- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
It seems to me that although Comcast's various tentacles may, as you suggest, face different suites of regulation depending on which -- if any -- is technically guilty of a particular transgression, Glenn's overall point is that Comcast's very size, and its consequent domination of critical market segments, acts against the public interest irrespective of its compliance with laws currently on the books.
Even assuming that Comcast -- in part or as a whole -- isn't in violation of any law or regulation in refusing this ad, the situation is as grave as Glenn says it is. If there isn't a law, perhaps there ought to be one. What Glenn is asking seems reasonable enough. People aware of what is going on should demand that whatever needs to be done to reclaim the public interest is done, including -- and this is my opinion, not Glenn's-- the passage of new legislation aimed at preventing a broadcast monopoly from suppressing information it deems inimical to its corporate interest.
Once again, it seems to me that we're back in the grip of the crucial argument between liberals, libertarians and conservatives about the proper role of government in addressing such grievances. Glenn hasn't offered an opinion, nor so far, has Mona. No doubt shooter will come screeching up at some point and say that liberals -- in this case yours truly -- think that government is the solution to every ill. Generally speaking, I don't actually think anything like that, but in this particular case, this particular liberal thinks that maybe a solution does lie in government somewhere, at least in the part which isn't yet owned by Comcast and its benevolent capitalist allies.
