As I pointed out here before (see, “And so the Comcast-NBC Merger Hysteria Begins: Help Me Document It!“), every time a media merger is proposed we hear all sorts of silly Chicken Little predictions of impending doom as well as preposterous conspiracy theories about supposed nefarious schemes to take over the media universe and control our minds. For good measure, there’s also plenty of talk of “the death of deliberative democracy,” or efforts to weed out one sort of perspective or another.

As history has shown, it’s all complete bunk. But that doesn’t stop critics from concocting asinine theories about media providers seeking to “silence critics.”  Here’s two bits of Chicken Little-ism that I missed in my previous essay documenting this silliness.  First, over at Huffington Post, Marvin Ammori tells us that America is about to become Italy or Argentina because of the deal:

Putting so much power in the hands of one company–and, specifically, its executives–is dangerous for a democracy. There is a reason why autocratic regimes control the media–media shape public opinion and define what is “possible” in politics. We have seen the problem of private media consolidation in many countries. In Italy, Silvio Berlusconi used his massive media empire to win elections and is now Prime Minister (Italy’s longest serving ever). In Argentina, the government had to pass a media consolidation law because of the power of one media company that happens to be far smaller than a combined Comcast-NBCU.

And then we have Wade Norris writing about the deal over at the Daily Kos, saying: “If you don’t want to see the progressive voices on MSNBC silenced, then join the ‘no merger’ petition.”  Ah yes, another automated “stuff-the-online-complaint-ballot-box” petition.  I love those gimmicks.  But ignore fake complaints for a moment and focus on the accusations at hand here. The Ammori-Norris theory is: If Comcast and NBCU are allowed to marry (a) progressive voices will be driven off their platforms and (b) Silvio Berlusconi will take over America democracy will somehow suffer.  Is there really any truth to this?

I find both claims pretty outlandish. I mean, seriously, why would Comcast or NBC silence Rachel Maddow or Keith Olbermann , as Norris suggests in the title of his essay? What possible reason would they have to take two of their MSNBC superstars off the air?  Is that really good business? Would they win a new base of fans with that move? Are Fox News-loving conservatives suddenly going to jump ship and run over to MSNBC because of it?  Finally, can you imagine what a PR nightmare it would be for company?

Moreover, the thing that really kills me about this ‘Comcast-is-out-to-stifle-liberal-voices’ theory is that, for the last couple of years, I’ve heard conservatives whining about how Comcast is supposedly just another big backer of liberal causes. Well, which is it?  The truth it: neither.  Comcast is in the business of … business. They are not ideological puppet-masters hell-bent on steering our opinions one direction or the other.

It’s reminds me of the blather we sometimes hear about how Rupert Murdoch wants to brainwash citizens into subscribing to conservative causes. Whenever I hear that I always ask the accuser who made the movie “The Day After Tomorrow” — a piece of global warming propaganda that must even make the people at Greenpeace blush in embarrassment. Oh, that’s right… Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation financed and distributed that movie!  So, which does that prove: (A) Rupert Murdoch is hell-bent on programming our minds to accept the fact that global warming would result in a global freeze (how’s that work again?) and leave kids scurrying for the safety of New York City libraries (seriously, have you see that movie? That’s the plot!); or (B) Rupert Murdoch is out to entertain people and make money? If you answered B, congratulations for being a sensible person.  If you answered A, then click here now to start giving money to the Free Press!

By the way, if all these conspiracies had any credence and the mass media and online providers in America really were engaged in a Vast Right Wing Conspiracy to silence liberal voices, then someone needs to explain to me how Obama absolutely crushed the Right in the last election. Seriously, let’s hear your theory. How did he circumvent “the man” and get himself elected?

I’m sorry, but the asinine horror stories that currently dominate public policy discussions about media policy ( and net neutrality regulation , for that matter) have just gotten completely out of control. Sadly, we’ve been here before.  It reminds me of the entertaining debates that took place in Congress back in 2003, following the FCC’s announced plan to tweak media ownership rules.  I documented all the hysteria in this book, but here are some choice gems you may have missed:

• During the debate on the House floor over an amendment that would have overturned one element of the new FCC rules, Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-Calif.) said the FCC’s tweaking of the rules was an attempt to impose a centralized “Saddam-style information system in the United States.”
• Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D-N.Y.) argued that media ownership deregulation amounted to “mind control” by Republicans who were trying to “dumb down” the public. “It’s a well thought out and planned effort to control the political process,” he argued and, “It will wipe out our democracy.” [Quoted in Terry Lane, “Hinchey Pushes Fairness Doctrine Bill to CWA,” Communications Daily, March 31, 2004, p. 9.]
• Rep. Markey jokingly introduced an amendment that would have deemed the new FCC cross-ownership rules to be “indecent” and require Commissioners who supported the rule to watch the movie Citizen Kane over and over again “until they flinch at the word ‘Rosebud.’” [Quoted in Terry Lane, “House Commerce Committee Raise ‘Indecency’ Fines to $500,000,” Communications Daily, March 4, 2004, p. 2.]
• Another lawmaker likened the FCC’s new rules to Soviet Union-esque control of the media.

I have come to believe that rational debate about media policy is simply impossible in this country. Facts have become utterly irrelevant.  It’s all about emotion and who can wear more of it on their sleeve.  And the Chicken Littles are really good at shouting louder than everyone else.

Some further reading:

• “A Media Morality Play”  [recent editorial I penned for Forbes about how Comcast-NBC deal and the fight over the future of media in this country]
• “A Brief History of Media Merger Hysteria: From AOL-Time Warner to Comcast-NBC” [recent PFF white paper documenting the reality about media mergers]
• “Should Consumers Fear the Comcast Deal? [a New York Times debate about the deal that Jim Harper and I took part in]
• The Media Cornucopia [an essay I penned for the City Journal a few years ago about the future of media policy]

WAR IS PEACE

FREEDOM IS SLAVERY

IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

So declared the Party in George Orwell’s classic novel  1984. The corruption of language with a constant theme of Orwell’s work, most notably his 1946 essay “Politics and the English Language.” So Orwell would not have been surprised to see the term “Internet Freedom” captured by those who advocate an increased role for government (i.e., Big Brother) online. Nor would Orwell had been surprised to see these advocates claim Orwell for themselves, insisting that opponents of government regulation are the ones corrupting language. There is perhaps no better example of this than MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow’s comments in an interview with Boing Boing’s Xeni Jardin about the divisive issue of “Net Neutrality” regulations:

Rachel Maddow [dripping with sarcasm]:  Sen. McCain’s bill, as you mentioned, is actually called the  “Internet Freedom Act of 2009,” and he’s deriding the government effort to keep telecoms from walling off the Internet as “government intrusion” and “trying to regulate the Internet.” What that means is that he’s picked better branding, he’s picked better names.  It doesn’t really relate the facts of what he’s doing. I’m wondering if it’s too late for a rebranding of the other side here. We need to get better about talking about this, because the language seems sort of corrupt at this point.

What makes Maddow’s comments so stunning is not her view that corporate America, rather than government, is the real enemy of freedom. That view is simply part of the long-regnant political orthodoxy. No, what’s stunning is that she actually thinks that her side is losing the “war of words” just because Sen. McCain had the gall to use the term “Internet Freedom” as a rallying-cry for the outdated, bourgeois notion that “freedom” means the absence of coercion by the one entity that can enforce its commands at the point of a gun and call it “justice”: that coldest of all cold monsters, the State. That’s precisely what “liberalism” used to be about until people like Rachel appropriated that word and words like “liberty” and “freedom” as slogans for control. Xeni Jardin picks up where Rachel left off by appropriating the concept of rights, too:

Xeni Jardin: the Internet really is a basic right, it’s a necessity,such a fundamental way for communicating and accessing information now.  Telecoms shouldn’t be able to throttle, to block, to slow down our access to something that might not be in their corporate interests.

This is pure, unadulterated cyber-socialism: Rights become not the sacred defense of the individual, but a positive assertion of entitlement to a vaguely defined principle of access: by guaranteeing this access through ever-expanding “neutrality regulation”, government gains unlimited control over the Internet itself.

As Adam Thierer and I have warned, that way lies madness: Inviting the government to regulate online content and services in the name of “neutrality” (or “privacy” or any of the many “glittering generalities” ending in “-y” Orwell would have denounced) would be the death of real Internet Freedom, which requires a strict “Separation of Web and State.”

If you want to see this bastardization of the language of “freedom” in action, watch the video. Just as nauseating is the way that McCain and is “disdainfully dismissed” as a corporate whore because he’s—GASP!—received donations from the telecom industry. Obviously, he must only be committing these thought crimes because evil enemies of the People’s Revolution paid him to do so! (Of course, donations may to politicians that support increased regulation of the Internet don’t corrupt them because their intentions are pure! Anyone can support any cause they like with donations so long as the cause is the right one, as determined by the People’s Revolutionary Guard.)