From: gary@isis.cgd.ucar.edu (Gary Strand)
Subject: Re: CNN Anchor Admits Pro-Clinton Bias
Organization: Climate and Global Dynamics Division/NCAR, Boulder, CO
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 02:07:44 GMT

pn> Peter Nelson
gs> Gary Strand

gs> I'm getting rather tired of this "the market did it" view, since (A) TV is
gs> not protected by the 1st amendment; (B) the FCC regulates TV and radio, for
gs> content, frequency, signal strength, location, and a bunch of other stuff;
gs> and (C) the collusion between the media and government, so well-documented
gs> by Harel and others, brings grave doubts to the "The media operates in a 
gs> free market" point of view. The market is sufficiently distorted and con-
gs> trolled that to call it "free" is doublespeak.

pn> I don't see how the above is relevant to my point.  The broadcast media is
pn> powerful because people CHOOSE to watch it, thus giving it that power.

  Actually, television exists to sell the audience to the advertisers, not the
  other way 'round. The reason it's powerful is because the advertisers are
  willing to pay for it, not that there's necessarily a big audience.

pn> They could, as I and others have done, simply not watch television.

  Of course, the "stick-your-head-in-the-sand" approach is a good method of
  fighting an entity that has so much influence. *You* don't watch TV, but
  most Americans watch *a lot* of it. In a republican democracy, don't you
  find it a little frightening that so many people (much more than is need-
  ed to win a vote between their view and your view) are influenced by TV's
  power, and towards one subset of political views?

  I suppose you could avoid reading newspapers too, but I doubt you'd accept
  that as a viable solution. Why isn't it? It's nice to say that *you* aren't
  susceptible to the media's influence, but what about the others who are,
  who outnumber you millions to one? Indeed, we've seen what the media can do
  already, with Hearst and his haranguing of the US into war against Spain.

pn> Moreover, there is no reason why someone could not purchase a station or
pn> time on a existing station to broadcast news and views that were more
pn> conservative that the mainstream.

  Ask the NRA about this one.

pn> All of the talk about FCC regulation is irrelevant since the FCC does not
pn> regulate the political content of TV.

  Naive. A local congresscritter has been running graphic anti-abortion ads
  on television, and getting quite an outcry from the unconditional abortion
  folks, who would like nothing more than regulations against this sort of
  thing. Despite what the two extremes say, Americans generally don't agree
  with their views.

  Anyway, what about the restrictions the FCC *does* place on content? Aren't
  they by definition political? Look at the differences between TV broadcasts
  of movies and their theatrical forms. For example, the large volume of pro-
  fanity in Stone's "JFK" would never make it onto TV. Does it form a part of
  the characterization of the people in the movie, ergo, does eliminating it
  change Stone's intent in depicting these individuals? Same with nudity, vio-
  lence, &c.

gs> The media influences the body politic, but it *also* influences the lead-
gs> ers that we have. A given individual will get much farther in political 
gs> life if she pays proper attention to the media. Ignore the media, and 
gs> one's political career ends quickly. Since the media does have such dis-
gs> proportionate power, its biases have more influence than the biases of
gs> other entities that effect our political system.

pn> I don't deny this for a second.  That's why I chose the "car" analogy 
pn> above: The automobile is one of the dominant features in economy and 
pn> culture.   But this is a matter of CHOICE.

  This is becoming a chicken-and-egg problem. In any case, it's not quite a
  two-way street -- the media influences politics, but because of the 1st
  amendment, the State generally doesn't influence the media in a like pro-
  portion.

  I don't believe that the media's biases are what they are simply because
  people who watch TV like those biases. It's more complex than that. For
  one, as I pointed out, the body politics and the TV audience are not the
  same set. Secondly, the media bias, since it is towards one view, tends
  to promote as acceptable or desirable those individuals who agree with
  that viewpoint, making their political careers easier, and it likewise
  denies validity or desirability to other viewpoints, despite what the body
  politic wants. The best way to die a quick political death is to be shut
  out by the media, via this *de facto* censorship. I believe we're seeing a
  degree of this censorship these days.

--
Gary Strand                      Opinions stated herein are mine alone and are
strandwg@ncar.ucar.edu            not representative of NCAR, UCAR, or the NSF
Newsgroups: alt.news-media