>> ^direpickle:

>> ^shuac:
I'm getting a new passport ready just in case the 2012 election goes from "Entertaining as the 2008 Election" to "Holy Shit, I've got to leave this country now."
Can anyone make a good suggestion of where I can go? I don't really speak any other languages. I took some French in high school and I know a little German (he's sitting over there <- awesome Top Secret reference).
Seriously though. Any ideas?

Don't be one of those guys, man.
Also, you're probably fooling yourself if you think there's anywhere better. Corruption is a huge problem the world over. The UK is a nanny state, surveillance state, and general purpose Orwellian nightmare. It sounds like much of mainland Europe is being flooded with Fundie Muslims, and the governments are kowtowing before all of their demands (hence all of the anti-heresy laws). Oceania is going crazy with their Internet Filtering and whatnot. Canada's far too easily influenced by the US.
They're all bowing before the American Intellectual Property Juggernaut.
You will pretty much never be able to become a citizen in most of Europe. The Japanese government is corrupt, and the people will never accept you as one of them. I'd be leery of settling in in most of the rest of Asia. North Korea and South Korea could go to war again at any moment. China's not exactly the place I'd go to flee from an insane government. Maybe India, Nepal, something.
Maybe there's some amazing place in South America or Africa.


Bogus. UK is just as free as the USA, if not freer, with the exception of libel laws and traffic cameras. And you're not goinh to move to any other european country just because of the few percent Muslim minority that has emigrated there? Racist.

@Shepppard

Firstly, ya got me. I totally didn't click your links.


Secondly, I present a rebuttal:

Whether the Hercules is military owned or not was not my suggestion. And whether a peaceful civilization or not, a form of organized defense is necessary should a time come it is required.

However, the US has misused, nay, abused their power for centuries and I was only poking fun at people who jump the gun to libel the current government. So distinguishing between who might own the vehicle is not really relevant to my attempt at humor.
>> ^Shepppard:

@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/freernuts" title="member since April 25th, 2009" class="profilelink">freernuts
"The Lockheed C-130 Hercules is a four-engine turboprop military transport aircraft"
"The Lockheed AC-130 gunship is a heavily-armed ground-attack aircraft"
Next time try actually clicking the links I posted, and reading the first line

>> ^gorillaman:

Right. Our actions are indicators of our character, but it's character that counts. Action doesn't exist in the moral dimension. If I want to pick your pocket, it doesn't matter whether I get around to doing it or not. If I'm a racist, it doesn't matter what I say; if I'm not a racist it doesn't matter what I say. It's all about what I am.

But "what you are" isn't knowable in any objective sense. It certainly isn't defined by your own opinion in the matter.

Back to the example of the pickpocket. What if he believes that property rights are a big fat lie perpetrated by people who just want an excuse to tell people what to do and how to act. He's not committing a crime, he's making a bold criticism of his society, and exposing how unreasonable people act over such a non-event as taking a few pieces of paper out of someone's pockets.

Is he a pickpocket? He doesn't think so. Does society think he's a pickpocket? Almost certainly. Is that the standard though? Objectively you can say he's broken laws and customs of the land he's in, and the word we use for that particular crime is "pickpocketing", and we've set up a system where we punish people for that particular infraction of social norms. It doesn't really establish what he is, but people will call him "a pickpocket" rather than "a person who picked someone's pocket".

Now technically, that's not really fair. An organized group of like-minded pickpockets could start trying to stigmatize calling people a pickpocket, since it's not really fair to conflate what a person's done with who they are. For that matter, a lot of pickpockets think the term "pickpocketing" is derogatory, and resent being called that. They think of themselves as defenders of property-blindness -- after all, only prejudiced propertarians can tell the difference between what's theirs and what's not...

This is the kind of arguments we hear all the time about race. Racism is clear cut, and easy to spot. Racism can happen unintentionally, just like stealing ("Oh, is that your pen?") and just like unintentional stealing, it becomes a much more grave offense if they don't own up to it or make amends for it ("Are you calling me a thief? I should sue you for libel you anti-theifite!"), and reflects even more negatively on the character of the offender.

>> ^bcglorf:

^ or perhaps, stupid lady is stupid.
Scientology gets to be treated like other religions when it starts to act like one.
As long as it continues to refuse to discuss it's beliefs publicly, it deserves no protection at all.
As long as it actively refuses to allow anyone to see their 'secret documents' without paying vast sums of money first, it deserves no protection at all.
As long as it's deepest foundational beliefs still include Hubbard's Xenu alien origin of life fantasy, it deserves ridicule.
As long as it's practices continue to include things like "Fair Game", it deserves to be fought.
Fair Game, is a declaration that an opponent of scientology is 'fair game' for any and all manner of attacks and attempts to destroy their character as are needed to destroy them and their credibility. Vicky Aznaran, a formerly very high level scientologist described the effects/actions of that policy:
Because of my position and the reports which regularly crossed my desk, I know that during my entire presidency of RTC "fair game" actions against enemies were daily routine. Apart from the legal tactics described below, the "fair game" activities included break-ins, libel, upsetting the companies of the enemy, espionage, harassment, misuse of confidential communications in the folders of community members and so forth.


How is that not like "real" religions? Catholic excommunication? Execution for apostates from Islam? Calling Scientology "stupid" then going to church is ridiculous. Scientology is a frickin case study on how a bullshit idea can become a worldwide cult. The only difference between it and "real" religions is 10 or 15 centuries.

^ or perhaps, stupid lady is stupid.

Scientology gets to be treated like other religions when it starts to act like one.

As long as it continues to refuse to discuss it's beliefs publicly, it deserves no protection at all.

As long as it actively refuses to allow anyone to see their 'secret documents' without paying vast sums of money first, it deserves no protection at all.

As long as it's deepest foundational beliefs still include Hubbard's Xenu alien origin of life fantasy, it deserves ridicule.

As long as it's practices continue to include things like "Fair Game", it deserves to be fought.

Fair Game, is a declaration that an opponent of scientology is 'fair game' for any and all manner of attacks and attempts to destroy their character as are needed to destroy them and their credibility. Vicky Aznaran, a formerly very high level scientologist described the effects/actions of that policy:

Because of my position and the reports which regularly crossed my desk, I know that during my entire presidency of RTC "fair game" actions against enemies were daily routine. Apart from the legal tactics described below, the "fair game" activities included break-ins, libel, upsetting the companies of the enemy, espionage, harassment, misuse of confidential communications in the folders of community members and so forth.

>> ^JiggaJonson:

>>>>>>>>>This just in<<<<<<<<<
From Slashdot: "Apple has done it again. All threads about Consumer Report's iPhone4 non-recommendation are removed or deleted. If it happened once, maybe you'd say it was a glitch. But what if it happened ? Three times? Four times, five, six?"
http://www.tuaw.com/2010/07/12/apple-drops-con
sumer-reports-discussion-threads-down-memory-hole/



I don't suppose you actually went to the forums did you? The deleted threads were largely those threads that badmouthed consumer reports itself, not Apple. There are still plenty of threads on the forums discussing the consumer reports non-recommendation. Further, here is an example of a 25 page thread titled "serious antenna problem." I think everyone is blowing the Orwellian implications of this way out of proportion. Apple didn't want to be found guilty of libeling CR on its own site. It's a forum meant for discussing solutions to problems, not ranting about poor reporting by third-party publications.

Why is it ok for the SWAT to bust through your door and shoot your crated dog? Because if I were to shoot a K9 unit, its an automatic felony. So theoretically if homeowner's dog was specially trained K9, the cops could be libel. And additionally, there would have to be a "full police funeral".


From Wikipedia:
In many jurisdictions the intentional injuring or killing of a police dog is a felony,[1] subjecting the perpetrator to harsher penalties than those in the statutes embodied in local animal cruelty laws,[2] just as an assault on a human police officer is often a more serious offense than the same assault on a non-officer. A growing number of law-enforcement organizations outfit dogs with ballistic vests,[3][4] and some even go so far as to make the dogs sworn officers, with their own police badges and IDs.[1][5][6][7] Furthermore, a police dog killed in the line of duty is often given a full police funeral.[7][8][9]

I generally have no problem with people saying... well, anything that isn't slander or libel. When words turn to illegal actions, that is where law should step in. Verbal provocation should not be equated to physical action. People have the right to listen or not listen and to judge what they hear for themselves. Trying to legislate what people are allowed to say and not allowed to say is not only a nightmare for law enforcement, but is far more authoritarian than people initially perceive it to be. You may emotionally agree with one enforcement now, but the situation may be turned around on you before you realize it.

I've never liked the term "slippery slope." I think it's cliche and hyperbolic. In a case like this, no one is slipping down any slope. However, the directions we choose to take influence the directions future generations will take. If we begin life with the right to say anything and end life with the right to say "most" things, than the next generation begins life at "most"...

The question really is:
Do you want to head toward authoritarianism or libertarianism?

And yes, I know libel is a civil matter. I rather suspect that there is a criminal violation in all of this.

I really think some jail time is the only proper result of all this libel.

The ex-president of ACORN could probably bring a successful libel suit against O'Keefe in the US.

Wow, I know that British libel law is pretty crap, but if in the US you can't even use libel to fight the most outrageous lies that cause the downfall of organisations, I'm wondering what's worse.

did the swedish press blood libel?

In August 2009, Aftonbladet, a leading Swedish tabloid, published an op-ed by Donald Boström containing claims that during the 1980s and 1990s Israeli soldiers had killed and abducted Palestinians whose organs were then taken without permission at the Abu Kabir Forensic Institute.[22] Later reports indicated that organs had been taken without permission, but from Israelis and Palestinians. The article initially prompted furious condemnation and accusations of an anti-Semitic blood libel from the Foreign Ministry of Israel, evolving into a diplomatic controversy between Israel and Sweden when the latter declined to officially condemn the article. More details here: Aftonbladet-Israel_controversy.

EDWARD R. MURROW

RTNDA Convention
Chicago
October 15, 1958

This just might do nobody any good. At the end of this discourse a few people may accuse this reporter of fouling his own comfortable nest, and your organization may be accused of having given hospitality to heretical and even dangerous thoughts. But the elaborate structure of networks, advertising agencies and sponsors will not be shaken or altered. It is my desire, if not my duty, to try to talk to you journeymen with some candor about what is happening to radio and television.

I have no technical advice or counsel to offer those of you who labor in this vineyard that produces words and pictures. You will forgive me for not telling you that instruments with which you work are miraculous, that your responsibility is unprecedented or that your aspirations are frequently frustrated. It is not necessary to remind you that the fact that your voice is amplified to the degree where it reaches from one end of the country to the other does not confer upon you greater wisdom or understanding than you possessed when your voice reached only from one end of the bar to the other. All of these things you know.

You should also know at the outset that, in the manner of witnesses before Congressional committees, I appear here voluntarily-by invitation-that I am an employee of the Columbia Broadcasting System, that I am neither an officer nor a director of that corporation and that these remarks are of a "do-it-yourself" nature. If what I have to say is responsible, then I alone am responsible for the saying of it. Seeking neither approbation from my employers, nor new sponsors, nor acclaim from the critics of radio and television, I cannot well be disappointed. Believing that potentially the commercial system of broadcasting as practiced in this country is the best and freest yet devised, I have decided to express my concern about what I believe to be happening to radio and television. These instruments have been good to me beyond my due. There exists in mind no reasonable grounds for personal complaint. I have no feud, either with my employers, any sponsors, or with the professional critics of radio and television. But I am seized with an abiding fear regarding what these two instruments are doing to our society, our culture and our heritage.

Our history will be what we make it. And if there are any historians about fifty or a hundred years from now, and there should be preserved the kinescopes for one week of all three networks, they will there find recorded in black and white, or color, evidence of decadence, escapism and insulation from the realities of the world in which we live. I invite your attention to the television schedules of all networks between the hours of 8 and 11 p.m., Eastern Time. Here you will find only fleeting and spasmodic reference to the fact that this nation is in mortal danger. There are, it is true, occasional informative programs presented in that intellectual ghetto on Sunday afternoons. But during the daily peak viewing periods, television in the main insulates us from the realities of the world in which we live. If this state of affairs continues, we may alter an advertising slogan to read: LOOK NOW, PAY LATER.

For surely we shall pay for using this most powerful instrument of communication to insulate the citizenry from the hard and demanding realities which must be faced if we are to survive. I mean the word survive literally. If there were to be a competition in indifference, or perhaps in insulation from reality, then Nero and his fiddle, Chamberlain and his umbrella, could not find a place on an early afternoon sustaining show. If Hollywood were to run out of Indians, the program schedules would be mangled beyond all recognition. Then some courageous soul with a small budget might be able to do a documentary telling what, in fact, we have done--and are still doing--to the Indians in this country. But that would be unpleasant. And we must at all costs shield the sensitive citizens from anything that is unpleasant.

I am entirely persuaded that the American public is more reasonable, restrained and more mature than most of our industry's program planners believe. Their fear of controversy is not warranted by the evidence. I have reason to know, as do many of you, that when the evidence on a controversial subject is fairly and calmly presented, the public recognizes it for what it is--an effort to illuminate rather than to agitate.

Several years ago, when we undertook to do a program on Egypt and Israel, well-meaning, experienced and intelligent friends shook their heads and said, "This you cannot do--you will be handed your head. It is an emotion-packed controversy, and there is no room for reason in it." We did the program. Zionists, anti-Zionists, the friends of the Middle East, Egyptian and Israeli officials said, with a faint tone of surprise, "It was a fair count. The information was there. We have no complaints."

Our experience was similar with two half-hour programs dealing with cigarette smoking and lung cancer. Both the medical profession and the tobacco industry cooperated in a rather wary fashion. But in the end of the day they were both reasonably content. The subject of radioactive fall-out and the banning of nuclear tests was, and is, highly controversial. But according to what little evidence there is, viewers were prepared to listen to both sides with reason and restraint. This is not said to claim any special or unusual competence in the presentation of controversial subjects, but rather to indicate that timidity in these areas is not warranted by the evidence.

Recently, network spokesmen have been disposed to complain that the professional critics of television have been "rather beastly." There have been hints that somehow competition for the advertising dollar has caused the critics of print to gang up on television and radio. This reporter has no desire to defend the critics. They have space in which to do that on their own behalf. But it remains a fact that the newspapers and magazines are the only instruments of mass communication which remain free from sustained and regular critical comment. If the network spokesmen are so anguished about what appears in print, let them come forth and engage in a little sustained and regular comment regarding newspapers and magazines. It is an ancient and sad fact that most people in network television, and radio, have an exaggerated regard for what appears in print. And there have been cases where executives have refused to make even private comment or on a program for which they were responsible until they heard'd the reviews in print. This is hardly an exhibition confidence.

The oldest excuse of the networks for their timidity is their youth. Their spokesmen say, "We are young; we have not developed the traditions nor acquired the experience of the older media." If they but knew it, they are building those traditions, creating those precedents everyday. Each time they yield to a voice from Washington or any political pressure, each time they eliminate something that might offend some section of the community, they are creating their own body of precedent and tradition. They are, in fact, not content to be "half safe."

Nowhere is this better illustrated than by the fact that the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission publicly prods broadcasters to engage in their legal right to editorialize. Of course, to undertake an editorial policy, overt and clearly labeled, and obviously unsponsored, requires a station or a network to be responsible. Most stations today probably do not have the manpower to assume this responsibility, but the manpower could be recruited. Editorials would not be profitable; if they had a cutting edge, they might even offend. It is much easier, much less troublesome, to use the money-making machine of television and radio merely as a conduit through which to channel anything that is not libelous, obscene or defamatory. In that way one has the illusion of power without responsibility.

So far as radio--that most satisfying and rewarding instrument--is concerned, the diagnosis of its difficulties is rather easy. And obviously I speak only of news and information. In order to progress, it need only go backward. To the time when singing commercials were not allowed on news reports, when there was no middle commercial in a 15-minute news report, when radio was rather proud, alert and fast. I recently asked a network official, "Why this great rash of five-minute news reports (including three commercials) on weekends?" He replied, "Because that seems to be the only thing we can sell."

In this kind of complex and confusing world, you can't tell very much about the why of the news in broadcasts where only three minutes is available for news. The only man who could do that was Elmer Davis, and his kind aren't about any more. If radio news is to be regarded as a commodity, only acceptable when saleable, then I don't care what you call it--I say it isn't news.

My memory also goes back to the time when the fear of a slight reduction in business did not result in an immediate cutback in bodies in the news and public affairs department, at a time when network profits had just reached an all-time high. We would all agree, I think, that whether on a station or a network, the stapling machine is a poor substitute for a newsroom typewriter.

One of the minor tragedies of television news and information is that the networks will not even defend their vital interests. When my employer, CBS, through a combination of enterprise and good luck, did an interview with Nikita Khrushchev, the President uttered a few ill-chosen, uninformed words on the subject, and the network practically apologized. This produced a rarity. Many newspapers defended the CBS right to produce the program and commended it for initiative. But the other networks remained silent.

Likewise, when John Foster Dulles, by personal decree, banned American journalists from going to Communist China, and subsequently offered contradictory explanations, for his fiat the networks entered only a mild protest. Then they apparently forgot the unpleasantness. Can it be that this national industry is content to serve the public interest only with the trickle of news that comes out of Hong Kong, to leave its viewers in ignorance of the cataclysmic changes that are occurring in a nation of six hundred million people? I have no illusions about the difficulties reporting from a dictatorship, but our British and French allies have been better served--in their public interest--with some very useful information from their reporters in Communist China.

One of the basic troubles with radio and television news is that both instruments have grown up as an incompatible combination of show business, advertising and news. Each of the three is a rather bizarre and demanding profession. And when you get all three under one roof, the dust never settles. The top management of the networks with a few notable exceptions, has been trained in advertising, research, sales or show business. But by the nature of the coporate structure, they also make the final and crucial decisions having to do with news and public affairs. Frequently they have neither the time nor the competence to do this. It is not easy for the same small group of men to decide whether to buy a new station for millions of dollars, build a new building, alter the rate card, buy a new Western, sell a soap opera, decide what defensive line to take in connection with the latest Congressional inquiry, how much money to spend on promoting a new program, what additions or deletions should be made in the existing covey or clutch of vice-presidents, and at the same time-- frequently on the same long day--to give mature, thoughtful consideration to the manifold problems that confront those who are charged with the responsibility for news and public affairs.

Sometimes there is a clash between the public interest and the corporate interest. A telephone call or a letter from the proper quarter in Washington is treated rather more seriously than a communication from an irate but not politically potent viewer. It is tempting enough to give away a little air time for frequently irresponsible and unwarranted utterances in an effort to temper the wind of criticism.

Upon occasion, economics and editorial judgment are in conflict. And there is no law which says that dollars will be defeated by duty. Not so long ago the President of the United States delivered a television address to the nation. He was discoursing on the possibility or probability of war between this nation and the Soviet Union and Communist China--a reasonably compelling subject. Two networks CBS and NBC, delayed that broadcast for an hour and fifteen minutes. If this decision was dictated by anything other than financial reasons, the networks didn't deign to explain those reasons. That hour-and-fifteen-minute delay, by the way, is about twice the time required for an ICBM to travel from the Soviet Union to major targets in the United States. It is difficult to believe that this decision was made by men who love, respect and understand news.

So far, I have been dealing largely with the deficit side of the ledger, and the items could be expanded. But I have said, and I believe, that potentially we have in this country a free enterprise system of radio and television which is superior to any other. But to achieve its promise, it must be both free and enterprising. There is no suggestion here that networks or individual stations should operate as philanthropies. But I can find nothing in the Bill of Rights or the Communications Act which says that they must increase their net profits each year, lest the Republic collapse. I do not suggest that news and information should be subsidized by foundations or private subscriptions. I am aware that the networks have expended, and are expending, very considerable sums of money on public affairs programs from which they cannot hope to receive any financial reward. I have had the privilege at CBS of presiding over a considerable number of such programs. I testify, and am able to stand here and say, that I have never had a program turned down by my superiors because of the money it would cost.

But we all know that you cannot reach the potential maximum audience in marginal time with a sustaining program. This is so because so many stations on the network--any network--will decline to carry it. Every licensee who applies for a grant to operate in the public interest, convenience and necessity makes certain promises as to what he will do in terms of program content. Many recipients of licenses have, in blunt language, welshed on those promises. The money-making machine somehow blunts their memories. The only remedy for this is closer inspection and punitive action by the F.C.C. But in the view of many this would come perilously close to supervision of program content by a federal agency.

So it seems that we cannot rely on philanthropic support or foundation subsidies; we cannot follow the "sustaining route"--the networks cannot pay all the freight--and the F.C.C. cannot or will not discipline those who abuse the facilities that belong to the public. What, then, is the answer? Do we merely stay in our comfortable nests, concluding that the obligation of these instruments has been discharged when we work at the job of informing the public for a minimum of time? Or do we believe that the preservation of the Republic is a seven-day-a-week job, demanding more awareness, better skills and more perseverance than we have yet contemplated.

I am frightened by the imbalance, the constant striving to reach the largest possible audience for everything; by the absence of a sustained study of the state of the nation. Heywood Broun once said, "No body politic is healthy until it begins to itch." I would like television to produce some itching pills rather than this endless outpouring of tranquilizers. It can be done. Maybe it won't be, but it could. Let us not shoot the wrong piano player. Do not be deluded into believing that the titular heads of the networks control what appears on their networks. They all have better taste. All are responsible to stockholders, and in my experience all are honorable men. But they must schedule what they can sell in the public market.

And this brings us to the nub of the question. In one sense it rather revolves around the phrase heard frequently along Madison Avenue: The Corporate Image. I am not precisely sure what this phrase means, but I would imagine that it reflects a desire on the part of the corporations who pay the advertising bills to have the public image, or believe that they are not merely bodies with no souls, panting in pursuit of elusive dollars. They would like us to believe that they can distinguish between the public good and the private or corporate gain. So the question is this: Are the big corporations who pay the freight for radio and television programs wise to use that time exclusively for the sale of goods and services? Is it in their own interest and that of the stockholders so to do? The sponsor of an hour's television program is not buying merely the six minutes devoted to commercial message. He is determining, within broad limits, the sum total of the impact of the entire hour. If he always, invariably, reaches for the largest possible audience, then this process of insulation, of escape from reality, will continue to be massively financed, and its apologist will continue to make winsome speeches about giving the public what it wants, or "letting the public decide."

I refuse to believe that the presidents and chairmen of the boards of these big corporations want their corporate image to consist exclusively of a solemn voice in an echo chamber, or a pretty girl opening the door of a refrigerator, or a horse that talks. They want something better, and on occasion some of them have demonstrated it. But most of the men whose legal and moral responsibility it is to spend the stockholders' money for advertising are removed from the realities of the mass media by five, six, or a dozen contraceptive layers of vice-presidents, public relations counsel and advertising agencies. Their business is to sell goods, and the competition is pretty tough.

But this nation is now in competition with malignant forces of evil who are using every instrument at their command to empty the minds of their subjects and fill those minds with slogans, determination and faith in the future. If we go on as we are, we are protecting the mind of the American public from any real contact with the menacing world that squeezes in upon us. We are engaged in a great experiment to discover whether a free public opinion can devise and direct methods of managing the affairs of the nation. We may fail. But we are handicapping ourselves needlessly.

Let us have a little competition. Not only in selling soap, cigarettes and automobiles, but in informing a troubled, apprehensive but receptive public. Why should not each of the 20 or 30 big corporations which dominate radio and television decide that they will give up one or two of their regularly scheduled programs each year, turn the time over to the networks and say in effect: "This is a tiny tithe, just a little bit of our profits. On this particular night we aren't going to try to sell cigarettes or automobiles; this is merely a gesture to indicate our belief in the importance of ideas." The networks should, and I think would, pay for the cost of producing the program. The advertiser, the sponsor, would get name credit but would have nothing to do with the content of the program. Would this blemish the corporate image? Would the stockholders object? I think not. For if the premise upon which our pluralistic society rests, which as I understand it is that if the people are given sufficient undiluted information, they will then somehow, even after long, sober second thoughts, reach the right decision--if that premise is wrong, then not only the corporate image but the corporations are done for.

There used to be an old phrase in this country, employed when someone talked too much. It was: "Go hire a hall." Under this proposal the sponsor would have hired the hall; he has bought the time; the local station operator, no matter how indifferent, is going to carry the program-he has to. Then it's up to the networks to fill the hall. I am not here talking about editorializing but about straightaway exposition as direct, unadorned and impartial as falliable human beings can make it. Just once in a while let us exalt the importance of ideas and information. Let us dream to the extent of saying that on a given Sunday night the time normally occupied by Ed Sullivan is given over to a clinical survey of the state of American education, and a week or two later the time normally used by Steve Allen is devoted to a thoroughgoing study of American policy in the Middle East. Would the corporate image of their respective sponsors be damaged? Would the stockholders rise up in their wrath and complain? Would anything happen other than that a few million people would have received a little illumination on subjects that may well determine the future of this country, and therefore the future of the corporations? This method would also provide real competition between the networks as to which could outdo the others in the palatable presentation of information. It would provide an outlet for the young men of skill, and there are some even of dedication, who would like to do something other than devise methods of insulating while selling.

There may be other and simpler methods of utilizing these instruments of radio and television in the interests of a free society. But I know of none that could be so easily accomplished inside the framework of the existing commercial system. I don't know how you would measure the success or failure of a given program. And it would be hard to prove the magnitude of the benefit accruing to the corporation which gave up one night of a variety or quiz show in order that the network might marshal its skills to do a thorough-going job on the present status of NATO, or plans for controlling nuclear tests. But I would reckon that the president, and indeed the majority of shareholders of the corporation who sponsored such a venture, would feel just a little bit better about the corporation and the country.

It may be that the present system, with no modifications and no experiments, can survive. Perhaps the money-making machine has some kind of built-in perpetual motion, but I do not think so. To a very considerable extent the media of mass communications in a given country reflect the political, economic and social climate in which they flourish. That is the reason ours differ from the British and French, or the Russian and Chinese. We are currently wealthy, fat, comfortable and complacent. We have currently a built-in allergy to unpleasant or disturbing information. Our mass media reflect this. But unless we get up off our fat surpluses and recognize that television in the main is being used to distract, delude, amuse and insulate us, then television and those who finance it, those who look at it and those who work at it, may see a totally different picture too late.

I do not advocate that we turn television into a 27-inch wailing wall, where longhairs constantly moan about the state of our culture and our defense. But I would just like to see it reflect occasionally the hard, unyielding realities of the world in which we live. I would like to see it done inside the existing framework, and I would like to see the doing of it redound to the credit of those who finance and program it. Measure the results by Nielsen, Trendex or Silex-it doesn't matter. The main thing is to try. The responsibility can be easily placed, in spite of all the mouthings about giving the public what it wants. It rests on big business, and on big television, and it rests at the top. Responsibility is not something that can be assigned or delegated. And it promises its own reward: good business and good television.

Perhaps no one will do anything about it. I have ventured to outline it against a background of criticism that may have been too harsh only because I could think of nothing better. Someone once said--I think it was Max Eastman--that "that publisher serves his advertiser best who best serves his readers." I cannot believe that radio and television, or the corporation that finance the programs, are serving well or truly their viewers or listeners, or themselves.

I began by saying that our history will be what we make it. If we go on as we are, then history will take its revenge, and retribution will not limp in catching up with us.

We are to a large extent an imitative society. If one or two or three corporations would undertake to devote just a small traction of their advertising appropriation along the lines that I have suggested, the procedure would grow by contagion; the economic burden would be bearable, and there might ensue a most exciting adventure--exposure to ideas and the bringing of reality into the homes of the nation.

To those who say people wouldn't look; they wouldn't be interested; they're too complacent, indifferent and insulated, I can only reply: There is, in one reporter's opinion, considerable evidence against that contention. But even if they are right, what have they got to lose? Because if they are right, and this instrument is good for nothing but to entertain, amuse and insulate, then the tube is flickering now and we will soon see that the whole struggle is lost.

This instrument can teach, it can illuminate; yes, and it can even inspire. But it can do so only to the extent that humans are determined to use it to those ends. Otherwise it is merely wires and lights in a box. There is a great and perhaps decisive battle to be fought against ignorance, intolerance and indifference. This weapon of television could be useful.

Stonewall Jackson, who knew something about the use of weapons, is reported to have said, "When war comes, you must draw the sword and throw away the scabbard." The trouble with television is that it is rusting in the scabbard during a battle for survival.

Lucky he wasn't in the UK, where a claim that something is fake can result in a libel case against you where you have to prove that it is fake.