From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: CNN Anchor Admits Pro-Clinton Bias
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 14:46:31 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <1992Sep11.135628.12663@ncar.ucar.edu> gary@isis.cgd.ucar.edu (Gary Strand) writes:
>pn> Peter Nelson
>gs> Gary Strand

>gs> 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.
>
>pn> How is this a "stick your head in the sand approach"?  I'm not ignoring
>    TV or its pernicious effects, I'm just saying that it's a matter of free
>    choice; they literally don't have to watch it.   I can't think of any 
>    way, consistent with my conscience, to *prevent* them from doing so.
>
>  Well, when it comes time to vote, I'm sure you're comfortable knowing that
>  *you* haven't been influenced by the biased coverage of the latest Big News
>  Story, but millions of others have been, and they'll outvote you every 
>  time. Your conscience is clear, but that doesn't give you more votes.

  What do you propose -- blow up a TV transmitter?  Jam their transmissions?
  Shoot down a satellite?   Nowhere have you suggested any alternative to 
  bad, biased, or stupid TV.
  


>pn> As I've said before, my approach is to find publications of *clearly* 
>    divergent views and philosophies -- I use National Review and Utne Reader 
>    as examples but I read many others. I believe this minimizes the effects
>    you describe.
>
>  Yet another intellectual swarmed under by the dumbed-down to masses. You're
>  smart, but that won't keep you safe.

  Again, what do you propose?   I'm exercising free choice - a basis of
  a free economy.  I'm acting in my rational self-interest by deciding
  that I have better things to do with my time than watch the tube, and
  rational self-interest is another basis of a free economy.


>gs> Anyway, what about the restrictions the FCC *does* place on content?

>pn> The FCC will step in if things get really X-rated, but the stuff you're
>    describing is strictly up to the networks.  
>
>  No, it isn't. It's up to the advertisers.

   Ok, the advertisers, then.   But it's not the FCC or any other arm 
   of the government.   

  
>pn> PBS runs nudity and the "s" word and  the "f" word frequently.  
>
>  How do you know? Do you watch TV? 
  
   I certainly used to; I was a major TV-addict.  That's why I say
   that if *I* could quit TV *anybody* can.   And I've seen some pretty
   explicit stuff on PBS.  I never saw "JFK" (I don't watch a lot of
   Hollywood, either) but I think it's pure speculation whether PBS
   would run it.


>gs> 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.
>
>pn> Of course we are.  But the question that remains unanswered is why the 
>    broadcast media is so politically uniform.  If it is truly the case that 
>    there is a plurality or even majority of viewers out there who would 
>    prefer something more conservative, *I* think that one way or the other
>    the market would have provided it. That it hasn't suggests that there's
>    something about this assumption that's flawed.  
>
>  Actually, perhaps the reason TV is so uniform is because people like you
>  don't make their choices known.

  I used to write lots of letters to TV networks and advertisers and I
  already detailed by calls to the networks in 1988 and to CNN.  I've 
  paid a lot more dues than most people as far as "making my choices
  known".   



>  As I said, it's like voting. If you don't vote, how do Bush/Clinton/-
>  Marrou/Felani know what you want? If you don't watch TV, then you let
>  others decide what's on.

   This is THE most idiotic analogy I've ever heard!!   I'm a "Nelson"
   family, not a "Nielsen" family!  There is no way for my viewing habits
   to have any impact on TV content.  I have an unlisted phone number
   so even pollsters can't call to ask what I watch.  TV is a national
   drug: there's bad stuff and worse stuff, but very little good stuff.
   Suggesting that smart people should watch the stuff that's not so bad
   as the rest is a bit like saying that to fight drugs I should smoke
   a relatively innocuous drug like marijuana so that the really bad 
   ones like cocaine or heroin get fewer "votes".    Or something -- I
   really don't understand your point at all.  

 
>  Besides, as I've shown, the TV broadcast industry is not a free market. If
>  it was, it would have TV shows more in line with reality as we know it, in
>  regards to political viewpoint.

   Or maybe the conservatives are too lazy to start their own TV stations.
   Basically you haven't shown any mechanism preventing the establishment of
   more conservative TV stations or programs, *providing there would be enough
   viewers to support an advertising base*.  

   The bottom line is still that people, for some undetermined perverse reason, 
   CHOOSE to watch TV and allow it to influence their world view, even when
   it evidently clashes with their personal values.  In doing so they CHOOSE
   to give TV great political and cultural power.  The key word here is CHOICE.
   You have suggested no credible way to prevent this consistent with a free
   society.


---peter