Re: Aftermath of Hannan's speech
- From: abelard <abelard3@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 05 Apr 2009 13:59:43 +0200
On Sun, 5 Apr 2009 02:27:04 -0700 (PDT), True Blue
<garybaggers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
As is so often the case with our dysfunctional and ultimately corrupt
media, the initial event - in this case a speech - is pushed into the
background and becomes the sub-story to the media's failings and
prejudices.
With local papers closing almost daily and sales and advertising in
the Fleet St heavies diminishing, the Left-dominated press are
increasingly worried about this pesky internet thingy.
the domination of the media by lefties is now under serious threat,
little wonder they are twitching so amusingly....
they have not only dominated tv but also so-called 'academic'
publishing for far too long...to the great detriment of public
education....
with a fair wind we are seeing the end of their propaganda machine....
it is interesting to look at the old catholic censorship system of
'imprimatur'...
maybe we are at last seeing the end of the dire destructive socialist
cult....
regards
Peter Wilby thinks I'm "a fool". According to the former editor of the
New Statesman: "The online success of Daniel Hannan's speech about
Gordon Brown to the European Parliament - it reached the top of
YouTube's 'Most Viewed' list and has 'gone viral' - proves what we
knew: the internet lacks quality control."
Yup. That's the thing about the internet: it turns the quality filters
off. Until very recently, few of us could get political news direct
from source. It had to be interpreted for us by a BBC man with a
microphone or a newspaper's political correspondent. Now, though,
people can make their own minds up. The message has been
disintermediated.
It is striking that those who seem most upset by the development -
pundits such as Mr Wilby and The Guardian's Michael White - tend to be
on the Left. Perhaps they sense that the Left has the most to lose.
What Mr Wilby seems to mean when he complains that the internet "lacks
quality control" is not that my speech was ungrammatical or shoddily
constructed, but that its content was disagreeable. The quality
filters he evidently has in mind would screen out points of view that
he considers unacceptable: that taxes are too high, that present
borrowing levels are unsustainable, that Britain would flourish
outside the EU, that we could do more to repatriate illicit migrants.
As The Economist remarks of the incident: "For the British Left, it
was painful confirmation of its tardiness in mastering new media." So
it would seem. No wonder Lefties are so tetchy.
Incidentally, if you think I'm being a bit ex post facto about all
this, I should point out in my defence that this blog has been making
these points for years. I even extended the thesis into a book. But I
never expected to be its exemplar as well as its proponent.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/daniel_hannan/blog/2009/04/03/lefties_feel_threatened_by_the_internet
--
web site at www.abelard.org - news comment service, logic, economics
energy, education, politics, etc 1,552,396 document calls in year past
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
all that is necessary for [] walk quietly and carry
the triumph of evil is that [] a big stick.
good people do nothing [] trust actions not words
only when it's funny -- roger rabbit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Aftermath of Hannan's speech
- From: charlie6
- Re: Aftermath of Hannan's speech
- References:
- Aftermath of Hannan's speech
- From: True Blue
- Aftermath of Hannan's speech
- Prev by Date: Re: On second thoughts - fascism
- Next by Date: Re: Obama in Prague
- Previous by thread: Re: Aftermath of Hannan's speech
- Next by thread: Re: Aftermath of Hannan's speech
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading