From: gary@isis.cgd.ucar.edu (Gary Strand)
Subject: Re: CNN Anchor Admits Pro-Clinton Bias
Organization: Climate and Global Dynamics Division/NCAR, Boulder, CO
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 13:56:28 GMT

pn> Peter Nelson
gs> Gary Strand

gs> 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.

pn> 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.

  How many shows reach that many people? Very few. The majority of television
  shows are watched by a lot less people than watch "60 minutes" or "Roseanne".

pn> They could, as I and others have done, simply not watch television.

gs> 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.

pn> 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.

  Well, when it comes time to vote, I'm sure you're comfortable knowing that
  *you* haven't been influenced by the biased coverage of the latest Big News
  Story, but millions of others have been, and they'll outvote you every 
  time. Your conscience is clear, but that doesn't give you more votes.

gs> 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?

pn> 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.  

  So what are you doing about it? Nothing. Sticking your head in the sand.
  At least you aren't "tainted" by TV. Since you don't watch, isn't such an
  action just like refusing to vote? *You* don't watch, but most everyone
  else does.

pn> 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.

  Yet another intellectual swarmed under by the dumbed-down to masses. You're
  smart, but that won't keep you safe.

pn> All of the talk about FCC regulation is irrelevant since the FCC does not
    regulate the political content of TV.

gs> 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.

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

  The FCC has the power to regulate political content.

gs> 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, 
    violence, &c.

pn> The FCC will step in if things get really X-rated, but the stuff you're
    describing is strictly up to the networks.  

  No, it isn't. It's up to the advertisers. This is how we get Terry Rakolta,
  *one* person, who writes the advertisers of shows like "Married...With Chil-
  dren", and gets some of them to drop the show because she gets offended.
  If a show is too controversial, the advertisers drop it like a hot potato.
  The networks pay attention to those billions.

pn> PBS runs nudity and the "s" word and  the "f" word frequently.  

  How do you know? Do you watch TV? Do you trust what others tell you is on 
  it? You're correct, but to a very limited extent. PBS would never broadcast
  "JFK" uncut.

gs> 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.

pn> 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 that one way or the other
    the market would have provided it. That it hasn't suggests that there's
    something about this assumption that's flawed.  

  Actually, perhaps the reason TV is so uniform is because people like you
  don't make their choices known. As I said, it's like voting. If you don't
  vote, how do Bush/Clinton/Marrou/Felani know what you want? If you don't
  watch TV, then you let others decide what's on. Given the intersection
  between the dumbing-down of TV news and our failing educational system, are 
  we surprised that TV is crap?

  Besides, as I've shown, the TV broadcast industry is not a free market. If
  it was, it would have TV shows more in line with reality as we know it, in
  regards to political viewpoint. Look at it this way -- did the TV media like
  Reagan? No. Then why did he win so easily in 1980 and 1984? Could it be
  that there's a difference between the overall American political ideology,
  and the ideology of the TV media?

--
Gary Strand                      Opinions stated herein are mine alone and are
strandwg@ncar.ucar.edu            not representative of NCAR, UCAR, or the NSF
Newsgroups: alt.news-media,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.activism.d