[net.politics.theory] Profit from paid Propaganda vs. Public Debate:re to Sykorra

orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) (07/08/85)

> >From me:       > From Michael Sykora
> >Is public debate and the right to circulate opinions and views served 
> >when two candidates from major parties for Senator of California are
> >not placed on Los Angeles TV stations to debate because the TV stations
> >could  make more money with commercial programming?
> 
> What right to circulate opinions and views?  What does such a right entail?
>  
> Did it ever occur to you that the reasons the broadcasting of such debates
> doesn't yield as great a profit as other programming is because the
> public prefers watching other things?  Should we force them to watch
> these debates because you and others deem them important.  Could such
> actions be defended in the name of "freedom of speech?"  Hardly.  They
> could in fact be attacked on the grounds that they violate this freedom.
> (Note that I haven't said anything about how boring political debates
> are. :-)
> 
 
Did it ever occur to you that the reason Public Debates and Presidential
addresses are less profitable is because they have no paid propaganda?
(i.e. commercials)
Did it ever occur to you that it is in the Public Interest to provide
for broadcasting of debates on public issues?
Did it ever occur to you that millions of people have watched many past
political debates such as Reagan-Mondale and Kennedy-Nixon?
Los Angeles TV stations refused to broadcast the Senatorial debate in 1982
*because* they would lose out on paid propaganda $$$$$.
Regardless of those $$$ they have an obligation to present alternative
political views before the public, just as they have the obligation in
emergencies and disasters to inform the public rather than try to sell
soap or fallout shelters.
Oh yes, but I forgot that you have stated that there is no reason to 
allow ambulances or fire engines to exceed the speed limit to save lives
if it means you might be five minutes late for a hockey game.....
So why should the media cease to make $$$$ during an emergency?
And why should the media do *anything* which is in everybody's public
interest when they could be so cheerfully making money by telling us how
to think?
                              tim sevener whuxl!orb

mag@whuxlm.UUCP (Gray Michael A) (07/09/85)

>> = Sykora  > = Sevener

>> Did it ever occur to you that the reasons the broadcasting of such debates
>> doesn't yield as great a profit as other programming is because the
>> public prefers watching other things?  Should we force them to watch
>> these debates because you and others deem them important.  Could such
>> actions be defended in the name of "freedom of speech?"  Hardly.  They
>> could in fact be attacked on the grounds that they violate this freedom.
>> (Note that I haven't said anything about how boring political debates
>> are. :-)

> Did it ever occur to you that the reason Public Debates and Presidential
> addresses are less profitable is because they have no paid propaganda?
> (i.e. commercials)

I think he implies that pretty clearly above.  Since my TV set works
without inserting coins, I conclude that someone else is paying for the
broadcast.  I imagine Sykora is well aware of where the money comes from.
The reason debates have no "paid propaganda" is that advertisers like people
to see their messages.  Perhaps not enough people watch political debates
to justify an advertiser spending hard-earned money to broadcast them.

> Did it ever occur to you that it is in the Public Interest to provide
> for broadcasting of debates on public issues?

Well, speaking as one member of the public, I don't see it as in my interest.
PS - I love those capital letters you use; does that somehow make the
"Public Interest" more holy and important?  How about "PUBLIC INTEREST"?

> Did it ever occur to you that millions of people have watched many past
> political debates such as Reagan-Mondale and Kennedy-Nixon?

It probably did.  If they want to watch them, let them pay for them.
If television broadcast is too expensive, they could always buy a paper
for a quarter and read a transcript.

> Los Angeles TV stations refused to broadcast the Senatorial debate in 1982
> *because* they would lose out on paid propaganda $$$$$.

Must have been a real yawner.

> Regardless of those $$$ they have an obligation to present alternative
> political views before the public, just as they have the obligation in
> emergencies and disasters to inform the public rather than try to sell
> soap or fallout shelters.

From where does this obligation derive?  The "Public Interest"?  Which
alternative political views?  Who decides?  If the majority of the
country thinks Blacks should have no rights, are the networks required
to broadcast those views?  Or do you just mean views you approve of,
or at least consider worth debating?

> Oh yes, but I forgot that you have stated that there is no reason to 
> allow ambulances or fire engines to exceed the speed limit to save lives
> if it means you might be five minutes late for a hockey game.....
> So why should the media cease to make $$$$ during an emergency?

What's necessarily wrong with making money during an emergency?  If I
call a private ambulance to take me to the hospital, I don't begrudge
them the fare.

> And why should the media do *anything* which is in everybody's public
> interest when they could be so cheerfully making money by telling us how
> to think?

As far as I can see, no one on this net has EVER been able to tell you
how to think.  Not much money to be made there.

Mike Gray, whuxlm!mag

gam@amdahl.UUCP (G A Moffett) (07/10/85)

In article <679@whuxl.UUCP> orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) writes:

>Did it ever occur to you that the reason Public Debates and Presidential
>addresses are less profitable is because they have no paid propaganda?
>(i.e. commercials)

Is this (explicitly) paid propaganda (commercials) somehow more
abhorrent than the pap spewed by political candidates during their
so-called debates? The political debates ARE propaganda as well!
I watched the debates last year and was disgusted to see Reagan/Mondale
and Bush/Ferraro spend most of their time sniping and snearing at each
other rather than address issues or (God forbid!) ``inform'' the public?

>Did it ever occur to you that it is in the Public Interest to provide
>for broadcasting of debates on public issues?

I am a member of the Public that isn't Interested.  I'm glad you are,
though.  You watch `em -- you *pay* for `em.

>Did it ever occur to you that millions of people have watched many past
>political debates such as Reagan-Mondale and Kennedy-Nixon?

Millions of people watch ``The A-Team'' every week.

It is fairly clear that the debates are a glamour contest as far
as which candidate can use the medium best.  They can be fun to
watch, to be sure, but you seem to be implying that they are
somehow good for us.

>Oh yes, but I forgot that you have stated that there is no reason to 
>allow ambulances or fire engines to exceed the speed limit to save lives
>if it means you might be five minutes late for a hockey game.....
>So why should the media cease to make $$$$ during an emergency?

Hey, is this a debate, too?

>And why should the media do *anything* which is in everybody's public
>interest when they could be so cheerfully making money by telling us how
>to think?

I think we differ on the the ``everbody's public interest'' part.

>                              tim sevener whuxl!orb

-- 
Gordon A. Moffett               ...!{ihnp4,cbosgd,sun}!amdahl!gam