COWAN@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU (Richard A. Cowan) (03/08/86)
Gene Ward Smith, discussing Andrew Fine's critical message about space colonization, said this: > I submit that the highly emotional tone of both your original posting >and this response shows that my analogy does have some degree of appositeness. >I propose, and am quite serious about this, that there is a kind of hysterical >quasi-religious cult feeling about some of the postings to this newsgroup (a >minority, I should hasten to add). >... >Your effusions do not seem to me to be well thought out. I'd like to ask Mr. Smith to explain what he means by a "hysterical quasi-religious cult." It is not clear to me. Also, I thought Mr. Fine's questions were better thought out than most things that appear on this list. Finally, what does Gene mean by "emotional"? Could it be that the influence of vested interests in the national debate warps the arguments we hear, thereby manipulating our needs? Just think of all the optimistic articles that appear in the newspaper and stories that appear on TV glorifying some new technological development. Organizations with a large public relations offices and a financial interest in positive public perceptions of these technologies constantly vie for media attention. Is the outcome of this manipulation that a limited range of arguments or questions are "tacitly sanctioned"? i.e. Questions or arguments that stray beyond this range sound "emotional" for they contradict the assumptions we have been indoctrinated to take for granted. My advice in general: whenever you see or read something about how a technology is going to revolutionize some aspect of our civilization, A BELL SHOULD GO OFF IN YOUR HEAD. Only if you consider who's making money off this publicity can you factor out the hype and come up with an impartial analysis. rich (cowan@xx) -------
mcgeer%ji@UCBVAX.BERKELEY.EDU (Rick McGeer) (03/08/86)
What sinister force could have prompted Mr. Cowan to submit his posting? Who could possibly make money off it? Could it be that the influence of the vested interests in the net debate warps the arguments we read, and thereby manipulating our needs? Who's mainpulating us? For what sinister purpose? Inquiring minds want to know. Does that sound silly to you? Gee, me too. I'm sick of reading vague hints about mysterious conspiracies of the government and/or media. Forget it! There are tabloids in every supermarket that peddle this crap between the Johnny Carson and Dynasty stories. IF you have some hard evidence that some aspect of some national debate is being manipulated, I'd be happy to read it. Until then, save it. -- Rick.
COWAN@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU (Richard A. Cowan) (03/11/86)
> What sinister force could have prompted Mr. Cowan to submit his >posting? Who could possibly make money off it? Could it be that >the influence of the vested interests in the net debate warps the >arguments we read, and thereby manipulating our needs? Who's >mainpulating us? For what sinister purpose? Inquiring minds want to >know. > Does that sound silly to you? Gee, me too. I'm sick of reading >vague hints about mysterious conspiracies of the government and/or media. >Forget it! There are tabloids in every supermarket that peddle this crap... There's no "evil conspiracy!" I have great faith in human beings. No person does something they think is evil. Yet it is obvious that we are manipulated every day in order to make us buy certain brands of paper towels or soft drinks, to choose certain phone companies, or sign up for insurance policies (especially veterans and people aged 65 and over). Millions of people are employed to perform this manipulation. The purpose is, of course, profit. It's just the way the system works. And just because it works that way doesn't mean we should view it as "evil." The manipulation of the free press is more complex, I admit. But imagine that you are a reporter. If you're about to charge that some big corporation is doing something wrong, you'd better damn well make sure that your points are well substantiated, or your editors will get a flood of angry letters or phone calls. So the press is more careful on sensitive matters. Simply consider: why hasn't the press mentioned that the "Teacher in Space" public relations promotion was originally brought up to defuse the opposition by the teacher's union to Reagan education cuts? Why hasn't the press asked for a copy of the State of the Union Address that would have been delivered if the Shuttle had made it? You can certainly bet that that speech was destroyed. The "sinister force" that prompted my message was just a course entitled "Media And Public Policy." Enough on this topic. If you want references, please send me a note personally. rich (cowan@mit-xx) -------
mcgeer%ji@UCBVAX.BERKELEY.EDU (Rick McGeer) (03/11/86)
[The rest of this message was non-space related, so I'm responding personally to that. However, this one bit...] >Simply consider: why hasn't the press mentioned that the "Teacher in >Space" public relations promotion was originally brought up to defuse >the opposition by the teacher's union to Reagan education cuts? Maybe because there's no evidence whatever that it's true? There are millions of speculations that we can all make, most of them very ugly indeed. The press prints some of them, even when there's no evidence whatever. To their credit, they've skipped on this one and (mostly) on the nasty pressure-from-the-White-House scenario on the Challenger disaster. We should, too. In sum: don't make charges unless you have evidence to back them up. -- Rick.