roundtable: Re: OP-ED ON TV - PUBLIC
roundtable: Re: OP-ED ON TV / PUBLIC
Re: OP-ED ON TV / PUBLIC
Jeff Briggs (jbriggs@capital.edu)
Tue, 17 Jan 1995 02:57:08 +0500
Date: Tue, 17 Jan 1995 02:57:08 +0500
From: jbriggs@capital.edu (Jeff Briggs)
Message-Id: <9501170757.AA27562@athena.capital.edu>
To: roundtable@cni.org
Subject: Re: OP-ED ON TV / PUBLIC
Re a call to "cut the knot" of this entangled thread.
I am guilty of enjoying the roustabout of argument, but the
conflict is about ideas, like Plato's Dialogues, if you won't snicker
too hard. There is nothing wrong with these debates because they are
the lifeblood of democracy, and the counter arguments keep us all on
our toes. I have learned from a number of replies, including Conan's
and your current one - but I still do not agree that we can blur the
contaries, or that we should.
This *is* the free speech I harp about - at a much more intense
and interactive level than in the early days of this democracy. If
your argument is superior, I will change my position. This is going
on in subtle ways with all of us, and at least the extremes are
communicating. If that can persist, and if in some way the Congress
can mirror our span of views, then I am confident that my worst fears
of the death of our democracy and of free speech on all media of
communication - including the revolutionary idea that not only the
wealthy and well-connected have access to mass media - an idea which
has never been seriously entertained, inspite of talk shows and Oprah
and PBS - will not come to pass.
I do listen to those who oppose my views carefully. I am not just
hearing my own voice, but yours too. Let's not arbitarally cut anything -
that's counter to the notion that the cure for bad speech is more speech -
which is what public access TV is all about, and (I hope) the new
concatenations will also include.
Discussions ebb, flow, and evolve in their own way. When no one
has anything else to say it will die a graceful and respectable death.
Jeff Briggs
jbriggs@capital.edu