Weiner's weiner or Meredith Baker's ethics, what deserves more press?
Why do news stories such as Anthony Weiner's junk shot or Charlie Sheen's implosion last for weeks in America's news cycle?
But there's hardly any news coverage of NBC-Universal merging with Comcast or commentary on FCC Commissioner Meredith Baker cashing out to become Comcast's chief lobbyist right after approving the merger?
Doesn't it seem that the latter story is what the 4th estate should be doing in order to protect a functioning democracy?... or am I missing something?
Please leave political gossip out of HN.
It's not political gossip, it's probably the most important question concerning the future of a free and open Internet.
Are you familiar with the implications to the future of the Internet regarding the merger between the largest ISP (Comcast) in the United States merging with the largest content provider (NBC-U)?
Probably not, because there was no real news coverage of it...
But I bet you can tell me a lot about Congressman Anthony Weiner... And that's my point.
From the guidelines: Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon.
Mind you, a lot of HN readers (about half IIRC) are not in the US. Please have some mercy on us. I completely accept that fact that HN news are biased to US, because that's where most web startups are. But I'm sure there are many other forums where you can discuss American politics.
For comparison, a series of uprisings in the Arab world is a very big thing. Even conceding the extremely large importance of US in world politics, yet another case of conflict of interest in American politics is not that new or interesting. The fact that people pay more attention to sensationalistic news than to important stuff is not new either.
With all due respect, I think that you are missing the point.
Yes, the uprisings in the Arab world is a very big thing. Which is very much connected to my point of criticizing the largest ISP in the U.S. merging with the largest content provider. And the lack of media coverage in not only American media coverage, but world media coverage. Keep in mind that the economies of General Electric (which owns NBC-Universal) and Comcast are larger than most nations in the world. Needless to say they weild a significant amount of political power outside of the U.S.
The Internet was invented in the United States and it was invented as an open medium (decentralized), this is the reason why totalitarian dictators in the Arab world have such a hard time blocking communication within their regimes that is critical of them. This construct is severely jeopardized by the merger of these two companies... and once this construct is altered in the U.S. it will permeate the entire globe, including the Arab world.
I do not want this to happen... but no one is talking about it... and that is a major problem. This problem is not just the United States' problem, it is the world's problem.
Sorry nandemo, I don't mean to come off like an a-hole.
Watch this three minute video and I think you'll understand what I'm trying to say.
the gatekeeper has arrived to bring down the hammer of regimes of discipline in the guise of liberal "openness"...
since when is the merging of mega-corporate mergers of media conglomerates "political gossip" and not just "news"? And how regional can it be dismissed as, when US media domination is global in reach and scope? This is super relevant to an open media and a neutral net.
Folks outside the US are not as insular as Americans and don't struggle with centuries of "isolationism" so are far more interested (and frankly far more aware) of issues in American politics and economy, understanding that it will both indirectly and directly affect them...
or perhaps policing the internet is more important.