Via an agitated Guido, more on seeming collectivist anxiety about the impact in High Places of personal freedom .

Namely Culture Secretary Andy Burnham:

The time has come for perhaps a different approach to the internet," he said. "I want to even up that see-saw, even up the regulation [imbalance] between the old and the new."

He said that perhaps the wider industry, and government, had accepted the idea that the internet was "beyond legal reach" and was a "space where governments can’t go".

Burnham said that he would like to "tighten up" online content and services and "lighten up" some regulatory burdens around the TV industry.

Then this:

The internet as a whole is an excellent source of casual opinion," he said. "TV is where people often look for expert or authoritative opinion."

The second reaction to the rise of the internet has been a "tendency towards safety first and the tried-and-tested, and way from innovation, risk-taking and new talent", he argued.

"TV is in danger of ceding to the internet as the place where new talent is found."

Has this man watched British TV recently?

What is the basis for the proposition that TV gives me expert and authoritative opinions? Why is it that whenever I watch a programme on a subject I kniow a lot about, I spot obvious inaccuracies and probably deliberate distortions, even downright propaganda?

How about this appalling example when accuracy really mattered?

Or this?

Why is it ‘dangerous’ – and dangerous to whom – if new talent is not found by TV?

Memo to next government:

TV exists as it does now only because of technological limitations back when it was invented, which have outlived their usefulness. It has no reason to continue in its current bloated and decadent form. Do not try to prop it up.

PS  And do not mess with bloggers.