From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: CNN Anchor Admits Pro-Clinton Bias
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 23:58:48 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <1992Sep10.223949.16235@ncar.ucar.edu> gary@colossus.cgd.ucar.edu (Gary Strand) writes:
>pn> Peter Nelson

>pn> I agree with this, too, but I think it's like saying that our economy and
>pn> certain energy and environmental concerns would be a lot different too if
>pn> people preferred mass transit (busses, trains, etc) over personal cars.
>pn> (N.B., not necessarily better or worse, but "different") I see it as mar-
>pn> ket forces at work. People make certain choices about how they spend
>pn> their time, money, etc.  The market responds to this and !viola! we get
>pn> the result.
>
>  I'm getting rather tired of this "the market did it" view, since (A) TV is
>  not protected by the 1st amendment; (B) the FCC regulates TV and radio, for
>  content, frequency, signal strength, location, and a bunch of other stuff;
>  and (C) the collusion between the media and government, so well-documented
>  by Harel and others, brings grave doubts to the "The media operates in a 
>  free market" point of view. The market is sufficiently distorted and con-
>  trolled that to call it "free" is doublespeak.

  I don't see how the above is relevant to my point.  The broadcast
  media is powerful because people CHOOSE to watch it, thus giving
  it that power.  They could, as I and others have done, simply not
  watch television.   

  Moreover, there is no reason why someone could not purchase a station
  or time on a existing station to broadcast news and views that were
  more conservative that the mainstream.   All of the talk about FCC
  regulation is irrelevant since the FCC does not regulate the political
  content of TV.   Nor does the natural limitation of RF spectrum since
  there are still 13 VHF channels, 60 UHF ones, and 80 cable ones -- this
  total is FAR more than the number of companies competing in almost any
  other major national industry you can name.  Most stations have such
  miniscule market share that even a 5 or 6 share would be enough to attract 
  investors.

 
>pn> So yes the media is powerful and the biases and views of its owners and
>pn> editors have an effect on the body politic. But this power derives from 
>pn> the CHOICES people make about how to spend their time (watching TV) and
>pn> where to get their information from (TV, Time, Newsweek, etc).
>
>  You apparently didn't read what I said. The media influences the body pol-
>  itic, but it *also* influences the leaders that we have. A given individ-
>  ual will get much farther in political life if she pays proper attention
>  to the media. Ignore the media, and one's political career ends quickly.
>  Since the media does have such disproportionate power, its biases have
>  more influence than the biases of other entities that effect our political
>  system.                                      


   I don't deny this for a second.  That's why I chose the "car" analogy
   above: The automobile is one of the dominant features in economy and 
   culture.   But this is a matter of CHOICE.  (I'm not advocating 
   eschewing cars like I do TV: I like cars and consider the US Interstate
   Highway System to be one of the greatest civil and social engineering
   achievements of mankind).   


---peter


Newsgroups: alt.news-media