orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) (04/04/85)
> In article <562@whuxl.UUCP> orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) writes: > > >Actually opposition parties participating in the election were each > >given a certain amount of television time equal to that provided for > >the Sandinistas. Of course this does not mean that the Sandinista government > >could not dominate the media in other ways, any more than whomever is > >President in our own country can dominate the media without paying for > >explicit advertising time. > > tim sevener whuxl!orb > > The big difference is that in Nicaragua, the government OWNS the media. > The TV station does whatever the government tells them to do. Do you imagine > what would it be like if the US government owned ALL the TV and radio stations?. > How can you expect the people to be well informed when all the places they > go to get information (TV, radio, newspapers) are all owned by the government > (except for "La Prensa", the only remaining opposition newspaper which is > heavily censored)?. > All dictatorships, left wing and right wing alike, rely on a censored press > and media. That's the only way of keeping the truth from reaching its people. > -- > Eduardo Krell UCLA Computer Science Department 1)Other *democratic* countries have government owned TV stations. The fact that the government happens to own the media is not prima facie evidence that different viewpoints are not represented on the media. Personally I find PBS on TV and NPR on the radio far more informative and representative of various viewpoints than the commercial networks in our own country. 2)In democratic countries the fact that opposition parties have representation in the government provides a check on too much bias in government media. The opposition can move to cut funding for such media if they feel it is never representative of their viewpoint. In one-party governments there is no such opposition or check on the party in power so there is likely to be abuse of this power. 3)Given the above points, the question is whether the Nicaraguan opposition had access to TV. The answer is YES. 4)There is no guarantee in a capitalistically controlled press that all groups will have access to the media *even if they pay for it*. In fact station owners are under no obligation to run political ads or any other kind of ads if they decide not to, even though groups sponsoring such ads are willing to pay the commercial advertising rate. Moreover it is sad to say, but our own TV media in California did a gross disservice to democracy in the interest of profits when the LA TV stations simply refused to run the debate for Senator of California because "we could make more money with our usual programming". Worst of all the FCC is planning on totally eliminating the "Fairness Doctrine" which requires that groups opposing station editorials be allowed to present their rebuttal. 5)In most cases diversified control of the media is more conducive to a free exchange of ideas than control by one institution such as the government. But there is no guarantee that such diversification will occur under normal capitalist processes. The media industry is becoming more centralized as much as other industries are. Once again, the present FCC has excacerbated this trend by allowing TV station groups to own 12 stations instead of 7. 6)The censorship of La Prensa is reprehensible as is all censorship. The Sandinistas should properly be severely criticized for that. But the issue at hand was opposition access to TV time, which was provided. tim sevener whuxl!orb