. A recent “bad” article being Laws That Could Save Journalism by Bruce W. Sanford and Bruce D. Brown. A disturbing aspect of this article is that a “special interest” (journalism) is proposing going to the congressional supermarket to obtain laws that “protect” their profession. One can only hope that our non-representing representatives will demonstrate a bit of back-bone and not grant the “special interest” legislation to “protect' journalism. A free market can not function if every “special interest” has special protections.

PS: Since I posted the above, TechDirt has also picked up on the Washington Post opinion piece. Mike Masnick writes “If I didn't know any better, I'd think it was satire, because the suggestions are so mind-bogglingly bad and dangerous, it's hard to believe anyone wrote it with serious intent. Also, it's worth noting that the Washington Post didn't bother to detail the rather massive conflicts of interests from both lawyers. Apparently they both have represented numerous big name newspapers.”

]]> http://techliberation.com/2009/05/17/cutting-the-video-cord-two-excellent-washington-post-articles/comment-page-1/#comment-59377 Steve R. Mon, 18 May 2009 02:43:31 +0000 http://techliberation.com/?p=18365#comment-59377 <p>While the Post may publish positive articles, the Post, on occasion, also relapses into publishing "bad" articles that favor "protecting" the media. No surprise there. A recent "bad" article being <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/15/AR2009051503000.html" rel="nofollow">Laws That Could Save Journalism</a> by Bruce W. Sanford and Bruce D. Brown. A disturbing aspect of this article is that a "special interest" (journalism) is proposing going to the congressional supermarket to obtain laws that "protect" their profession. One can only hope that our non-representing representatives will demonstrate a bit of back-bone and not grant the "special interest" legislation to "protect' journalism. A free market can not function if every "special interest" has special protections.</p> While the Post may publish positive articles, the Post, on occasion, also relapses into publishing “bad” articles that favor “protecting” the media. No surprise there. A recent “bad” article being Laws That Could Save Journalism by Bruce W. Sanford and Bruce D. Brown. A disturbing aspect of this article is that a “special interest” (journalism) is proposing going to the congressional supermarket to obtain laws that “protect” their profession. One can only hope that our non-representing representatives will demonstrate a bit of back-bone and not grant the “special interest” legislation to “protect' journalism. A free market can not function if every “special interest” has special protections.

]]>