From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: CNN Anchor Admits Pro-Clinton Bias
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 17:20:19 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <1992Sep9.214930.9025@anasazi.com> john@anasazi.com writes:
>Keywords: 
>
>In article <BuBDF1.496@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
>]In article <1992Sep9.035421.24960@anasazi.com> john@anasazi.com writes:
>]>There are two problems with this viewpoint:
>]>
>]>  (1) The media themselves pretend to be objective, and in fact publicly
>]>      pat themselves on back for it all the time.
>]
>]  This is just PR.  Companies, politicians, etc are always patting
>]  themselves on the back for doing all kinds of "good deeds".  So what?
>]  Only someone with a child's naivete about the world believes it.
>
>Unfortunately, the media themselves believe it.

  So?  That doesn't mean we have to.


>]>  (2) There is a serious lack of balance. All 3 of the major TV networks
>]>      exhibit the SAME bias, which they loudly proclaim does not exist.
>]
>]   Again, *you* know they're biased, *I* know they're biased -- is there
>]   anyone in this discussion who genuinely doubts that they're biased?
>]   This seriously calls into question your idea that many people actually 
>]   believe these guys are "objective". 

>Are you familiar with the term "the big lie?" It means that if
>even untrusted sources give the same mis-information over and over again,
>and they have a monopoly on information, people will start to believe
>some of it.

  But they don't have a monopoly on information or we wouldn't be 
  discussing this now!   You and I chose alternatives so why not 
  give your fellow citizens credit for the same intelligence we
  have?


> In this case, where most americans get all of their news
>from television, and all that they ever hear on television is the
>liberal viewpoint, they are likely to get a distorted view of things,
>even if they know that the source is biased.

  But this is their CHOICE!  Presumably if the liberal bias of the 
  TV news clashed with their views or values they would seek an alter-
  native choice.  As *you* did.  As *I* did.   This is the problem I
  have with your thesis:  it is, if you'll pardon an expression from
  Dan Quayle's lexicon: elitist.  You and I made deliberate choices to 
  seek sources that we trusted/agreed-with/could-tolerate better than
  the mainstream TV and press.   Why not give your fellow citizens 
  credit for the same freedom of choice? 

  Look, I was raised in the middle-class suburbs, went to the public
  schools, and graduated from a state university like millions of others.
  I spent a childhood glued to the tube watching Romper Room, Roy Rogers,
  Rin-Tin-Tin, Rawhide, and saw more Ovaltine and Texaco commercials than
  you can count.   But *I* wasn't brainwashed by all this.  I eventually 
  got to the point where I couldn't stand bullshit in a 4:3 aspect ratio
  anymore and decided to look elsewhere for my news.   It was a free
  choice.

   

>]   As to having the SAME bias -- no kidding: they're all going after
>]   the SAME market, and with the SAME set of advertisers.   It's the
>]   free market at work!    If people didn't like it they wouldn't watch
>]   it.    Or is this another case of "You and I have free will but everyone
>]   else is brainwashed"?    I used to be the world's biggest TV addict,
>]   so if I could see through the B.S. and stop watching anybody can!
>
>The SAME bias has nothing to do with the same market and same advertisers.
>News advertisers don't buy on bias, they buy on coverage. When you
>have a monopoly on national TV news, they don't have any choice
>at all.

  Nonsense, the choice is then !TV.  Advertisers go where the audience is.
  Now granted, the last time I bought a TV was in 1979, but in those days
  they still had on/off switches.   Has there been a change in the technology
  I should be aware of?


> Perhaps this is why TV news viewership has been going down lot lately.

  I would like to hope so, but I suspect it's just a decline in interest
  in news and current events in general, coupled with the rise in the
  popularity of tabloid-TV (Current Affair, etc).

                                                                     

>And yes, this is another case of "You and I have free will but everyone else
>is brainwashed." That is, for that vast majority of americans who get
>ALL of their news from network TV, they are being misled. If I got all
>of my information from there, rather than from the variety of sources that
>I read, I would also likely come to different conclusions about things...
>ie, the propaganda would work on me also.

   How do you explain why you chose to seek other sources and they didn't?


>]    complaining when the free market doesn't go their way!   Ted Turner
>]    started a TV station in Atlanta which was such a success that he 
>]    took it national (and international) and called it CNN.  In recent
>]    years A&E, Discovery, MTV, Home Shopping Club, Fox, Nickelodeon, and
>]    a bunch of others have proved that NBC/CBS/ABC/PBS don't have a lock
>]    on TV viewers.
>
>Can you spell oligopoly? There are only 3 national VHF TV networks,
>and that is all that there is room for due to frequency allocations. 

  Oh, ca-ca.  There are 13 VHF channels; there's no theoretical reason why 
  each one couldn't have a network affiliation.  

>Cable doesn't help much, because people tend to watch local news
>on the same channels as national news, and guess what channels they
>get local news on.

  Sorry, but at least one local station here uses feeds from CNN for
  their national and international news, and does their own local news.
  And besides there are plenty of local cable channels, enough to support
  another network news organizations *if there was a market*.   And that's
  the key:  The free market WILL meet the need if there is a demand.  I 
  guarantee it.  

 
>We are not talking about a free market here. We are talking about a
>very restricted market which functions as a monopoly. 

  You haven't substantiated this claim at all.   The fortunes of the big
  3 networks have been in serious decline lately and they're casting 
  about for a fix.  Do you think if there was a serious demand for a
  conservative-viewpoint news program that they wouldn't offer it?

  Also most channels are owned/occupied, but at very low shares.  Do you
  have any idea the market share of even relatively successful networks
  like A&D, Discovery, Nickelodeon, etc is?  It's usually in the single
  numbers. If investors thought they could even get a 9 or 10 share with
  a conservative news program you'd see one in a flash!   


>below lawyers and used car salesmen. I don't think they like what they
>are getting.... they simply prefer it to nothing at all, which is
>the only choice for the non-readers (which is too many people).

  See above.  But also, although illiteracy is a genuine problem in
  the US. the vast majority of adults know how to read and simply CHOOSE
  not to.   


>And once again, I say that it is not a market. If you think it is a
>free market, go out and buy a TV transmitter and start transmitting
>YOUR views. Very soon the FCC will come along and shut you down. It
>seems that only a few are allowed to do broadcast (due to the natural
>scarcity of frequencies).

  As I said above, from an investment standpoint most commercially
  available frequencies are underutilized.  If there was a market for
  what you describe it would be easy (especially in this low interest
  rate environment) to find investors to purchase time on existing
  channels, or the channels themselves.  And given the losses at the
  news operations of the Big Three, which have seen layoffs at all 
  of them, if they thought they could make a buck with conservative
  news they'd be doing it.   For a conservative or libertarian or 
  whatever you are you have no confidence in the market.


---peter





Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.elections