Philosophy Now Forum

Oh, the irony ...
I read a public-policy academic’s essay denouncing society’s “thought police” published in one of B.C.’s most—if not the most—morally and ethically editorially corrupt ideologically-libertarian (naturally) metro-daily newspapers, i.e. The Province, regardless of the fact that the hard-copy news-media are the most prolific, profound ‘gatekeepers’ amongst all types news-mediums (e.g. news-print and television news-casts). Perhaps even potentially the epitome of “thought police,” from what I’ve been taught in college communications courses, the print news-media also have the most conveniently unchallengeable, readily-available excuse for refusing whatever letters and essays which an editor, with his/her own innate professional subjectivities as a sentient being, deems “fit …” or not “fit to print”—i.e. “We simply don’t have the space …”
It may sound too simplistic, as an entire society, to claim such of our news-media in a democracy, but journalists, columnists and editors are nick-named (even referred as such by themselves) “opinion-makers” for a reason; and adding ‘gatekeepers’ to ‘opinion-makers’ can be equated, at least to a considerable extent, to a form of “thought police.”
Currently, 70 percent of Canadians are against PM Stephen Harper selling to a Chinese mega-oil machine, Nexen, actual ownership of a chunk of Canada and all of the natural resources within (i.e. a piece of Alberta soil and its oil, of course, as I’ve read that has been done before)—plus with the added bonus of adhering to their own … uh, I mean PM Stephen Harper’s environmental safeguards (or whatever’s left of them); and, just coincidently of course, about which there has been conveniently though inexcusably very little print-news-media coverage). However, the PM, his very-small-majority Tory government henchmen—though with the mainstream, corporate, Postmedia News empire completely on side and efficiently manufacturing citizens’ consent on the issue—that public-opinion gap will doubtlessly narrow, and likely sooner than later.

With the advent of the internet it's much easier to get things published and viewed by others. Either through blogging, social media, forums or other forms of mass-distribution of information (podcasting, internet radio, youtube). While the public focus still exists, there's now to those who seeks it out a lot more width in the information available. Google News is an example of how you can, for instance, easily get varying points of views and sums of information on different topics. Else, surfing usually makes you find things sooner or later that you like and get to know, like websites or internet applications or internet services which provides varying types of opinions, sources of information and types of information. Fact checking has also been made extremely easier, with a few searches one now gets not only one but several kinds of opinions, sources and types.

So "thought police"? Be real, for anyone with access to internet it is only to be expected that people out there make information fitting to their own worldview, especially when it comes to popular media it is about the norms and values of society which furthers the popularity of articles, reviews, interviews etc.

In the US you get US-news. In the UK you get UK-news. In Norway you get Norway-news. If your paper has inclinations to some party then they'll give a focus of information fitting to that party, or movement, or area of idealism. There are Pros and Cons news, there are narrow and broad news, and there are little and much news.

One of my favourite news sites is The Guardian for instance, which I like especially much for its richness of articles as opposed to the less frequently supplied Norwegian newspapers. Here in Norway there's a lot of news but we lack coverage of more than just the biggest international news. There's little independent investigation and featurings and such, which needs bigger funding only capable in any large degree by such sites as TG or other large-scale UK/US/Al-Jazeera etc. news sites.

But, if you want independent thought patterns then you'll have to get into the blogging environment, that's the best way. Forums have too few people, Twitter has to short sentences, and Facebook is very limited.

Personal matters are important though. If a politician was a member of the junior temperance league or smoked dope at uni is important information for a voter. If he is a member of the Church of Scientology or an alien abductee is good to know. Personally I think politicians should be institutionalised for three months before they are allowed to stand for office, have an unrestrained mob of psychologists, psychiatrists and colorectal surgeons let loose upon them and all the reports printed in the newspapers for anyone to see.