Another Question for all of you.
Aug. 12th, 2011 10:22 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
silveradeptMany thanks for your responses to my previous questions about making meaning for oneself in a cosmic world that produces no external justifications.
This is not about cosmic issues. It's about something completely different.
As you well know, I follow politics, sometimes with zeal, sometimes with snark, occasionally with snarls.
However, having also watched several improv comedy shows here and there, the two mixed. Weirdly.
So, the following question:
What would the state of discourse be if every time someone who the population relies on to be honest, like a politician or a journalist/commentator, were subjected to a bleep censor every time they uttered a demonstrably false statement?
I'm not sure whether the bleep censor would just be over the part of the statement that made it untrue, like bleeping a "not" or a figure that's incorrect, or whether the entire statement would simply be bleeped out. I think bleeping the words would make things much more interesting. In print, a direct quote would have the redaction bar over the offending part of the statement.
I'm sure there would be accusations of media bias as to when the bleep censor was applied and to whom.
And there would have to be an allowance for live programs, as one cannot fact-check a speech in the middle of it sufficiently to apply the censor to anything novel. By the time the media programs start playing clips, though, they should be fact-checked enough to apply the filter.
I don't know which way things would go - whether there would be actual honesty in politics, the weaseling would get to a point where nothing could be demonstrated to be untrue, or whether we would have major speeches that could only be heard live, as any replay would simply be a rather long application of the bleep censor.
What do you all think?
This is not about cosmic issues. It's about something completely different.
As you well know, I follow politics, sometimes with zeal, sometimes with snark, occasionally with snarls.
However, having also watched several improv comedy shows here and there, the two mixed. Weirdly.
So, the following question:
What would the state of discourse be if every time someone who the population relies on to be honest, like a politician or a journalist/commentator, were subjected to a bleep censor every time they uttered a demonstrably false statement?
I'm not sure whether the bleep censor would just be over the part of the statement that made it untrue, like bleeping a "not" or a figure that's incorrect, or whether the entire statement would simply be bleeped out. I think bleeping the words would make things much more interesting. In print, a direct quote would have the redaction bar over the offending part of the statement.
I'm sure there would be accusations of media bias as to when the bleep censor was applied and to whom.
And there would have to be an allowance for live programs, as one cannot fact-check a speech in the middle of it sufficiently to apply the censor to anything novel. By the time the media programs start playing clips, though, they should be fact-checked enough to apply the filter.
I don't know which way things would go - whether there would be actual honesty in politics, the weaseling would get to a point where nothing could be demonstrated to be untrue, or whether we would have major speeches that could only be heard live, as any replay would simply be a rather long application of the bleep censor.
What do you all think?
no subject
Date: 2011-08-13 02:33 pm (UTC)I think exploring who controls it, corporate or government, is a worthwhile thought and helps to shape what you see the possible end product as. Well said.
no subject
Date: 2011-08-13 03:07 pm (UTC)When you have corporations financing most Congressional and all Presidential candidates in their attempts to win or remain in office, I don't see the difference.
no subject
Date: 2011-08-13 07:36 pm (UTC)