Zuesse gets it backwards
Zuesse often shoots a sharp arrow with great precision into a conventional target.

This time he's shooting backwards. He's saying that ANY censorship is the mark of a dictatorship, and ALL censorship must be banned. He confesses that the ban is hard to imagine and hard to do in practice, but his proposed alternative is no improvement at all.

On print or broadcast media, every news-piece will be controlled in real time by its audience so as to determine what the questions are and then to bring into the presentation randomly selected scientifically qualified experts regarding each such question. For example: on the question of climate-change, the experts would be individuals who have terminal graduate-level degrees in each of the related climatology sub-specialties, such as those listed at Wikipedia, but also in essential related fields such as economics (an important climatological sub-specialty that’s not listed there). If, indeed, over 90% of climatologists agree that man-made global warming is a reality, then the result of this method of selecting the “experts” who will be presented is that that viewpoint will be represented by over 90% of the experts — and this outcome would not be controlled by the given ‘news’-medium, nor affected by its advertisers. In other words: only the subject-matter and academic qualifications — no governmental positions or background — would qualify individuals as being “experts” on the given topic. If a terminal degree isn’t a qualification for expertise on a topic, then what is?

We already do what Zuesse proposes. We trust advanced degrees because advanced degrees are given for CONFORMING TO CURRENT ORTHODOXY.

In some academic areas the current orthodoxy is uncontroversial**, so it might be correct. But in all of the areas that CONNECT WITH POLITICS AND NEWS, the current orthodoxy is determined by Deepstate.

In other words, some experts are uncorrupted, but they aren't going to be used by government or media, so they're irrelevant to this discussion.

As to the original question, I don't buy the premise. It's entirely possible to have healthy feedback from people to government in a culture with strong censorship. Most of the rulers we call 'dictators' were able to stay in power because they served the needs and interests of the people. They provided prosperity and freedom from crime, and allowed plenty of room for varied skills and talents. As long as you didn't insult the king or dictator, you could express anything you wanted.

The real problem is not LIMITED information, it's DISTORTED information. And the system Zuesse proposes, which is in fact our current system, guarantees distortion.

= = = = =

** For clarity: In those uncontroversial academic subjects that aren't closely connected to politics or media, the experts tend to be a lot more humble and open to learning and thinking. Every subject has internal orthodoxies and fashions, but it's a lot easier to break the internal fashion when government grants and accrediting agencies aren't enforcing Deepstate's preferred lies. When billions of dollars and institutional prestige depend on Deepstate, everyone will stick firmly to Deepstate's preference.

Labels: Answered better than asked

  ¶ 2:02 PM