Rantz: Anti-capitalist UW professor urges scary government regulation of media

After the recent election in the United Kingdom saw a massive conservative takeover, a disappointed assistant professor at the University of Washington argued for government regulation of the media. Journalists quickly condemned the dangerous take.

Daniel Bessner is an associate professor at the Jackson School of International Studies at the UW. He also appears to be a Socialist (though he won’t readily admit it on Twitter, despite calling himself one in a magazine; he says he’s a social Democrat). He defends Socialism when he can, and is a supporter of Socialists Bernie Sanders and Kshama Sawant. He has written for Jacobin (a fringe Socialist magazine that actively defends anti-Semites under the guise of legitimate and good-faith political arguments) and progressive magazine The Nation.

Bessner’s ideological beliefs help inform his reaction to the conservative takeover in the UK, all but ensuring, finally, the Brexit wishes of the voters will be implemented. He wasn’t happy with that result.

To Bessner, it’s the latest proof that “capitalist media prevents social transformation.” After all, his position on the election wasn’t reflected in the vote, so, naturally, the media prevented the “right” side from winning. He explains that “the left needs to make the regulation and eventually revolution of media a central platform of its domestic and global agenda.”

Just depressing, condolences to my UK comrades

— Daniel Bessner (@dbessner) December 13, 2019

Though it’s unclear how much of an expert he is in British media as a Seattle-based assistant professor, Bessner argues that they weren’t fair to Labour leader (and anti-Semite) Jeremy Corbyn nor the Labour Manifesto.

Bessner’s complaint amounts to little more than anger that his side lost an election. But it’s worth exploring how dangerous his position is, given he’s in a position to propagandize young minds at the UW.

A dangerous idea.

After coming under fire for his dangerous idea, Bessner repeatedly claimed he wasn’t asking for a government takeover, but merely regulation. But in this case, it’s a distinction without a difference.

Bessner’s goal, as stated, is to combat what he viewed as unfair treatment of the far-Left (and socialist) Labour Party. Who would regulate the media? The party in charge. Who is to say what media is considered “fair” to their side? Bessner’s sole reason for believing the media to be unfair is that he deems it so.

President Donald Trump has criticized the media for being unfair. If Republicans have total control over content regulation, would Bessner be pleased? Journalists at BBC (state-funded and regulated, ironically) would likely argue they were fair. Should the party in charge figure it out? How would fairness be gauged by this regulation? The amount of time given to every side of an idea? Progressive activists said we shouldn’t give equal time to certain topics, like climate skeptics. But now we should, under Bessner’s plan? Should we also give time to anti-Semites during the next discussion about the rise of anti-Semitism.

I mention this quote on my show from time to time, one that stuck with me since Greg Lukianoff of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education told me it back in 2004 (ironically, he has no recollection of it): “Imagine the power to censor in the hands of your worst enemy.” It would never be more applicable than in a world that seriously considers Bessner’s beliefs, where government would judge and determine what comes out of the mouths of Tucker Carlson, Rachel Maddow, Amy Goodman or even Stephen Colbert.

(It’s important to note that we currently have government regulation over the media via laws and regulations that regulate everything from libel and slander to obscenity and anti-trust interests. But in these cases they’re done in a content-neutral way and even under anti-trust laws, some outlets are treated differently to ensure a greater marketplace of ideas. For Bessner to call for more regulation due to unfairness, it stands to reason he wants it to cover content.)

An elitist theme.

When Twitter users — myself included — criticized Bessner, a theme emerged in his response: he’s so much smarter than you! If only you could match his intellect, you would see things his way too! He will tell you many, many, many, many, times how you just don’t understand concepts. But he does! He’s an expert.

It’s “clear they’ve never thought beyond the western perspective,” Bessner complains. While debating me on Twitter, Bessner said “I think if you knew the history you’d be more inclined to agree with me. My primary concern is true democratic exchange of ideas.”

I love the brain geniuses responding to this tweet as if I’m calling for state controlled media https://t.co/eGLmZVVYwl

— Daniel Bessner (@dbessner) December 13, 2019

His concern is echoed by Sanders and Sawant, who constantly jab at “corporate media” while simultaneously granting interviews and using what they criticize to reach the masses. They don’t just hate corporate media, they hate big capitalist businesses — like Twitter and Facebook — which they use to organize and amass power (and donations). It’s a tired and hypocritical line of grievance.

The intent behind his idea is to control the media — and, moreover, the opinions you hear. He doesn’t hide his intentions. In a piece for the Chronicle of Higher Education, between an unhealthy amount of preening about his intellectualism, he argues for a government takeover by leftist intellectuals.

Furthermore, why should left-wing scholars cede the policy ground to those on the center or right? Trump’s election has opened a space to reconsider policy assumptions that were previously unquestionable, and if left-wing scholars don’t organize themselves in ways that bring their ideas to the policy elite, we’re less likely to bring about the world in which we want to live. Socialists’ advice won’t always be heeded, but if we were able to close one prison, stop one drone strike, or break up one big bank, would the effort not be worth it?

His legitimately frightening and concerning arrogance aside, is this the type of person you’d want controlling the media? No. But it’s the exact type of personality that thinks oneself best suited to take over the job. Afterall, you guys aren’t smart enough to elect politicians he prefers. And he’s happy to destroy press freedoms to do so.

Listen to the Jason Rantz Show weekday afternoons from 3-6 p.m. on KTTH 770 AM (or HD Radio 97.3 FM HD-Channel 3). Subscribe to the podcast here.

Follow @https://twitter.com/jasonrantz