- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
Glenn - You ask:
"I'd love to hear the difference between these two things that you claim have nothing to do with each other: (1) "government control over media (presumably control over content)" -- which you claim you don't favor and (2) "a public interest standard to govern publicly owned resources" -- which you do favor.
And do you think the public owns cable outlets as well, or just the airwaves used by networks?"
First, I did not claim that "the two things (i.e. government ownership versus government regulation) have nothing to do with each other". I merely stated that you had conflated them. More than semantics here, no? Obviously, as some point, government regulation can impact content to the same degree that ownership can. But you will concede the huge distinction, yes?
Second, I understand the applicable distinction between the airwaves and the cable outlets. But I think we were talking about NBC, a broadcast network.
Last, there's plenty of room to enforce standards related to anti-trust, conflicts of interest, and the public interest. Regulatory institutions and a body of regualtory law, licenses, and corporate charters are involved here, no?
Calling all media experts - please weigh in. This is technically way beyond my ken. But lack of expertise is no excuse for not making a normative policy argument.
