From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: CNN Anchor Admits Pro-Clinton Bias
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 12:29:51 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <1992Sep11.020744.7682@ncar.ucar.edu> gary@isis.cgd.ucar.edu (Gary Strand) writes:
>pn> Peter Nelson
>gs> Gary Strand
>
>
>pn>  The broadcast media is powerful because people CHOOSE to watch it,
>     thus giving it that power.
>
>  Actually, television exists to sell the audience to the advertisers, not the
>  other way 'round. The reason it's powerful is because the advertisers are
>  willing to pay for it, not that there's necessarily a big audience.

  No kidding, but  1.) it derives its power from the fact that so many
  people watch it, believe it, and take it seriously,  and 2.) advertisers
  wouldn't pay for it if few people watched it.
 

>pn> They could, as I and others have done, simply not watch television.
>
>  Of course, the "stick-your-head-in-the-sand" approach is a good method of
>  fighting an entity that has so much influence. *You* don't watch TV, but
>  most Americans watch *a lot* of it.

  How is this a "stick your head in the sand approach"?  I'm not ignoring
  TV or its pernicious effects, I'm just saying that it's a matter of free
  choice; they literally don't have to watch it.   I can't think of any 
  way, consistent with my conscience, to *prevent* them from doing so.


>  In a republican democracy, don't you find it a little frightening that so
>  many people (much more than is needed to win a vote between their view
>  and your view) are influenced by TV's power, and towards one subset of
>  political views?

  Yes, and I've said so many times.  And as I've also said, the worst bias
  on TV is the "stupid" bias -- Not only does TV present factually wrong
  information on a daily basis, but they "dumb down" everything to the 
  point where get a badly distorted idea of *how to think*, i.e., what 
  constitutes a valid analysis of a subject.   For these and other reasons 
  I think TV is one of the most destructive forces in our culture.  


>  I suppose you could avoid reading newspapers too, but I doubt you'd accept
>  that as a viable solution. Why isn't it? It's nice to say that *you* aren't
>  susceptible to the media's influence, but what about the others who are,
>  who outnumber you millions to one? Indeed, we've seen what the media can do
>  already, with Hearst and his haranguing of the US into war against Spain.

  No doubt about it, and TV probably played a significant role in our 
  getting involved in Iraq, and may yet get us into Yugoslavia.  As I've
  said before, my approach is to find publications of *clearly* divergent
  views and philosophies -- I use National Review and Utne Reader as examples
  but I read many others.   I believe this minimizes the effects you describe.
                                                                              

>pn> All of the talk about FCC regulation is irrelevant since the FCC does not
>pn> regulate the political content of TV.
>
>  Naive. A local congresscritter has been running graphic anti-abortion ads
>  on television, and getting quite an outcry from the unconditional abortion
>  folks, who would like nothing more than regulations against this sort of
>  thing. Despite what the two extremes say, Americans generally don't agree
>  with their views.

  And the courts have found that they can do this.  So what's your point?
  

>  Anyway, what about the restrictions the FCC *does* place on content? Aren't
>  they by definition political? Look at the differences between TV broadcasts
>  of movies and their theatrical forms. For example, the large volume of pro-
>  fanity in Stone's "JFK" would never make it onto TV. Does it form a part of
>  the characterization of the people in the movie, ergo, does eliminating it
>  change Stone's intent in depicting these individuals? Same with nudity, vio-
>  lence, &c.

  The FCC will step in if things get really X-rated, but the stuff you're
  describing is strictly up to the networks.  PBS runs nudity and the 
  "s" word and  the "f" word frequently.  And anyway, none of this is
  relevant to why news has a liberal slant.   The FCC does not influence
  this.



>               The best way to die a quick political death is to be shut
>  out by the media, via this *de facto* censorship. I believe we're seeing a
>  degree of this censorship these days.

  Of course we are.  But the question that remains unanswered is why the 
  broadcast media is so politically uniform.  If it is truly the case that 
  there is a plurality or even majority of viewers out there who would 
  prefer something more conservative, *I* think theat one way or the 
  other the market would have provided it.   That it hasn't suggests
  that there's something aboout this assumption that's flawed.  


---peter





Newsgroups: alt.news-media,talk.politics.misc