From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: CNN Anchor Admits Pro-Clinton Bias
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 18:19:06 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <1992Sep11.155546.22384@ncar.ucar.edu> gary@colossus.cgd.ucar.edu (Gary Strand) writes:
>pn> Peter Nelson
>gs> Gary Strand
>
>gs> 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.
>
>pn> What do you propose -- blow up a TV transmitter?  Jam their transmissions?
>    Shoot down a satellite?   Nowhere have you suggested any alternative to 
>    bad, biased, or stupid TV.
>
>  Let's start with a real free market. No more FCC. Place TV and radio, and
>  any other broadcast medium, under the protection of the 1st amendment. No
>  restrictions of any kind on content.

   There ARE no restrictions which are relevant to our discussion on
   the leftward bias of TV news.

>   Also, de-regulate cable monopolies, and whatever other obnoxious government
>  regulations there are regarding broadcast media.

   Since 1988 cable IS deregulated.  Thge FCC can't even specify *technical*
   standards anymore (except to the extent that cable causes RF interference
   with other serices).  I found this out the hard way last year when I called
   the FCC to complain that the signal I was getting from my cable box had
   a poor S/N ratio and my cable company was unresponsive.   Now I don't
   care!

   If you follow the news you'll note that there's a move afoot in 
   Congress to RE-regulate cable because people are complaining about
   their bills.

   But again, none of this is relevant to the topic.


>pn> I'm exercising free choice - a basis of a free economy. I'm acting in my
>    rational self-interest by deciding that I have better things to do with
>    my time than watch the tube, and rational self-interest is another basis
>    of a free economy.
>
>  Methinks you doth play on your "rationality" too much. Is it really ration-
>  al to conscientiously and steadfastly ignore the most powerful medium of
>  (mis/dis)information that there is? 

   Given all the things I've had to say about TV's pernicious effects I
   think you must be the only person on Usenet who thinks Peter Nelson
   is ignoring TV!


>gs> Perhaps the reason TV is so uniform is because people like you don't make
>    their choices known.
>
>pn> I used to write lots of letters to TV networks and advertisers and I al-
>    ready detailed by calls to the networks in 1988 and to CNN.  I've paid a
>    lot more dues than most people as far as "making my choices known".   
>
>  "Used to"? Why did you quit? They didn't recognize your obvious intelligence
>  and eloquence?

  Obviously not. (I think you're starting to froth at the mouth, Gary)  But
  as I said, how do YOU suggest people "make their choices known".   To
  most people that phrase implies letters and phone calls.  I rejected
  pipe bombs as being outside my area of expertise.


>  make analogous to your plan of "action"? If you acted the same way toward
>  the drug issue as you do toward the media bias issue, you would refuse to
>  engage in any action for or against drug legalization or the drug war; how-
>  ever, I do grant that you would read about the issue in *both* "High Times"
>  *and* "DEA Journal". Outside of that, though, you'd do nothing. 

   You haven't suggested what "doing something" would consist of!



>  5 liberals and 5 conservatives watch the evening news, but the evening news
>  is biased toward the liberal view, if the conservatives take the Nelson ap-
>  proach and stop watching TV, but are replaced by liberals who like what they
>  see, eventually you'll get 9+ liberals and <1 conservative watching the news,
>  and the media says it's unbiased.

   Again, as opposed to what?   My "vote" isn't counted.  Neither the 
   networks not the advertisers know anything about my TV viewing habits.
   I avoid TV as a personal convenience to myself:  my life is richer,
   I have more free time, and I save the cost of owning a TV, a cable 
   subscription, TV Guide, etc.   Altogether I'm better off and the 
   rest of the world goes on unchanged.    You have failed to indicate
   how my personal viewing habits have any effect on programming or
   advertising policy, given that they are totally private matter
   (unlike votes, which are counted).



     







Xref: sparky alt.news-media:1128 talk.politics.misc:43982