From: ahn@pop.cis.yale.edu (Eugene R. Ahn)
Subject: Re: It's you against the cultural elites!
Followup-To: alt.parents-teens
Organization: Yale University
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 18:31:04 GMT

In article <1amuf2INNd6f@agate.berkeley.edu>, bh@anarres.CS.Berkeley.EDU
(Brian Harvey) wrote:

> >And due to the inactive roles of "the family guard", Hollywood is marked by
> >an imbalance of liberal-minded directors, actors, screenwriters, and so
> >forth.
> 
> Here you are EXHIBITING an equally unthinking, irrational prejudice, also
> based on stereotypes and rumor.

Like I said, the debate concerning "cultural elites" has many fronts, and I
was quite content with the fact that people might notice inconsistencies in
ANY argument. You bring up a good point (I couldn't cover everything!), the
inconsistency here is that we have to separate Hollywood from news
broadcasts, two very different and self-subsisting industries.
 
> The United States ranks #1 in the world in the percent of its population
> in prison, even above South Africa and well above the former Soviet Union.
> The United States spends more money per capita on health care than any
> other country, but our infant mortality rate is higher than 20 other
> countries -- because the money we spend is wasted on inefficient private
> insurance arrangements and on unnecessary luxury care for the rich, while
> most Americans get worse health care than the citizens of any other
> industrial country.
> 
> Maybe some "liberal-minded" thinking would be a good idea.

You are absolutely right. You are referring to telecommunications.

Hollywood - i.e. the arts, entertainment industry - I would say is struck
by an imbalance of "liberal-minded" people which is not bad in itself, but
the imbalance is.

Telecommunications - i.e. news broadcasts - is apparently not in a "liberal
imbalance". However, is there really an imbalance of "conservatism"? Is the
Gulf War really an indication of conservatism in the media? I can't be so
sure (I'm not well read on this). But for argument's sake, I'll go along
with this.

> If the media were as liberal as you say, they would expose George Bush's
> lies instead of just reporting what he says as if it were true.  When
> Bush told us about fighting for human rights in the Gulf War, for example,
> the media might have told us:
> 	- about Bush's personal stake in the war through his family's
> 	  ownership of oil companies
> 	- about the human rights abuses in Kuwait, just as bad as Iraq,
> 	  and the even worse abuses in Syria, with which the US allied
> 	  (and still allies) itself in the war
> 	- about the thousands of Iraqi 17-year-olds, disarmed and trying
> 	  to surrender, who were buried alive by US bulldozers.
> Instead the media just said "support our troops, support our troops" as if
> that meant anything, as if our troops wanted to be there.

Bush and his administration worked out a pretty intelligent ploy to get the
American people to back the war. Their filtered release of information
managed to eek away from the label of censorship (since they were the only
source). They also seemed to convince the media that any doubt-raising
about the motives for the war would weaken soldier morale and thereby
threaten their safety abroad. I realy believe there was this implicit
agreement.

The human rights abuses in Kuwait were well publicized (at least, I heard a
lot about it on television), and the issue of Bush's motives (economic, not
moral) was addressed (though certainly not discussed enough). They
mentioned Bush's family's stake in oil, but usually in an off-handish way.
I cannot be so sure that the media was glorifying Bush's war out of
conservatism as opposed to  simply not being allowed access to such
information (as the US burial of alive Iraqis). I know that reporters were
imposed extreme limits on what they could film and where they could be. 

But I believe there is a point though. I would suggest that "the liberal
minded" folk would be more inclined to choose the arts as an expression as
opposed to opting for the broadcasts because 1) the news broadcasts has
already an established conservatism which discourages liberalism 2)
liberalism in the arts is more likely to persuade and affords much more
creative freedom than television networks. 

Perhaps an imbalance perpetuates both.

But now you see MY point. If your appeal is for an infusion of
liberal-minded people into the media, henceforth to create a balance (or
imbalance of liberals - I don't know what you see as ideal), would you
propose the debate to alt.parents-teens? NOOOooo! Not the most ideal place.
But once again, you're right on the ball. By interchanging the two media as
if they were the same can be deceptively wrong and conducive to
stereotypes, but I wasn't really up for discussing both arenas
individually. As you can see, these replies are getting long enough.

After all, whether you're conservative or liberal, you're still have that
hunger for soundbites.

--
Eugene "Mos Eisley" Ahn     ahn@suncis.cis.yale.edu
"What do you think of that reply?"
"No sir! I don't like it."