From: miner@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Cultural Elite?
Date: 28 Aug 92 16:28:49 CDT
Organization: University of Kansas Academic Computing Services

In article <BtnCJM.5K2@apollo.hp.com>, nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
> In article <1992Aug27.083015.42592@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu> miner@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu writes:
>>In article <92239.170834DART@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU>, DART@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU (415) writes:
>>> 
>>> So who are the 'Cultural Elite' Bush & Quayle are so fond of
>>> warning us about anyway?
> 
>>The "cultural elite" are roughly those who have a highly
>>disproportionate access to influence on educated public opinion: the
>>overwhelming majority of academics and a clear majority of media
>>people.  Rather obviously, they are predominantly Liberal.  This is
>>difficult?
> 
>   It's difficult to substantiate.   Despite some of the PC nonsense
>   emanating from campuses these days, I have no reason to assume 
>   that "the overwhelming majority of academics" are liberal.  Care
>   to document this?   

I think anyone who has lived for as long and on as many campuses as I
have would agree that the overwhelming majority of academics *who are
political* (which is the way I guess I should have stated it) are
Liberal-to-kooky.  Can I document it?  If you mean surveys, no;
none has come to my attention.  I think any such
attempt would be difficult: academics respond very poorly to surveys.

But consider your remark about PC, *and* consider what you wrote:
"Depite some of the PC nonsense... I have no reason to assume..."
Does this make sense?  Where do you think PC came from?  I think
(though the NAS does exaggerate a bit) it has become even more
dangerous now that public attention has been drawn to it (i.e., it has
been "documented" if you will) because it's less open.

>   I have seen other data suggesting that "the overwhelming majority"
>   of owners of newspapers and radio and TV stations are *Republicans*
>   (this was one of the points used to justify "equal access" laws 
>   concerning political advertising).    But on the other hand I've
>   also heard of a recent study indicating that TV news broadcasters
>   may have an implicitly liberal slant in their reports (some media
>   watchdog group counted the number of references to certain words
>   etc, reported last week on NPR but I don't recall the details)

Nobody ever recalls the details--Edith Efron took the trouble to do a
content analysis of Nixon coverage some years ago and as I recall it
showed media bias fairly conclusively (Efron claimed she was not a
Conservative).  So what happened?  She was on a few talk shows, and
then faded away.  That's the problem with documentation: you have to
do one study on one election (say) and by the time you're done, *that*
particular issue is out of sight and out of mind.

Ted Turner and his wife Jane Fonda are not Republicans, although up to
now, according to media watchers, their views do not seem to affect
CNN.  But CNN is arguably the most important network *in the world*
and I hope its ownership keeps a level head in the future.

>   There is also this: let's suppose "the media" ARE overwhelmingly
>   liberal.  

They are, unquestionably, by admission of their best spokespersons.
This is what you get over and over from thoughtful journalists: Yes,
most of us are Liberals; but No, we don't let that influence our
reporting.  As usual, we are asked to anoint the unaccountable (press
& academe) with a benefit-of-the-doubt we would grant no other group.

    The "media" market in the US is the finest example of 
>   a free market on earth!   People with cable have, perhaps, *60*
>   TV channels to choose from.  There are *dozens* of radio stations 
>   within the range of most people, and *hundreds* of newspapers,
>   magazines, and other printed publications.  So there is astounding
>   *choice*.  Moreover the nature of a media market, unlike a durable
>   goods market, or even, say, a "market" for political candidates,
>   is that this choice can be expressed easily and almost instantaneously;
>   again, perfect conditions for a free market to function.   

Yep.  But Rush Limbaugh doesn't have more than a high school
education, so who's going to listen to him when they can have the
*high culture* of PBS and Pacifica, complete with great stuff like Car
Talk, Garrison Keillor, folk music and intellectuals from the local
university?  Remember I started out by claiming that some people have
a disproportionate access to *educated* public opinion.

>   So if the media are "liberal" then presumably this is what the
>   market prefers!   If liberal _Time_ outsells conservative _National
>   Review_ 50:1 (or whatever it is) maybe this should suggest to Dan
>   Quayle that his notions of who's "populist" and who's "elite" are
>   not quite on target.   Could it be that Dan Quayle's support for free 
>   markets is not as enthusiastic as he claims?

Time outsells National Review because National Review is aimed at
educated people and educated people have "learned" in high school and
college that Conservatives are either dangerous or stupid or
(paradoxically) both.

Once we get beyond the educated sector of the public, your free market
thesis collapses, because if the public as a whole were liberal or
Liberal, they wouldn't have elected Reagan and Bush.  Every time a
conservative candidate wins, it has special significance because it
happens in spite of cultural pressure from academe, media, and
hollywood.
-- 
********************************** +.............................+
*- Ken <miner@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu>* :All opinions expressed herein:
*There is no privileged position.* :are my own and are not to be :
*	-God, Derrida, others    * : attributed to my employer   :
********************************** +.............................+

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc