From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.news-media,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: CNN Anchor Admits Pro-Clinton Bias
Date: 11 Sep 92 22:14:19 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <1992Sep11.172826.14419@anasazi.com> john@anasazi.com writes:
>Keywords: 
>
>In article <BuDHHw.3wp@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
>]  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?
>
>Intelligence is not the issue. Choice of sources is. Most people choose
>to get all of their news from TV news (according to statistics
>that keep getting remeasured with the same results). Thus, the bias
>of TV news IS important.

  I never said it wasn't important; as I told Gary, I agree it's
  very important.  But it's a result of free choice.

>See above. For whatever reason, the DON'T do it. At the same time,
>when they are polled, they say they have a very low opinion of
>the news people. I think that a lot of people just don't have the
>time to do more than flip on the TV news while they are cleaning up
>the house or doing their bills or something.

  Most research shows people spend several hours a day watching TV.
  Now granted, they may be doing other things during *some* of this
  time but I've been in enough TV households to know that it is 
  quite common for someone to sit in front of the tube doing 
  nothing else.


    
>The audience is still most concentrated on network TV. This is changing,
>but if you are an advertiser going for mass saturation, you buy network

  But the power and influence of TV is based on those watching it, not
  on those advertising on it.  The fact that people CHOOSE to watch TV 
  is what gives it its power over the culture and body politic.


>]  Oh, ca-ca.  There are 13 VHF channels; there's no theoretical reason why 
>]  each one couldn't have a network affiliation.  
>
>There are few areas where 13 VHF channels are occupied. The FCC prevents
>that in most cases because of adjacent channel interference.

  Even if you skipped alternate channels that would be 6 in the VHF 
  spectrum alone.  And then there's cable and UHF.  Moreover, there's
  no reason why ABC, CBS, CNN, and NBC couldn't compete by going
  after different political segments they way competing newspapers
  do.  


>]  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.  
>
>If the economics supported large numbers of networks news organizations,
>I'm sure that you would see news organizations of all sorts of different
>ideological stripes showing up. The fact is that there is a limited amount
>of money available to run news organizations, and news organizations
>require a minimum mass to provide acceptable coverages. Thus, the FREE market
>will meet the aggregate need, but not the specific need for bias vs.
>non-bias.

  Well, we have Gary telling us that network TV news only gets a few
  million viewers.  If this is so, then surely if 5 million people 
  (2% of the population!) who wanted to watch a conservative TV
  could be attracted to such a show then it ought to be successful.

>in all possible flavors and colors. In fact, because products (such as news)
>are composed of many facets, it is the total product, not one facet
>(such as ideological direction) that determines the response to the market.

  Obviously it has to meet some minimal quality standard -- but from
  what I've seen on TV this is pretty minimal.




>I don't think that there IS a serious demand for a conservative viewpoint
>news program.

  Oh sorry, then we're arguing at cross purposes.  I thought you 
  were.   If all you're complaining about is that current TV news 
  is a dire threat to society then I agree completely.  I just can't
  think of a solution.


>Not if it cost them $500 million to set up the reporting organization
>required to support it.

  Actually the Monitor Channel put together a pretty professional 
  news organization for far less.  Then they didn't get any viewers
  and since they cost the Christian Science Church most of their
  trust fund they had to go out of business.  But I think the 500M
  figure is rather high, especially if you don't insist on having
  high-priced glamour-pusses like the network anchors, and high
  priced home offices like New York and LA, as the networks do.



---peter
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.news-media,talk.politics.misc