orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) (02/22/85)
> From ken arndt: > Anyway, don't the good citizens of this fine country (it IS a fine country, > isn't it Tim??) HAVE access to the media via equal access laws, lobbys, > etc. Not perfect, not for EVERY citizen as you said you should be (surely > hyperbole on your part) but access non the less. I mean, if you don't like > the violence, smut, smarmy soaps, animal programs showing wolves eating baby > deer, or whatever you can complain - and effect what happens!!! So as I > said in my origional posting to which you replied, there DOES seem to be > a way for John Q. Citizen to make himself heard. > The good citizens of this country do *not* have equal access to the media. When the Grace Company puts on their commercial about the deficit (which *is* a real problem: however the Grace solutions are unfair and biased) who has the money to respond? I certainly don't. The FCC does have an equal time provision for official editorials by local TV stations. There is *no* such rule for commercial advertising, no matter how blatantly political these may be. Also please note: the Reagan appointees to the FCC have stated their desire to do away with the equal time provisions under the guise of "de-regulation". In this case there would be absolutely *no* obligation for stations to be fair or to provide for rebuttals by opposing viewpoints. When the Associated Press carried the story retaining the allegations that Nicaragua had received MIG jets even after the Reagan administration admitted those stories were false I called them and local newspapers. Will it affect their reporting? I doubt it. (at least I tried to have an effect) Nor was I kidding about possible access to the media for *every* citizen. Isn't that what netnews is all about? The vast majority of people would probably not use such access anyway. (Most local papers are very good about publishing letters from readers: how many people actually send such letters?) But I see no reason not to provide some such forum. "Free Speech" means nothing if it simply means "freedom of speech and expression for the highest bidder". In "The Powers That Be" David Halberstam describes how Henry Luce refused to listen to his own reporters about the true situation in China and Vietnam. Not only that but Theodore White quit Time Magazine when Luce totally changed White's report of an interview with Chiang Kai Shek. Time magazine has always been written by editors who rewrite actual field reporter's reports to fit their views of how things *should* happen. In this case, it was not just selective editing but entirely rewriting verbatim transcripts of the interview. At *that* level of deception White quit. If people like Henry Luce refuse to listen to their own reporters and let them present what they have actually observed in the field, how can you expect them to allow the private citizen any input? tim sevener whuxl!orb