Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Then you’re dreaming, or really high.
Wake up, or sober up, and ask a relevant question.
|
I don't understand what Graham means when he says the customs protecting free inquiry have been weakened.
To me, the more salient change lately is the proliferation of ways for individuals to be published and heard, particularly in social media. The most recent example is Substack. This totally cuts against what Graham is saying. Niche voices can find their own audience without needing to worry about gatekeepers.
If you ask me, the bigger threat to the marketplace of ideas is the proliferation of people arguing in bad faith, and the channels dedicated to telling people whatever they want to hear. A huge proportion of Republicans think Biden stole the election.
If you were to take the complaints of minority journalists seriously -- I know, but just imagine with me -- then it's a real problem that their voices are underrepresented. Their stories are not being told or heard. That is a problem for free inquiry. I could try to translate that into terms you'd be more sympathetic to by saying that many voices seek to conform to what the (white) majority is saying, and that dissenting voices get squelched, or just not hired.
eta: Also, it's like there needs to be one conversation about the New York Times, and another conversation about the rest of the media. The New York Times is doing fine as a business and hires whoever it wants. It has an outsized importance right now because of the proliferation of other voices and because it has no competitor in setting the national conversation.
