radford@calgary.UUCP (Radford Neal) (03/24/86)
In article <1045@whuxl.UUCP>, orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) writes: > I find this sort of censorship and blatant bias contradicts claims > that (a)there is a "liberal" bias in the media (quite the opposite > is *indeed* the case) (b) one can always *BUY* time to present > one's opinions. Certainly a 30-minute program, while more in-depth, > is harder to put on. But then again the American College of > Obstetricians and Gynecologists has been among many groups denied > access even to 30-second spots on late-night TV. Now why should this be? Presumably the groups affected are willing to pay enough for the time to compensate the TV station for their lost revenue, including the effect on neighboring show's viewing share, otherwise this is hardly a fair criticism. TV stations are generally owned by corporations, so it's unlikely the owners have personal opinions that lead to these refusals. If corporate management is acting against the interests of the shareholders to suppress opinions *they* don't like, they leave themselves open to lawsuites from infuriated shareholders. This leaves two possibilities: - The TV stations think airing these programs will annoy their audiences and thus affect later revenues. - The TV stations think they may loose their licences or have other regulatory problems as a result of airing the shows. The first *could* be a factor, but it seems unlikely to be major. Do viewers of *Dallas* really care about what political opinions have been aired on the station? So my guess is that these problems stem from fear of government regulation. The solution seems obvious, though I doubt Sevener would agree with it. Radford Neal
orb@whuts.UUCP (SEVENER) (03/27/86)
> In article <1045@whuxl.UUCP>, orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) writes: > > > I find this sort of censorship and blatant bias contradicts claims > > that (a)there is a "liberal" bias in the media (quite the opposite > > is *indeed* the case) (b) one can always *BUY* time to present > > one's opinions. Certainly a 30-minute program, while more in-depth, > > is harder to put on. But then again the American College of > > Obstetricians and Gynecologists has been among many groups denied > > access even to 30-second spots on late-night TV. > > Now why should this be? Presumably the groups affected are willing to > pay enough for the time to compensate the TV station for their lost > revenue, including the effect on neighboring show's viewing share, > otherwise this is hardly a fair criticism. TV stations are generally owned > by corporations, so it's unlikely the owners have personal opinions that > lead to these refusals. If corporate management is acting against the > interests of the shareholders to suppress opinions *they* don't like, they > leave themselves open to lawsuites from infuriated shareholders. > > This leaves two possibilities: > > - The TV stations think airing these programs will annoy their > audiences and thus affect later revenues. > > - The TV stations think they may loose their licences or have > other regulatory problems as a result of airing the shows. > > Radford Neal Apparently Radford, you have not studied the numerous cases in which journalists in the media were summarily dismissed for expressing views at variance with "business interests". TV stations understand the unfortunate fact that the Military-Industrial Complex has billions of dollars - Peace groups have scarcely any. They are so destitute the recent Great Peace March folded for lack of funds. (as well, I suspect, due to poor management) Sydney Schanberg was the Pulitzer Prize winning journalist who was depicted in the movie "The Killing Fields" for his reporting on Cambodia. He was just dismissed from the New York Times after publishing a series of articles in opposition to the Times editorial policies on housing and community issues. John B Oakes *used* to be the senior editor of the New York Times: he was a relative of Arthur Ochs Sulzberger the publisher of the Times. He was dismissed as editor of the Times after publishing a series of editorials which infuriated the New York Times' corporate board. In exchange, he is allowed to write Op-Ed pieces on a regular basis. THIS is what happens at the "liberal" bastion of the New York Times. *HOW* can TV stations suffer regulatory problems from airing paid ads of Peace groups when they also air ads of pro-militarist groups for absolutely nothing? The real problem is that TV stations are frightened to death that their corporate sponsors may reduce support if they allow an alternative viewpoint to be placed on the air. After all, the biggest American corporations also stand to gain billions from Star Wars and the nuclear arms buildup. There are a number of books you can read for information on the media and its corporate sponsors. "The Powers That Be" by David Halberstam is one that is highly recommended. Another one is "The Establishment" by Leonard Silkwood. There was also an excellent documentary on Edward Murrow on HBO recently. Hopefully, perhaps they will show it again. I continue to be amazed at the naivete of some people on this net! And warmongers say those working for Peace are naive!!!! tim sevener whuxn!orb