From: Bill.Humphries@msn.fullfeed.com (Bill Humphries)
Date: Sat, 13 Jan 1996 02:51:11 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: [NOISE] Censorship as Theater: Media Coverage of the Internet
Message-ID: <v01530500ad1c3a0b8cbe@[199.184.183.25]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


Censorship as Theater

Several members of the list have complained of how the TV press portrays
the Web and the USENET as central casting for pederasts, copperheads and
narco-terrorists. I know, I've sent a couple of email messages to local TV
news outlets complaining about the broad brush of tar they've been
slinging. However, I don't think all the letters and education seminars
will do a bit of good. Because TV is not suited to presenting detailed or
sophisticated issues. TV is well-suited to telling exciting narratives full
of thrills. Given that TV news must compete with Roseanne and Vanna (and
Roseanne's writers do better narrative than Bosnian Serbs,) of course the
Internet will be portrayed as a thrilling interzone of thugs (aryran
nations), outlaws (Zimmerman), abominations (kiddieporn) and kooks (the
EFF,) with a few good guys (Exon and Shimomura) from "High Noon". The whole
thing will be presented as almost completely unrelated to the lives of the
viewer (the fantasy element) except when it can be used melodramatically
(cut to ur-bimbo gone good-nick and a blue binder full of GIFs, followed by
mother hovering over child gravely asking for the 1st amendment to be
torched for the good of the kiddies.) It's great theater, bad discourse.

Of course, there are opportunists such as the Christian Coalition; Cold,
Drug and Flu Warriors who exploit the theater and provide characters and
plot points to inflence the show their way.

Unfortunately, for all our nerdiness, many of us still think that civil
discourse really exists. We think we can influence public debate through
reasoned argument. We can't because reasoned argument isn't good TV. Does
this mean the 'forces of light' (as John Leonard describes us
anti-censorship types) should exploit the dominant means of persuasion and
construct simple narratives that make our side look like the good guys?

Turning anti-censorship into theater ignores the basic idea we're arguing
for, and reduces us to another clade of marketing nerds. To carry the day,
we have to take the arguement outside of the TV and other media influenced
by TV. It means you have to talk to your neighbours, friends, and families
and tell them why censorship is bad.

Suggested Reading:

Postman, Neil, _Amusing Ourselves to Death_, Balantine Paperback
Leonard, John, _The Last Innocent White Man in America_, New Press, pp. 48-57

-- (c) 1996 by Bill Humphries

Bill Humphries \/\/\/ bill.humphries@msn.fullfeed.com /\/\/\ Madison, WI, USA
PGP Public Key Fingerprint = 84 05 17 9D B9 6E 2D FE  A7 D1 E0 DC D0 96 63
FB