bob@cadovax.UUCP (Bob "Kat" Kaplan) (02/13/85)
From robertsb@ttidcb.UUCP (Robin Roberts) > I am once again confronted with the fact that the news media do a great deal > of harm by their distortion of priority in news issues. Its long past time > for them to clean up their act. You seem to be under the impression that the function of the news media is to report the news. This is a fairly common misconception, so I can't fault you for that. We do not have a 'free' press. It costs money to publish a newspaper or operate a radio station. In order to survive, a news organ must be financially successful. Thus, most newspapers, magazines, radio and television networks have the primary interest of making a profit. The profit comes from the money spent by the advertisers. To this extent, the media are controlled by their advertisers. (No one is going to publish an article on an unsafe drug, for example, in a magazine whose advertiser manufactures that drug.) The purpose of the news media is to shape public opinion. Whether it's to get us to believe that the crime rate has gone up (or down) or that the economy is improving (or worsening), the motive is to manipulate the public into believing what's good for the public is what's good for the corporations who control the media. I hope this doesn't sound too much like another conspiracy theory, but I get really worried about people like Rupert Murdoch or companies like Warner Bros. Communications, who try to buy up newspapers and other media, and then publish only the news that they see fit, and only in a way that they see fit. -- Bob Kaplan {ucbvax,ihnp4,decvax}!trwrb!trwrba!cadovax!bob "All the clouds turn to words. All the words float in sequence. No one knows what they mean. Everyone just ignores them."
plunkett@rlgvax.UUCP (S. Plunkett) (02/18/85)
> From robertsb@ttidcb.UUCP (Robin Roberts) > > I am once again confronted with the fact that the news media do a great deal > > of harm by their distortion of priority in news issues. Its long past time > > for them to clean up their act. > > From Bob Kaplan {ucbvax,ihnp4,decvax}!trwrb!trwrba!cadovax!bob > You seem to be under the impression that the function of the news media is > to report the news. This is a fairly common misconception ... > We do not have a 'free' press. It costs money to publish a newspaper or > operate a radio station. In order to survive, a news organ must be > financially successful. Thus, most newspapers, magazines, radio and > television networks have the primary interest of making a profit. "Free press" is generally understood to mean freedom from government oversight, censorship, and regulation. It does not mean "freedom from any interest whatsoever"--a point I suppose you are making sarcastically. The primary business of the press-ownership is to turn a profit; we may assume here that everyone needs to earn a living. However, there is the press profession which supports ideals more suitable to the individuals who actually do the reportage. Ideals such as fairness, comprehensiveness, quality, and so on. It is these ideals that Robin Roberts and many others see lacking today; reporting the facts is more and more subsumed to airing tendentious opinions. > I hope this doesn't sound too much like another conspiracy theory, but I get > really worried about people like Rupert Murdoch or companies like Warner > Bros. Communications, who try to buy up newspapers and other media, and then > publish only the news that they see fit, and only in a way that they see fit. Quite so. We note the concern of liberals suddenly alarmed at prominent conservatives buying up newspapers. We also note they are not so alarmed at the entrenched liberalism throughout medialand that has been largely responsible for the cynical use of the media which the above writer seems so disgusted about. Maybe a little diversity and some healthy competition of *ideas* will help the situation. Scott Plunkett, ..{ihnp4,seismo}!rlgvax!plunkett
bob@cadovax.UUCP (Bob "Kat" Kaplan) (02/26/85)
From me (Bob Kaplan) >> I hope this doesn't sound too much like another conspiracy theory, but I get >> really worried about people like Rupert Murdoch or companies like Warner >> Bros. Communications, who try to buy up newspapers and other media, and then >> publish only the news that they see fit, and only in a way that they see fit. From Scott Plunkett ..{ihnp4,seismo}!rlgvax!plunkett > Quite so. We note the concern of liberals suddenly alarmed at prominent > conservatives buying up newspapers. We also note they are not so alarmed > at the entrenched liberalism throughout medialand that has been largely > responsible for the cynical use of the media which the above writer seems > so disgusted about. Maybe a little diversity and some healthy > competition of *ideas* will help the situation. From me again: This is not a "conservative vs. liberal" issue. Granted, a lot of the media has a liberal bias and a lot of the media has a conservative bias. Who cares? As long as we have a free interchange of ideas (regardless of bias), I'll be happy. What bothers me about Rupert Murdoch is not that he's a "conservative," but that he seems intent upon establishing as much control over the media as he can. I'd be just as worried if he were a "liberal." -- Bob Kaplan "Pain and sorrow are the result of attachment and desire."