The two communications policy issues that have had the most mainstream appeal recently are network neutrality and media concentration.

Here's a question:  Shouldn't it be difficult to be "for" an active government role in both?  To be "for" network neutrality, it seems natural to have the view that the internet is displacing many prior forms of communications modalities -- the press is in a free fall, people are watching much less broadcast television, etc. -- and so it's even more important to get internet access policy right and avoid gatekeepers. You'd want to talk about the empowering, emergent communications taking place online.

But to be "for" limits on media ownership, it may be necessary to argue that nothing much has changed.  You have to claim that broadcast and newspapers control news and culture, and so it's important to avoid more consolidation.  The internet isn't changing the local news picture, you'd have to say, and so its existence doesn't change the media landscape.  Blogs aren't legitimate alternative news sources.

Maybe I've got this wrong, but it seemed to me today to be at least difficult to agitate in favor of both ideas.  There's a market failure in internet access, but is there a market failure in information?