From: mjones@fenway.aix.kingston.ibm.com (Mike Jones)
Subject: Re: The media
Date: Wed, 02 Sep 92 00:54:23 GMT
Reply-To: mjones@donald.aix.kingston.ibm.com
Organization: IBM Corp. Kingston NY

In article <1992Sep1.212808.9117@genie.slhs.udel.edu> tom@genie.slhs.udel.edu (tom) writes:
>In article <Btwz59.J44@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> trwagner@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Ted Wagner) writes:
>
>}	I don't mean you in particular Chris.  In general, I mean that
>}we as Americans somewhat control what is aired on TV.  Since a lot
>}(not all) Americans are couch potatos, (no 'e'  ;-)  ), we tend to
>}not change channels.  We all need to switch channels when we don't
>}like what is said.  Eventually, not over-night, we will see a difference.
>
>this is a good idea, but it doesn't go far enough. you also have to let
>them _know_ you are switching channels in a way they can't ignore. write
>to advertisers and tell them to stop supporting programs you don't like.

I didn't like this approach with Don Wildmon tried it, and I wouldn't like
it if (insert favorite liberal group here) tried it. I'll change channels
when I don't want to watch, but I won't pressure others over it. 
 
>also remember that you have a lot of control over what you watch because
>you can change channels at any time; but who controls what other channels 
>you have to select from? the Government -- the FCC decides who is
>allowed to broadcast and when, and local governments enforce cable
>monopolies which choose what cable channels you have access to. if you
>don't like their choices, you don't have to watch; but wouldn't it be
>nicer if _you_ had some say in choosing what was available instead of
>just picking from the government sanctioned options.

Well...sort of. The FCC handles frequency allocations, but licenses are all
held privately. There's (especially since Reagan) very few rules about who
can hold licenses. There's also very little restriction about when you can
broadcast if you have a license. In many ways, the FCC has returned to its
original purpose of merely being a referee to ensure that broadcasters don't
interfere with one another. Not all local governments enforce cable
monopolies; if yours does, vote 'em out. Local governments are by far the
most susceptible to voter pressure. You also have leverage on your cable
provider in a way that a Libertarian should appreciate - you don't like the
channel selection, don't subscribe! tom sidesteps the question of how many
communities would have multiple cable systems if local monopolies weren't
the rule. In many communities it's not profitable to have even a single
cable company; in many more, the existing cable company is pretty much a
natural monopoly, at least for the time being. Also, there's always the
option of getting a satellite dish. It really isn't the case that there are
only "government sanctioned" options to choose from, but that's the "family
values" of the Libertarian party.

>tom@udel.edu                                        ...!{gateway}!udel!tom
>Libertarian candidate for Delaware House of Representatives, 23rd District

Good luck, Tom! Seriously. I'd like to see some Libertarians get elected in
state legislatures and medium-sized cities, to see how they'll do with a
real government before I consider betting the entire country on them.

   Mike Jones  |  AIX/ESA Development  |  mjones@donald.aix.kingston.ibm.com

We'll let the sunshine in and shine on us, because today we're happy and
tomorrow we'll be even happier.
	- Vice President Dan Quayle, 1988
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush