Journalism Professor Dan Gillmor Supports Federal Regulation of the (New) Printing Press
This morning I saw a tweet from Dan Gillmor regarding the death of newspapers.
As @kdoctor points out, newspapers found yet another way to commit suicide — drastic hikes in single-copy prices http://t.co/tb6V95VeoK
— Dan Gillmor (@dangillmor) March 14, 2015
I have, over the years, had a cordial relationship with Dan Gillmor. This blog received a brief mention in his book “We, the Media” (my review is here) and I always considered him to be one of those folks who had a real vision for what the Internet can and should be.
He is, I should acknowledge up front, also a leftist who is prone to making poorly thought-out generalizations of how the left is supposedly better than the right in various ways. He believes, for example, that the left has more honest discussion on their blogs, or that Republicans try to win elections by suppressing the vote (while, apparently, Democrats win through logic and certainly not through vote fraud, with the possible exception of JFK, LBJ, and other beneficiaries of fraud with names like Clinton and Obama).
Anyway: this morning, it occurred to me — for the first time with this level of clarity — that the real problem with newspapers these days is not what most people think it is. The real problem with newspapers is that we are seeing, for the first time in this country’s history, direct federal regulation of the printing press. (I am going to use the word “federal” in this post to avoid confusion, even though it’s really a “central” government and not much of a “federal” one any more.)
I tweeted to Gillmor:
.@dangillmor Final blow for newspapers: they increasingly rely on the Web, and people like you want the government regulating it. @kdoctor
— Patterico (@Patterico) March 14, 2015
To which he responded:
@Patterico well that's an absolute lie, which is surprising from you. @kdoctor
— Dan Gillmor (@dangillmor) March 14, 2015
A lie? Here is our next exchange:
.@dangillmor Well then, you clearly misunderstood me. Which part is a "lie"? You support FCC regulation of Internet, correct? @kdoctor
— Patterico (@Patterico) March 14, 2015
.@dangillmor If someone had advocated federal regulation of printing presses before the Internet, you would have seen the problem. @kdoctor
— Patterico (@Patterico) March 14, 2015
.@dangillmor But now the Internet is the printing press and you have supported giving the Feds regulatory control over it. @kdoctor
— Patterico (@Patterico) March 14, 2015
.@dangillmor Showing you the frightening implications of your position is not a "lie." @kdoctor
— Patterico (@Patterico) March 14, 2015
Gillmor then told me that I did not use sufficient “nuance.” (Well, we were on Twitter.)
@Patterico your nuance-free slogans and analogies are not what i support. truly surprised you would do this. but i'm not playing this game.
— Dan Gillmor (@dangillmor) March 14, 2015
I had a few responses. Here are a couple of them:
.@dangillmor I get that you *think* Feds will wisely limit their new power over today's printing press. I just happen to think they won't.
— Patterico (@Patterico) March 14, 2015
.@dangillmor I'm sure those who initially supported FCC regulating broadcast networks were surprised when they used *that* power thuggishly.
— Patterico (@Patterico) March 14, 2015
.@dangillmor Not saying "Gillmor supports content regulation" but "Gillmor supports authority that will one day give us content regulation."
— Patterico (@Patterico) March 14, 2015
.@dangillmor Sorry you felt my 140-character message lacked "nuance". I invite you to discuss this with me in a longer form. I'll do a post.
— Patterico (@Patterico) March 14, 2015
This is that post.