From: PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Re: Media coverage for Marrou/Lord (call these #'s!)
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 15:09:57 GMT

In article <1992Oct6.233329.18038@u.washington.edu> sieferme@milton.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman) writes:

>In article <Bvq04z.80z@well.sf.ca.us> rab@well.sf.ca.us (Bob Bickford) writes:
>>In article <1992Oct6.013645.8919@news.acns.nwu.edu>,
>> brokow@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Mike Brokowski) writes:
>>>In article <1992Oct5.171522.8500@u.washington.edu>,
>>>
>>>BTW, I think C-SPAN's coverage has been good.
>>>
>>In fact, I'd say that C-SPAN's coverage has been far and away the best
>>of all media outlets (with the possible exception of the Orange County
>>Register).  Eric's rather lame attempt to be snide about us getting
>>coverage on PBS is typical of people who are more impressed with their
>>own cleverness than with ideas and principles;
>
>Ok, I stand convicted of snidery.  But, what "principle" allows
>the candidate of the LP to appear on a TV station partially
>funded by tax revenues?

     It can be argued that virtually all broadcast media "benefits" from
certian "protections" afforded it by the government, if not by direct
tax money, then by restrictions on who can enter the market and compete.
     That large majority of funds for public television (locally our
public television station stepped up its telethon schedule because they'd 
lost some particular flavor of funding) come from companies and private
donations.  Exactly how small does the government money have to be before
you feel "principal" would allow a Libertarian candidate to use something?
     Are we now going to complain they use public roads?


>The paragraph I wrote (before the snide virus attacked me)
>was in response to a complaint about the minimal coverage
>given to the LP, primarily by TV.  My response was that
>the owners/controllers of electronic media saw it in their
>best interest not to give much coverage to "minor" candidates.
>It was based in the ideas and principles of the free market.

     It is possible to support the idea of the free market and disapprove
of specific actions the free market takes, without advocating they be
made to stop.

>>however, to the
>>miniscule extent that PBS receives government (tax) funding,
>>Libertarians do indeed object.  Since shows such as MacNeil/Lehrer as
>>well as most PBS stations are supported by voluntary donations, Eric's
>>point falls rather flat in any case.  Better reload and try again.  ;-)
>
>Actually, I was more impressed with Marrou than with any
>LP candidate since McBride.  He sounds much more in-touch
>with reality than many other LP candidates, and not simply
>a dictaphone for the same old slogans.  Is this a sign that
>the LP is actually interested in becoming a real political
>party and not just a fringe debating club?  I hope so.

     Now all they have to do is re-write the platform so they don't
scare people away.  :-)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Veal               University of Tennessee Div. of Cont. Education
PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu  Information Services Group
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc