From: john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore)
Subject: Re: CNN Anchor Admits Pro-Clinton Bias
Reply-To: john@anasazi.com
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 17:28:26 GMT

Keywords: 

In article <BuDHHw.3wp@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
]
]>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?

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. Why do people do this? Well... they may not
be news junkies, and only choose to spend half an hour a day to
get it. They may not like to read (lots of folks don't like to read...
not that they can't, but that they choose not to). A few years back, when
we were looking for a new home, we visited hundreds of potential homes.
We were amazed at how few of them had any books at all in them other
than a cookbook and maybe a bible.

You and I choose to inform ourselves via multiple sources. The very
fact that we are posting to this group indicates that we have far more
interest in the topic than most people.

>  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? 

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.
]
]  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?

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
TV, REGARDLESS of the ideological bias of the TV network.
]> 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).

Perhaps its a little of both.

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

Once again, see above. The statistics support my position. I don't have
to understand WHY people do it if I can show that they do it.

]>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.  

There are few areas where 13 VHF channels are occupied. The FCC prevents
that in most cases because of adjacent channel interference.

]>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.
Yes, one here does that also. However, in most markets the network
stations are the richest, and thus have the most money to put into
their local news coverage, and hence have the largest local news
audiences.

]  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.

If we were to use your reasoning, any product we desire would be available
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.

Free markets are great things, but in the face of limited resources
(total dollars for advertising, limitted channels, etc), they cannot
deliver to meet all demands.

By the way, the huge cost of running a news organization limits
the number of news organizations, and hence the ideological choices.
However, the much smaller cost of OPINION shows explains why we have
a better selection of ideologies on opinion (as opposed to 'straight"
news) shows - we can get a conservative viewpoint on Crossfire,
for example.
]
]  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?

I don't think that there IS a serious demand for a conservative viewpoint
news program.
]
>  Also most channels are owned/occupied, b]t 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!   

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

-- 
John Moore NJ7E, 7525 Clearwater Pkwy, Scottsdale, AZ 85253  (602-951-9326)
john@anasazi.com ncar!noao!asuvax!anasaz!john anasaz!john@asuvax.eas.asu.edu
"Government is the agent of those who are too refined to do their own mugging."
  Joseph Sobran
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.elections